Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 1977,44, 1131-1 137. @ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1977
MOTOR PROFICIENCY OF LEARNING DISABLED AND NONDISABLED STUDENTS VIRGINIA L. BRUININKS AND ROBERT H. BRUININKS University of Minnesotrr'
Summary.-The motor proficiency of 55 learning disabled and 55 nondisnbled students was compared on a comprehensive battery of motor-skills tests. Learning disabled students performed significantly lower than nondisabled students on measures of fine motor skills and on measures of gross motor skills. Their greatest deficiencies were on tasks requiring body equilibrium, controlled fine visual-motor movements, and bilateral coordination of movements involving different parts of the body. All of these areas include complex motor patterns that require the integration of visual and kinesthetic senses with motor responses. Implications of these findings for the development of motor training programs and for future research are discussed.
Further investigation of learning disabled and nondisabled students on a wide range of motor-skills tasks is needed both for the purpose of increasing understanding of the motor characteristics of learning disabled students and for the purpose of designing more effective motor [raining programs. Evidence indicates that learning disabled students are generally inferior to normally achieving scudents in design-copying performance (Ackerman, Peters, & Dykman, 1971; Keogh, 1969; Koppitz, 1958; Koppitz, 1964). Wedell (1973) reports differences between learning disabled and nondisabled children in quality of handwriting, and Cratty (1972) reports differences between these groups in balance and simple agility. Available studies, however, possess important limitations such as ( a ) use of small, unrepresentative, and vaguely described samples of learning disabled children and ( b ) use of very limited measures of motor skills within the same sample. There is a particular lack of information on the motor characteristics of learning disabled students on tasks requiring speed, strength, and coordination involving the large muscles. This srudy contrasted the performance of learning disabled and nondisabled children on a comprehensive battery of fine motor and gross motor measures. Fine motor acts are performances requiring small muscle movements of the fingers, hand, and forearm and generally involve some element of eye-hand coordination, while gross motor acts involve use of the larger muscles of the shoulders, trunk, and legs (Espenchade, 1940). Differences in performance between learning disabled and nondisabled students were also assessed within older and younger subgroups to determine possible interactions among groups, age, and areas of motor performance. 'Special Education Programs, College of Education, 101 Pattee Hall, 150 Pillsbury Drive S.E., Minneapolis. Minnesota 55455.
V. L. BRUININKS & R. H. BRUININKS
1132
METHOD Subjects The learning disabled sample included 5 5 children with a history of learning problems in school. Eligibility for inclusion in the study was based first on present enrollment in a special school ( N = 46) or a special summer program ( N = 9 ) for learning disabled children and secondly, on achievement significantly below expectations based on the child's chronological age, using standards recommended by Bruininks, Glarnan, and Clark ( 1973). Forcy-eight children enrolled in Grade 1 or above were administered the Woodcock Readilag Marte~yTests (Woodcock, 1974) and che Number, Addition, Subtraction, and Multiplication Subtests of the Key Math Test (Connolly, et al., 1971). The disabled students were selected for the study if their academic achievement was one to one-and-a-half grades or more below predicted grade level in the early primary grades and two or more grades below predicted grade level in the upper elementary grades. Table 1 presents a summary of characteristics of the learning disabled students. Data show that the learning disabled students were achieving at the second grade level in reading and the mid-second grade level in mathematics. The sample of learning disabled students averaged approximately two grades below estimates of predicted achievement based on chronological age standards.
TABLE 1 DESCRIPTNRSTATISTICS FOR LEARNINGDISABLED AND NONDISABLED STUDENTS Variable
Learning Disabled Sample
N
M
SD
Nondisabled Sample
N
M
SD
CA (mo.) 55 110.96 23.08 55 111.36 22.76 48t 2.15 1.42 c Reading Grade 48 2.15 0 Reading Below Grade 48 3.58 0 Math Grade 48 1.72 * Math Below Grade *Not available. +Numbers are lower than sample size because achievement tests were not administered to five kindergarten children and in two cases the tests could not be administered.
Each learning disabled child was matched for age (within 3 mo.) and sex with a nondisabled child enrolled in regular classes. Both samples included 38 boys and 17 girls who at the time of the study ranged in age from 6 to 13 yr., with a mean age of approximately 9 yr., 3 mo. Contrast students for the study were drawn from 892 subjects included in the normative sample of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (Bruininks, 1977). These students had been selected at random from a large number of classrooms within 32 schools in Ontario, Canada and in four states in the United States. The norma-
MOTOR PROFICIENCY OF LEARNING DISABLED
1133
tive sample approximated the U.S.school population in terms of distribution of boys and girls, community size, and race as reported in the 1970 U.S.Census statistics. N o direct control was used in sampling for socio-economic level. All contrast students were enrolled in regular classes, and none was reported by teachers to exhibit any serious learning or adjustment problems. Because of the sampling procedure followed, there is reason to believe that the contrast group was representative of American school children generally in academic achievement and motor development. Measares The standardized version of the Braininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (Bruininks, 1977) was administered to each subject individually by trained examiners. This rest provides a general survey and diagnostic scale of motor skills development for handicapped and nonhandicapped school children. Areas assessed by the scale are described by the following subtests: Running Speed and Agility--consists of a 30-yr. shuttle run. Balance--assesses the pupil's ability to maintain bodily equilibrium in a stationary position or in the act of movement. BilatwaL Coordination-assesses the pupil's ability to coordinate hands, feet, or hands and feet in various sequential or simultaneous patterns using both sides of the body. Strength-includes sit-ups, push-ups, and standing broad jump. Uppm Limb Coordination-assesses the pupil's abilities in visual tracking and gross motor coordination of eyes and hands. Response Speed--measures speed of responses to a moving visual stimulus. Visual-motor ControGassesses fine eye-hand coordination using paper and pencil tasks. Upper Limb Speed and Dexterity-measures manipulative dexterity, hand speed, and atrn speed.
The subtest structure of the scale is based upon literature on the motor development of children, a factor analysis of test items, and results of previously published factor analyses of motor performance. Reliability for the subtest and total test scores is based on test-retest studies over 1- to 2-wk. intervals and interscorer agreement studies on selected test items. Test-retest correlations for subtests generally range from 0.70 to 0.90 with coefficients for total and composite scores in the 0.80s. Subtest correlations with chronological age within the normative sample were quite high (generally between 0.70 and 0.85), indicating the scale is a developmental measure of motor performance. The learning - disabled and nondisabled students were compared using - their subtest scores, total test scores, and fine motor and gross motor composite scores. Gross motor and fine motor composite scores were derived to provide equal weighting to each of the following subtests. Gsoss Motor Composite Gross Motor Speed Balance Coordinated Movements Strength
Pine Motor Composite Response Speed Visual-motor Control Upper Limb Speed and Dexterity
1134
V. L. BRUININKS & R. H. BRUININKS
To place all scores on a comparable scale, standard scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 were used, computed based upon the test performances of the entire normacive group.
RESULTS The motor performance of learning disabled and nondisabled students was compared by means of a three-factor mixed design analysis of variance with repeated measures (learning disabled - nondisabled X younger - older children [divided at the median age] X motor test scores). The .05 level was used as the criterion of staristical significance in all comparisons. Learning disabled students were significantly lower than nondisabled students in over-all motor performance ( F = 94.57, df = 1/106, p < .001) and, as expected, older children achieved significantly higher scores than younger children ( F = 16.33, df = 1/106, p < ,001).
Learning Disabled
HNondisabled
FIG. 1. Performance of learning disabled and nondisabled children
A significant interaction was found between groups (learning disabled
Skills, 1977,44, 1131-1 137. @ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1977
MOTOR PROFICIENCY OF LEARNING DISABLED AND NONDISABLED STUDENTS VIRGINIA L. BRUININKS AND ROBERT H. BRUININKS University of Minnesotrr'
Summary.-The motor proficiency of 55 learning disabled and 55 nondisnbled students was compared on a comprehensive battery of motor-skills tests. Learning disabled students performed significantly lower than nondisabled students on measures of fine motor skills and on measures of gross motor skills. Their greatest deficiencies were on tasks requiring body equilibrium, controlled fine visual-motor movements, and bilateral coordination of movements involving different parts of the body. All of these areas include complex motor patterns that require the integration of visual and kinesthetic senses with motor responses. Implications of these findings for the development of motor training programs and for future research are discussed.
Further investigation of learning disabled and nondisabled students on a wide range of motor-skills tasks is needed both for the purpose of increasing understanding of the motor characteristics of learning disabled students and for the purpose of designing more effective motor [raining programs. Evidence indicates that learning disabled students are generally inferior to normally achieving scudents in design-copying performance (Ackerman, Peters, & Dykman, 1971; Keogh, 1969; Koppitz, 1958; Koppitz, 1964). Wedell (1973) reports differences between learning disabled and nondisabled children in quality of handwriting, and Cratty (1972) reports differences between these groups in balance and simple agility. Available studies, however, possess important limitations such as ( a ) use of small, unrepresentative, and vaguely described samples of learning disabled children and ( b ) use of very limited measures of motor skills within the same sample. There is a particular lack of information on the motor characteristics of learning disabled students on tasks requiring speed, strength, and coordination involving the large muscles. This srudy contrasted the performance of learning disabled and nondisabled children on a comprehensive battery of fine motor and gross motor measures. Fine motor acts are performances requiring small muscle movements of the fingers, hand, and forearm and generally involve some element of eye-hand coordination, while gross motor acts involve use of the larger muscles of the shoulders, trunk, and legs (Espenchade, 1940). Differences in performance between learning disabled and nondisabled students were also assessed within older and younger subgroups to determine possible interactions among groups, age, and areas of motor performance. 'Special Education Programs, College of Education, 101 Pattee Hall, 150 Pillsbury Drive S.E., Minneapolis. Minnesota 55455.
V. L. BRUININKS & R. H. BRUININKS
1132
METHOD Subjects The learning disabled sample included 5 5 children with a history of learning problems in school. Eligibility for inclusion in the study was based first on present enrollment in a special school ( N = 46) or a special summer program ( N = 9 ) for learning disabled children and secondly, on achievement significantly below expectations based on the child's chronological age, using standards recommended by Bruininks, Glarnan, and Clark ( 1973). Forcy-eight children enrolled in Grade 1 or above were administered the Woodcock Readilag Marte~yTests (Woodcock, 1974) and che Number, Addition, Subtraction, and Multiplication Subtests of the Key Math Test (Connolly, et al., 1971). The disabled students were selected for the study if their academic achievement was one to one-and-a-half grades or more below predicted grade level in the early primary grades and two or more grades below predicted grade level in the upper elementary grades. Table 1 presents a summary of characteristics of the learning disabled students. Data show that the learning disabled students were achieving at the second grade level in reading and the mid-second grade level in mathematics. The sample of learning disabled students averaged approximately two grades below estimates of predicted achievement based on chronological age standards.
TABLE 1 DESCRIPTNRSTATISTICS FOR LEARNINGDISABLED AND NONDISABLED STUDENTS Variable
Learning Disabled Sample
N
M
SD
Nondisabled Sample
N
M
SD
CA (mo.) 55 110.96 23.08 55 111.36 22.76 48t 2.15 1.42 c Reading Grade 48 2.15 0 Reading Below Grade 48 3.58 0 Math Grade 48 1.72 * Math Below Grade *Not available. +Numbers are lower than sample size because achievement tests were not administered to five kindergarten children and in two cases the tests could not be administered.
Each learning disabled child was matched for age (within 3 mo.) and sex with a nondisabled child enrolled in regular classes. Both samples included 38 boys and 17 girls who at the time of the study ranged in age from 6 to 13 yr., with a mean age of approximately 9 yr., 3 mo. Contrast students for the study were drawn from 892 subjects included in the normative sample of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (Bruininks, 1977). These students had been selected at random from a large number of classrooms within 32 schools in Ontario, Canada and in four states in the United States. The norma-
MOTOR PROFICIENCY OF LEARNING DISABLED
1133
tive sample approximated the U.S.school population in terms of distribution of boys and girls, community size, and race as reported in the 1970 U.S.Census statistics. N o direct control was used in sampling for socio-economic level. All contrast students were enrolled in regular classes, and none was reported by teachers to exhibit any serious learning or adjustment problems. Because of the sampling procedure followed, there is reason to believe that the contrast group was representative of American school children generally in academic achievement and motor development. Measares The standardized version of the Braininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (Bruininks, 1977) was administered to each subject individually by trained examiners. This rest provides a general survey and diagnostic scale of motor skills development for handicapped and nonhandicapped school children. Areas assessed by the scale are described by the following subtests: Running Speed and Agility--consists of a 30-yr. shuttle run. Balance--assesses the pupil's ability to maintain bodily equilibrium in a stationary position or in the act of movement. BilatwaL Coordination-assesses the pupil's ability to coordinate hands, feet, or hands and feet in various sequential or simultaneous patterns using both sides of the body. Strength-includes sit-ups, push-ups, and standing broad jump. Uppm Limb Coordination-assesses the pupil's abilities in visual tracking and gross motor coordination of eyes and hands. Response Speed--measures speed of responses to a moving visual stimulus. Visual-motor ControGassesses fine eye-hand coordination using paper and pencil tasks. Upper Limb Speed and Dexterity-measures manipulative dexterity, hand speed, and atrn speed.
The subtest structure of the scale is based upon literature on the motor development of children, a factor analysis of test items, and results of previously published factor analyses of motor performance. Reliability for the subtest and total test scores is based on test-retest studies over 1- to 2-wk. intervals and interscorer agreement studies on selected test items. Test-retest correlations for subtests generally range from 0.70 to 0.90 with coefficients for total and composite scores in the 0.80s. Subtest correlations with chronological age within the normative sample were quite high (generally between 0.70 and 0.85), indicating the scale is a developmental measure of motor performance. The learning - disabled and nondisabled students were compared using - their subtest scores, total test scores, and fine motor and gross motor composite scores. Gross motor and fine motor composite scores were derived to provide equal weighting to each of the following subtests. Gsoss Motor Composite Gross Motor Speed Balance Coordinated Movements Strength
Pine Motor Composite Response Speed Visual-motor Control Upper Limb Speed and Dexterity
1134
V. L. BRUININKS & R. H. BRUININKS
To place all scores on a comparable scale, standard scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 were used, computed based upon the test performances of the entire normacive group.
RESULTS The motor performance of learning disabled and nondisabled students was compared by means of a three-factor mixed design analysis of variance with repeated measures (learning disabled - nondisabled X younger - older children [divided at the median age] X motor test scores). The .05 level was used as the criterion of staristical significance in all comparisons. Learning disabled students were significantly lower than nondisabled students in over-all motor performance ( F = 94.57, df = 1/106, p < .001) and, as expected, older children achieved significantly higher scores than younger children ( F = 16.33, df = 1/106, p < ,001).
Learning Disabled
HNondisabled
FIG. 1. Performance of learning disabled and nondisabled children
A significant interaction was found between groups (learning disabled
