UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Relationship between sight vocabulary of beginning second grade children and visual closure and visual… Moore, Donna-Mae 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A8 M65_9.pdf [ 3.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054441.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054441-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054441-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054441-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054441-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054441-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054441-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054441-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054441.ris

Full Text

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGHT VOCABULARY OP BEGINNING SECOND GRADE CHILDREN AND VISUAL CLOSURE AND VISUAL SEQUENTIAL MEMORY AS MEASURED BY THE ILLINOIS TEST OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC ABILITIES DONNA-MAE MOORE B.Ed., University of British Columbia, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Special Education We accept this thesis' as- conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January, 1975 In presenting th i s thesis in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of Special Education The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date January 13. 1976 r. i i A B S T R A C T R e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s b e t w e e n r e a d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t a n d p e r f o r m a n c e o n t a s k s a t t h e a u t o m a t i c l e v e l o f t h e I l l i n o i s T e s t o f P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c A b i l i t i e s . W h a t h a s n o t " b e e n c l a r i f i e d i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p " b e t w e e n s k i l l s a s d e f i n e d "by t h e s e s u b -t e s t s a n d s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g s k i l l s . S t u d i e s w h i c h h a v e l i n k e d p e r f o r m -a n c e o n t h e a u t o m a t i c v i s u a l s u b t e s t s w i t h w o r d r e c o g n i t i o n s k i l l s h a v e t e n d e d t o u s e a s c r i t e r i o n m e a s u r e s , t h o s e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t a s k s p e r m i t -t i n g s c a n n i n g f o r u n s p e c i f i e d l e n g t h s o f t i m e . T h i s p r o c e d u r e d o e s n o t d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n r e c o g n i t i o n a t s i g h t a n d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n b y p h o n e t i c o r s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s . T h i s s t u d y e x a m i n e s a m o n g c h i l d r e n b e g i n n i n g t h e i r s e c o n d y e a r o f s c h o o l , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f v i s u a l c l o s u r e a n d v i s u a l s e q u e n t i a l m e m o r y a s m e a s u r e d b y t h e I T P A ( 1 9 6 8 ) t o s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y d e f i n e d a s t h e n u m b e r o f w o r d s c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d o r a l l y f o l l o w i n g t a c h i s t o s c o p i c p r e s e n t a t i o n u s i n g a c o n t r o l l e d e x p o s u r e t i m e , A s a m p l e o f 1 5 6 s u b j e c t s w a s d r a w n f r o m f i v e V a n c o u v e r , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a s c h o o l s b e l i e v e d t o b e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n . T h e s e s u b j e c t s h a d n o k n o w n s e n s o r y d e f e c t s a n d a l l w e r e n a t i v e E n g l i s h s p e a k e r s . I n t e l l i g e n c e a n d a c h i e v e m e n t w e r e a s s u m e d t o b e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , a n d s c h o o l r e c o r d s c o n f i r m e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a r a n g e o f a c h i e v e m e n t . T h e V i s u a l C l o s u r e a n d V i s u a l S e q u e n t i a l M e m o r y s u b t e s t s o f t h e I T P A w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d a n d s c o r e d a c c o r d i n g t o s t a n d a r d i z e d p r o c e d u r e . S i g h t v o c a b u l a r y w a s m e a s u r e d u s i n g t h e W o r d R e c o g n i t i o n s u b t e s t o f t h e P u r r e l l A n a l y s i s o f R e a d i n g D i f f i c u l t y a n d a n e x p o s u r e t i m e o f .25 s e c o n d s . i i i U s i n g r a w s c o r e s , P e a r s o n P r o d u c t M o m e n t c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e c a l c u l a t e d ; t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e w a s e s t i m a t e d u s i n g t h e t w o - t a i l e d " t " t e s t . T h e p a i r s o f v a r i a b l e s c o r r e l a t e d w e r e S i g h t V o c a b u l a r y w i t h V i s u a l C l o s u r e , S i g h t V o c a b u l a r y w i t h V i s u a l S e q u e n t i a l M e m o r y , V i s u a l C l o s u r e w i t h V i s u a l S e q u e n t i a l M e m o r y , a n d S i g h t V o c a b u l a r y w i t h m e a n r a w s c o r e s f o r V i s u a l C l o s u r e a n d V i s u a l S e q u e n t i a l M e m o r y . F o r e a c h o f t h e s e f o u r p a i r s o f v a r i a b l e s , c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e o b t a i n e d f o r n i n e c a t e g o r i e s d e f i n e d b y a g e a n d / o r s e x . A s a n e s t i m a t e o f t h e v a l i d i t y o f o b t a i n e d S i g h t V o c a b u l a r y s c o r e s , l e t t e r g r a d e s a s s i g n e d t o s u b j e c t s b y t e a c h e r s a t t h e e n d o f y e a r o n e w e r e o b t a i n e d f r o m s c h o o l r e c o r d s f o l l o w i n g a l l t e s t i n g , c o n -v e r t e d t o a n u m e r i c a l s c a l e , a n d c o r r e l a t e d w i t h S i g h t V o c a b u l a r y s c o r e s . R e s u l t s r e v e a l t h a t s c o r e s w e r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y n o r m a l l y d i s t r i b -u t e d . M e a n s a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s w e r e v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h o s e r e p o r t e d f o r t h e s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n g r o u p , a s w a s t h e t o t a l s a m p l e c o r r e l a t i o n o f .10 f o r V i s u a l C l o s u r e w i t h V i s u a l S e q u e n t i a l M e m o r y . C o r r e l a t i o n s o f S i g h t V o c a b u l a r y w i t h t e a c h e r l e t t e r g r a d e s w e r e h i g h , r a n g i n g f r o m .56* t o .93 w i t h a c o r r e l a t i o n o f .77 o v e r t h e f i v e s c h o o l s . A l l o t h e r o b t a i n e d c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e l o w a n d p o s i t i v e a n d d o n o t c o n f i r m t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t p e r f o r m a n c e o n t h e V i s u a l C l o s u r e a n d V i s u a l S e q u e n t i a l M e m o r y s u b t e s t s o f t h e I T P A m a y b e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e s i z e o f s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y a c q u i r e d b y c h i l d r e n b e g i n n i n g t h e i r s e c o n d y e a r o f s c h o o l . T h e s e r e s u l t s c o u l d m e a n t h a t f a c t o r s c o m m o n t o t h e s e s k i l l s a r e i n s i g n i f i c a n t , t h a t t h e t e s t i s n o t m e a s u r i n g t h e k i n d s o f c l o s u r e a n d m e m o r y s k i l l s w h i c h a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o a c q u i r i n g s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y , o r t h a t t h e t e s t d o e s n o t d i s c r i m i n a t e b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l s o f f u n c t i o n i n g w e l l e n o u g h t o o b t a i n a c c u r a t e e s t i m a t e s o f c o -v a r i a n c e . E x a m i n a t i o n o f d a t a b o t h f o r t h e s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n g r o u p a n d f o r t h i s s a m p l e c e r t a i n l y s e e m s t o s u p p o r t t h i s l a s t e x p l a n a t i o n . C e i l i n g e f f e c t s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p a r e n t f o r V i s u a l S e q u e n t i a l M e m o r y . W h i l e t h i s s t u d y d o e s r e v e a l a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a c q u i r e d s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y a n d f u n c t i o n i n g i n v i s u a l c l o s u r e a n d v i s u a l s e q u e n t i a l m e m o r y a s m e a s u r e d b y t h e I T P A , t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h i s r e l a -t i o n s h i p w o u l d n o t s u p p o r t t h e e f f i c a c y o f p r o v i d i n g t r a i n i n g i n t h e s e s k i l l s i n h o p e s t h a t i m p r o v e d f u n c t i o n i n g w o u l d b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y e x -p a n d e d s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y . V T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S C H A P T E R P A G E I . I N T R O D U C T I O N I I . R E V I E W O F T E E L I T E R A T U R E AND S T A T E M E N T O F T H E P R O B L E M 6 V i s u a l C l o s u r e 6 V i s u a l M e m o r y a n d V i s u a l S e q u e n t i a l M e m o r y 9 R e s e a r c h U s i n g t h e I T P A 1 1 S t a t e m e n t o f t h e P r o b l e m 1 6 I I I . METHOD 1 8 S u b j e c t s 1 8 I n s t r u m e n t s a n d M a t e r i a l s 1 8 P r o c e d u r e 1 9 S c o r i n g a n d D a t a A n a l y s i s 20 I V . R E S U L T S 23 V . D I S C U S S I O N 33 R E F E R E N C E S 3 8 A P P E N D I C E S kl A . S Y M B O L S AND A B B R E V I A T I O N S U S E D k2 B . S I G H T WORDS 3^ C . ( 1 ) M E D I A N S , M E A N S , S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N S , AND D I S T R I B U T I O N OF M E A N RAW S C O R E S FOR V I S U A L C L O S U R E AND V I S U A L S E Q U E N T I A L MEMORY k5 (2) M E D I A N S , M E A N S , S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N S , AND D I S T R I B U T I O N OF S C O R E S F O R S I G H T V O C A B U L A R Y . . . . k6 (3) M E D I A N S , M E A N S , S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N S , AND D I S T R I B U T I O N OF S C O R E S FOR V I S U A L C L O S U R E (k) M E D I A N S , M E A N S , S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N S , AND D I S T R I B U T I O N OF S C O R E S F O R V I S U A L S E Q U E N T I A L MEMORY * * 8 v i CHAPTER PAGE APPENDICES (Continued) D. (1) SCORES FOR THIRTY-SIX FEMALE SUBJECTS AGE 6-9 TO 7-3 *9 (2) SCORES FOR THIRTY-THREE MALE SUBJECTS AGE 6-9 TO 7-3 51 (3) SCORES FOR FIFTY FEMALE SUBJECTS AGE 7-^  TO 7-10 53 (*0 SCORES FOR THIRTY-SEVEN MALE SUBJECTS AGE 7-^  TO 7-10 56 v i i LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. (a) Descriptive Statistics for Sight Vocabulary . . . . 2k (b) Descriptive Statistics for Visual Closure 25 (c) Descriptive Statistics for Visual Sequential Memory 26 (d) Descriptive Statistics for Mean Raw Scores for Visual Closure and Visual Sequential Memory . . . . 27 II. Means and Standard Deviations of Raw Scores for Visual Closure and Visual Sequential Memory by Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 III. Correlations: Visual Closure with Visual Sequential Memory . . 29 IV. Correlationsj Sight Vocabulary with Teacher Letter Grades for Reading at the End of Year One . . . . 30 V. (a) Correlations: Sight Vocabulary with Mean Raw Scores for Visual Closure and Visual Sequential Memory 31 (b) Correlations: Sight Vocabulary with Visual Closure 32 (c) Correlations: Sight Vocabulary with Visual Sequential Memory 32 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Fundamental to reading i s the a b i l i t y to recognize words i n print. Word perception or word recognition s k i l l s , here used synon-ymously, comprise the essential f i r s t step in extracting meaning from printed discourse. The child who i s deficient in these a b i l i t i e s w i l l certainly become a disabled reader. Capable readers are flexible in their use of a variety of word recognition techniques. Contextual and configurational cues, phonetic and structural analysis and synthesis, and reliance on an adequate sight vocabulary are probably the most important of these techniques. Most severely, and many moderately disabled readers are deficient in one or more of these s k i l l s (Kottmeyer, 1959; Gray, I960; Harris, 1961; Bond and Tinker, 1967; Schelly 1972; Wilson, 1972). When a reader encounters a word for the f i r s t time he must use some means of identifying i t . Subsequently, repeated exposure to that word usually results in i t becoming a sight word. That i s , familiarity precludes the necessity of identifying i t through some process of word attack, and i t is recognized by sight, grasped at a glance. Unless a reader develops an adequate sight vocabulary, his reading w i l l be hesitant and inefficient as he must repeatedly analyze words he has seen many times. Failure to build a large sight vocabulary limits the a b i l i t y to group words into thought units for adequate comprehension, and impedes the identification of new words either from context or through structural analysis. Because his reading 2 fluency depends on i t , a child needs to learn to recognize at sight an ever increasing number of words. Teachers and clinicians are aware that some children f a i l to develop adequate word recognition s k i l l s in spite of intact sensory acuity, competent instruction using standard methods, and the presumed absence of environmental deprivation, mental retardation, or emotional disturbance. Some, for instance, develop sight vocabulary quite readily but have d i f f i c u l t y acquiring phonetic word attack s k i l l s ; others, attack nearly a l l words phonetically, seemingly unable to perceive them as entities. The goal of reading instruction i s to provide for every child, a program which w i l l develop his reading s k i l l as e f f i c i e n t l y and effectively as possible. Fundamental to achieving this goal is the recognition not only of differences between, but also within individuals as regards learning strengths and weaknesses. If instruction i s to be individualized, i t must be based upon a detailed understanding of the child's s k i l l deficits and a b i l i t i e s , and of his learning style, the way he seems to learn best. This process of selecting or devising remedial and/or developmental programs to meet individual needs neces* sitates diagnostic techniques and instruments sufficiently sensitive to pinpoint specific d e f i c i t s . Some clinicians and educators have devised theories to explain, instruments to evaluate, and/or programs to develop reading s k i l l s and basic a b i l i t i e s believed to underlie the a b i l i t y to learn to read. Basically, there have been two approaches to the problem. One could be called a task orientation in which the direct teaching of deficient 3 academic s k i l l s receives the primary emphasis (Fernald, 19^3; Spalding and Spalding, 1957; Gillingham and Stillman, 1965) . The other might be termed a process orientation in which the major emphasis i s on developing s k i l l s deemed prerequisite or fundamental to subsequent academic success (Kephart, I 9 6 0 ; Getman, 1961; Frostig and Home, 196^; Wiseman, 1965; Kirk, 1 9 6 8 ) . It is not the purpose, here, to debate the relative merits of either of these approaches, but to focus on one standardized test and i t s relationship to one aspect of reading. The I l l i n o i s Test of Psycholinguistic A b i l i t i e s (Kirk et a l , 1961 and 1968) was designed to evaluate functioning of the auditory-vocal and visual-motor channels of communication, through the processes of reception, association and expression, at the automatic and represen-tational levels. Briefly, the automatic level purports to evaluate closure, sequential memory, and sound blending, functions believed to be less voluntary, more automatic than those of the symbolic level which includes activities involving the meaning of auditory and visual symbols, their association and subsequent expression. Both the experi-mental ( l 9 6 l ) and revised (1968) editions have generated a considerable body of research. Of particular relevance to this study i s the research involving the performance of disabled readers on the ITPA-. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that when compared with their reading achieving peers, dis-abled readers function at a significantly lov/er level on subtests at the automatic level (Kirk and Kirk, 1972) . Furthermore, their d e f i -ciencies appear to be primarily at the automatic rather than represen-tational l e v e l . These findings seem to indicate that severely disabled readers have more d i f f i c u l t y with closure and sequential memory than they have with reciption, association and expression of more meaning-f u l ideas. This notion seems directly related to references made earlier concerning the fact that most severely disabled readers are deficient in one or more word recognition s k i l l s . Specifically, i f sight vocab-ulary i s acquired as a result of repeated exposure u n t i l recognition at a glance replaces conscious identification through phonetic and structural analysis, then the s k i l l may well be related to basic underlying processes of visual closure and sequential memory as defined by these subtests of the ITPA1, The purpose of this study i s to investigate the relationship of Visual Closure and Visual Sequential Memory as defined and measured by the ITPA (1968) to sight vocabulary acquired by children beginning their second year of school. Since research indicates a positive correlation between reading a b i l i t y and performance on the subtests at the automatic level, i t is hypothesized that limited sight vocabulary may be a significant common factor in this relationship. That i s , the better one's functioning on tasks requiring visual closure and sequential memory, the larger one's sight vocabulary w i l l be. Similarly, less efficient functioning on these automatic visual tasks w i l l be associated with a more limited sight vocabulary. Beginning second grade has been selected for this correlational study because children at this age have had time to develop a sight vocabulary and are s t i l l well within the age norms of the ITPA. More-over, age is a variable undoubtedly relevant to the maturation of the 5 automatic visual functions in question. Hence, given the opportunity to have acquired a store of sight words, the younger the subjects the better, especially for purposes of devising developmental programs, or anticipating possible d i f f i c u l t y with purely visual approaches to reading instruction. If such a relationship is demonstrated to exist, specific developmental programs could be devised and alternate methods of teaching reading selected, for children whose preschool performance on the Visual Closure and Visual Sequential Memory tasks i s deficient. 6 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM I. VISUAL CLOSURE Visual closure is the a b i l i t y to infer a visual whole from the presentation of a part or parts of that whole. Several researchers have linked this automatic perceptual function to the reading process. In his factorial study of perception, Thurstone (l9kk) reports that "...reading seems to involve a form of closure..." and that "Some readers are able to form an acceptable closure over a wide span without actually perceiving a l l the detail." He suggests that closure is involved in identifying a figure which is mutilated, obscured, or imbedded in another figure, and in recognizing a whole from presentation of parts of i t in what at f i r s t may seem to be merely a scattered collection of visual stimuli. Commenting on the development of visual closure, Kirk and Kirk (1972) state: Reading i t s e l f includes visual closure, since with each fixation of the eye only part of the letters of a word or phrase are actually perceived. It may well be that during the process of learning to read, the child develops visual closure and speed of perception. Reading i t s e l f may be a good experience for developing closure. Whenever possible, visual closure activities should be developed around' letters, words, and phrases, since this i s the most important school task to which visual closure i s applicable. For the younger child, other forms of visual closure may be necessary as a preliminary experience to bringing closure to bear on reading material. 7 Regarding the various aspects of closure Kirk and Kirk ( 1 9 7 2 ) also say: Remediating a visual closure d e f i c i t involves giving the child those experiences which help him to organize and integrate his visual f i e l d automatically to create a recognizable visual percept. This may involve the ab i l i t y to f i l l in missing parts automatically. It may involve extracting the necessary parts from a distracting background. It may involve rejecting extraneous superimposed marks such as the cross-hatching effect of a screen, a fence, a blot of ink, or a smear of mud. It may involve selecting the relevant parts from a visual f i e l d that includes irregular pieces or altering parts of the visual f i e l d to f i t a visual image as in the Rorschach. Or i t may involve reorienting the pieces and putting them together as i n the object assembly test of the WISC. Goins (1958) states that "It is probable that, i n rapid reading, incomplete images are often perceived and that a type of ' f i l l i n g in' or closure may take place." Her study for the purpose of determining the level of competence in visual perception of first-grade children, and the correlation of visual competence with their achievement in reading, revealed that of the fourteen subtests, Pattern Copying correlated highest with achievement on a reading test (.519), and had the highest loading on the closure factor ( . 9 3 0 ) . None of the visual perceptual tests used in the study involved reading per se. Analysis revealed two factors of visual perception, and she states: One factor, designated as P-l, was related to speed of perception but also seemed to involve the a b i l i t y to hold i n mind a Gestalt during rapid perception. The second factor, designated as P - 2 , appeared to be best described as strength of closure, or the a b i l i t y to keep i n mind a figure against distraction. The second factor, P - 2 , had a substantial common variance with reading s k i l l , although superficially the two tasks involved i n these perception tests were unlike the act of reading. 8 Goins concludes, in part, that strength of closure, or the a b i l i t y to keep in mind a configuration against the distraction of the figure ground relationship, was involved in performing many of the tasks, and that there is considerable variation among individual f i r s t grade pupils in their competency to perform. She further states that the substantial correlation with reading scores is a result contrary to that obtained by previous investigators, and concludes that visual perception is more important at the stage when children are learning to read. In a study involving modified word recognition, reading achieve-ment and perceptual de-centration, Elkind, Horn and Schneider (1965) found that reading achievement was positively correlated with nonverbal measures of perceptual de-centration. They state in summary:-If word recognition and reading achievement involve perceptual de-centration we should expect some degree of communality between measures of them and nonverbal measures of the underlying a b i l i t y . Our factor analysis did indeed show such commonality. Research, then, seems to indicate that visual closure is a significant factor in reading. It may be involved in the a b i l i t y visually to isolate words and phrases from the distraction of surround-ing print, and to hold them in mind while scanning aspects relevant to their identification. 9 II.. VISUAL MEMORY AND VISUAL SEQUENTIAL MEMORY Visual memory is the a b i l i t y to reca l l visual stimuli; visual sequential memory, the a b i l i t y to reca l l a series of stimuli in the correct order. Kirk and Kirk (1972) state that i t seems to be the visual memory task required to remember and reproduce a series of symbols rather than designs or forms which is related to reading. They describe a child deficient in this- s k i l l as- follows: The child frequently shows reversals in reading and spelling, in writing his name, in recognizing sight words, in finding the right page number. He cannot remember a word or a series of numbers long enough to get to the black-board to write i t . In reading, he i s quite dependent on phonics and often remembers items better i f he can say them out loud or write them down. Using a random letter task with children in grades two to twelve, Rizzo (1939) studied visual memory span relative to reading disa b i l i t y and concluded that in extreme cases of reading retardation, limited memory span could be an important contributing factor, especially in younger subjects. She reports: When the memory span of good and poor readers were compared, at different chronological age levels, the results show that the good readers excelled the poor readers (with whom they were paired) in memory span scores, judged on the basis of percentage of the scores earned by good readers, which exceeded the corre-sponding scores earned by poor readers. Further, at the younger age level a b i l i t y to read well was: more closely associated with relatively higher scores of memory span than was the case at the older levels. Raymond (1955) investigated the psychological characteristics of retarded and achieving readers and concluded that performance on tests of visual memory span appears to discriminate between reading achievers and retarded readers of the same chronological age. 10 R u d i s i l l (1956) used a hand tachistoscope to flash digits and phrases at an exposure time of less than .2 seconds and measured rate of oral and concrete responses in advanced and retarded third grade readers. Two of the factors she studied were span and accuracy of flashed phrase recognition. A highly significant relationship was found to exist between these factors and reading accomplishment. McLeod (1965) compared eleven WISC subtest scores of 177 success-f u l pre-adolescent readers and 116 backward pre-adolescent readers of average age about twelve-and-a-half years, and found that the retarded reading group scored significantly lower than the control group on, among others, the Coding subtest. Visual memory and perceptual speed appear to be considerable factors in executing the Coding task effectively. In a study primarily concerned with examining the rate of decay of memory traces among normal readers and reading disabled subjects, Alwitt (1963) presented digit sequences tachistoscopically at an exposure time of .1 seconds to subjects having a mean chronological age of ten years, seven months. She observed lowered memory span among cases of reading d i s a b i l i t y , and reasoned that i t is possible that "...low memory span contributes to reading d i s a b i l i t y in that the child i s unable to remember a sufficient number of stimulus elements to u t i l i z e them for reading." Research appears to have established with reasonable certainty that visual memory is a factor i n reading efficiency. It may be related to the acquisition of an adequate sight vocabulary, or to the discrim-ination between words such as pots and post. 11 III. RESEARCH USING THE 'ITPA Many research studies have "been done using the ITPA in both i t s experimental and revised forms. The 1968 edition includes at the automatic level, subtests of visual closure as well as visual sequential memory. Since the 1961 edition did not include visual closure, several investigators, deeming i t an important factor, included such measures in their test batteries along with the ITPA. One such researcher was Kass ( 1 9 6 6 ) who identified some psycho-ling u i s t i c correlates of reading disa b i l i t y among non-reading or dys-lexic subjects. In general, these children were found to have deficits at the automatic level, indicating possible deficiencies in decoding printed symbols rather than in comprehending the material. Kass supple-mented the I 9 6 I ITPA with, among other tests, one involving closure and another, perceptual speed. The closure task required the a b i l i t y to predict a whole from its.parts, and the perceptual speed task, the ab i l i t y visually to compare detailed figures as rapidly as possible. This latter task was included because Kass believed that this a b i l i t y might be one of the bases for discrimination of details which differen-tiate words. Predictions that children with reading d i s a b i l i t y would be deficient in Visual Sequencing, Visual Automatic (closure) and Perceptual Speed were confirmed. Although the number of subjects ( 2 l ) used in this study was small, and hence the generalizability perhaps limited, other research has tended to confirm the val i d i t y of the findings, Bateman (1963) studied reading and psycholinguistic character-i s t i c s of par t i a l l y seeing children and found that reading achievement 12 was correlated positively with the ITPA subtests at the automatic-sequential level. Sutton (1963) studied the relationship between visualizing a b i l i t y and reading among educable mentally retarded children and found that the correlation with reading a b i l i t y increases as the visual memory task approaches the reading task in similarity. Tests of letter recog-nition in non-meaningful material, for instance, were more closely related to reading a b i l i t y than were tests involving forms or designs. Although high reading achievers scored higher than low achievers on the ITPA test of visual sequencing, they did not do so to a significant degree. Ragland (196k) compared educable mentally handicapped students reading a year or more below expectation based on mental age, with reading achievers of similar mental a b i l i t y in performance on the ITPA. He found that the two groups differed significantly on the total score, and on the total score at the automatic sequential le v e l . While those achieving in reading scored higher than their reading retarded peers on the visual motor sequential subtest, they did not do so to a sta t i s -t i c a l l y significant degree. This finding concurs with Sutton's (1963) results. No significant performance differences were observed at the representational l e v e l . This result substantiates those of Kass (1966) and of Bateman (1963) referred to previously, that disabled readers diff e r from achieving readers on tasks at the automatic rather than representational level of the ITPA. In a study on the effects of individualized remedial programs on mentally retarded children with psycholinguistic d i s a b i l i t i e s , 13 Wiseman (1965) looked into the f e a s i b i l i t y of improving psycholinguistic functioning through specific remediation. Among the battery of tests administered were the ITPA (l96l) and the Kass Visual Closure Test (1962). He found support for the theory that psycholinguistic functioning can be improved. The mean gain scores of his experimental subjects exceeded those of his matched control subjects in mental age and IQ., visual-motor integration, and visual closure. As a supplementary finding, moreover, Wiseman reports that significantly more instances of d i s a b i l i t y were found in the automatic-sequential level subtests than in those at the representational level. The predictive efficiency of four tests, one of which was the ITPA (l96l), was investigated by Weaver (196?) in a study on predicting f i r s t grade reading achievement in culturally disadvantaged children. A variety of predictive batteries emerged from the study. For members of the group which received an enrichment program, the ITPA Visual Motor Sequencing subtest was included in the optimum predictive battery for achievement in Word Knowledge on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. Weaver concluded: The major inference resulting from the multiple regression analyses is that the visual motor s k i l l s are more closely related to reading achievement in culturally deprived children than are specific language s k i l l s . This study seems to support the importance of visual motor perceptual s k i l l s to reading. Hirshoren (1969) compared the predictive val i d i t y of the revised Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and the ITPA (l96l). These tests were administered to forty normal children at the beginning of kindergarten; the California Achievement Test (1963), to the same group at the begin-ning of the second grade. He found performance on the ITPA subtests at Ik the automatic sequential level to be significantly related to perform-ance on a l l seven of the achievement variables from the CAT. Further-more, he states: ... the Visual Motor Sequential subtest appeared to have significant predictive val i d i t y for school achievement 2 years later. This subtest obtained the highest correlation (.51 to .71) with each of the achievement variables. Ten Brink (1970) cautions against over generalizing Hirshoren's findings, however, in part because of the small sample upon which the correlations were based. The psychological correlates of reading d i s a b i l i t y as defined by the ITPA. (1968) were investigated by Macione (1969) who compared disabled and achieving readers of average a b i l i t y . Boys i n the second and third grades were used i n the study which found that four subtests at the automatic level, among them Visual Sequential Memory and Visual Closure, reliably discriminated between achieving and non-achieving readers. Furthermore, disabled readers were found to function better at the representational than at the automatic levels. When compared with their individual mean scaled scores for the twelve subtests, scores on five out of six of those at the automatic level f e l l below mean scaled scores. Visual Sequential Memory and Visual Closure were among these f i v e . Goodstein, Whitney and Cawley (1970) investigated the psycho-educational correlates of academic success or failure in a study on predicting perceptual reading disa b i l i t y among disadvantaged children in the second grade. Psychoeducational measures were administered in the f i r s t grade; reading achievement measures, in the second. Although 15 the ITPA total score correlated significantly with subsequent reading scores, on the Word Recognition and Language Perception subtests of the SRA Achievement Test for Reading, Level 1-2, the visual subtest at the automatic level proved to be the best of a l l ITPA scores at predicting reading success. The authors state: The task (ITPA Visual-Motor Sequencing) involves memory for visual patterns. The a b i l i t y to discriminate and remember words, patterns of letters, may relate to discriminating and remembering visual patterns. In order to determine what might account for their differing patterns of reading achievement, Nurss (1970) compared successful and non-successful third grade pupils on twenty-three variables measuring their intellectual, perceptual, language, and reading s k i l l s . Three subtests of the ITPA (1961), including Visual-Motor Sequencing formed part of the battery. This subtest was found to be significantly related to the reading achievement of the group experiencing d i f f i c u l t y in mastering reading. The intercorrelation matrix of the twenty-three variables for this group indicated that "...the variables significantly related to reading are primarily visual-motor perception and sequencing variables, rather than oral language variables." For successful readers, oral language variables were significantly related to reading achieve-ment. Nurss states: This difference must be considered in light of the level of functioning in reading of these two groups. Group A has mastered the decoding phase of reading and is involved i n using more complex vocabulary and comprehension s k i l l s . Group B, however, has not mastered decoding and i s more involved in using perceptual and sequencing s k i l l s . 16 TV. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM That a relationship exists between visual perceptual s k i l l s and reading achievement seems clear. Research suggests, moreover, that automatic perceptual a b i l i t y may be more important to beginning readers than are language s k i l l s upon which interpretation depends. If a child i s unable accurately to decode or transform a printed visual symbol into an auditory symbol, the question of reading comprehension becomes secondary. These aspects of decoding and interpretation seem to be embodied in the levels of the ITPA, and research using this instrument seems to indicate that a significant discrepancy exists between the a b i l i t y of disabled readers to function effectively on representational and auto-matic tasks. That s k i l l s at the automatic level are related to reading achievement has been demonstrated with children who are average (Hirshoren, 1969; Macione, 1969), severely reading disabled or dyslexic (Kass, 1966), p a r t i a l l y sighted (Bateman, 1963), culturally disadvan-taged (Weaver, 1967; Goodstein et a l , 1970), and educably mentally retarded (Sutton, 1963? Ragland, 1964; Wiseman, 1965). Research seems to have c l a r i f i e d the relative importance of s k i l l s at the automatic and representational levels to reading a b i l i t y . What i s less clear i s the relationship between s k i l l s as defined by the subtests at the automatic level of the ITPA and specific reading s k i l l s . In what way, for instance, does a functional d e f i c i t in visual closure or visual sequential memory affect the acquisition of particular reading s k i l l s ? It seems reasonable to predict, in this case, a f a i r l y high positive correlation between the a b i l i t y to recognize words at sight, 17 and performance of automatic functions as measured by these visual subtests. Studies which have linked performance on these automatic visual tests with word recognition have tended to use as criterion measures, those identification tasks permitting scanning for an unspecified length of time. Using this procedure, i t i s impossible to distinguish between words identified at sight, recognized at a glance, and those identified by phonetic or structural analysis. Therefore, while the existence of a relationship between word recognition and visual closure and sequential memory has been f a i r l y certainly established, the dis-tinction between identification by sight, or by analysis during uncon-trolled scanning, has not been clearly specified. It is the purpose of this study to investigate among beginning second-graders, the relationship of visual closure and visual sequential memory as measured by the ITPA (1968) to sight vocabulary defined as the number of words correctly identified orally following tachistoscopic presentation using a controlled exposure time. It is hypothesized that a reasonably high positive correlation should exist between the a b i l i t y to identify under timed conditions a common figure from an incomplete visual presentation as required in the closure test, the a b i l i t y to reproduce sequences of figures from memory as required i n the sequential memory test, and the a b i l i t y to recognize words at a glance. It i s sug-gested that this relationship contributes to the disparate performance of disabled and successful readers on tasks at the automatic level of the ITPA, 18 CHAPTER III METHOD Subjects A sample of one hundred f i f t y - s i x subjects beginning their second year of school i n September, 197"+, was drawn from five schools in Vancouver, Bri t i s h Columbia. These subjects had no known sensory defects, and a l l were native English speakers. Thirty-six g i r l s and thirty-three boys ranged in age from six years, nine months, to seven years, three months at the time of testing. F i f t y g i r l s and thirty-seven boys were from seven years, four months, to seven years, ten months. In calculating age, more than fifteen days was considered a f u l l month. The five schools were believed to represent the general school population as closely as possible, and intelligence and achieve-ment of the subjects was presumed to be representative through this selection process. That a range in achievement existed was subsequently determined by consulting school records. Instruments and Materials The two visual subtests from the automatic level of the I l l i n o i s  Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (1968), Visual Closure and Visual Sequential Memory, hereafter referred to as VC and VSM, were used. Sight vocabulary, hereafter referred to as SVj was measured using the Word Recognition subtest of the Durrell Analysis of Reading Di f f i c u l t y (Durrell, 1955). Because the words i n this test are presented tachisto-scopically, exposure time i s controlled by the examiner who moves the shutter at a rate of .5 seconds per word, allowing the subject a glance 19 of about .25 seconds but not long enough to apply phonetic analysis while studying a word. Procedure To avoid introducing error due to multiple experimenters, one examiner collected the data. A l l three tests were administered to each subject individually during one session. The order in which the tests were presented was counterbalanced, each subject being randomly assigned to either the VC - VSM - SV, the VSM - SV - VC or the SV - VC - VSM sequence of presentation such that one third of the subjects in each of the four groups Gl, G2, Bl and B 2 , defined by sex and age, received each presentation treatment. As subjects entered the room, time was taken to establish rapport and to explain the general procedure as follows: The examiner said, I am a teacher, and you are here because you are just the right age to help me find out what I need to know. I am going to give you some things to do. Some of them are for younger children too, and so they w i l l be easy, but some of them are also for older boys and g i r l s , and so I don't expect you to know a l l the answers. You just try your best and we'll see how many things you can do. The Visual Closure and Visual Sequential Memory tests were administered according to standardized procedure with the examiner seated opposite the subject. The examiner sat beside the subject to present the sight words, holding the tachistoscope at reading distance, about twelve inches from the subject. To introduce the test the examiner said, "I'm going to show you some words. Each time I show you a word I want you to t e l l me what i t i s . Let's practise." Following the practise items, the f i r s t word of each l i s t was preceded by the examiner's words, "See i f you can 20 see what this word i s . Ready!" To familiarize each subject with the action of the tachistoscope and the task he was to perform, two practice words, the and and were used. These words are not part of the Durrell test, but were prepared on a separate l i s t using identical cardboard and presentation materials and technique, the only difference being that after each flash presen-tation, the word was shown to the subject for confirmation or correction, and then presented again using the standardized technique. The words contained i n Appendix B were presented to a l l subjects in the following order; List A, List B, List 1, List 2. Testing was discontinued following seven consecutive failures, and the number of correct responses was recorded. Only one t r i a l per word was given, and no words were pronounced for the subject. The examiner did not indicate the accuracy of responses, but encouraged the subjects as seemed nec-essary with neutral comments such as, "Good!" Spontaneously corrected responses were accepted. If the subject gave more than one response, a neutral question such as, "Which one i s i t ? " was asked. The subject's f i n a l response was then scored even i f a previous one was correct. The reluctant or hesitant subject was encouraged to guess. Subjects who seemed apprehensive when approaching a ceiling were encouraged by the comment, "You'll know that one when you are older." A subject's score i n sight vocabulary was.defined as the total number of correct responses below the ceiling of seven consecutive failures. Raw scores on the Visual Closure and Visual Sequential Memory tests were obtained through standardized means. 21 Using raw scores, Pearson Product Moment correlations were subsequently calculated i n order to examine the relationship between several combinations of variables. The significance of the obtained correlations was estimated using the two-tailed " t " test. The follow-ing pairs of variables were correlated: 1. SV with VC 2. SV with VSM 3. SV with mean raw scores for VC and VSM k. VC with VSM For each of the above four pairs of variables, correlations were obtained for the following categories: 1. Gl: Girls age 6-9 to 7-3 2. Bl: Boys age 6-9 to 7-3 3. G2z Girls age 7-k to 7-10 k. B2: Boys age 7-^  to 7-10 5. G: Girls age 6-9 to 7-10 (Gl and G2) 6. B: Boys age 6-9 to 7-10 (Bl and B2) 7. A l : Subjects age 6-9 to 7-3 (Gl and Bl) 8. A2: Subjects age 7-^  to 7-10 (G2 and B2) 9. TS: Total sample (Gl, B l , G2, and B2) Although the number of scores involved in 1, 2t and _ i s relatively small, correlations were calculated because i t was believed that the available data should be used to explore a l l relationships to the ex-tent possible. As an estimate of the val i d i t y of the obtained SV scores, cor-relations with letter grades in reading which were assigned to the sub-22 jects by their teachers at the end of year one were calculated. Follow-ing a l l testing, these letter grades were obtained from the school records. The same type of correlation and estimate of significance was used to examine this relationship. 23 CHAPTER IV RESULTS Examination of Appendix C seems to confirm that scores for SV, VC, VSM, and mean raw scores for VC and VSM are approximately normally distributed. A possible exception is SV for boys i n the age group 6 - 9 to 7 - 3 * There the distribution of scores appears to be slightly positively skewed. B2 scores are also positively, but less markedly, skewed. Gl and G2 are slightly negatively skewed, with the result that these effects are neutralized in Al and A2. The total sample dis-tribution appears to be slightly negatively skewed, but not s i g n i f i -cantly so. Descriptive statistics for SV, VC, VSM, and mean raw scores for VC and VSM are recorded i n Table I. Predictably, a l l mean scores for A2 are higher than for A l . While there appears to be l i t t l e d i f -ference in the performance of boys and g i r l s on VC and VSM, girls scored significantly higher than boys on SV. This result obtained for both age groups. Mean score for Gl, however, is very slightly higher than for G2, and may indicate a better-than-average sample of g i r l s for that age group. Scores ranged from zero to eighty-two in sight vocabulary and were widely distributed about the mean. Data in Appendix C indicate that this distribution may be slightly negatively skewed. Scores for VC and VSM were f a i r l y closely grouped about the mean, probably con-tributing to the low correlations obtained. This statement applies particularly to VSM. TABLE I (a) DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR SIGHT VOCABULARY Al A2 N Mdn X S.D. R F Mdn X S.D. R N Mdn X S.D. R G 36 5^.50 42.83 21.36 80 50 43.50 42.44 21.15 79 86 45.00 42.60 21.24 80 B 33 26.00 29.42 20.90 70 37 36.00 37.81 22.43 78 70 34.00 33.86 22.12 81 69 37.00 36.42 22.18 82 87 41.00 40.47 21.82 79 156 40.50 38.68 22.07 82 V TABLE I (t>) DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS" FOR VISUAL CLOSURE Al A2 N Hdn X S.D. R N Mdiv X S.D. R H Mdn X S.D. R G 36 25.00 25.00 "+.58 24 50 27.00 27.58 4.81 24 86 27.00 26 . 5 0 4.88 27 B 3 3 2"+.00 2 5 . 0 9 "+.58 18 37 26.00 2 7 . 0 5 5 . 3 3 2 3 7 0 25.00 26.13 5.08 2 3 6 9 25.00 25.04 "+.58 26 87 27.00 2 7 . 3 6 5.04 2 5 156 26.00 26 . 3 3 4.98 28 ro TABLE I (c) DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR VISUAL SEQUENTIAL MEMORY Al A2 N Mdn X S.D. R N Mdn X S.D. R N Mdn X S.D. R G 3 6 20.00 20.11 3.46 14 5 0 22.00 21.68 2.67 13 86 21.00 21.02 3 . 1 3 16 B 3 3 20.00 20.15 2.96 14 37 21.00 20.76 2.90 14 70 20.00 20.47 2.94 14 6 9 20.00 20.13 3 . 2 3 1 5 87 21.00 21.29 2'81 ! 5 21.00 20.78 3.06 16 TABLE I (d) DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR MEAN RAW SCORES FOR VISUAL CLOSURE AND VISUAL SEQUENTIAL MEMORY Al A2 N Mdri X S.D. R N Mdn X S.D. R N Mdn X S.D. R G 36 22.25 22.56 3.20 17.0 50 24.25 24.63 2.62 11.5 86 23.50 23.76 3.06 18.0 B 33 22.50 22.65 2.75 14.0 37 23.50 24.07 3.16 12.5 70 23.50 23.40 3.06 15.0 69 22.50 22.60 2.99 20.5 87 24.00 24.39 2.88 12.5 156 23.50 23.60 3.06 20.5 28 A comparison of means and standard deviations obtained for VC and VSM with those reported for the normative group close in age to Al and A2 (Paraskevopoulos and Kirk, 1969, p. 79) indicates that obtained means are slightly higher and standard deviations, generally very slightly lower than for the standardization group. This infor-mation i s recorded i n Table I I . It may be, that while scores are approximately normally distributed, the sample as a whole i s slightly above average in a b i l i t y . TABLE II MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF RAW SCORES FOR VISUAL CLOSURE AND VISUAL SEQUENTIAL MEMORY BY AGE GROUP Age Group VC VSM X S.D. X S.D. Normative Group 6- 7 to 7-1 7- 7 to 8-1 22.4 26.5 4.86 5.46 18.6 20.7 3.05 3.60 Present Study 6- 9 to 7-3 7- 4 to 7-10 25.0 27.4 4.58 5.04 20.1 21.3 3.23 2.81 29 A f a i r l y low positive correlation between the ITPA subtests of Visual Closure and Visual Sequential Memory would be anticipated. In order to estimate the v a l i d i t y of results obtained for these measures, scores were correlated and results compared with those re-ported by Paraskevopoulos and Kirk (1969, P* 186) for the normative group. They record a mean correlation across eight age levels of .09, but do not report levels of significance. Table III indicates obtained correlations for the nine categories. While the levels of significance are unimpressive, a total sample correlation of .10 certainly seems comparable to that reported for the standardization group. TABLE III CORRELATIONSr VISUAL CLOSURE WITH VISUAL SEQUENTIAL MEMORY Al A2 N r P N r P N r P G 36 .26 p< .14 50 --.11 p<.46 86 .12 p<.28 B 33 -.001 P>.90 37 .06 p<.72 70 .05 p<.66 69 .14 p< .26 87 -.02 p<.84 156 .10 P<.24 3 0 In order to validate obtained sight vocabulary scores, letter grades in reading which were assigned by teachers to each subject at the end of year one were obtained from the school records, converted to a numerical scale of nine, and correlated with sight vocabulary scores. Table IV indicates that the relationship ranged from f a i r l y high to extremely high. For 152 subjects in five schools, a correla-tion of . 7 7 obtained, indicating that some fifty-nine percent of the variance in reading grades could be accounted for by the obtained scores for sight vocabulary. TABLE TV CORRELATIONS: SIGHT VOCABULARY WITH TEACHER LETTER GRADES FOR READING " AT THE END OF YEAR ONE N r P School One 24 . 9 3 p < . 0 0 1 School Two 25 .83 PC . 0 0 1 School Three 3 3 . 5 6 p < . 0 0 1 School Four 2 3 . 7 3 p < . 0 0 1 School Five 47 . 7 6 p< . 0 0 1 Over 5 Schools 152 . 7 7 p< . 0 0 1 31 Table V records correlations obtained for the nine categories in each of three of the combinations of variables examined. A l l are very low and positive. Levels of confidence vary widely, and only those of .05 or better on the two-tailed " t " test are considered significant. Thus i t appears that for SV with VC, only results for G2, A2, G and TS are significant; for SV with mean raw scores for VC and VSM, only G2, A2, G, B, and TS:; and for SV with VSM, no results are significant. Sample size combined with low correlations appears to contribute to low levels of confidence. TABLE V (a) CORRELATIONS 1 SIGHT VOCABULARY WITH MEAN RAW SCORES FOR VISUAL CLOSURE AND VISUAL SEQUENTIAL MEMORY Al A2 N r P N r P N r P G 36 .20 P < .26 50 .32 p< .02 86 .24 p<.02 B 33 .15 p< .40 37 .24 P< » 1 6 70 .24 p< .05 69 .16 p<.18 87 .29 p<.01 .156 .24 p<.01 32 TABLE V (b) CORRELATIONS: SIGHT VOCABULARY WITH VISUAL CLOSURE Al A2 N r P N r P N r P G 36 .20 p< .26 50 .31 p< .02 86 .25 p<.02 B 33 .001 P>.90 37 .21 P< .22 70 .15 p<.20 69 .10 P< .44 87 .27 p<,02 156 .21 P O 0 1 TABLE V (c) CORRELATIONS: SIGHT VOCABULARY WITH VISUAL SEQUENTIAL MEMORY Al A2 N r P N r p N r P G 36 .11 P<.54 50 .05 p<.72 86 .07 P< .50 B 33 .26 P<.14 37 .10 P<.54 70 .19 P< .12 69 .16 p<.18 87 .09 P<.38 156 .14 p< .08 33 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The low positive correlations obtained do not confirm the hypothesis that performance on the ITPA tests of Visual Closure and Visual Sequential Memory is closely related to the size of sight vocabulary acquired by this sample of children beginning their second year of school. In discussing these results i t is important to remem-ber that the study is concerned with the extent to which sight vocabu-lary size i s related to s k i l l i n visual closure and visual sequential memory as measured by the ITPA, and not to the visual closure and memory constructs in general. That i s , we are not concerned, here, with the question of the test's construct v a l i d i t y . There are several possible explanations for the low positive correlations obtained. One, of course, is that any common factor which does exist may be insignificant, another i s that the Visual Closure and Visual Sequential Memory subtests are not measuring the kinds of closure and memory s k i l l s which are closely related to the acquisition of sight vocabulary, and a third i s that the tests are not discriminating between individual levels of functioning sufficiently well to be able to obtain accurate estimates of covariance. Resolution of the f i r s t two questions would require replication of the study using other measures of closure and sequential memory. One might argue that the designs to be arranged in Visual Sequential Memory may be too unlike the alphabet to require the same kind of pro-3^ cessing as do letters in a word. Furthermore, a task involving f i r s t the analysis of intact series of visual stimuli presented p i c t o r i a l l y followed by synthesis i n reforming the series with t i l e s , may require s k i l l s other than those needed to identify words seen for only a quarter of a second. Similarly, the kinds of figures to be identified in clo-sure may be too remote from the reading task. The third explanation of the low correlations, that which questions the a b i l i t y of these subtests to discriminate sufficiently well between subjects of this age seems a valid comment. The relatively low standard deviations indicating a narrow distribution of scores about the mean are particularly evident for Visual Sequential Memory. For example, in G2, thirty of the f i f t y scores f a l l i n a range of four, from twenty-one to twenty-four (see Appendix C). This spread seems insufficient to distinguish accurately between the functioning of i n d i -vidual subjects. For instance, reference to the ITPA manual, page 102, Table of Psycholinguistic Age Norms, reveals that raw scores f a l l i n g one standard deviation either side of the mean of twenty-one obtained for the total sample on Visual Sequential Memory account for only six psycholinguistic ages ranging from 6-6 to 10-5. The Visual Closure sub-test appears to discriminate somewhat better, there being some eleven psycholinguistic ages ranging from 6-6 to 9-0 accounted for in raw scores f a l l i n g one standard deviation either side of the mean. Indeed, cor-relations obtained for Sight Vocabulary with Visual Closure are, for the most part, higher and more significant than those obtained for Sight Vocabulary with Visual Sequential Memory. The fact remains, however, 35 that ceiling effects appear to be contributing to the low correlations obtained. Examination of Table V and the twenty-seven correlations ob-tained for Sight Vocabulary with each of Visual Closure, Visual Sequen-t i a l Memory, and mean raw scores for Visual Closure and Visual Sequen-t i a l Memory indicates that many results are too insignificant to inter-pret with confidence. With this fact in mind, i t i s interesting to speculate on several possible relationships. The f i r s t i s that there may be a closer correlation between Visual Closure and Sight Vocabu-lary in g i r l s than in boys, particularly i n A l . The opposite may be the case when considering Sight Vocabulary and Visual Sequential Memory. We can be more confident, however, in concluding that Sight Vocabulary and Visual Closure are more closely related in A2 than they are in A l . While no such conclusion is warranted by the data, i t i s interesting to speculate that Visual Sequential Memory and Sight Vocabulary may be more closely related in the early stages of reading, with closure be-coming increasingly important. Perhaps i n i t i a l l y , close scrutiny of the sequence of letters i n words is required for their identification, whereas later, when blends, endings and vowel combinations have been encountered often enough, i t becomes a matter of speedily closing on familiar groupings of them at a glance. Since Visual Closure and Visual Sequential Memory are the only two visual subtests at the automatic level of the ITPA, the total sample correlation between their mean raw scores and Sight Vocabulary is probably the best figure to use when relating these results to pre-36 vioua research reporting positive correlations between reading achieve-ment and functioning at the automatic level. The high correlation obtained with reading grades indicates that the Sight Vocabulary scores are probably a valid representation of achievement in that one aspect of reading. Because these scores are then correlated with only the visual subtest mean scores, and functioning on the four auditory chan-nel subtests at the automatic level is not considered, the resulting correlation of ,2k ( p < . 0 l ) is probably not inconsistent with previous research findings based on consideration of both auditory and visual subtests at the automatic level. That i s , although i t i s intuitively appealing to speculate that recognition by sight at a glance is pre-dominantly a visual s k i l l , functioning on such auditory subtests as closure, sequential memory and sound blending may, i n fact, account for at least as much, and perhaps more of the variance in Sight vocab-ulary scores than do the visual s k i l l s . Although i t was not a relationship of primary concern, the high positive correlation obtained between Sight Vocabulary and teacher's letter grades i s interesting to note, not only in terms of the accuracy of teacher evaluation, but also because the results indicate that some fifty-nine percent of the variance in reading grades could be predicted from scores obtained on Sight Vocabulary. While such a measure of sight vocabulary has rather limited diagnostic value, i t appears to be a quick and f a i r l y reliable estimate of general reading a b i l i t y . Further research i n this area could take several forms. The study could be replicated using younger subjects. Perhaps ceiling 37 effects could be reduced by using f i r s t grade children toward the middle of the school year so as to have allowed them time to acquire a store of sight words. It would also be interesting to compare Sight Vocabulary scores of children in f i r s t and even in second grade with scores on Visual Closure and Visual Sequential Memory obtained in kin-dergarten. Perhaps visual closure and, most particularly, visual se-quential memory s k i l l s may be most closely related to sight vocabulary at the very earliest stages of learning to read. Moreover, a study correlating sight vocabulary with scores on a l l six subtests at the automatic level of the ITPA, and with the visual and auditory subtests separately for comparison, may reveal that auditory s k i l l s are at least as relevant, and possibly are more closely associated with sight vocab-ulary than are the visual s k i l l s measured. Since many subjects seem to code the sequence of visual stimuli vocally, one would suspect that auditory sequential memory is a very important factor. While this study does reveal a positive relationship between acquired sight vocabulary and functioning i n visual closure and visual sequential memory as defined and measured by the ITPA, neither the magnitude of the relationship revealed, nor the level of confidence obtained in many instances, would support the efficacy of providing training in these two psycholinguistic s k i l l s in hopes that improved functioning would be accompanied by expanded sight vocabulary. More-over, given the larger and unresolved question currently pondered, whether, indeed, i t i s even possible to train psycholinguistic processes, this conclusion seems especially appropriate and timely. 38 REFERENCES Alwitt, Linda A. Decay of Immediate Memory for Visually Presented Digits Among Non-Readers and Readers. Journal of Educational  Psychology. 1963, 5 4 , 144-148. Bateman, Barbara. The I l l i n o i s Test of Psycholinguistic A b i l i t i e s  in Current Research. Institute for Research on Exceptional Children, Ap r i l , 1964. Bateman, Barbara. Reading and Psycholinguistic Processes of Partially Seeing Children. CEC Research Monograph. Series A, No. 5 , 1963. Bond, Guy and Tinker, Miles. Reading D i f f i c u l t i e s : Their Diagnosis  and Correction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Delacato, C. H. Neurological Organization and Reading. Springfield 111. : Thomas, I 9 6 6 . Durrell, Donald D. Durrell Analysis of Reading D i f f i c u l t y . New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1955. Elkind, David, Horn, J . and Schneider, G. Modified Word Recognition, Reading Achievement and Perceptual Decentration, Journal of  Genetic Psychology. 1965, 107, 235-251. Fernald, G. M. Remedial Techniques in Basic School Subjects. New York: McGraw H i l l , 1943. Frostig, M. and Horne, D. The Frostig Program for the Development of Visual Perception: Teachers Guide. Chicago: F o l l e t t , 1964. Getman, G. N. How to Develop Your Child's Intelligence. Lucerne Minn.: Author, 1962. Gillingham, A. and Stillman, B. Remedial Training for Children With Specific Disability in Reading. Spelling, and Penmanship (7 th ed). Cambridge Mass.: Educators Publishing Service, 1965. Goins, Jean T. Visual Perceptual A b i l i t i e s and Early Reading Progress. Chicago, 111 . : University of Chicago Press, 1958. Goodstein, H. A., Whitney, G., and Cawley, J. F. Prediction of Perceptual Reading Disability Among Disadvantaged Children i n the Second Grade. Reading Teacher. 1970, 24 ( l ) , 23-28. Gray, William S. On Their Own in Reading. Chicago, 111: Scott, Fores-man and Company, I 9 6 0 . Harris, Albert J . How to Increase Reading A b i l i t y . New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1961. 39 Hirshoren, Alfred. A Comparison of the Predictive Validity of the Revised Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and the I l l i n o i s Test of Psycholinguistic A b i l i t i e s . Exceptional Children. 1969t 35 (7), 517-521. Kass, Corrine E. Psycholinguistic Dis a b i l i t i e s of Children with Reading Problems. Exceptional Children. 1966. 32 (8), 533-539. Kephart, N. C. The Slow Learner in the Classroom. Columbus, Ohio: M e r r i l l , 196~0. Kirk, S. A. The I l l i n o i s Test of Psycholinguistic A b i l i t i e s : Its Origin and Implications. In Learning Disorders. Vol. 3» Jerome Hellmuth (Ed.). Seattle, Wash: Special Child Publications, 1968. Kirk, Samuel A. and Kirk, Winifred D. Psycholinguistic Learning Dis- a b i l i t i e s : Diagnosis and Remediation. Urbana, 111: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1972. Kirk, Samuel A., McCarthy, J. J . and Kirk, W. D. The I l l i n o i s Test  of Psycholinguistic A b i l i t i e s (Exp. Ed.). Urbana, 111: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1961. Kirk, S. A., McCarthy, J. J. and Kirk, W. D. The I l l i n o i s Test of  Psycholingaistic A b i l i t i e s (Revised Ed.). Urbana, 111: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1968. Kottmeyer, William. Teacher's Guide for Remedial Reading. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 195^ 7 McLeod, J . A Comparison of WISC Sub-Test Scores of Pre-adolescent Successful and Unsuccessful Readers. Australian Journal of Psychology. 1965, 17 (3), 220-228. Macione, Joseph. Psychological Correlates of Reading Disability as  Defined by the I l l i n o i s Test of Psycholinguistic A b i l i t i e s . Doctor's Thesis, University of South Dakota, 1969. Nurss, Joanne R. A Diagnostic Comparison of Two Third Grade Reading Classes. In William Durr (Ed.) Reading D i f f i c u l t i e s : Diagnosis. Correction, and Remediation'; Newark, Del: IRA, 1970, pp 42-54. Osgood, Charles E. A Behavioral Analysis. In Contemporary Approaches  to Cognition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1957. Paraskevopoulos, J . and Kirk, S. A. The Development and Psychometric  Characteris tics of the Revised I l l i n o i s Test of Psycholinguistic  A b i l i t i e s . Urbana, 111: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1969. 40 Ragland, Gilbert G, Performance of Educable Mentally Handicapped Students of Differing Reading Ability on the I l l i n o i s Test of Psycholinguistic A b i l i t i e s . In Special Educationt Strategies  for Educational Progress. Selected Convention Papers, 44th Annual CEC Convention, 1966, pp 69-72. Wash. D.C: Council for Exceptional Children. Raymond, D. M. The Performance of Reading Achievers on Memory Span and Association i n Reading Tests. Journal of Educational Research. 1955, 48, 455-465. Rizzo, N. D. Studies in Visual and Auditory Memory Span with Special Reference to Reading Disability. Journal of Experimental Educa-tion. 1939, 8, 208-244. R u d i s i l l , Mabel. Flashed Digit and Phrase Recognition and Rate of Oral and. Concrete Responses: A Study of Advanced and Retarded Readers in the Third Grade. Journal of Psychology. 1956, 42, 317-328. Schell, Leo M. How to Prevent and Correct Word Identification Problems. In Schell, L. M. and Bums, P. C. (Eds.), Remedial Reading: Classroom and C l i n i c . Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1972. Spalding, R. B. and Spalding, W. T. The Writing Road to Reading. New York: Morrow, 1957. Sutton, Peggy. The Relationship of Visualizing A b i l i t y to Reading. In Bateman, Barbara, The I l l i n o i s Test of Psycholinguistic  A b i l i t i e s in Current Research. Institute for Research on Exceptional Children, April, 1964. Ten Brink, T. D. Critique of Hirshoren 1s ITPA Validity Study. Exceptional Children. 1970, 36 (5), 351-356. Thurstone, L. L. A Factorial Study of Perception. Chicago, 111: University of Chicago Press, 1944. Tiegs, E. W. and Clark, W. W. California Achievement Tests, Complete  Battery - Lower Primary. Manual. Monterey, California: California Test Bureau, 1963. Weaver, Ann. The Prediction of Fi r s t Grade Reading Achievement in  Culturally Disadvantaged Children. Doctor's Thesis, George Peabody College for Teachers. Nashville, Tenn: 1967. DA 28: 3789A Wilson, Robert M. Diagnostic and Remedial Reading for Classroom and  Cl i n i c . Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l Pub. Co., 1972. Wiseman, D. A Classroom Procedure for Identifying and Remediating Language Problems. Mental Retardation, 1965, 3 (2), 21. A P P E N D I X 42 APPENDIX A SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED Al: Age One: Subjects age six years, nine months to seven years, three months at the time of testing (BI and Gl) A2: Age Two: Subjects age seven years, four months to- seven years, ten months at the time of testing (B2 and G2) B: Boys age six years, nine months to seven years, ten months at the time of testing (BI and B2) BI: Boys age six years, nine months to seven years, three months at the time of testing B2: Boys age seven years, four months to seven years, ten months at the time of testing G: Girls age six years, nine months to seven years, ten months at the time of testing (Gl and G2j) Gl: Girls age six years, nine months to seven years, three months at the time of testing G2: Girls age seven years, four months to seven years, ten months at the time of testing SV: Sight Vocabulary TS: Total Sample VC: Visual Closure VSM: Visual Sequential Memory 43 APPENDIX B SIGHT WORDS* List A (Grade l ) List B (Grade : 1. you 1. rain 2. look 2. seen 3. l i t t l e 3. breakfast 4. me 4. other 5. day 5. hole 6. tree 6. cry 7. a l l 7. love 8. come 8. sister 9. away 9. lost 10. are 10. joy 11. run 11. bark 12. father 12. blow 13. children 13. please 14. morning 14. sand 15. sleep 15. t a l l 16. f i s h 16. cover 17. around 17. dark 18. name 18. afraid 19. chair 19. place 20. l i v e 20. chimney Durrell, Donald D. Durrell Analysis of Reading  D i f f i c u l t y . New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1955. APPENDIX B (Continued) .st 1 (Grades 2 to 6) List 2 (Grades 2 to 6) 1. road 1. drawn 2. ground 2. chapter 3. know 3. broadcase 4. drink 4. invent 5. turkey 5. photograph 6. elephant 6. blunt 7. different 7. imagine 8. inch 8. disturb 9. strong 9. carpenter 10. stamp 10. provide 11. f a i r 11. battery 12. quickly 12. ceiling 13. believe 13. delayed 14. handle 14. pretend 15. bridge 15. freight 16. speed 16. championship 17. battle 17. crowned 18. cleaned 18. advertisement 19. either 19. prairie 20. quarter 20. blundering 21. guard 21. shingle 22. forgotten 22. wrenches 23. crawl 23. circumstances 24. tongue 24. triumphant 25. single 25. thorough APPENDIX C (1) MEDIANS, MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND DISTRIBUTION OF MEAN RAW SCORES FOR VISUAL CLOSURE AND VISUAL SEQUENTIAL MEMORY 11.5 13.5 15.5 17.5 19.5 21.5 23.5 25.5 27.5 29.5 31.5 Mdn X S.D. KI to to to to to to to to to to to 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 Gl 22.25 22.56 3.20 36 1 0 0 3 5 14 5 5 3 0 0 Bl 22.50 22.65 2.75 33 0 0 0 1 12 5 9 5 0 0 1 G2 24.25 24.63 2.62 50 0 0 0 1 4 10 16 8 10 1'. 0 B2 23.50 24.07 3.16 37 0 0 1 1 5 8 8 6 6 2 0 G 23.50 23.76 3.06 86 1 0 0 4 9 24 21 13 13 1 0 B 23.50 23.40 3.06 70 0 0 1 2 17 13 17 11 6 2 1 Al 22.50 22.60 2.99 69 1 0 0 4 17 19 14 10 3 0 1 A2 24.00 24.39 2.88 87 0 0 1 2 9 18 24 14 16 3 0 TS 23.50 23.60 3.06 156 1 0 1 6 26 37 38 24 19 3 1 APPENDIX C (2) MEDIANS, MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES FOR SIGHT VOCABULARY 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 Mdn X S.D. N to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to • 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Gl 45.50 42.83 21.36 36 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 4 3 6 0 3 2 2 1 1 BI 26.00 29.42 20.90 33 5 4 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 4 0 1 1 1 0 0 G2 43.50 42.44 21.15 50 2 3 3 2 1 2 4 5 6 3 3 5 3 3 1 3 1 B2 36.00 37.81 22.43 37 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 G 45.00 42.60 21.24 86 4 4 4 5 4 3 6 6 10 6 9 5 6 5 3 4 2 B 34.00 33.86 22.12 70 7 7 5 4 6 5 3 5 6 3 8 1 3 2 3 1 1 Al 37.00 36.42 22.18 69 7 5 3 4 6 4 3 4 7 4 10 0 4 3 3 1 1 A2 41.00 40.47 21.82 87 4 6 6 5 4 4 6 7 9 5 7 6 5 4 3 4 2 TS 40.50 38.68 22.07 156 11 11 9 9 10 8 9 11 16 9 17 6 9 7 6 5 3 APPENDIX C (3) MEDIANS, MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND DISTRIBUTION OP SCORES FOR VISUAL CLOSURE 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 Mdn X S.D. N to to to to to to to to to to 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 Gl 25.00 25.00 4.58 36 1 0 1 5 10 8 8 2 1 0 Bl 24.00 25.09 4.58 33 0 0 1 7 9 7 4 2 3 0 G2 27.00 27.58 4.81 50 0 1 1 1 8 18 10 4 5 2 B2 26.00 27.05 5.33 37 0 1 0 5 7 8 6 5 4 1 G 27.00 26.50 4.88 86 1 1 2 6 18 26 18 6 6 2 B 25.00 26.13 5.08 70 0 1 1 12 16 15 10 7 7 1 Al 25.00 25.04 4.58 69 1 0 2 12 19 15 12 4 4 0 A2 27.00 27.36 5.04 87 0 2 1 6 15 26 16 9 9 3 TS 26.00 26.33 4.98 156 1 2 3 18 34 4 1 28 13 13 3 APPENDIX C (4) MEDIANS, MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES FOR VISUAL SEQUENTIAL MEMORY , Mdn X S.D. N 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Gl 20.00 20.11 3.46 36 1 5 6 9 6 3 5 1 0 BI 20.00 20.15 2.96 33 1 3 6 9 7 5 1 1 0 G2 22.00 21.68 2.67 50 0 1 7 8 13 17 2 1 1 B2 21.00 20.76 2.90 37 1 0 8 9 9 7 2 1 0 G 21.00 : 21.02 3.13 86 1 6 13 17 19 20 7 2 1 B 20.00 20.47 2.94 70 2 3 14 18 16 12 3 2 0 Al 20.00 20.13 3.23 69 2 8 12 18 13 8 6 2 0 A2 21.00 21.29 2.81 87 1 1 15 17 22 24 4 2 1 TS 21.00 20.78 3.06 156 3 9 27 35 35 32 10 4 1 APPENDIX D (1) SCORES FOR THIRTY-SIX FEMALE SUBJECTS AGE 6-9 TO 7-3 VC VSM S .No * Age SV RS SS RS SS MRS MSS Schl LG 1 7-3 19 25 38 23 43 24.0 40.5 1 C 2 7-3 70 30 44 27 51 28.5 47.5 1 A 3 7-2 32 10 20 13 24 11.5 22.0 1 m 4 6-10 71 25 39 21 41 23.0 40.0 1 A 5 7-3 79 24 37 19 36 21.5 36.5 1 A 6 7-3 45 29 43 20 38 24.5 40.5 2 B 7 6-10 45 30 46 21 41 25.5 43.5 2 B 8 7-1 82 19 31 18 34 18.5 32.5 2 A 9 7-3 51 26 39 15 28 20.5 33.5 2 B 10 7-0 63 27 40 19 36 23.0 38.0 3 C 11 6-10 2 22 36 19 37 20.5 36.5 3 C 12 7-3 23 21 33 26 49 23.5 41.0 3 B 13 7-1 23 27 40 17 32 22.0 36.0 3 C 14 6-11 64 23 37 20 39 21.5 38.0 3 C+ 15 7-2 15 22 34 21 40 21.5 37.0 3 C-16 6-11 7 24 38 20 39 22.0 38.5 3 D ^S.No.: Subject Number RSi Raw Score SS: Scaled Score MRS: Mean Raw Score MSS: Mean Scaled Score Schl: School LG: Letter Grade i n Reading at the End of Year One 50 APPENDIX D (1) (Continued) VC VSM S.No. Age SV RS SS RS SS MRS MSS Schl LG 17 7-0 53 25 38 19 36 22.0 37.0 4 C+ 18 7-0 37 33 4? 24 45 28.5 46.0 4 C 19 7-1 35 27 40 23 43 25.0 41.5 4 C+ 20 7-2 44 34 48 17 32 25.5 40.0 4 B 21 7-3 22 29 43 18 34 23.5 38.5 4 C* 22 7-0 51 29 43 26 49 27.5 46.0 4 C+ 23 7-3 48 21 33 17 32 19.0 37.5 5 c 24 7-1 62 27 40 25 47 26.0 43.5 5 A 25 7-3 71 32 46 20 38 26.0 42.0 5 B 26 6-11 55 28 43 15 29 21.5 36.0 5 C+ 27 7-3 46 22 34 16 30 19.0 32.0 5 C 28 7-2 16 23 36 22 42 22.5 39.0 5 C-29 7-2 30 28 42 16 30 22.0 36.0 5 C 30 7-2 53 24 37 21 40 22.5 38.5 5 C+ 31 7-1 52 28 42 25 47 26.5 44.5 5 B 32 7-0 67 20 32 25 47 22.5 39.5 5 A 33 6-10 42 22 36 22 3^ 22.0 39.5 5 B 34 7-0 3 21 33 18 34 19.5 33.5 5 C-35 7-1 18 19 31 20 38 19.5 34.5 5 B 36 7-0 46 24 37 16 30 20.0 33.5 5 C+ 51 APPENDIX D (2) SCORES FOR THIRTY-THREE MALE SUBJECTS AGE 6-9 TO 7-3 VC VSM S.No. Age SV RS SS RS SS MRS MSS Schl LG 37 7-3 0 19 31 20 38 19.5 34.5 1 D 38 6-11 5 26 41 16 31 21.0 36.0 1 -39 6-9 6 23 37 21 41 22.0 39.0 1 C-40 7-1 37 23 36 20 38 21.5 37.0 1 B 41 6-10 34 21 35 20 39 20.5 37.0 1 B 42 7-2 9 22 34 14 26 18.0 30.0 1 C 43 6-9 8 34 50 18 35 26.0 42.5 2 D 44 6-11 37 23 37 18 35 20.5 36.0 2 A 45 7-1 65 32 46 19 36 25.5 41.0 2 B 46 6-11 44 21 35 21 41 21.0 38.0 2 B 47 7-2 0 28 42 21 40 24.5 41.0 2 D 48 7-3 16 29 43 19 36 24.0 39.5 2 C+ 49 6-11 71 24 38 23 45 23.5 41.5 2 A 50 7-1 54 21 33 20 38 20.5 35.5 3 C 51 7-0 44 26 39 19 36 22.5 37.5 3 C 52 6-10 53 20 34 22 43 21.0 38.5 3 B 53 7-1 21 36 51 28 53 32.0 52.0 3 B 54 7-2 5 23 36 18 34 20.5 35.0 3 C+ 55 7-2 21 32 46 15 28 23.5 37.0 3 C 56 6-10 8 18 31 21 41 19.5 36.0 3 c 52 APPENDIX D (2) (Continued) VC VSM S.No. Age SV RS SS RS SS MRS MSS Schl LG 57 7-2 26 28 k2 16 30 22.0 36.0 3 C 58 7-0 26 27 ko 21 40 24.0 40.0 3 C 59 6-10 k2 29 43 18 34 23.5 38.5 3 c 60 6-10 k6 23 37 24 46 23.5 41.5 4 B 61 7-2 27 25 38 22 42 23.5 40.0 4 C+ 62 7-3 2k 22 34 18 34 20.0 34.0 5 C 63 7-3 11 25 38 24 45 24.5 41.5 5 C-64 7-2 70 26 39 25 47 25.5 43.0 5 B 65 7-3 39 23 36 23 43 23.0 39.5 5 B 66 6-10 51 3k 50 19 37 26.5 43.5 5 C 67 7-2 lk 25 38 24 45 25.5 41.5 5 c 68 7-3 5k 19 31 20 38 19.5 34.5 5 B 69 7-1 3 21 33 18 34 19.5 33.5 5 E 53 APPENDIX D (3) SCORES FOR FIFTY FEMALE SUBJECTS AGE 7-4 TO 7-1G VC VSM S.No. Age SV RS SS RS SS MRS MSS Schl LG 70 7-4 55 23 34 17 31 20.0 32.5 1 A 71 7-4 9 25 36 22 40 23.5 38.0 1 -72 7-8 46 27 37 22 39 24.5 38.0 1 B 73 7-7 2 26 37 21 38 23.5 37.5 1 D 74 7-7 19 24 35 22 40 23.0 37.5 1 C+ 75 7-8 57 27 37 20 36 23.5 36.5 1 A 76 7-8 81 25 35 23 41 24.0 38.0 1 A 77 7-8 11 24 34 21 37 22.5 35.5 1 C 78 7-8 57 13 21 23 41 18.0 31.0 2 A 79 7-6 62 37 51 22 40 29.5 5^.5 2 A 80 7-6 62 26 37 17 31 21.5 34.0 2 A 81 7-7 45 22 33 24 44 23.0 38.5 2 B 82 7-7 40 33 45 24 44 28.5 44.5 2 B 83 7-6 39 36 49 20 36 28.0 42.5 2 B 84 7-4 76 33 45 24 44 28.5 44.5 2 A 85 7-8 58 28 39 29 51 28.5 45.0 2 A 86 7-6 3 25 36 18 33 21.5 34.5 3 C-87 7-6 59 34 46 20 36 27.0 41.0 3 B 88 7-6 40 25 36 21 38 23.0 37.0 3 B 89 7-7 69 25 36 23 42 24.0 39.0 3 A 54 APPENDIX D (3) (Continued) VC VSM S.No. Age SV RS SS RS SS MRS MSS Schl LG 90 7-7 52 34 46 20 36 27.0 41.0 3 B 91 7-6 33 29 41 18 33 23.5 37.0 3 C 92 7-7 46 36 49 19 35 27.5 42.0 3 B 93 7-6 45 22 33 23 42 22.5 37.5 3 B 94 7-6 19 18 28 22 40 20.0 34.0 3 C 95 7-4 33 27 39 21 38 24.0 38.5 4 C+ 96 7-6 47 27 39 25 46 26.0 42.5 4 C 97 7-5 11 27 39 21 38 24.0 38.5 4 C+ 98 7-9 37 23 33 19 34 21.0 33.5 4 C+ 99 7-6 58 27 39 23 42 25.0 40.5 4 B 100 7-8 28 32 43 20 36 26,0 39.5 4 C+ 101 7-4 22 23 34 23 42 23.0 38.0 4 c+ 102 7-6 68 35 48 20 36 27.5 42.0 4 B 103 7-5 39 25 36 24 44 24.5 40.0 4 C+ 104 7-4 43 29 41 18 33 23.5 37.0 4 C 105 7-6 31 29 41 28 51 28.5 46.0 4 C+ 106 7-6 6 30 42 22 40 26.0 41.0 5 -107 7-9 44 29 40 23 41 26.0 40.5 5 c+ 108 7-9 32 27 37 16 28 21.5 32.5 5 c 109 7-4 51 30 42 26 48 28.0 45.0 5 c 55 APPENDIX D (3) (Continued) VC VSM S.No. Age SV RS SS RS SS MRS MSS Schl LG 110 7-8 10 26 36 24 43 25.0 39.5 5 C 111 7-9 42 29 40 23 41 26.0 40.5 5 B 112 7-4 71 37 51 18 33 27.5 42.0 5 A 113 7-10 77 33 44 24 43 28.5 43.5 5 B 114 7-7 68 24 35 . 22 40 23.0 37.5 5 A 115 7-4 61 29 41 24 44 26.5 42.5 5 B 116 7-7 41 26 37 23 42 24.5 39.5 5 -117 7-9 76 30 41 18 32 24.0 36.5 5 A 118 7-7 14 21 32 21 38 21.0 35.0 5 C 119 7-7 27 27 39 23 42 25.0 40.5 5 C 56 APPENDIX D (4) SCORES FOR THIRTY-SEVEN MALE SUBJECTS AGE 7-4 TO 7-10 VC VSM S.No. Age SV RS SS RS SS MRS MSS Schl LG 120 7-8 30 36 48 19 34 27.5 41.0 1 B 121 7-5 28 24 35 18 33 21.0 34.0 1 C+ 122 7-5 10 24 35 18 33 21.0 34.0 1 C 123 7-6 34 38 52 21 38 29.5 45.0 1 B 124 7-7 17 33 45 26 48 29.5 46.5 1 C 125 7-6 11 27 39 17 31 22.0 35.0 1 C 126 7-7 46 22 33 21 38 21.5 35.5 2 B 127 7-6 72 29 41 18 33 23.5 37.0 2 B 128 7-5 19 26 37 25 46 25.5 46.5 2 B 129 7-9 18 26 36 17 30 21.5 33.0 2 C 130 7-5 65 30 42 19 35 25.5 38.5 2 B 131 7-8 12 21 30 19 34 20.0 32.0 2 C 132 7-7 4 27 39 20 36 23.5 37.5 3 C 133 7-5 44 24 35 21 38 22.5 36.5 3 B 134 7-4 13 25 36 18 33 21.5 34.5 3 D 135 7-9 8 19 28 22 39 20.5 33.5 3 C 136 7-7 36 29 41 21 38 25.0 39.5 3 D 137 7-6 34 31 43 20 36 25.5 39.5 3 C-138 7-8 9 33 44 24 43 28.5 43.5 3 D 139 7-8 81 34 45 20 36 27.0 40.5 4 A 57 APPENDIX D (4) (Continued) VC VSM S.No. Age SV RS SS RS SS MRS MSS Schl LG 140 7-6 25 29 41 24 44 26.5 42.5 4 C 141 7-5 74 25 36 22 40 23.5 38.0 4 A 142 7-6 38 25 36 22 40 23.5 38.0 4 C 143 7-4 69 26 37 19 35 22.5 36.0 5 B 144 7-5 53 19 30 28 51 23.5 40.5 5 B 145 7-8 50 36 48 21 37 28.5 42.5 5 B 146 7-8 76 34 45 23 41 28.5 43.0 5 A 147 7-6 54 31 43 17 31 24.0 37.0 5 148 7-6 45 21 32 23 42 22.0 37.0 5 B 149 7-8 25 23 33 14 25 18.5 29.0 5 C-150 7-10 3 23 33 18 32 20.5 32.5 5 C 151 7-5 25 21 32 24 44 22.5 38.0 5 C 152 7-5 55 30 42 24 44 27.0 43.0 5 B 153 7-6 55 33 45 24 44 28.5 44.5 5 C+ 154 7-8 58 15 23 19 34 17.0 28.5 5 C 155 7-6 41 23 34 22 40 27.5 37.0 5 C+ 156 7-9 62 29 40 20 36 24.5 38.0 5 B 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054441/manifest

Comment

Related Items