3 Brief Background Georgia State University 4 Bender-Gestalt
By Lauretta Bender 1938
One of the most used psychological tests.
Developmental test for children and psychopathology in adults
Individually administered paper and pencil test that contains 9 geometric figures.
Original figures from Wertheimers (1923) research in perception
Pragnantz and the laws of perception
6 L. Bender
Bender (1938) operated under the assumption that the visual gestalt function is a fundamental function associated with language ability and closely associated with various functions of intelligence such as visual perception manual motor ability memory temporal and spatial concepts and organization (p. 112).
7 Constructs and Models
Visual-Motor Perception and Integration
Bender Maturation and psychopathology
Hutt psychodynamic projective personality
Lacks Neuropsychological screener
8 Koppitz Model 9 Overview Previous Research
mainstay in the assessment batteryas an assessment tool in appraisal of intelligenceas a screening technique for neuropsychological dysfunction a clinical tool for sampling visual-motor proficiency and as a standard projective technique in the assessment of personality (p.1272)
Optic Ataxia deficit in visually guided hand movements
Prosopagnosia facial agnosia
Alexia inability to read
15 (No Transcript) 16 Scoring Systems (Bender)
evaluated the overall quality of each design on a scale that ranged from 1 to 5 on one design to 1 to 7 on others.
provided detailed descriptions of each point on the scale for each design.
advocated the use of global scoring systems over error based systems which she felt oversimplified the processes involved and failed to do justice to the test.
17 Scoring System by Keogh and Smith in 1961
involved rating each design on a five-point scale based on the overall quality of the production. A score of 1 would be given when a figure was unrecognizable and a score of 5 would be given when all parts of the figure were present and recognizable. Although the system generated some research the authors never provided normative data.
18 deHirsch Jansky and Langford (1966)
The scoring system used a single global inspection procedure that yielded a pass or fail for each design. The system evaluated the essentials of the gestalt and the degree of differentiation of each design.
19 Brannigan and Brunner (1989 1996 2002)
six designs (A 1 2 4 6 and 8) as deHirsch Jansky and Langford (1966) and Jansky and deHirsch (1972) a six-point scoring system was devised for greater differentiation in scoring each design. Scoring ranged from 0 for random drawing scribbling having no concept of the design to 3 all major elements present and recognizable with only minor distortions to 5 accurate representation.
20 Error Based
Koppitz (scoring by statistical fiat classroom of children teacher opinion)
Does not capture whole design (see ASB Innovative Features of BG II (Brannigan Decker Madsen)
Similar to pathognomic signs
21 History of Scoring
Qualitative methods based on rating scale demonstrate high reliability and validity (Sattler)
Capture whole performance
Clear construct dimension
22 Overview of new Developments The revision of the BGT is currently taking place and includes 1. New items 2. Memory recall 3. National norms (N5000) 4. Clinical validity 5. Time and planning estimates 6. Quantitative/Qualitative scoring 7. Co-normed with Stanford-Binet 8. Test observation form 23 Item Selection
Expert Rating Scale (Difficulty Inclusion)
Scoring Criteria Analysis
Selection of New Items
24 Some Difficulties
How to select gestalt items.
25 Initial selection of items We began by generating a large number of possible items. Some of these items were created to lower the floor of the test (very easy items) and some to raise the ceiling (very difficult items). The initial set of 66 items were reviewed by our panel in order to select the most promising items for further testing. 26 Rating Scale Reviewers were asked to rate each item in terms how difficult they felt it was (Very Easy to Very Difficult on a 4 point Likert scale) and desirability/compatibility with existing designs (Definitely Exclude to Definitely Include on a 4 point Likert scale.) 27 Rating scale analysis Responses to the difficulty and inclusion scales were analyzed separately with WINSTEPS in a two stage process. The inclusion scale was used to select the items which raters were more likely to approve (high probability of Include or Definitely Include). The mean person measure of -0.33 indicates that our raters were more likely to exclude items than to include them however due to the RMSE of .38 for item measures we selected all items with an inclusion measure below 0 (lower measures mean the item is easier to include). 28 Rating scale analysis The second stage in the selection process involved the perception of item difficulty. Because we are interested in items for the top and bottom of the scale we used the ratings of item difficulty to select from the high inclusion items. Items which were rated very easy or very hard were selected for the testing by preschoolers and adolescents/adults respectively. We therefore cut down the number of items we needed to test from 66 to 16 (6 easy and 10 hard) based on the initial review process. 29 Scoring the original 9 designs In order to compare the difficulty of the new designs with those in the original Bender-Gestalt Test we first had to arrive at a method for scoring those items. The original Bender-Gestalt test had been administered with the Stanford-Binet tryout study in 2000. Responses from a sample of examinees between the ages of 5 and 13 were selected and scored using a rubric designed to measure the accuracy of responses. This initial rubric specified 3 criteria to check for each item yielding a score of 0-3 points for each item. 30 Item Tryout Two forms were created to test the new items. The preschool form contained the 3 easiest items from the current Bender-Gestalt Test as well as the 6 new items. The adolescent/adult form contained all 9 items from the current BGT as well as 10 new items. For the purpose of comparing performance on the new items with that on the original 9 items earlier cases which had only taken the 9 BGT items were analyzed with the new sample. 31 Scoring Systems Global Scoring rating scale Error Based - Certain errors associated with different pathologies. Accuracy Based (criteria of how close the reproduction is to the actual figure) Qualitative signs from test observation 32 Scoring Multimethod Scoring criteria from a variety of methods (from the 1930s to the present) were studied. These criteria often include a variety of errors within a single criteria. For example either of the reproductions below would qualify for Simplification in the Lacks system because the complete design has been broken into its component parts. 33 Scoring Identification of Errors Criteria combined redundancies removed Can be recombined into the original scoring system at a later date. Characteristics of these errors can be examined and their relationship to different diagnoses tested. When the various methods and criteria are combined a total of 436 errors are possible for the 16 designs on the BGT-R. 34 Examples of Errors
Test Item Rotation error 35 Examples of BGT-R Errors Retrogression error Test Item 36 Examples of BGT-R Errors Simplification Test Item 37 Scoring Global Scoring System
1 Slight Vague Resemblance
2 Some Moderate Resemblance
3 Strong Accurate Resemblance
4 Nearly Perfect
38 Example of items rotation - 30 degree rotation - 45 degree rotation - 90 degree rotation - mirror image Rotation - one figure rotated relative to other Closure Difficulty - Shapes fail to touch Closure Difficulty - Shapes overlap Closure Difficulty - Sketching or reworking at point of intersect Closure Difficulty - Distortion of the figure at point of intersect Perseveration - Drew figure multiple times Simplification - Shapes greater than 1/8 inch apart Simplification - Diamond as disconnected pieces Distortion - missing or extra angle(s) in diamond Distortion - either shape misshapen Distortion - double line Retrogression - square or triangle for diamond Fragmentation - Part of design missing Fragmentation - Drew only left half of figure Fragmentation - Drew only right half of figure 39 Accuracy
____All dots are round and solid. Column 1 contains 1 dot column 2 3 column3 5 column4 7.
___Alignment Middle dots 1 5 8 and 10 (see picture) can be connected with a straight line
___Left to right downward slant of dots above middle dots (1 5 8 and 10). Left to right upward slant of dots below middle dots (1 5 8 and 10)
All systems correlated
Global Scoring System
High correlation with Accuracy
Easy to use understandable
Sensitive to clinical groups
Copy and Recall
Test Observation Form
Motor and Perception
42 Administration Procedure
4 years through 7 years 11 months
8 years and above
Items 5 -16
43 Observation Form 44 Administration 45 Motor Perception Tests 46 Demonstration
Find a partner
Get several pieces of blank paper
47 Administration Copy
I have a number of cards here. Each card has a different drawing on it. I will show you the cards one at a time.
Use this pencil (give pencil to examinee) to copy the drawing from each card onto this sheet of paper (point to the drawing paper). Try to make your drawings look just like the drawings on the cards. There are no time limits so take as much time as you need.
Do you have any questions Here is the first card.
48 Administration Recall
Now I want you to draw as many of the designs that I just showed you as you can remember. Draw them on this new sheet of paper. Try to make your drawings just like the ones on the cards that you saw earlier. There are no time limits so take as much time as you need.
49 Switch Partners
50 Example of BGT-II performance. 51 Scoring Global Scoring System
1 Slight Vague Resemblance
2 Some Moderate Resemblance
3 Strong Accurate Resemblance
4 Nearly Perfect
52 Standard Scores
Global Scoring System
Norms table (pdf 1)
Copy Recall (no 4 year old recall)
Co-normed with Stanford-Binet Fifth Edition
Age Sex Race Geographic Region Education (p. 33)
54 Descriptive labels for Bender-Gestalt II standard scores
145-160 Extremely advanced
130-144.1 Very high or very advanced
120-129.1 High or advanced
110-119 High average
80-89 Low average
70-79 Low or borderline delayed
55-69 Very low or mildly delayed
40-54 Extremely low /delayed
56 Growth Curve (p. 59)
Rise and Fall of Visual-motor ability
Increases sharply at young ages
Levels off around age 16 to 49
Declines around age 50
Normative base allows for better geriatric assessments
WIAT WJ III
58 Factor Analysis WISC 59 Clinical Validity
Non-clinical subject from normative sample
Matched on Age Sex Race Parent Education
For multiple matches random number used
Statistical significance and Effect Size used.
General Effect Size is Large (Cohen 1987 .2 small .5medium .8 gt large).
60 Clinical Validity Groups (p. 61)
LD (Reading Math Spelling)
..the need is not so much for more tests as it is for a better and more complete utilization of existing tests. Koppitz (1963)
time and energy..curtailed..rarely unproductive..
physiological limitations associated with illness injury fatigue
or muscular weakness
physically disabling conditions such as low birth weight
cerebral palsy or sickle cell anemia
social or cultural deprivation
63 Additional Factors
taking an excessively long time to complete the task
tracing the design with a finger before drawing it
anchoring by placing a finger on each portion of a design
while drawing it
glancing briefly at a design and then drawing it from memory
turning the design card or drawing paper in order to complete
65 Clinical Cases WNL 66 Assessment Process
Review Referral Info
Obtain Background Social and Setting Information
Select Administer Tests
Communicate with Teacher/Parent
67 Decision Making Context
Review Background/Referral Info
Attention Simple Vision Perceptual Motor Motivation Learning Disability
Confirmation from multiple sources
68 Case Study
Constructs and models
Overview of new developments
Preliminary data analysis
PowerShow.com is a leading presentation/slideshow sharing website. Whether your application is business, how-to, education, medicine, school, church, sales, marketing, online training or just for fun, PowerShow.com is a great resource. And, best of all, most of its cool features are free and easy to use.
You can use PowerShow.com to find and download example online PowerPoint ppt presentations on just about any topic you can imagine so you can learn how to improve your own slides and presentations for free. Or use it to find and download high-quality how-to PowerPoint ppt presentations with illustrated or animated slides that will teach you how to do something new, also for free. Or use it to upload your own PowerPoint slides so you can share them with your teachers, class, students, bosses, employees, customers, potential investors or the world. Or use it to create really cool photo slideshows - with 2D and 3D transitions, animation, and your choice of music - that you can share with your Facebook friends or Google+ circles. That's all free as well!
For a small fee you can get the industry's best online privacy or publicly promote your presentations and slide shows with top rankings. But aside from that it's free. We'll even convert your presentations and slide shows into the universal Flash format with all their original multimedia glory, including animation, 2D and 3D transition effects, embedded music or other audio, or even video embedded in slides. All for free. Most of the presentations and slideshows on PowerShow.com are free to view, many are even free to download. (You can choose whether to allow people to download your original PowerPoint presentations and photo slideshows for a fee or free or not at all.) Check out PowerShow.com today - for FREE. There is truly something for everyone!