This article was downloaded by:[Pont Univ Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul]On: 14 July 2008Access Details: [subscription number 790386973]Publisher: Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Clinical and ExperimentalNeuropsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713657736

Comparison of nondominant- and dominant-handperformances on the Copy portion of the Rey ComplexFigure Test (RCFT)Maggi A. Budd a; Andrew Houtz a; Paul Lambert aa University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

First Published on: 06 August 2007

To cite this Article: Budd, Maggi A., Houtz, Andrew and Lambert, Paul (2007)'Comparison of nondominant- and dominant-hand performances on the Copyportion of the Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT)', Journal of Clinical and

Experimental Neuropsychology, 30:3, 380 — 386

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/13803390701440478URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803390701440478

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Pon

t Uni

v C

atol

ica

do R

io G

rand

e do

Sul

] At:

19:1

6 14

Jul

y 20

08

© 2007 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

http://www.psypress.com/jcen DOI: 10.1080/13803390701440478

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY2008, 30 (3), 380–386

NCEN Comparison of nondominant- and dominant-hand performances on the Copy portion of the Rey Complex

Figure Test (RCFT)

Nondominant- and Dominant-Hand Performances Maggi A. Budd, Andrew Houtz, and Paul Lambert

University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

Road accidents and falls often result in injury to the dominant hand; however, few studies have evaluated whetherthe use of the nondominant hand confounds pen and paper assessments. This study used a counterbalanced within-subjects design to assess the copy accuracy on the Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT) of 154 undergraduates usingboth their right and left hands. Handedness was determined using Briggs and Nebes’s (1975) revision of Annett’sHandedness Questionnaire. Two independent scorers used objective scoring criteria (Meyers & Meyers, 1995) withhigh interscorer reliability. Performance differences were statistically but not clinically significant. Nondominant-and dominant-hand performances did not differ from normative data: A total of 78.9% scored above the impair-ment cutoff score using the nondominant hand compared to 83.7% using their dominant hand. In the event anindividual’s dominant hand is compromised, performance using the nondominant hand on the RCFT couldproduce scores within the normative range and would not falsely suggest neuropsychological impairment.

It is common for neuropsychologists to utilize aflexible approach when assessing individuals(Lezak, Howieson, & Loring, 2004). This is espe-cially necessary in acute trauma situations when aneuropsychologist must adapt to the physical limi-tations of the person being evaluated. Becausemany neuropsychological evaluations are pen andpaper tests that require the physical activity of writ-ing or drawing, flexibility and creativity are essen-tial when individuals have some impairmentinvolving their dominant or preferred hand. It isnot uncommon for people to have impairment intheir dominant hand (Bush, 2000); focal brainlesions, automobile accidents, and falls often affectfunctioning of the dominant hand (Horowitz &Caplan, 1998). When the dominant hand is com-promised, some neuropsychologists eliminate penand paper tests altogether (Dee & Fontenot, 1969),some use other instruments to measure neurologi-cal functioning, and some administer tests using thenondominant hand without empirical guidelines(Bush, 2000). The lack of empirical justification forthis practice stems from the fact that the norms of

most pen and paper tests were derived from sam-ples of normal subjects using their dominant hand.By using the nonpreferred hand, interpretation oftest results is limited (Bush, 2000; Horowitz &Caplan, 1998) and could even be consideredinvalid. Although motor performance is only asmall part of what the standard Rey Complex FigureTest (RCFT) purports to measure, proper motorexecution is fundamental to fully utilize the test.

Rey (1944/1993) examined the processesinvolved in copying the figure. Rey determinedthat a healthy individual begins by making an“analysis” based on his or her perception of the“whole” figure as being composed of simplerunits. Much neuropsychological information canbe obtained by observing the approach with whichthe individual copies the stimulus (Corwin &Bylsma, 1993; Lezak et al., 2004; Mitrushina,Boone, & D’Elia, 1999), and the strategy used isimportant (Osterrieth, 1944/1993; Rey, 1944/1993). If the copy is made with suboptimalstrategies, it can signify difficulties with attention,“. . . perception itself, and/or execution” (Rey,

Address correspondence to Maggi A. Budd, University of North Texas, Psychology Department, Terrill Hall, Denton, TX 76203,USA (E-mail: magbudd@yahoo.com).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Pon

t Uni

v C

atol

ica

do R

io G

rand

e do

Sul

] At:

19:1

6 14

Jul

y 20

08

NONDOMINANT- AND DOMINANT-HAND PERFORMANCES 381

1944/1993, p. 6). Chervinsky, Mitrushina, andSatz (1992) delineate specific abilities necessary tocomplete the RCFT successfully. For the copytask, three essential abilities are: (a) to correctlyperceive the geometric visual stimuli, (b) to organ-ize the image into subdivisions to prepare formotor execution, and (c) the physical ability tomotorically execute each individual componentrespective to the other components. A deficit inany of these three steps, or any deficit in Rey’scomponents of attention, perception, or execu-tion, would produce an inadequate copy of theRCFT. The current researchers propose that usingthe nondominant hand should not interfere withattention or perception and will only minimallyinterfere with motor execution. Because the RCFTscoring criteria permit most intact individuals toscore in the “superior” range (Mitrushina et al.,1999), we believe motor interference will not besufficient to erroneously suggest pathology.

We expected performance differences betweenpreferred and nonpreferred hand, particularly forspeed (Provins, 1997; Roy, 1996; Triggs, Calva-nio, Levine, Heaton, & Heilman, 2000) and accu-racy (Carson, Elliot, Goodman, & Dickinson,1990; DeAgostini, Curt, Tzortzis, & Dellatolas,1999; Salazar & Knapp, 1996; Zacharias & Kirk,1998); however, we expect the differences to beclinically insignificant. The use of the nondomi-nant hand has been shown to influence drawingperformance (Zacharias & Kirk, 1998) but not toclinically interfere with completing other neu-ropsychological tests such as the Benton VisualRetention Test (BVRT) (Dee & Fontenot, 1969),some Wechsler Adult Intelligent Scale (WAIS)subtests (Briggs, 1960), Trail Making Test(Horowitz & Caplan, 1998), and the Clock Draw-ing Test (Bush, 2000). The motor strip is largelyresponsible for motor execution of the actual task(Kolb & Whishaw, 1996) whereas the underlyingneural substrates process and dictate the manualaction to be performed (Carlson, 1998). Thesepremises, along with Lezak’s (1995) position thatan intact brain has no strong lateralization andthat cortical and subcortical visuo-spatial proc-esses are independent from drawing motor skills,lead the authors to hypothesize that there wouldbe no difference in normal subjects’ performanceon copying accuracy on the RCFT using boththeir dominant and nondominant hands. The pur-pose of this study was only to determine whethernondominant-hand performance differed fromdominant-hand performance when copying thefigure. Therefore, the qualitative aspects of draw-ing and any effects on memory recall were notassessed.

METHOD

Participants

A total of 160 undergraduate students enrolled in aHealth Psychology class at the University of NorthTexas volunteered to participate. The participantsranged in age from 17 to 42 years; their mean agewas 20.32 years. All participants had undisturbedmotility of both upper limbs, normal or correctedvision and hearing, and no history of physical, neu-rological, or psychiatric conditions, or no currentmedication that could impair cognitive, visual, orgraphomotor functioning. None of the partici-pants had previously taken the RCFT. Both domi-nant right- and left-handed individuals wereincluded in this study. Bryden, Bulman-Fleming,and MacDonald (1996) assert that true “pathologi-cal” left-handers (e.g., people who are left-handedas a result of brain damage) should be excludedfrom research due to potential distortions in varia-bles; however, they and Briggs and Nebes (1975)agree that this category is relatively rare in under-graduate subjects.

Materials

Handedness questionnaire

Participants completed Briggs and Nebes’s(1975) revision of Annett’s (1967) HandednessQuestionnaire to determine their degree of handed-ness by answering 12 items related to hand prefer-ence (e.g., writing a letter; throwing a ball at atarget; holding a match). This questionnaire hasbeen standardized on large populations and hasbeen tested for reliability.

Rey Complex Figure Test

The RCFT was developed by Rey (1941, as citedin Spreen & Strauss, 1998), elaborated by Oster-rieth, and translated by Corwin and Bylsma(Osterrieth, 1944/1993). Although current adminis-tration procedures vary (Spreen & Strauss, 1998),the RCFT generally involves having an individualcopy a complex figure, then immediately redraw it,and then draw it again from memory 30 minuteslater. For the purposes of this experiment, the par-ticipants were only administered the Copy portionof the RCFT. Although there are several valuablesystems for scoring the Rey Figure (Charter,Walden, & Padilla, 2000; see Chervinsky et al.,1992, for system comparisons), the examineradministered the RCFT according to the Meyersand Meyers (1995) protocol.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Pon

t Uni

v C

atol

ica

do R

io G

rand

e do

Sul

] At:

19:1

6 14

Jul

y 20

08

382 BUDD, HOUTZ, LAMBERT

Design and procedure

All steps in the procedure were administered as agroup. Previous research on other visuo-spatialtests (Brannigan & Brannigan, 1995; Cox & Blount,1998) revealed no significant differences in per-formances between individual and group adminis-tration. Appropriate counterbalancing of handused in the two copy trials was achieved by distrib-uting packets containing the handedness question-naire and indicators whether participants were tofirst copy the figure using the dominant hand or thenondominant hand. To account for order and/orpractice effects, the packets were randomly distrib-uted so that 79 participants first copied the figureusing their dominant hand, and 75 participants firstcopied the figure using their nondominant hand.

A computer-rendered replica of Rey’s originalpublication (1941, as cited in Spreen & Strauss,1998) of the Rey Complex Figure Test was placedon an opaque projector in landscape orientation.Projecting the image is a nonstandard administra-tion of the RCFT; however, studies indicate thatthere is not an interaction involving the accuracyof hand movements and visual condition; visualinformation is utilized comparably by the hand/hemisphere systems (Carson, 1992). The figure wasremoved after 5 minutes.

Interrater reliability

Two doctoral students, one blind to the purpose ofthe study, scored the response forms in accordancewith Meyers and Meyers (1995). In addition to pro-vide interscorer reliability, double scoring was doneto reduce the potential for clerical errors in scoringthe Rey Figure (Charter et al., 2000). Osterrieth(1944/1993) cautioned researchers using a largenumber of participants to be aware of possible errorsof omissions or repetitions in scoring due to the tedi-ous scoring methods. Data analyses were performedusing the SPSS-PC (Plus 4.0) statistical package.

RESULTS

Interscorer reliability

Overall, the raters were highly correlated with littlevariance within each evaluator’s scores. Pearsoncorrelations yielded r = .95 (p < .001) for eachdominant-hand score and nondominant-handscore, which is comparable to other findings oninterscorer reliability (Carr & Lincoln, 1988) andthose in the standardization study (Meyers & Meyers,1995). The two scores given to each protocol wereaveraged to obtain overall figure scores.

Descriptives

Participants consisted of 160 undergraduate students;6 individuals with “mixed” handedness were excludedfrom all analyses, leaving 154 students in the finalanalyses. The sample used comprised 39% men and61% women; 88.1% were dominant right-handed,and 8.1% were dominant left-handed. Our popula-tion’s handedness is comparable to that of Briggs andNebes’s (1975) standardization sample (85.6% righthanded, 9.1% left handed; Fennell, 1986).

Normative comparison

Table 1 displays mean scores for dominant- andnondominant-hand performances, showing thatusing the nondominant hand most often producedscores within normal limits. Figure 1 shows thatboth dominant- and nondominant-hand scoreswere comparable to the normative data publishedin Meyers and Meyers (1995).

Within-group comparison

A paired t test on dominant versus nondominanthand for copy performance revealed a statisticallysignificant difference between the means of thesetwo performances, t(153)=3.17, p < .001; however,the absolute values of these scores were within thenormal range, and an absolute value of .4 differ-ence of summed scores is not clinically relevant.

Between-group comparison

Performances of the group who first copied thefigure using their dominant hand did not differ signif-icantly from those of the group who first copied thefigure using their nondominant hand, t(152), p > .05.

Practice effects

Participants copied the figure in a counterbalancedsequence. A 2 (time)×2 (order of hand used) analysis

TABLE 1 Percentage of perfect scores and nonimpaired scores using

the dominant and nondominant hand

Score

Perfect Within nonimpaired range

Nondominant hand 26.30 78.90Dominant hand 41.90 83.70

Note. Perfect scores: total 36; nonimpaired scores >33.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Pon

t Uni

v C

atol

ica

do R

io G

rand

e do

Sul

] At:

19:1

6 14

Jul

y 20

08

NONDOMINANT- AND DOMINANT-HAND PERFORMANCES 383

of variance (ANOVA) test was computed to estab-lish whether order of administration of the copytask had a significant effect. A significant interac-tion effect was found when comparing order ofhand used on copy accuracy, F(1, 152)=11.44, p <.001. Table 2 presents the cell means. A F test runon the simple effects on the cell means concluded asignificant differential carry-over effect for thosewho used their nondominant hand first, F(1,148)=9.45, p < .01. People who completed the trialusing their nondominant hand first performed bet-ter than people who started the copy trials usingtheir dominant hand. No significance was found forthe transfer of those who drew the first copy trialwith their dominant hand. Although statisticallysignificant, clinical significance is interpretable witha .88 difference between highest and lowest mean.All means remained within the normative range andabove a score that would suggest impairment.

DISCUSSION

The present statistical analysis supports the hypoth-esis that the nondominant hand can produce a clini-cally accurate copy of the RCFT. Performancedifferences, between subjects after the first trial andwithin subjects across both trials, were compared,and counterbalancing the sequence of administra-tion controlled for practice effect. The within-sub-jects’ comparison yielded statistical significance dueto the power gained (power=.94) from a large sam-ple size and from a within-subjects design, alongwith a differential practice effect. Despite a statisti-cally significant difference found within subjects, adifference of .4 (absolute value) in scores is not clini-cally significant. The between-group comparisonshowed no difference on copy accuracy scoresbetween those who used their dominant hand andthose who used their nondominant hand. Most

Figure 1. Male, female, and combined dominant- and nondominant-hand scores as compared to published normative data (Meyers &Meyers, 1995; z = 0.26, p > .30 dominant hand, z = –0.16, p > .40 nondominant hand). All scores are above a cutoff for probablepathology (33).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DominantNon-Dominant

Scoreindicatesimpairmentif less than33 >

Malesn = 60 (39%)

Femalesn = 94 (61%)

Totaln = 154

Normativen = 394

Males

Dominant

Non-Dominant

Normative TotalFemales

SD MeanSDMeanSDMeanMean SD

2.75 34.291.6634.781.734.711.634.83

1.87 34.361.4434.562.434.01

TABLE 2 Means for the interaction effect for order of drawing and hand used to copy

Scores Order of drawing Mean SD

Dominant hand First copy used nondominant hand 35.12 1.36First copy used dominant hand 34.46 1.84

Nondominant hand First copy used nondominant hand 34.24 2.00First copy used dominant hand 34.48 1.76

Note. Interaction effect, F(1, 152)=11.44, p < .01. A differential carry-over effect was found for thosewho made the first copy using their nondominant hand and used their dominant hand second,F(1, 148)=9.45, p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Pon

t Uni

v C

atol

ica

do R

io G

rand

e do

Sul

] At:

19:1

6 14

Jul

y 20

08

384 BUDD, HOUTZ, LAMBERT

notable is that all scores were comparable to pub-lished norms (Meyers & Meyers, 1995). As hypothe-sized, in the event that an individual’s dominanthand is compromised, performance using the non-dominant hand on the copy trial of the RCFTwould produce scores within the normal range if noother neurological impairment exists. Using thenondominant hand on the RCFT has practical rele-vance for neuropsychologists. While the RCFTalone does not imply a central nervous system disor-der (Rey, 1944/1993), it can contribute much to adiagnostic test battery (Lezak et al., 2004).

Although copy accuracy scores were somewhatdiminished using the nondominant hand, scoreswere not low enough to suggest pathology. Figure 2shows an example of one student’s drawing usingher dominant hand compared to the drawing usingher nondominant hand. The straight lines in draw-ings made with the nondominant hand exemplifieda characteristic unevenness that was not present inthose drawings produced using the dominanthand, but this feature does not impede scoring, andthe performance is within the normative range anddoes not suggest impairment. Using the nondomi-nant hand does not produce “perfect” scores as fre-quently as does the dominant hand; however, bothperformances produce adequate scores that arecomparable to the published normative data (Meyers& Meyers, 1995; refer to Figure 1).

The findings of this study indicate that the handused in copying the RCFT is not a confound andmay be used in clinical neuropsychological assess-ment. Results from this study are consistent withfindings from previous studies indicating that thenondominant hand produces similar results tothose for the dominant hand when using an assess-ment tool (Briggs, 1960) and specifically a con-structional assessment tool (Bush, 2000; Dee &Fontenot, 1969; Horowitz & Caplan, 1998). Theidea of using the nonpreferred hand when the pre-ferred hand is inoperable is theoretically justified

and practically relevant as there are occasionswhen a patient is unable to use the dominant handnormally, and a standard administration is notpossible (Bush, 2000; Horowitz & Caplan, 1998;Lezak et al., 2004).

One limitation of this study is demographics.Participants had a restricted age range (17–42years) and a higher level of education that may notbe representative of many patients evaluated forneurological functioning. Studies have shown thatoverall between-hand performances change withage (Bryden et al., 1996; DeAgostini et al., 1999;Fennell, 1986). Some researchers claim that ageaffects RCFT copy accuracy (Mitrushina et al.,1999), and others say that only minor decrementshappen with age (Chervinsky et al., 1992). Meyersand Meyers (1995) state that copy performance isrelatively stable between the age decades of 20, 30,and 40. Performance on the RCFT reportedlydeclines after age 50 due to an increased timeneeded to copy the design. Age-related effects onperformance differences between hands in line-bisection tasks have been found. Right-handedyoung children (5–6 years) showed a left-handadvantage, and older adults (60–94 years) showeda right-hand advantage (DeAgostini et al., 1999).In the same study, DeAgostini et al. did not findsignificant between-hand differences for right-handed adult subjects (20–45 years), the same agedecades that Meyers and Meyers (1995) report ashaving stable copy performances. Whether theRCFT using the nondominant hand is a confoundfor individuals outside the sample’s age range mustbe empirically determined. A follow-up study witha representative distribution of ages could rule outage as a confound in the current study.

Another factor that could have decreased the dif-ferences found between dominant- and nondomi-nant-hand performances is the encouragement thatparticipants received during the two trials. Annett(1992) believes that the skill of the nonpreferred

Figure 2. Example of left- and right-hand performances of an individual’s copy of the Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Pon

t Uni

v C

atol

ica

do R

io G

rand

e do

Sul

] At:

19:1

6 14

Jul

y 20

08

NONDOMINANT- AND DOMINANT-HAND PERFORMANCES 385

hand may be underestimated in the literature due toresearchers not encouraging subjects to work totheir full potential, and thus the performance differ-ences between hands is exaggerated. Results in thecurrent study may support this as the participantswere strongly encouraged to draw to their best abil-ity using their nondominant hand.

Our study is unique in that most studies on hand-edness seek to investigate the qualities unique to thepreferred hand, and many studies attempt to impli-cate hemispheric involvement with handedness(Andrews, 1999; Fennell, 1986; Gabbard, Iteya, &Rabb, 1997; Geschwind & Galaburda, 1987).Unless a task is very simple, both hemispheres areinvolved in processing (Henninger, 1992). It is diffi-cult to comprehend the unique qualities of the pre-ferred hand without first recognizing what thehands have in common, in terms of both their util-ity and their proficiency. The correlation betweenhands might provide information about hemi-spheric interactions, or at least indicate whethereach hand uses the same processing systems.

Certain constructional qualities have been asso-ciated with either left or right hemisphere impair-ment (Lezak et al., 2004; Spreen & Strauss, 1998).Some of these poor constructional qualities, how-ever, may be misattributed to hemispheric impair-ment when, in fact, the inadequacy had more to dowith low-level motor responses than the suspectedimpairment (Kirk & Kertesz, 1989; Zacharias &Kirk, 1998). Zacharias and Kirk studied thequalitative constructional differences between theright- and left- hand drawings in normal elderlyright-handed subjects as compared to patients withknown left-hemisphere damage. Both groupsexhibited similar and differential constructionalqualities. Left-handed drawings in normal elderlyindividuals were similar to drawings made bypatients with left-hemisphere disorders in that theywere simplified and tremulous and had overallpoor quality. Thus, by identifying these commonconstructional features we can obtain a baseline ofcomparison when impairment is suspected, provid-ing a way to disentangle low-level motor errorsfrom cognitively based errors that occur with hemi-spheric damage.

The present study most likely obscures the over-all complexity of motor performance betweendominant and nondominant hands yet it providesa basis for generating alternative methods toadminister to a clinical population that, by its verynature, often requires flexibility. Given that thisstudy indicates there are no clinically significantdifferences between the hand used for the RCFTcopy trial, it would be valuable to explore the feasi-bility of adapting the use of the nonpreferred hand

to other tests that are ordinarily administered withthe preferred hand. We hope that the results of thisstudy generate further research in nondominant-hand administration in neuropsychological instru-ments of several types and whether it can be usedwith clinical populations. Perhaps additionalnorms using the nondominant hand may be applic-able for some tests. This line of research will notonly offer a practical alternative solution when thepreferred hand is incapacitated, but as Dee andFontenot (1969) state, “such an investigation [withthe nonpreferred hand] might well alter some con-ventional notions about the inter- and intrahemi-spheric localizing significance” (p. 279) that is vitalfor understanding neuropsychological functioning.

Original manuscript received 24 March 2005Revised manuscript accepted 19 December 2005

First published online 6 August 2007

REFERENCES

Andrews, M. W. (1999). Emergence of handedness in bon-net macaques (Macaca radiata) on a task they wereequally capable of performing with the left or righthand. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 1280–1282.

Annett, M. (1992). Five tests of hand skill. Cortex, 28,583–600.

Brannigan, G. G., & Brannigan, M. J. (1995). Compari-son of individual versus group administration of themodified version of the Bender–Gestalt test. Percep-tual and Motor Skills, 80, 1274.

Briggs, P. F. (1960). The validity of WAIS Performancesubtests completed with one hand. Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 16, 318–320.

Briggs, G. G., & Nebes, R. B. (1975). Patterns of handpreference in a student population. Cortex, 11, 230–238.

Bryden, M. P., Bulman-Fleming, M. B., & MacDonald, V.(1996). The measurement of handedness and its rela-tion to neuropsychological issues. In D. Elliott & E.Roy (Eds.), Manual asymmetries in motor perform-ance (pp. 57–82). New York: CRC Press.

Bush, S. (2000). Intermanual differences in performing avisuoconstructional task. Archives of PhysiologicalMedical Rehabilitation, 81, 1151–1152.

Carlson, N. R. (1998). Physiology of behavior (6th ed.).Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Carr, E. K., & Lincoln, N. (1988). Interrater reliabilityof the Rey figure copying test. British Journal of Clin-ical Psychology, 27, 267–268.

Carson, R. G. (1992). Visual feedback processing andmanual asymmetries: An evolving perspective. InL. Proteau & D. Elliot (Eds.), Advances in psychol-ogy: No. 85. Vision and motor control (pp. 49–65).Oxford, UK: North-Holland.

Carson, R. G., Elliot, D., Goodman, D., & Dickinson,J. D. (1990). Manual asymmetries in the reproductionof a 3-dimensional spatial location. Neuropsycholo-gia, 28, 99–102.

Charter, R. A., Walden, D. W., & Padilla, S. P. (2000).Too many simple clerical scoring errors: The Rey

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Pon

t Uni

v C

atol

ica

do R

io G

rand

e do

Sul

] At:

19:1

6 14

Jul

y 20

08

386 BUDD, HOUTZ, LAMBERT

Figure as an example. Journal of Clinical Psychology,56, 571–574.

Chervinsky, A. B., Mitrushina, M., & Satz, P. (1992). Com-parison of four methods of scoring the Rey–OsterriethComplex Figure Drawing Test on four age groups ofnormal elderly. Brain Dysfunction, 5, 267–287.

Corwin, J., & Bylsma, F. W. (1993). Commentary ontranslations of the Rey (1941) and Osterrieth (1944).The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7, 3–21.

Cox, W. M., & Blount, J. P. (1998). Individual versusgroup administration of the Memory-for-Designs testto alcoholics. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 16,113–118.

DeAgostini, M., Curt, F., Tzortzis, C., & Dellatolas, G.(1999). Comparing left and right hand in line bisec-tion at different ages. Developmental Neuropsychol-ogy, 15, 379–394.

Dee, H. L., & Fontenot, D. J. (1969). Use of the nonpre-ferred hand in graphomotor performance: A method-ological study. Confinia Neurologica: Borderlands ofNeurology, 31, 273–280.

Fennell, E. B. (1986). Handedness in neuropsychologicalresearch. In H. J. Hannay (Ed.), Experimental tech-niques in human neuropsychology (pp. 15–44). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Gabbard, C., Iteya, M., & Rabb, C. (1997). A lateralizedcomparison of handedness and object proximity.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51,179–180.

Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A. M. (1987). Cerebrallateralization: Biological mechanisms, associations,and pathology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Henninger, P. (1992). Handedness and lateralization. InA. E. Puente & R. J. McCaffrey (Eds.), Handbook ofneuropsychological assessment: A biopsychosocial per-spective (pp. 141–179). New York: Plenum Press.

Horowitz, T., & Caplan, B. (1998). Dominant and non-dominant hand performance on the trail making test[Abstract]. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 13,71–72.

Kirk, A., & Kertesz, A. (1989). Hemispheric contribu-tions to drawing. Neuropsychologia, 27, 881–886.

Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (1996). Fundamentals ofhuman neuropsychology (4th ed.). New York: W. H.Freeman and Company.

Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rded.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004).Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). New York:Oxford University Press.

Meyers, J., & Meyers, K. (1995). The Meyers scoring sys-tem for the Rey Complex Figure and the RecognitionTrial: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychologi-cal Assessment Resources.

Mitrushina, M. N., Boone, K. B., & D’Elia, L. F. (1999).Handbook of normative data for neuropsychologicalassessment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Osterrieth, P. A. (1993). The Complex Figure Copy Test(J. Corwin & F. W. Bylsma, Trans). The Clinical Neu-ropsychologist, 7, 9–15. (Original work published 1944)

Provins, K. A. (1997). The specificity of motor skill andmanual asymmetry: A review of the evidence and itsimplications. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29, 183–192.

Rey, A. (1993). Psychological examination of traumaticencephalopathy (J. Corwin & F. W. Bylsma, Trans.).The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7, 4–8. (Originalwork published 1944)

Roy, E. A. (1996). Hand preference, manual asym-metries, and limb apraxia. In D. Elliott & E. Roy(Eds.), Manual asymmetries in motor performance(pp. 245–238). New York: CRC Press.

Salazar, P. S., & Knapp, R. K. (1996). Preferred andnonpreferred hand skill in performing four industrialtasks. Human Performance, 9, 65–75.

Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of neu-ropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and com-mentary (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Triggs, W. J., Calvanio, R., Levine, M., Heaton, R. K., &Heilman, K. M. (2000). Predicting hand preference withperformance on motor tasks. Cortex, 36, 679–689.

Zacharias, S., & Kirk, A. (1998). Drawing with thenon-dominant hand: Implications for the study ofconstruction. The Canadian Journal of NeurologicalSciences, 25, 306–330.