This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 19 October 2014, At: 22:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Slow Learning ChildPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd18

Responses of Mentally Retarded Children on a VisualDiscrimination Task Involving Concept FormationBetty H. Bradley aa Research Psychologist , Columbus State Institute , OhioPublished online: 06 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Betty H. Bradley (1971) Responses of Mentally Retarded Children on a Visual Discrimination Task InvolvingConcept Formation, The Slow Learning Child, 18:1, 34-41, DOI: 10.1080/0156655710180106

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0156655710180106

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Responses of Mentally Retarded Children on a VisualDiscrimination Task Involving Concept Formation

Betty H. Bradley, Research Psychologist, Columbus State Institute, Ohio.

Abstract

This study evaluated 3 groups of mentally retarded children on avisual discrimination reading readiness task. Ss included 75 mentallyretarded persons residing at the Columbus State Institute divided into5 MA groups ranging from 3 years to 8 years. Three different groupsof 25 Ss were matched on CA, MA, and IQ and two of these werepaired on perceptual functioning on the basis of Gellner classifications.The third group included 25 Ss diagnosed as having genetic mechan-isms. The task consisted of 100 cards of three coloured pictures withtwo of them being associated. Results showed the minimally handi-capped visual group performed higher than the other two groups.MA was highly related to success especially for the highest MA group.Implications of these data are discussed.

The purpose of this experiment is to investigate the responses ofthree groups of moderately retarded subjects (Ss) of varying mentalage levels to a visual discrimination task involving some conceptformation. A secondary purpose is to determine if perceptual difficul-ties described in accordance with the Gellner theory affect performancelevels. Gellner (1959) in her descriptions of perceptual deficits affect-ing the performance of mentally retarded children included twoseparate visual categories. She considered the Visual Motor child tohave difficulty in form matching, judging distances, imitating move-ments and poor eye-hand co-ordination. The other visual perceptualdeficit was designated as Visual Autonomic, which included thosechildren deficient in picture recognition, colour matching, with poorvisual concentration and hyperactivity. Gellner (1959) also designedteaching methods and materials to aid the classroom teacher in aidingchildren with these perceptual handicaps. It is necessary for theteacher of mentally retarded children to determine the relative import-ance of factors such as chronological age (CA), mental age (MA), andintelligence quotient (IQ) as well as perceptual problems in teachingbasic skills such as reading and number.

Durbin (1967) in a discussion of teaching techniques for the men-tally retarded and pre-reading students emphasizes the need to know

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 22:

14 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

how their handicaps affect their learning and to understand the im-plications of the qualitative differences in their learning characteristics.Connor (1968) also describes the recent trends in curriculum planningfor exceptional children involving the flexible teaching programme withapproaches determined by the needs of the individual.

Methodology

Subjects

The Ss of this study were 75 residents of the Columbus StateInstitute in Columbus, Ohio. These mentally retarded Ss ranged in CAfrom 9.5 years to 26.1 years with MA's extending from 3 years to 8years. Their Stanford-Binet IQ's ranged from 18-60. Three groups of25 Ss were matched and included: (1) 25 Ss having visual perceptualhandicaps as classified by Gellner, (2) 25 Ss having minimal difficultiesin responding to tasks requiring visual perception, and (3) 25 Ss class-fied as hiving genetic mechanisms. These latter Ss were classi-fied according to medical classification upon entrance to the institu-tion, and were not evaluated for perceptual handicaps. Geneticmechanism included those residents having a relative considered to bementally retarded. These three groups were sub-divided into five MAgroups of 15 Ss each, resulting in each MA group having 15 Ss withfive representing each of the three groups. For example, in the 3-0to 4-0 group there were five Ss with severe visual perceptual handi-caps; five Ss with minimal visual perceptual handicaps; and five Sshaving genetic mechanisms in their background. Analysis of varianceshowed no significant differences between any of these groupings forCA, MA, or IQ. The groups were controlled for sex, length of institu-tional residency, and race differences. Twenty-five residents were freeof medication during this study with the remainder on a variety ofmedications for seizure control or for behaviour problems. All Ss withblindness, deafness, uncontrolled seizures and severe withdrawal orbehaviour problems were excluded. Table I indicates the character-istics of the sample.

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 22:

14 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Variable

TABLE I

Characteristics of the SubjectsSubgroup

Severe Visual Per- Minimal Visual Per-ceptual Handicaps ceptual Handicaps

GM

CA (Months)

MA (Months)

(N =

MeanSDRange

MeanSDRange

MeanSDRange

:25)

217.6847.5

121-295

65.2417.339-95

36.2812.318-60

(N = 25)

214.8047.6

140-314

64.0016.236-92

35.6811.119-59

(N = 25)

194.4437.9

114-278

63.8416.936-94

37.3212.118-60

Fifty of these 75 Ss were classified according to perceptual handi-caps based on the educational theory of Dr. Lise Gellner (1959).These perceptual classifications were based on the data obtained froma clinical examination including a series of visual motor and visualautonomic tasks prepared by Gellner. These visual tasks attemptedto measure criteria used by Gellner in designating her four classifica-tions of perceptual handicaps which may affect the learning of mentallyretarded children. This examination has not been standardized soclassroom observations, teacher's ratings and psychological reportssupplement test data. The remaining 25 Ss were not classified accord-ing to the Gellner classifications.

Gellner (1959) indicated that children with visual motor handi-caps had problems in responding to material requiring matching offorms, judging distances, imitation of seen movements, spatial visualiz-ation, copying form, and eye-hand co-ordination. The children in herother visual group, Visual Autonomic, include those having difficultieswith colour matching, picture identification, reading, visual fatigue,hyperactivity and distractibility. For the purpose of this study thesetwo visual classifications were combined into one group designatedas a severe visual perceptual handicap (SVPH). The other perceptualgroup had minimal difficulties in responding to these tasks as theirperceptual difficulties were primarily in auditory areas such as speechand language. All children, however, had sufficient speech to respondto all the items.

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 22:

14 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

ProceduresEach S was tested individually and presented with 100 5" x 8"

cards on which there were three coloured pictures. The extreme leftof the card contained one picture, with on the right side of this samecard, two coloured pictures, one at the top and one at the bottom. Thesepictures were small, approximate to the size of those found in readingreadiness workbooks. A sample card was administered first where-upon the examiner named the picture of a couch and then asked,"Which picture goes with the couch?" She then pointed to the chairand said, "The chair does. You can sit on the chair and on the couch."Each S was asked what went with the picture on the left as the exam-iner pointed to it. However, the S had to make the identification ofthe picture himself and also pick the appropriate mate. Positions oftwo pictures on the right were selected on a random basis to minimizeposition cues. Some pictures involved more discrimination and con-cept formation than others but the 100 cards were arranged in ran-dom order. After selection of the picture the Ss were asked to tellwhy those pictures went together. These pictures included visualdiscriminations expected of children ranging in MA from 3-8. Forexample, one card had a picture of shoes and the Ss could select eitherhouse or socks as the correct response. More difficult discriminationitems included a paint box with the Ss choosing between paint brushesand pencils with pen.

Results

The means and standard deviations for the three groups are pre-sented in Table II.

TABLE II

Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for Subjects on TotalScores and Reason Why Scores on the Visual Discrimination

Task.

Severe Visual Minimal Visual Genetic MechanismTask Perceptual Handicap Perceptual Handicap

Range Mean sd Range Mean sd Range Mean sdTotalScores 32-98 69.20 20.2 41-96 79.16 15.7 34-98 70.96 20.4ReasonWhyScores 0-86 44.76 27.S 0-90 49.08 25.5 0-84 41.40 27.8

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 22:

14 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

The group with minimal visual perceptual handicaps (MVPH)scored significantly higher than the two other groups. The Ss with severevisual perceptual handicaps (SVPH) received the lowest scores butthere was not much difference in scores between these Ss and the GMSs. Analysis of variance data is shown in Table III. for total scoreson the visual discrimination task for these three groups. All Ss wereasked the reasons for their selection of pairs and these responses were

TABLE III

Summary of Analysis of Variance of Total Scores on a VisualDiscrimination Task.

Source

Between columnsBetween rowsResidual

Total

df

22448

MS

707.00941.95105.00

F

6.73*8.97*

74

*p< .01

TABLE IV

Summary of Analysis of Variance of Reason Why Scores on aVisual Discrimination Task.

Source

Between columnsBetween rowsResidual

Total

*P< .01

df

22448

74

MS

370.801695.17315.38

F

1.175.37*

38Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 22:

14 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

analysed separately with Table IV presenting this Analysis of Vari-ance Data. There were no significant differences among the threegroups in this analysis. Although the raw scores for the Minimal VisualPerceptual Handicapped Group were somewhat higher, the differenceswere not significant.

Each mental age level consisting of IS Ss, five representing eachof the three groups, was analysed on the Friedman Two-Way Analysisof Variance non-parametric statistical test (1956). There were nosignificant differences among the three groups. The two perceptualdeficit groups were analysed separately by the Wilcoxon MatchedPairs Signed Rank Test (1956) and there was one significant differ-ence between the Severe Visual Perceptual Handicapped Group andthe Minimal Visual Perceptual Handicapped Ss at the MA level 3-0to 4-0 with the MVPH group receiving higher scores which were signif-icant at the .05 level.

Pearson Product Moment Correlations between visual discrimin-ation scores and CA, MA, and IQ are shown in Table V.

TABLE V

Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between VisualDiscrimination Scores and CA, MA, and IQ.

Tasks

Total Scores

Groups

AH groupsAll groupsAll groupsSVPHMVPHGM

Variable

CAMAIQMAMAMA

Product-MomentCorrelation

.29

.78

.66

.63

.76

.66

Discussion

Analysis of data showed that the minimal visual perceptual handi-capped Ss scored significantly higher than the other two groups. TheSevere Visual Perceptual Handicapped Group received the lowestscores but these did not differ significantly from scores obtained by theGM Ss. One would expect that the GM group would consist ofchildren with perceptual handicaps in both visual and auditory areas.Since there was no original selection on the basis of perceptual prob-lems, one would predict a range of performance. Scores fell between

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 22:

14 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

the other two groups but they were closer to the Severe Visual Per-ceptual Handicapped Group. The ability to formulate concepts andstate reasons for the association of pictures was not higher for thisGM group. Although the Ss with MVPH received the highest scoresin visual discrimination of pairs, they did not verbalize their reasonsfor their selections more effectively than the other two groups. Theirraw scores were higher but differences were not significant.

Mental age appeared to be related to scores on this visual dis-crimination task for all three groups. This was easily observed for the7-8 MA group wherein the task seemed too easy for them. Twelve ofthe IS Ss received scores ranging from 90-100. However, in the 3-0to 4-0 group, there were large differences between the two perceptualgroups. ANOV non parametric tests, showed no over-all significantdifferences among the three groups but an analysis between the twoperceptual handicapped groups showed significant differences favour-ing the MVPH Ss.

Gellner (1959) stipulated that mentally retarded children per-form differently on the basis of perceptual handicaps primarily inresponding to visual and auditory materials. These results appear tosupport this assumption. However, the factor of MA seems to be ofmajor importance in addition to the perceptual factor.

Teachers who have mentally retarded trainable children in theirclassrooms ranging in MA from three to seven may need to varytheir teaching of reading readiness workbook activities in accordancewith the perceptual abilities of their children. In addition, teachersinvolved in teaching reading should progress beyond the relativelysimple visual discrimination of pictures and alphabet letters as it isnecessary for some degree of concept formation to be taught. Logicalassociations, pictured sequences and some additional information be-sides mere picture discrimination is required before a child really canbe considered to be able to read. A rote repetition of words by theretarded child is not to be confused with reading.

There were some observations supporting Gellner's assumptions onthe negative effects of forcing a child to work in the area of his per-ceptual handicap without additional cues. The boy receiving thelowest total score stopped in the middle of the test and yelled, "I don'twant to look at them." Several of the severe visual handicapped Sscried during the test when they were forced to respond to all of the

40Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 22:

14 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

100 cards. All of the groups had difficulty in describing their reasonsfor their selections. Some of those children with language problems,the non-visual group, resisted giving complete verbal statements whileothers chattered and perseverated.

Analysis of the pictures revealed that only one association wasscored correctly by all 75 Ss and this included a picture of a bat, flower,and ball. Five items, all involving complicated concept formationswere missed by one-half of the Ss. It appeared that familiarity withthe items increased their association visually. Certain pictures pro-duced almost automatic associations, with pictures of the radio andSanta Claus being favourite selections despite the fact that they werenot the correct answers. Some perceptual errors were observed whichillustrated the type of errors that may occur in the classroom. Theassociation picture illustrated a boy trying to fix his wagon with wheelsand the picture to be chosen consisted of wheels. Fourteen Ss identi-fied these wheels as records and two more children insisted that theywere buttons. The 14 Ss insisted that the boy was getting ready toplay records on his phonograph. The fact that there was a boy, awagon and hammer in the picture made no difference to them. Onlyone of these Ss came from the minimally visual perceptual handi-capped group.

Specific analysis of perceptual handicaps of mentally retarded chil-dren may allow for a more individualized programme to meet the read-ing readiness needs of trainable mentally retarded children especiallyat younger mental age levels.

References

Connor, L. E. Bridging curriculum gaps for exceptional children. Special Education inCanada, 42(3):9-17, 1968.Durbin, M. L. Teaching Techniques for Retarded and Pre-reading Students. Spring-field, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1967.Gellner, L. A guide to the differential diagnoses of the four organic roots of mentaldeficiency. Personal communication.Gellner, L. A Neurophysiological Concept of Mental Retardation and Its EducationalImplications. Chicago: Dr. Levinson Research Foundation for Mentally RetardedChildren, 1959.Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.

41Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 22:

14 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

014