Correlates
of a Test of Motor Symbol Sequencing Performance
Treatment Outcome for a Motor Symbol Sequencing Dysfunction
Correlates of a Test of Motor Symbol
Sequencing Performance
Barbara A. Young, M.A. & Donald
F. Burrill, Ph.D.
Poster Session - 105th APA Annual Convention,
Chicago, August 15, 1997
ABSTRACT
This study investigated
the relationship between a test developed to measure the rate
of learning a repeated sequence of symbols as an automatic motor
pattern and standardized tests of writing and copying. Performance
on the motor symbol sequencing test, for a group of 12 learning
disabled individuals and a control group of 35 adults, correlated
significantly with standardized tests of copying and handwriting.
Performance on the test significantly discriminated between the
two groups. Further research is needed to see if this test could
be used to identify individuals at risk of having difficulty
with the motor act of the writing process.
SUMMARY
Statement of Problem
Difficulty in motor planning and in executing a motor symbol
sequence have been implicated in learning disabilities involving
writing (Levine, 1987). Luria (1966, 1970, 1980) describes a
characteristic breakdown of writing associated with damage to
the premotor region that appears similar to that described for
learning disabled individuals. If there is a relationship between
learning a motor symbol sequence and writing, then a test developed
to measure the rate of learning a motor symbol sequence would
be expected to be correlated with tests of writing and copying.
Subjects
The test was administered to two groups: 12 subjects aged 15
to 24 years identified as having a learning disability involving
writing; and a control group of 35 subjects, aged 17 to 46, who
had completed high school.
Procedure
A test was developed (Young & Cohen,
1994) to measure the rate of learning a repeated sequence of
symbols as an automatic motor pattern. The test is based on
Luria's (1966, 1970, 1980) description of experiments conducted
on individuals with traumatic damage to the left premotor region
and the effects of this damage on the development of a motor
automatism, for example, learning a random ordered matching
task of signs to symbols. Using a coded guide numbered one
to nine with a symbol under each number, the nine numbers were
presented to each subject in a random order. Subjects were
required to copy the correct symbol in the space provided below
the number. For each subject, the same random pattern was repeated
40 times: five times per page for eight pages. The subject
recorded the length of time it took to complete each pattern.
For this study the average time for the last five repetitions
on page eight was used as a measure of learning of the symbol
pattern. In all cases the sequence was completed correctly
for each of the 40 repetitions.
This test was administered to a sample of 12 learning disabled
individuals and a random sample of 35 adults. Two to five measures
over a one to three year period were available for the learning
disabled subjects and will be the subject of further papers.
For this presentation, only the data for the first administration
are reported.
The following standardized tests were administered: Monroe
Sherman Achievement Test textual copying and crossing out letters;
Differential Aptitude Test clerical speed and accuracy; Test
of Written Language handwriting test; and Nelson Denny Reading
Test.
The learning disabled subjects also performed a test of motor
reaction time with each hand involving a double tap to start
and stop a stopwatch to see if there was any relationship between
simple reaction time and performance on the motor symbol sequencing
test.
Results
Performance on the motor symbol sequencing test significantly
discriminated between the two groups
(t = 5.42 , df = 45, p < 0.001).
Correlations between the motor symbol sequencing test and the
standardized tests are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1: Correlations between Motor
Symbol Sequencing Test Performance and Standardized Tests
| |
Learning Disabled
& Control Group*** |
Control
Group** |
Learning
Disabled* |
| Textual copying |
-.86 |
-.79 |
|
| Crossing out letters |
-.61 |
-.65 |
-.89 |
| Clerical speed & accuracy |
-.81 |
-.77 |
|
| Handwriting |
-.75 |
-.76 |
|
| Reading speed |
-.71 |
|
|
Notes: ** p < .001, two-sided,
for all correlations reported. * p < .05, two-sided.
All correlations were negative: the longer it took the subjects
to complete the motor symbol sequence pattern, as measured in
seconds, the fewer words they could copy in a timed condition,
and the fewer letters they could cross out or match in a timed
condition, the lower the handwriting score, and the slower the
reading speed.
The correlation between stopwatch reaction time and performance
on the motor symbol sequencing test for the learning disabled
subjects was not significant.
Scatterplots corresponding to the correlations are presented
in the following figures:
Figure
1 - Correlation with Monroe Sherman copying text test
Figure 2 - Correlation with Monroe Sherman crossing out letters
test
Figure 3 - Correlation with Differential Aptitude clerical speed
and accuracy test
Figure 4 - Correlation with Test of Written Language handwriting
test
Figure 5 - Correlation with Nelson Denny reading speed test
Discussion and Conclusions
Performance on the motor symbol sequencing test, for the control
group alone, and the control group combined with the learning
disabled group, correlated significantly with standardized tests
of copying and handwriting. The correlations were less significant
in the learning disabled group, due in part to the smaller sample
size and in part to the restriction of the range in the variables
under investigation for this group. This preliminary evidence
with a small sample suggests that a test of learning a motor
symbol sequence discriminates between a group identified as learning
disabled and a control group. Further research is needed to see
if this test could be used to identify individuals at risk of
having difficulty with the motor act of the writing process.
References
Levine, M.D. (1987). Developmental variation
and learning disorders. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
Luria, A.R. (1966). Human brain and psychological
processes. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Luria, A.R.
(1970). Traumatic aphasia: Its syndromes, psychology and treatment.
Paris: Mouton & Co. N.V.
Luria, A. R. Higher cortical functions
in man. (1980). New York: Basic Books Inc.
Young, B. A. (1994). Derivation of motor symbol
sequencing test from Luria. Unpublished manuscript. |