Skip to main content
  

Rehab Measures: Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration

Link to instrument

Link to Instrument 

Title of Assessment

Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration 

Acronym

Beery VMI

Instrument Reviewer(s)

Elizabeth Halpin, OTR/L

Summary Date

8/22/2016 

Purpose

Designed to 1) assist in identifying significant difficulties in visual-motor integration, 2) assist with individuals with deficits to obtain needed services, 3) assess the effectiveness of educational and other intervention programs and serve as a research tool.

The purpose of the VMI is to determine whether a child demonstrates age-appropriate visual-motor integration skills.

Description

  • 30-items for the full form and 21-items for the short form
  • Ceiling score is established after 3 consecutive forms have not been passed.
  • Standardized score has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
  • 1 point is awarded for each correct imitated or copied item.
  • Administration instructions: see scoring manual
  • Primarily used with children, it can be administered to adolescents and adults.

Area of Assessment

Cognition; Coordination; Developmental; Dexterity; Infant & Child Development; Vision & Perception 

Body Part

Not Applicable 

ICF Domain

Body Structure; Body Function 

Domain

Cognition; Motor; Sensory 

Assessment Type

Performance Measure 

Length of Test

06 to 30 Minutes 

Time to Administer

5-15 Minutes for the 30-item Full Form Beery VMI

Number of Items

30-Items for the full form and 21-Items for the short form 

Equipment Required

  • Score booklet
  • Pencil or Pen; No erasers allowed
  • Administration, Scoring, and Teaching Manual
  • Stopwatch or timepiece for the supplemental Visual Perceptional and Motor Coordination tests

Training Required

No specialized training is required; training provided by reading manual.

Type of training required

Reading an Article/Manual 

Cost

Not Free 

Actual Cost

$145.00 for the starter kit, additional test booklets will need to be purchased for an additional cost (http://www.therapro.com/Browse-Category/Visual-Perception-and-Visual-Skills/6th-Ed-Starter-Kit.html)

Age Range

Preschool Child: 2-5 years; Child: 6-12 years; Adolescent: 13-17 years; Adult: 18-64 years; Elderly adult: 65+ 

Administration Mode

Paper/Pencil 

Diagnosis

Acquired Brain Injury; Traumatic Brain Injury 

Populations Tested

  • Children without disability
  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • ADHD

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Handwriting for Kindergarten, First-Grade and Second Grade Students:  (Pfeiffer, 2015; n = 105; all were between 5-8 years old)

Calculated from Pfeiffer, 2015 using SEM = standard deviation of Test-Retest difference / √ 2

  • SEM for kindergarteners in control group (n= 29): .919
  • SEM for kindergarteners in the experimental group (n= 27): -1.060
  • SEM for First-Graders in the control group (n= 35): 1.272
  • SEM for Frist-Graders in the experimental group (n= 39): -57.558
  • SEM for Second-Graders in the control group (n= 40): .777
  • SEM for Second-Graders in the experimental group (n= 37): 1.484
  • SEM for entire group in the control group (n=105): .989
  • SEM for entire group in the experimental group (n=1-4): 0

Handwriting Elementary Aged Children: (Howe, 2013; n= 72; mean age intensive practice group  6.69 and mean age visual-perceptual-motor group 6.57 years old)

Calculated from Howe, 2013 using SEM = standard deviation of Test-Retest difference / √ 2

  • SEM for the intensive practice group (n= 34): .353
  • SEM for the visual-perceptual-motor group (n= 38): .084

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Handwriting for Kindergarten, First-Grade and Second Grade Students:  (Pfeiffer, 2015)

Calculated from Pfeiffer, 2015 using MDC= SEM x 1.96 x √2

  • MDC for kindergarteners in control group (n= 29): 2.547
  • MDC for kindergarteners in the experimental group (n= 27): -2.960
  • MDC for First-Graders in the control group (n= 35): 3.525
  • MDC for Frist-Graders in the experimental group (n= 39): -159.542
  • MDC for Second-Graders in the control group (n= 40): 2.153
  • MDC for Second-Graders in the experimental group (n= 37): 4.113
  • MDC for entire group in the control group (n=105): 2.741
  • MDC for entire group in the experimental group (n=104): 0

Handwriting Elementary Aged Children: (Howe, 2013)

Calculated from Howe, 2013 using MDC= SEM x 1.96 x √2

MDC for the intensive practice group (n= 34): .978

MDC for the visual-perceptual-motor group (n= 38): .232

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Not Established

Cut-Off Scores

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI): (Sutton et al, 2011; n= 123 children; mean age 11.6 years old; SD = 3.1 years; assessments occurred from 3 to 60 months post injury; M = 7.4, SD =6.4)

  • VMI score of 83 accurately identified most TBI cases (sensitivity =.08, specificity  =.42)

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD ): (Sutton et al , 2011; n= 65 children; mean age 8.8 years; SD = 2.0 years)

  • VMI score of 95 most accurately identified ADHD group (sensitivity =.72, specificity  =.40)

Normative Data

No statistically significant differences were found among rural, urban and suburban children’s performances.

Test-retest Reliability

Handwriting: elementary aged children: (Howe, 2013)

  • Excellent  (ICC = .89)

Preschool Children: (Simons, 2009, n = 68, aged between 53 and 81 months, mean age 64.08 months, SD = 7.49 months)

  • Adequate: (ICC= .65)
  • Adequate: (ICC= .70)
  • Adequate: (ICC= .51)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Handwriting:  (Howe, 2013)

  • Excellent: (ICC = .92)

Handwriting for Kindergarten, First-Grade and Second Grade Students: (Pfeifer, 2015)

  • Excellent: (ICC= .93)

Visual-Motor Integration: (Preda, 1997, n= 103 children, mean age 9.1 years old)

  • Excellent: (ICC= .97)

Internal Consistency

Not Established

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Predictive Validity:

Visual-Motor Integration (Preda, 1997)

  • Adequate correlation with age (r= .42, p< .001).

Construct Validity (Convergent/Discriminant)

Not Established

Content Validity

Not Established

Face Validity

Not Statistically Assessed

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Not Established

Responsiveness

Not Established

Professional Association Recommendations

None

Considerations

  • VMI was not developed or intended to be used to assess handwriting ability or used as screening for handwriting dysfunction (Pfeiffer, 2015).
  • Due to the VMI being a poor indicator for handwriting the VMI should be used with caution as a screening tool for children with poor handwriting and may have limitations when used as a measurement for measuring the effectiveness of intervention (Howe, 2013).
  • VMI measures a related but different construct from handwriting (Pfeiffer, 2015).
  • The purpose of the VMI is to determine whether a child demonstrates age-appropriate visual-motor integration skills (rather than to measure motor learning or handwriting skills) (Pfeiffer, 2015).
  • Visual-motor integration difficulties can have an effect on a child’s ability to perform their full potential on occupational performance activities, the Beery VMI should be used in a broader perspective in the evaluation process (Coallier, 2014).

Bibliography

Beery, K. E., & Beery, N. A. (2006). The Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration: Administration, scoring and teaching manual (5th ed). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.

Coallier, M. & Rouliau, N. (20140. Visual-Motor skills performance on the beery-VMI: A study of Canadian kindergarten children. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy 2 (4), 1-10.

Goyen, T. A. & Duff, S. (2005). Discriminant validity of the developmental test of visual-motor integration in relation to children with handwriting dysfunction. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 52, 109-115.

Howe, T. H., Roston, K. L., Shue, C. F., & Hinojosa, J. (2013). Assessing handwriting intervention effectiveness in elementary school students: A two-group controlled study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67 (1) 19-26.

Pfeiffer, B., Moskowitz, B., Paoletti, A., Brusilovskiy, E., Eckberg Zylstra, S., & Murray, T. (2015). Developmental test of visual-motor integration (VMI): An effective outcome measure for handwriting interventions for kindergarten, first-grade, and second- grade students? The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 69 (4), 1-7.

Preda, C. (1997). Test of visual-motor integration: Construct validity in a comparison with the beery-buktenica developmental test of visual-motor integration. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 1439-1443.

Simmon, J. & Probst, C. (2009). Validity and reliability of the developmental test of visual-motor integration and its supplemental tests of visual perception and motor coordination in preschool children in Luxemburg. European Psychomotricity Journal, 2 (1) 8-18.

Sortor, J. M. & Kulp, M. T. (2003). Are the results of the beery-buktenica developmental test of visual-motor integration and its subtests related to achievement test scores? Optometry and Vision Science, 80 (11)758-763

Sutton, G. P., Barchard, K. A., Bello, D. T., Thaler, N. S., Ringdahl, E., Mayfield, J., & Allen, D. N. (2011). Beery-Buktenica developmental test of visual-motor integration performance in children with traumatic brain injury and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychological Assessment, 23 (2) 805-809.

Year published

 

Instrument in PDF Format

No 
Approval Status Approved 
 
Attachments
Created at 8/22/2016 10:37 AM  by Jason Raad 
Last modified at 8/22/2016 10:37 AM  by Jason Raad