Presentaci

1
Differences in learning potential assessment of
disabled and no disabled primary school children
Data from a Spanish sample.
Ángela Muñoz Sánchez angela_at_uma.es Remedios
Portillo Cárdenas remediosportillo_at_uma.es Departme
nt of Developmental and Educational Psychology.
University of Málaga (Spain)
ABSTRACT
This study aims to empirically verify
Feuersteins (1970) statements about cognitive
modifiability and, specifically, his
consideration of handicapped pupils as having a
lower learning potential. According to the
methodology test-training-retest this author
proposed (Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman, 1979), 126
primary school children were assessed. They had a
mean age of 9. From them, 83 boys and 43 girls
57 were disabled children and 69 were
non-disabled children. The Rey Complex Figure
Test (1959) was the instrument used to assess the
learning potential (copy and memory) because of
its consideration as a non-cultural biased test
and thus was deemed adequate to be used in a
multicultural school context. Our results show
disabled children obtain a lower score in the
pre-test both in copy and in memory. After
training, disabled and non-disabled children
improved their performance in copy and in memory
but significant differences were only obtained by
non-disabled children. Consequently, the need for
adequate differentiation between disability and
non-disability categories, especially for those
in the borderline zone, emerged because of its
influence on school decisions when allocating
special needs support services.
METHOD
OBJETIVES
The sample consists of 126 boys and girls, aged
between 6 and 11, in primary education, attending
a variety of state and state assisted schools in
Málaga city. The participants were assigned to
two categories (with disability 57, without
disability 69). The sample composition can be
seen in Table 1
The following objectives were addressed 1º) To
identify if differences exist when assigning
disability groups according to the Rey Figure
tests (copy and memory). 2º) To evaluate if the
difference is significant after a learning
session mediated for the copy test, in relation
to the allocation of disability groups. 3º) To
confirm if the difference is significant after a
learning session mediated for the memory test, in
relation to the allocation of disability groups.
Participants
Assigned to with disability group 57 TOTAL STUDENTS 126
Assigned to without disability group 69 TOTAL STUDENTS 126
Amongst the suitable tests studied for assessing
learning potential was Feuerstein, Rand, Haywood,
Hoffman and Jensens L.P.A.D. (Learning Potential
Assessment Device) (1993. p. 382) and
specifically the Rey Complex Figure Test (1984),
which was applied during the copy and memory
phases, following Feuersteins (test-training-rete
st) learning methodo-logy.
Instruments
Table 1. Sample composition

• Procedure
• During the academic years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004
  a research was developed on borderline mental
  deficiency. From this research data was collected
  from the applied copy and memory tests at two
  different points (pre-test and post test)
  mediated via training.
• Firstly, The Rey Complex Figure Test (1984) was
  applied to all the participants and consisted of
  two parts, copy subtest and memory subtest. In
  both subtests the differential performance of
  those assigned to the with disability group was
  evaluated against those in the without
  disability group. These subtests, as already
  stated, were applied before (Pre-test) and after
  (Post test) a training session.

• RESULTS

First Phase. Copy Test Table 2 shows the
students descriptive statistical data in both of
the test phases. An ANOVA 2x2 was done with
partially repeated measurements. The factors were
allocation, or not, to disability and the
application phases of the test pre-test and post
test. The results show that the disability factor
was not significant F (1,124) 2.903 p .091,
but the phase factor of the test was significant
F (1,124) 27.068 p lt.01 as well as the
interaction of both factors F (1,124) 3.879 p
.05, which shows that the obtained scores
between the pre-test and post test phases are
different in the two groups (Graph 1). The
measurement contrasts indicate that differences
do not occur between the groups during the
pre-test phase t(124) -.744 p .224, but do
occur in the post test phase, t(124) -2.384 p
.009, the students without disability score
higher marks (M 57.23) than those with
disability (M 42.58). As the results show in
Graph 1, the group without disability demonstrate
a larger learning increase after the training
session.
group allocation
.
____________________________________________
___________ pretest post test
Disability mean sd mean
sd with 34.39 33.740
42.58 32.524 without
39.06 36.119 57.23 35.763 Table
2. Copy Test descriptive statistics (means and
standard desviation)
Graph 1. Copy test mean averages in relation
to the allocation to disability
Second Phase. Memory Test Table 3 shows the
students Memory Test averages and the TDs. An
ANOVA 2x2 was done with partially repeated
measurements. The factors were the same as those
in the Copy Test. The results indicate that the
factor phase of the test application was
significant F (1,124) 122.26 p lt .001, but
the disability factor was not F (1,124) 2.439
p .121 nor was the interaction of both factors
significant F (1,124) 3.486 p .064, showing
that the sample obtain different scores in the
pre-test and post test phases indifferently from
whether they were assigned to a disability group
or not (Graph 2). The students performance in
the post test phase (M 67.72) is superior to
that of the pre-test (M 36.87), showing both
groups as having better results after the
training session.
group allocation
___________________________________________
___________ pretest post
test Disability mean sd
mean sd Without
38.39 34.616 73.88 31.546 With
35.02 33.870 60.26 36.391 Table 3. Memory
Test descriptive statistics (mean and standard
deviation)
Graph 2. Memory Test mean averages in relation to
the allocation to disability
REFERENCES
CONCLUSIONS

• Feuerstein, R. (1970). Les differences de
  fonctionnement cognitif dans des groupes
  socio-ethniques differents (tesis doctoral).
  París Sorbonne.
• Feuerstein, R. y Jensen, M.R (1980).
  Instrumental enrichment theorical basis, goals
  and instruments. The Educational Forum. May,
  401-423.
• Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M. (1979).
  The dynamic assessment of retarded performers
  the learning potential assessment device, theory
  instruments and techniques. Baltimore (Maryland)
  University Park Press.
• Feuerstein, R. y Hoffman, M. B. (1993). Programa
  de enriquecimiento instrumental apoyo didáctico
  de la forma abreviada. Madrid Bruño.
• Rey, A. (1959). Test de copie et de reproduction
  de mémoire de figures géométriques complexes.
  Paris Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.
• (1994). Figura de rey test de copia de una
  figura compleja. Madrid TEA.

The results obtained in the copy and memory tests
show that the group of students with disability
scored significantly lower in the pre-test. The
increase in the post test is witnessed in both
groups, in both copy and memory. Significant
differences are only seen in the copy test in the
group without disability. In view of these
results, worries surface once again about the
difficulty of fine-tuning the non-disability/disab
ility categories for those students who fall
within the borderline area, especially because of
the implications these decisions have on their
educational direction at school and when
allocating special needs support services.
5th International Conference on Psychological and
Educational Test Adaptation across Language and
Cultures. July 6-8, 2006, Brussels