Although the Hooper Visual Organization Test (VOT) is commonly described as a measure of “visual-spatial integration,” face validity suggests it measures global visual-spatial intelligence similar to the revised edition of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R) performance IQ (PIQ) subtests. The present study investigated the construct validity of the VOT by comparing it to conceptually similar and dissimilar cognitive abilities in a principal components factor analysis of 240 participants with cognitive impairment. Results indicated that the VOT falls within a global visual-spatial factor and shares the following variance with the other tests that loaded on this factor: WAIS-R PIQ subtests, 12% to 23%; Category Test, 11%; the revised edition of the Wechsler Memory Scale Visual Reproduction I subtest, 10%; and the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure, 9%. Previous studies, current results, and face validity suggest the VOT is best considered a measure of global visual-spatial intelligence. Clinical implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BentonA. L.HamsherK. (1983). Multilingual aphasia examination. Iowa City, IA: AJA.
2.
BeeryK. E. (1989). Revised administration, scoring, and teaching manual for the Test of Visual Motor Integration. Cleveland, OH: Modern Curriculum Press.
3.
BornsteinR. F. (1996). Face validity in psychological assessment: Implications for a unified model of validity. American Psychologist, 51, 983–984.
4.
BoydJ. L. (1981). A validity study of the Hooper Visual Organization Test. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 15–19.
5.
CheluneG. J. (1983). Effects of partialling out postmor-bid WAIS scores in a heterogeneous sample: Comment on Golden et al. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 932–933.
6.
DenmanS. B. (1987). Manual for the Denman Neuropsychological Memory Scale. Charleston, SC
7.
EricksonR. C.BinderL. M. (1986). Cognitive deficits among functionally psychotic patients: A rehabilitative perspective. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Psychology, 8, 257–274.
8.
FitzA. G.ConradP. M.HomD. L.SarffP. L.MajofskiL. V. (1992). Hooper Visual Organization Test performance in lateralized brain injury. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 7, 243–250.
9.
GersonA. (1974). Validity and reliability of the Hooper Visual Organization Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 95–100.
10.
HalsteadW. C. (1947). Brain and intelligence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
HarmanH. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
HeinrichsW. R. (1990). Current and emergent applications of neuropsychological assessment: Problems of validity and utility. Professional Psychology, 21, 171–176.
13.
HendricksonA. E.WhiteP. O. (1964). PROMAX: A quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 17, 65–70.
14.
HooperH. E. (1983). Manual for the Hooper Visual Organization Test (1983 ed.). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
15.
JohnstoneB.CallahanT. S. (1996). Neuropsychological evaluation of traumatic brain injury in the United States: A critical analysis. InUzzellB. P.StonningtonH. H. (Eds.), Recovery after traumatic brain injury (pp. 115–128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
JohnstoneB.FrankR. G. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment in rehabilitation: Current limitations and applications. NeuroRehabilitation, 5, 75–86.
17.
JohnstoneB.HollandD.HewettJ. E. (1997). The construct validity of the Category Test: Is it a measure of reasoning or intelligence?Psychological Assessment, 9, 28–33.
18.
KaplanE. F.GoodglassH.WeintraubS. (1983). Manual for the Boston Naming Test (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
19.
KreutzerJ. S.LeiningerB. E.HarrisJ. A. (1990). The evolving role of neuropsychology in community integration. InKreutzerJ. S.WehmanP. (Eds.), Community integration following traumatic brain injury (pp. 49–66). Baltimore: Brookes.
20.
Lees-HaleyP. R. (1996). Alice in validityland, or the dangerous consequences of consequential validity. American Psychologist, 51, 981–983.
21.
MapouR. L. (1988). Testing to detect brain damage: An alternative to what may no longer be useful. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 10, 271–278.
22.
MessickS. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.
23.
OsterriethP. A. (1944). Le test de copie d'une figure complex: Contribution a l'etude de la perception et de la memoire. Archives de Psychologie, 30, 286–356.
24.
ReitanR. M.DavisonL. A. (1974). Clinical neuropsychology: Current status and applications. Washington, DC: V. H. Winston.
25.
RickerJ. H.AxelrodB. N. (1995). Hooper Visual Organization Test: Effects of object naming ability. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9, 57–62.
26.
RourkeB. P. (1990). Human neuropsychology in the 1990s. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 6, 1–14.
27.
SeidelW. T. (1994). Applicability of the Hooper Visual Organization Test to pediatric populations: Preliminary findings. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 8, 59–68.
28.
SpreenO.StraussE. (1991). A compendium of neuropsychological tests. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
SterneD. M. (1973). The Hooper Visual Organization Test and the Trail Making Tests as discriminants of brain injury. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29, 212–213.
30.
TamkinA. S.JacobsenR. (1984). Age-related norms for the Hooper Visual Organization Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 1459–1463.
31.
TamkinA. S.KunceJ. T. (1985). A comparison of three neuropsychological tests: The Weigl, Hooper, and Benton. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 660–664.
32.
WangP. L. (1977). Visual organization ability in brain-damaged adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 723–728.
33.
WechslerD. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
34.
WechslerD. (1987). Manual for the Wechsler Memory Scale–Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
35.
ZimilesH. (1996). Rethinking the validity of psychological assessment. American Psychologist, 51, 980–981.
