Assessment of cognitive skills in severely handicapped students is complicated by a high prevalence of deficits in reflex and voluntary motor development. This study assessed object permanence construct performance in a group of severely handicapped students who were differentiated by treatment (prompt) condition and motor ability level. After assessing and differentiating students by motor ability level, a split-plot randomization design was used to assign students to one of two treatment conditions for assessing the object permanence construct: physical guidance plus verbal prompt or verbal prompt (only). Results revealed a trait (motor ability) x treatment interaction. Significant main effects were also found for the motor factor among those students receiving physical guidance prompts. Implications are discussed for future research and for improving assessment and intervention practices.
BobathK.BobathB.The neurodevelopmental approach to treatment. In PearsonP.WilliamsC. (Eds.), Physical therapy services in the developmental disabilities. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1972.
2.
BowerT. G. R.WishartJ. G.The effects of motor skill on object permanence. Cognition, 1972, 1, 165–171.
3.
BrassellW. R.DunstC. J.Comparison of two procedures for fostering the development of the object construct. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1976, 80, 523–528.
4.
BrickerW. A.CampbellP. H.Interdisciplinary assessment and programming for multihandicapped students. In SailorW.WilcoxB.BrownL. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students. Baltimore, Md.: Paul H. Brookes, 1980.
5.
CurcioF.Sensorimotor functioning and communication in mute autistic children. Journal of Autism and Child Schizophrenia, 1978, 8, 281–292.
6.
DunstC. J.A clinical and educational manual for use with the Uzgiris and Hunt scales of infant psychological development. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press, 1980.
7.
FalveyM.BrownL.LyonS.BaumgartD.SchroederJ.Strategies for using cues and correction procedures. In SailorW.WilcoxB.BrownL. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students. Baltimore, Md.: Paul H. Brookes, 1980.
8.
FiorentinoM. R.Reflex testing methods for evaluating CNS development. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1974.
9.
HorrocksB. L.HollisJ. H.Nonspeech language training. In YorkR. L.EdgarE. (Eds.), Teaching the severely handicapped (Vol. IV). Columbus, Oh.: Special Press, 1979.
10.
KahnJ. V.Acceleration of object permanence with severely and profoundly retarded children. AAESPH Review, 1978, 80, 15–22.
11.
KahnJ. V.Applications of the Piagetian literature to severely and profoundly mentally retarded persons. Mental Retardation, 1979, 17, 272–280.
12.
KahnJ. V.Relationship of Piaget's sensorimotor period to language acquisition of profoundly retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1975, 79, 640–643.
13.
KahnJ. V.Utility of the Uzgiris & Hunt scales of sensorimotor development with severely and profoundly retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1976, 80, 663–665.
14.
KarlanG. R.The effects of preference for objects and repeated measures upon the assessed level of object permanence and means/end ability in severely handicapped students. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 1980, 5, 174–193.
15.
MooreK. M.MeltzoffA. N.Object permanence, imitation and language development in infancy: Toward a neo-Piagetian perspective on communicative and cognitive development. In MinifieF. D.LloydL. L. (Eds.), Communicative and cognitive abilities—Early behavioral assessment. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press, 1978.
16.
RobinsonC. C.Application of Piagetian sensorimotor concepts to assessment and curriculum for severely handicapped children. AAESPH Review, 1976, 1, 5–10.
17.
RobinsonC. C.Error patterns in level 4 and 5 object permanence training. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1974, 78, 389–396.
18.
RobinsonC. C.RobinsonJ. H.Sensorimotor functions and cognitive development. In SnellM. E. (Ed.), Systematic instruction of the moderately and severely handicapped. Columbus, Oh.: Charles Merrill, 1978.
19.
RogersS. J.Characteristics of the cognitive development of profoundly retarded children. Child Development, 1977, 48, 837–843.
20.
SilversteinA. B.BrownleeL.HubbellM.McLainR. E.Comparison of two sets of Piagetian scales with severely and profoundly retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1975, 80, 292–297.
21.
SimeonssonR. J.HuntingtonG. S.ParseS. A.Assessment of children with severe handicaps: Multiple problems—Multivariate goals. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 1980, 5, 55–72.
22.
SmithD. D.SnellM. E.Intervention strategies. In SnellM. E. (Ed.), Systematic instruction of the moderately and severely handicapped. Columbus, Oh.: Charles E. Merrill, 1978.
23.
StephensB. A.Piagetian approach to curriculum development. In SontagE.SmithJ.CertoN. (Eds.), Education programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped. Reston, Va.: Division on Mental Retardation, Council for Exceptional Children, 1977.
24.
UzgirisI. C.HuntMcV.Assessment in infancy: Ordinal scales of psychological development. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975.
25.
UzgirisI. C.LucasT. C.Observational and experimental methods in studies of object concept development in infancy. In SackettG. P. (Ed.), Observing behavior—Theory and applications in mental retardation (Vol. I). Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press, 1978.
26.
WhiteB.The initial coordination of sensorimotor schemas in human infants—Piaget's ideas and the role of experience. In ElkindD.FlavellJ. H. (Eds.), Studies in cognitive development. London: Oxford University Press, 1969.
27.
WilliamsW.YorkR.Developing instructional programs for severely handicapped students. In HaringN. G.BrickerD. D. (Eds.), Teaching the severely handicapped (Vol. III). Columbus, Oh.: Special Press, 1978.
28.
WohlhueterM. J.SindbergR. M.Longitudinal development of object permanence in mentally retarded children: An exploratory study. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1975, 79, 513–518.
