Rehab Measures Image
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration

Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration

Last Updated

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.

Link to Instrument

Acronym Beery VMI

Area of Assessment

Cognition
Coordination
Developmental
Dexterity
Infant & Child Development
Vision & Perception

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$145.00

Cost Description

$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)

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Brain Injury Recovery

Populations

Pediatric Disorders
Brain Injury

Key Descriptions

  • 30 items are on the full form, and 21 items are on 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.

Number of Items

Full: 30
Short: 21

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

Time to Administer

5-10 minutes

For the full form

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Age Ranges

Preschool Child

2 - 5

years

Child

6 - 12

years

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Elizabeth Halpin, OTR/L

ICF Domain

Body Structure
Body Function

Measurement Domain

Cognition
Motor
Sensory

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).

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Pediatric Disorders

back to Populations

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

Cut-Off Scores

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)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Predictive Validity:

Visual-Motor Integration (Preda, 1997)

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

Brain Injury

back to Populations

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)

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.

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Sep 11, 2024

Structured Clinical Interv...

read more

updated Aug 28, 2024

NIH Toolbox for Assessment...

read more

updated Jul 10, 2024

Rowland Universal Dementia...

read more