Eye-Hand Dominance and Reading Achievement

Abstract

A considerable part of the literature on reading deals with eye-hand dominance and the related topics of dominance testing and reversal. It includes research studies that justify setting up special programs for crossedor mixed-dominant children, as is done in many clinics, and other studies that justify proceeding without reference to dominance, as is done in most public schools. One of the major problems in any investigation of dominance and reading is that of determining dominance. Results of handedness tests that involve practice, e.g., writing, do not always agree with results from tests where there has been less cultural pressure, e.g., tapping (Twitmeyer, 1935). While there is still some question as to the influence of the dominant hand on eye-dominance testing (Crider, 1944; Lund, 1932), there is considerable evidence to support the thesis that visual acuity and dominance are unrelated (Crider, 1944; Robinson, 1953). Harris (1957) found leftand mixed-hand dominance to be factors in reading disability. Leavell and Fults (1943) and Dearborn (1939) found that crossed dominance was unfavorable to reading achievement. The writer found 16 research studies that reported relationships between laterality and reading performance. On the other hand, he also examined 14 studies reporting no relationship between dominance and reading performance. Fendrick (1935) studied matched groups and found no significant differences in terms of dominance. Using a comprehensive battery of dominance tests with public-school pupils, Johnston (1942) found no relationship between dominance and reading. Drews (1954) reported that a group of 108 nonreaders exhibited the same percentages of dominance traits as found in a normal population. Several investigators have pointed to the likelihood of a constellation of anomalies in reading disability. The significance of emotional problems, stuttering, poor hearing or vision, overactivity, low intelligence, and poor coordination have been mentioned by Dearborn (1939), Stevenson (1949), Bryngelson (1940), Delacato (1959), Barbe (1957), and Mintz (1946). The findings from studies of the relationship between dominance and