In his authoritative discussion Zangwill (1960) cites Castner (1935) in support of the suggestion that children with reading disability may show exceptional weakness in drawing ability. Clinical experience might not generally support this view, except inasmuch as maturation is integrally related to both abilities. The question is of relevance both to educational theory and to considerations of the bearing of incomplete cerebral dominance on so-called dyslexia. The evidence, however, is surprisingly scant and contradictory. Castner's is a clinical study open to several methodological objections, whilst with one exception the other relevant investigations reviewed in Vernon's (1957) survey have either not been concerned with non-readers or have not controlled such factors as intelligence and social status. Comparisons were made both of 'free' drawings and of diagrammatic reproductions by two groups of Ss. In the experimental group were 40 boys aged between 9 and 14 with RQs below 65, none having a RA above 6.0 on Schonell's Graded Word Reading Test. The control group Ss were matched by age, sex, IQ and socio-economic starus, but were of average reading ability. Ss were drawn from 32 schools. Both sets of drawings were obtained from Ss individually and at the same sessions. For free drawing Ss were given standard paper and crayons and merely asked to draw a house. Scores arere allotted according to a system derived from Kerr (1937) which took account only of perspective and details. Reproductions were of the two well-known Binet designs which were administered and scored in accordance with the standard instructions of the Terman-Merrill Revision (Form L, Year 9 - 3). For each task, therefore, scoring was objective. Differences between the groups were not significant, either for house drawing (t = 1.06, df = 39) or for designs (x' = 2.29, df = 4),, a finding in line with that of Kendall (1948). The tendency on the design test was ~n favour of the non-readers. No particular characteristic or weakness could be discerned in the free drawings of either group. Similarly, little conclusion could be drawn from analysis of errors in the diagrammatic reproductions. MacMeeken (1939) described rwo specific errors made by retarded readers on this test (vertical inversion of Design A and three-dimensional reproduction of Design B). In the present investigation only 6 such errors were found, and 5 of these were made by control Ss. On the other hand, 9 non-readers as opposed to 2 controls made horizontal reversals of Design B, which is in some agreement with Wolfe (1939) and might well be viewed in terms of weak or faulty lateralization as discussed by Zangwill. These findings offer no support for the view that a general weakness in drawing is associated with reading disability, but afford some slight evidence for the association of the latter with directional confusion in some cases.
Read full abstract