Individual Versus Group Administration
Never seen the Rey-Osterreith?
The Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure (ROCF) was devised in 1941 by
the Swiss psychologist Andre Rey (cited in Lezak, 1983) for the
purpose of assessing perceptual organization and visual memory in
brain injured subjects. Since that time, wide use of the
Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure has been reported, yet little empirical
data can be found to support its use. Waber and Holmes (1986)
reported that the ROCF "permits assessment of a variety of cognitive
processes, including planning and organizational skills and
problem-solving strategies, as well as perceptual, motor, and memory
functions." (page 563). It is quick, easy, and inexpensive to
Standardized procedures for the Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure were
published by Osterreith in 1944 (cited in Lezak, 1983). Osterreith
standardized the administration procedure, obtained normative data
from 230 normal children and 60 adults, and provided interpretative
guidance. Aside from Osterreith 's original publication, the ROCF is
not available as a test package complete with test materials,
administration procedures, detailed scoring criteria, normative data,
and reliability analysis. The ROCF is passed from one evaluator to
the next as two reproduced sheets of paper, one containing the
design, as shown in figure 1, and the other containing an 18-element
scoring criteria. The recycling of the ROCF does pose obvious risks.
The most obvious is that the integrity of the design may be
compromised by repeated reproduction. Waber and Holmes (1986)
acknowledged that, after testing over 400 children, an extra line was
discovered in the ROCF design, which they used.
Synopsis of the Research Literature
Sources for this activity were identified through the PsycLIT
Database compiled by the PsycINFO Users Services of the American
Psychological Association. This database includes over 1300 journals
and provides computerized access to international literature in
psychology and related disciplines. The database includes
publications from 1974 and is updated quarterly. The PsycLIT Database
compares article titles and key words of abstracts to a search word
entered by the user. For this literature review, the search word was
"Osterreith". The search yielded only ten articles.
Klicpera (1983) examined problem-solving behavior of reading
disabled boys on visuomotor tasks. The ROCF was administered to 33
boys with 10s above 85 and a reading retardation of more than 1 1/2
years on standardized reading tests. A comparison group of 18 boys
with no known reading disability and an average IQ of 107.2 was also
tested, Klicpera (1983) found that the poor readers showed
significantly poorer performance in recall on the ROCF than the
Waber and Holmes (1985) formulated a new method for evaluating
copy productions of the ROCF and presented normative data for 454
children from middle to lower class district ranging in age from 5
and 14. They also described developmental changes evident in the copy
productions that may be of interest in neuropsychological
Waber and Holmes (1986) provided a continuation of the above study
by describing the recall productions from the same test group and
prescribing a method for evaluating recall productions of the ROCF.
Normative data was also provided.
Waber and Bernstein (1989) administered the ROCF to fifth and
eighth graders. Within each grade, one group studied the figure
visually while another copied it. Each group was tested the same on
the recall task, and the results were compared. The eighth graders
who studied the figure visually performed better than the group who
first copied it.
Bennett-Levy (1984) examined the factors involved in performance
on the ROCF among 107 adults and derived a regression equation for
predicting recall performance from copy performance.
Loring, Lee, and Meador (1988) administered the ROCF to 29
patients with partial complex epileptic seizures. The seizures
originated in the right temporal lobe in 15 patients and the left
temporal lobe in 14 patients. No significant qualitative differences
were found when applying Osterreith's scoring criteria. However,
after applying a new scoring system to account for qualitative
differences, the patients with right temporal lobe seizures were
found to perform significantly poorer than the comparison group.
Crossen and Wiens (1988) administered the ROCF to 13 adults with
moderate to severe head injuries. Recall results were reported to be
below normative standards. However, the normative standards were not
defined in the research report.
Levine, Warach, Benowitz, and Calvanio (1986) studied improvement
and recovery factors in patients who had experienced a stroke in the
right hemisphere. The ROCF was used, along with other tests, to
Bigler (1988) administered a battery of psychometric tests
including the Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure to patients with verified
frontal lobe damage. The patients with left frontal lobe damage
performed significantly worse than the patients with right frontal
lobe damage did.
Bigler, Rosa, Shultz, Hall, and Harris (1989) administered the
ROCF to 52 closed head Injury patients ranging from 18 to 55 years
old and 42 Alzheimer patients ranging from 55 to 85 years old. Bigler
et al. (1989) reported the performance of the Alzheimer patients on
both the copy and recall tasks to be poorer than that of the head
Test administration, when described, was generally consistent with
Osterreith's standardized procedure. Lezak (1983) describes the
procedure as follows:
The subject is first instructed to copy the figure, which has been
so set out that its length runs along the subject's horizontal plane.
The examiner watches the subject's performance closely. Each time the
subject completes a section of the drawing, the examiner hands him a
different colored pencil and notes the order of colors.... Time to
completion is recorded and both test figure and the subject's
drawings are removed. This is usually followed by one or more recall
This review showed that major differences in test administration
with respect to: individual versus group administration, the use of
colored pencils, and delay time between copy and recall tasks. None
of the researchers indicated placing time restraints on the actual
conduct of the copy or recall tasks.
Versus Group Administration
The primary determinants to group or individual testing were age,
and physical and mental capabilities. Researchers studying head
injury (Bigler, 1988; Bigler et al., 1989; Crossen & Wiens, 1988;
Levine et al., 1988; Loring et al.,1988), tested subjects
individually. Researchers studying only normal children (Waber &
Bernstein, 1989; Waber & Holmes, 1986; Waber & Holmes, 1987),
tested children as a group with the exception of kindergarten
children who were tested individually. All subjects were tested
individually in Bennett-Levy's study (1984) of normal adults and
Klicpera's study (1983) of older normal children and children with
reading problems. In these studies, individual testing was done to
enable the examiner to note procedural methods rather than because of
limitations of the test group.
Colored pencils are used to assess a subject's procedural method
and are part of the original procedural method set forth by
Osterreith. Changing and controlling the order in which colored
pencils are used enables the examiner to determine the sequence with
which each element of the drawing is completed. More importantly the
examiner can determine if a part-oriented or configurational approach
is used. In a configurational approach, the subject completes a
framework consisting of the large rectangle and diagonals and then
fills in the detail. The use of the colored pencils when
administering the ROCF to a group enables the researcher to make this
type of determination. For example, if a subject drew a contiguous
line for a diagonal within the rectangle, this would be drawn in one
color. However, it a diagonal line is completed in two segments,
before and after an intersection with the other diagonal line, two
colors would probably be evident.
Lezak (1983) described the use of colored pencils but also
explained that some examiners keep a detailed record of the subject's
copying sequence by reproducing the performance and numbering each
unit in the order that it is drawn. Bigler et al. (1989) and Loring
et al. (1988) reported standard administration of the ROCF was
performed according to Lezak (1983). Although this is interpreted as
meaning the use of colored pencils, it remains unclear as Lezak
(1983) described both methods. As stated, Bennett-Levy (1984) and
Klipera (1983) used one pencil and relied on examiner observation to
appraise procedural method. Levine et al. (1986), Bigler (1988), and
Crossen and Wiens (1988) did not specify this element of the
procedure. Waber and Holmes (1985) offered a detailed description of
the use of colored pencils:
When the tester signaled the children to start, they were to pick
up a designated colored pencil and begin to copy the design. When
told to switch, they would put down that pencil and continue drawing
with the next color designated. This procedure continued until all
the colors had been used.
The time limit for each color was 60s for kindergarten and first
grade children, 45s for second to sixth graders, and 30s for seventh
and eighth graders. The red pencil was always used last since red was
thought to be a more salient color than the others, and the order of
presentation of the other four colors was randomized for each
classroom group. (p. 267)
Delay time between copy and recall productions varied among
examiners. Lezak (1983) reported awareness of examiners who used
20-minute, 30-minute, 40-minute, and 45-minute delay times. However,
she also cites research that showed little difference in test results
using different delay times as long as the delay is within one hour.
The researchers who reported this information used the following
Klicpera (1983): Immediate and 20
Bennett-Levy (1984): 40 minutes
Waber and Holmes (1986): Immediate and 20-minutes
Waber and Bernstein (1989): 20-minutes
Loring et al. (1988): 30-minutes
Bigler et al. (1989): 3-minutes
Scoring criteria used by the researchers reflects the greatest
departure from Osterreith's test procedures. A review of Osterreith's
scoring criteria is found in Lezak (1983). Osterreith defined 18
units of the drawing and assigned point values of 0 to 2 to each unit
depending upon the degree to which the units are correctly drawn and
placed. Osterreith evaluated organizational structure in the context
of seven different procedural types. Waber and Holmes (1 985) wrote
that Osterreith's criteria provides "a basis for comparing a child's
performance to that of the normal group, [but] it is
insensitive to aspects of the production that may be of considerable
theoretical significance. "(p. 265) Specifically, Waber and Holmes
(1985) contended that Osterreith's criteria lacks "(1) a valid and
reliable method for assessing parameters that are most relevant for
neuropsychological diagnosis; and, (2) detailed developmental
descriptive data." (p. 265)
Waber and Holmes (1985, 1986) and Bennett-Levy (1984) presented
details of alternative scoring systems. To analyze detail, Waber and
Holmes (1985, 1986) broke the design down into the smallest line
sediments possible and objectively evaluated each segment as to
accuracy, intersections, alignments, and direction of execution.
Using this method, interrater reliability was calculated at 95%.
Additionally, the drawings were evaluated for goodness of
organization accuracy. The organization rating was based on a 5-point
scale ranging from poor (1) to excellent (5). Style rating included
four categories: (a) part-oriented, (b) exterior
configuration/anterior part-oriented; (c) exterior
part-oriented/interior configurational; and (d) configurational.
Bennett-Levy (1984) used Osterreith's 18-point scale for detail
evaluation. However, a strict application of Osterreith's scale was
employed on the copy production, and a lax application was employed
on the recall production. Organizational structure was evaluated in
terms of symmetry and good continuation rather than Osterreith's
seven procedural types. Likewise, Klicpera (1983) used Osterreith's
18-point scale but developed a more detailed analysis process for
Bigler (1988) and Bigler et al. (1989) scored the ROCF according
to a method outlined by Denman where a maximum score of 72 may be
achieved. Two references were provided in the literature: "Denman, S.
B. (1984). Denman Neuropsychology Memory Scale [italics
added], Charleston, SC: Privately published" (Bigler. 1988, p.
295), and "Denman S. B. (1984). Manual for the Denman
Neuropsychology Memory Scale [italics added],
Charleston, SC: Privately published" (Bigler et al., 1989, p. 280).
No further direction as to scoring method was offered.
Levine et al. (1986) did not specified the scoring criteria used
on the ROCF. These researchers combined ratings on the ROCF with
ratings on other tests to develop an overall severity rating for
Loring et al.(1988) scored the copy production in accordance with
Osterreith's 18-point detail rating only for the purpose of excluding
patients from the study who did not achieve a certain score. Recall
productions were also scored according to Osterreith's 18-point
detail rating, but this yielded no significant differences. Loring
developed a new qualitative rating focusing on distortion and
misplacement errors. With this rating system, significant differences
were found between right and left temporal lobe epilepsy patients,
with the patients with right temporal epilepsy exhibiting a greater
number of errors.
Crossen and Wiens (1 988) reported only that head injury subjects
scored well below normative standards as reported by Wiens. The cited
reference was identified as follows: "Wiens, A.N., McMinn, M.R. &
Crossen, J.R. Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure Test: Development of
norms for healthy adults. In preparation" (Crossen & Wiens, 1988,
p. 399). No further direction as to scoring method was offered.
In this section, the use of normative data by the researchers is
described. The literature revealed several uniquely different
approaches to the use of control or comparison groups. Comparison
groups consisted of normal populations, another dysfunctional group,
or both. The nature of the studies shed some light on the
researchers' approaches, and some approaches seem to require further
Osterreith obtained normative data in 1944. This normative data
enabled a tester to compare a subject's performance against a
comparable normal population. Quantitative copy and recall scores
were compared to quantitative norms.
Procedural methods were normed as percentiles, or likelihood of
occurrence. As reported by Lezak (1983), Osterreith defined the
adult's average score on the copy production to be 32 and on the
recall production to be 22. Yet Loring et al. (1988), who used
Osterreith's 18-point detail scoring criteria, excluded subjects who
scored a 34 on the copy trial "so that constructional deficits would
not confound examination of memory performance" (p. 241).
Without exception, researchers reviewed herein to evaluate
organizational processes did not use Osterreith's normative data. Use
of Osterreith's normative data for detail analysis was implied in
terms of assessing good or poor performances, but no researcher
provided specific comparisons within this context.
Waber and Holmes (1985, 1986) and Bennett-Levy (1984) studied
large normal populations and evaluated subjects in relation to each
other. Waber and Holmes (1985, 1986) offered normative data. Loring
et al. (1988) compared right and left temporal lobe epilepsy patients
to each other. Crossen and Wiens (1988) used unpublished normative
data and reported their test group of head injury patients to all be
below normal. Levine et al. (1986) studied stroke victims and
compared subjects to each other. Klicpera (1983) compared normal
children to children with reading problems. Bigler et al. (1989)
compared head injured patients aged 18 to 55 to Alzheimer's patients
aged 55 to 85. In another study, Bigler (1988) compared two left and
two right frontal lobe damaged patients to each other.
Waber and Holmes' 1985 study of the ROCF copy task was intended to
provide a reliable and valid method of evaluating the ROCF, and to
describe cognitive developmental difference among children of
different ages. The derived method and resultant normative data is
provided in the research report. High interrater statistics were
reported for all facets of the evaluation process. Significant
developmental features were reported as follows:
1. Nearly total accuracy was achieved by age nine, with
little change occurring thereafter.
2. Young children, between the ages of 5 and 7, were equally
likely to start on the left or right side. At age 8, a left-side
preference was shown by 64% of the children. The proportion
increased to 80% between ages 9 and 12, and by age 13, reached
90%. Directional preferences were viewed as diagnostically
significant only at age 9 or older. Direction of execution was not
related to handedness.
3. Organization was evaluated as configurational or
part-oriented. Copies became more configurational with age.
Children who copied from right to left produced more part-
oriented productions than those who drew from left to right.
Part-oriented drawings were seen more often in left-handed
children. No significant difference was seen between sexes.
4. The base rectangle was the salient organizational unit used
in configurational drawings. When children began with the base
rectangle, information was treated more logically than figurally.
This observation was deemed consistent with Piaget's cognitive
developmental theory describing the evolution from concrete to
logical reasoning. By age 13, logical thinking dominates.
Waber and Holmes' 1986 research report describes the recall
performance of the same study group used in their 1985 study. The
goals of this study were to devise a reliable and valid evaluation
criteria and describe developmental processes. The evaluation
criteria and normative data is provided in the research report.
Developmental features demonstrated by the recall task were as
1. Accuracy increased with the more configurational
versus part-oriented approach. No child achieved total accuracy.
2. The base rectangle and main structure was recalled almost
perfectly from age 9 onwards.
3. Material on the left side of the design was recalled better
than that on the right up to age 8, at which point recall for the
two sides was equivalent.
4. No significance was realized in the immediate versus delayed
(20 minutes) recall for configurational items. Delayed recall
resulted in further loss of internal detail.
5. Recall productions were more configurational than copy
productions except among the youngest children.
6. The delayed recall resulted in a marked shift to a more
configurational approach as compared to the immediate recall.
7. Organizational style displayed on the copy production was
strongly correlated to the recall production.
8. Among five-year-olds, part-oriented and configural
approaches were observed equally.
9. Part-orientation in memory productions was rarely
demonstrated beyond age 9.
Waber and Bernstein's 1989 study provided greater insight into
configurational versus part-oriented approaches in cognitive
development. Fifth and eighth graders were tested in two groups each.
One group performed the copy task of the ROCF while the other group
studied the design visually. Then all children performed the recall
task in the, same manner. The conclusions presented by the
researchers are summarized as follows:
1. Preadolescent children who visually studied the figure
produced more configurational recall productions than did those
who first copied the figure. This effect was more pronounced among
2. Preadolescent children who visually studied the figure
produced better-organized recall productions and were more
accurate in reproducing the structural components when compared to
the copy group. There was, however, no group difference for
retention of detail.
3. Eighth graders showed a prevalence of configurational
approach and increased organizational skill independent of
modality of input. In summarizing this result, the researchers
found that the motor program comes to be dominated by the
organizational information carried by the visual code.
4. Additionally, Waber and Bernstein (1989) reported: "... the
most provocative finding is that among preadolescent children,
motor input apparently interfered [italics added]
with, rather than supported, efficient encoding of visuospatial
information. Eliminating motor input in the encoding phase
enhanced visual memory, with fifth graders performing like eighth
graders on all parameters measured under these conditions. The
fact that the motor output entailed in the immediate recall did
not lead to a more part-oriented approach in either that condition
or the delayed recall among the visual group further localizes the
phenomenon to the encoding phase. Once the material is visually
encoded, the motor code can no longer preempt it. (P. 13)
Bennett-Levy (1984) developed a means of predicting recall
performance. The derivation of a regression equation is included in
the research report. The following observations regarding a normal
adult population were offered:
1. Copy strategy, rated in terms of Gestalt concepts of
symmetry and good continuation, was the primary determinant of
2. Estimated 10 (reading ability) was significantly correlated
with copy and recall performance, but strategy effects were shown
to be wholly independent of IQ.
3. Copy time was a determinant to copy score but not recall
4. Age was correlated to both copy and recall performance among
early and middle adulthood subjects. This was reported as a
surprising result since studies reviewed by the researchers had
suggested that age in the early to middle adult range should not
make a difference.
Loring et al. (1988) reported no significant differences in mean
scores on the ROCF between subjects with right temporal lobe epilepsy
and left temporal lobe epilepsy when using standard scoring criteria
(undefined). However, Loring et al. (1988) developed a qualitative
rating that did yield significant differences. Then, right temporal
lobe epilepsy subjects exhibited a significantly greater number of
errors. Loring et al. (1988) wrote:
"The present report illustrated standard CF [Complex
Figure] scoring criteria are inadequate to characterize the
types of errors observed in patients with right TLE [temporal
lobe epilepsy]. .... the type of responses that we observe
with right hemisphere seizure focus involve distortion or
misplacement. Obviously, a scoring system that scores principally
for presence or absence of elements, with little or secondary
weight to misplacement, cannot adequately capture the quality of
errors..." (p. 244 & 245).
Klicpera (1983) reported lower recall scores for the children
classified as poor readers as compared to children with no known
learning difficulty. This was attributed to poorer planning by the
poor readers during the copy phase. The poor readers were less likely
than the children in the control group to draw the structure of the
design first and then fill in the detail. Rather, they began to
reproduce details much sooner than controls. The organizational
scheme used when copying was also the scheme used during recall.
Recall scores were worse for poor readers even when perfect scores
were realized for copy productions. This was attributed to the
organizational scheme employed. Klicpera (1983) concluded that the
"study suggest[s] that dyslexic children have a developmental
delay in an area that is broader than purely verbal skills" (p.
It is difficult or impossible to isolate significant ROCF test
result data from the research of Crossen and Wiens (1988), Levine et
al. (1986), Bigler et al. (1989), and Bigler (1988). Crossen and
Wiens (1988) reported ROCF test results "well below normative
standards" (p. 395) for subjects with head injury but provided no
discrepancy analysis for the ROCF in particular. Levine et al. (1986)
offered test results from the study of stroke victims which were
based on a composite of psychometric and medical data. Bigler et al.
(1989) compared Alzheimer subjects with closed head injury subjects
resulting in large age differences between groups. Alzheimer patients
performed more poorly on the ROCF, but the analysis explaining this
is not very convincing since the age factor is not given adequate
Bigler's 1988 test group consisted of only four frontal lobe
damaged patients, two with right frontal lobe damage and two with
left frontal lobe damage. When reviewed against the other literature,
one would expect poorer performance on the ROCF from the right
frontal lobe damaged test groups as the right hemisphere enables
configurational organizational abilities and the left hemisphere is
prominent in part-oriented organizational approaches. However, Bigler
(1988) did not support this. In fact, the two left frontal lobe
damaged subjects, for whom the right hemisphere was undamaged,
demonstrated much poorer performances on the recall portion of the
ROCF. The copy portion was poor for just one of the left frontal lobe
damaged subjects. Bigler (1988) explained the left frontal lobe
damaged subject who had a good copy score and a poor recall score
this way: " ...because he did not anticipate that he was going to be
required to recall the figure from memory he did not develop any
effective strategies for recall while he was copying." (p. 294). This
explanation is inadequate, as none of the subjects could have
anticipated the recall task. The small number of subjects evaluated
makes any conclusions from this study weak.
The purpose of this literature review was to define current
application of the Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure. Although wide use
of the ROCF was reported or implied in the literature, the limited
number of published research articles on the subject makes this
questionable and prompts the need for a survey across a broad
spectrum of test users (i.e. neuropsychologists, clinical
psychologists, school psychologists).
Test administration, scoring criteria, the use of normative data,
and test results were specifically addressed in this review.
Examination of these elements showed significant deviation not only
from the standardized procedures set forth by Osterreith, but from
one researcher to another. This deviation is appropriate with regards
to normative data, but it is an area of concern with regards to other
aspects of the test. For example, evaluation of test results must
include consideration of the copy score derived from the elements of
the ROCF design within the context of the organizational approach.
Consideration must also be given to the subject's age as the research
indicated a correlation between age and score and also implied that
it may not be appropriate to administer the ROCF to children under 9
The literature implies a very broad application of the ROCF.
Children and adults were tested as well as normal, learning disabled,
and brain damaged subjects. The literature also showed application in
neuropsychology and education. In neuropsychology, the ROCF may be
used to localize and assess the magnitude of brain damage. In
education, the ROCF may be used to evaluate input processing of a
child suspected of having a learning disability.
There is a clear need for users of the ROCF to move towards a
standardized method of administering and evaluating performance on
the ROCF. Such a movement would also require the development of
current normative data from normal, brain-damaged, and learning
disabled children and adults. The natural conclusion of such an
effort would be to revise Osterreith's standardized procedures and
publish the revision in the form of a user's manual for the ROCF.
Bennett-Levy, J. (1984). Determinants of performance on
the Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure Test: An analysis and a new
technique for single case assessment. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 23, 109-119
Bigler, E. D. (1956). Frontal lobe damage and
neuropsychological assessment. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
3, 279 - 297.
Bigler, E. D., Rose, L., Schultz, F., Hall, S., and Harris, J.
(1989). Rey-Auditory Verbal Learning and Rey-Osterreith Complex
Figure design Performance in Alzheimer's Disease and closed head
injury Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45 (2), 277-280.
Crosson, John R. & Wiens, Arthur N. (1 956). Residual
Neuropsychological deficits following head-injury on the Wechsler
Memory ScaIe - Revised. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2 (4),
Klicpera, C. (I 983). Poor planning as a characteristic of
problem-solving behavior in dyslexic children. Acta
Paedopsychiatrica, 49 (1/2), 73-82.
Levine, D. N., Warach, J. D., Benowitz, L., and Calvanio,
R.(1986). Left spatial neglect: Effects of lesion size and
premorbid brain atrophy on severity and recovery following right
cerebral interaction. Neurology, 36,362-366.
Lezak, Muriel D. (1963). Neuropsychological Assessment 2nd
Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Loring, D. W., Lee, G. P., & Meador, K. J. (1988).
Revising the Rey-Osterreith: Rating right hemisphere recall.
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 3, 239-247.
Waber, D. P. & Bernstein, J H. (1989). Remembering the Rey-Osterreith
Complex Figure. A dual-code cognitive
neuropsychological model. Developmental Neuropsychology, 5 (1), 1-
Waber, D. P. & Holmes, J M. (1986). Assessing children's
memory productions of Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure. Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, (5), 563-580
Waber, D. P. & Holmes, J M. (1986). (1985). Assessing
children's productions of the Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, (3),
Bernstein, J. H. & Waber, D. P. (1996). Developmental scoring
system for the Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure: Professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Bernstein & Waber (1996) used a colored-pencil
administration system with copy, immediate recall, and 15- to
20-minute delayed recall "without warning" and with "several
interpolated verbal tasks" (p. 5). They have complex,
meticulously detailed scoring rules for an Organization Score,
Style Rating, Accuracy Scores, and Error Scores. Norms, sadly,
are based on "454 children. . . . from a middle- to
lower-middle-class school district in the northeastern United
States. . . . from 5 through 14 years."
Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (1985). Fundamentals of Human
Neuropsychology. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Kolb & Whishaw (1985, pp. 734-736) offer norms,
apparently using Lezak's (1983) choices of administration
procedures and scoring criteria, based on a "randomly selected
sample of [2,740] school-aged [6 through 18]
subjects collected from the Lethbridge [Alberta] public
and separate school systems." The considerable virtue of the large
sample is offset by the single location and the lack of precision
in rules for administration and scoring. Kolb & Whishaw
(1985, p. 738) also offer norms, based on 2,665 people (2,357
children), for the Draw-a-bicycle test.