A reply to Zigler and Seitz.

The Zigler and Seitz (1975) critique was carefully examined with respect to the conclusions of the Neman et al. (1975) study. Particular attention was given to the following questions: (a) did experimenter bias or commitment account for the results, (b) were unreliable and invalid psychometric instruments used, (c) were the statistical analyses insufficient or incorrect, (d) did the results reflect no more than the operation of chance, and (e) were the results biased by artifactually inflated profile scores.

Experimental evaluation of sensorimotor patterning used with mentally retarded children.

In the present study, a sensorimotor "patterning" program used with 66 institutionalized, mentally retarded children and adolescents was evaluated. The subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (a) Experimental 1 group, which received a program of mobility exercises including patterning, creeping, and crawling; visual-motor training; and sensory stimulation exercises; (b) Experimental 2 group, which received a program of physical activity, personal attention, and the same sensory stimulation program given to the first group; or (c) Passive Control group, which provided baseline measures but which received no additional programming as part of the study. Experimental 1 group subjects improved more than subjects in the other groups in visual perception, program-related measures of mobility, and language ability.