<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01727caa a2200217   4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="008">210629s9999    xx            000 0 und d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="022" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">2321-3698</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Venkatesan, S</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2="0">
    <subfield code="a">Validation of Computer Based Administration for Gessells Drawing Test of Intelligence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2016</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="270" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Department of Clinical Psychology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangotri, Mysore, India</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">872-876 </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="490" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="v">Volume  7  Issue 9</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">The Gesell's Drawmg Test of Intelligence is a useful screening tool for research and clinical practice. This cross-sectional exploratory research seeks to compare performance of a purposive sample of 59 children in age range of S- 12 years on the test drawing activity by using computer based Paint Brush Program along with concurrent use of its traditional paper-pencil mode of test administration. Independent scoring by three mutually blinded examiners show no significant difference in scores of subjects between the two modes of administration (p &gt;0.05). However, a consistent pattern of within group differences seen with higher scores for paper-pencil mode of administration on variables like gender, age, residence, type of syllabus, and family background (p 0.05). The findings are discussed with merits and demerits in the ongoing efforts to develop computer-enabled testing devices for children.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Computer vs. Paper, Drawing Tests, Geometric Designs, Inter-Examiner Reliability.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Hariharan, V </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Yashodhara Kumar,  G. Y </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">http://www.i-scholar.in/index.php/ijhw/article/view/120692/109195</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">FJAS</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">FJAS</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">17809</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">17809</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
