Visual-Motor Integration (VMI) Is Also Relevant for Computer, Smartphone, and Tablet Use by Adults: Introducing the Brief Box Clicking Test.
Raymond Hernandez, Margaret Gatz, Stefan Schneider and 5 others
PMID 39054682WHAT IT FOUND
Slower box-clicking time correlates with poorer visual perception and daily functioning difficulties.
The test shows moderate stability over two years. It may help clinicians observe visual-motor interference with technology use, though it has not been compared with standard visual-motor integration assessments.
Key findings
01Box clicking time showed moderate test-retest reliability when tests were completed within two years of each other.
02Slower box clicking time was associated with lower scores on visual perception tasks, with correlations ranging from small to medium.
03Box clicking time had small but significant positive correlations with self-reported difficulties in daily living activities.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The box clicking test was not compared with traditional visual-motor integration measures like the Beery-Buktenica test, so its equivalence to standard clinical tools is unknown. The sample consisted of internet panel members who may have higher functioning and technological experience than the general population, which could attenuate observed correlations. Reliability was not assessed over short intervals such as two weeks or within a single day, limiting its use for tracking rapid changes. The test requires reading instructions, which may make it less suitable for young children or adults with significant literacy or cognitive impairments.
Declared interests
No specific funding or conflict of interest statements were provided in the supplied text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume this test replaces standard visual-motor integration assessments. It has not been compared with traditional tools like the Beery-Buktenica test, and its correlations with daily living difficulties were small. Use it as a supplementary observation of technology use rather than a definitive diagnostic measure.