Sample Assessment Review
2/04 - sk
Title of Assessment (and abbreviation):
Mundy Recreation Inventory for the Trainable Mentally Retarded (Mundy).
Target Population:
Youth ages 8-15 years who have moderate to severe mental retardation with IQs of 30-55
and are ambulatory. (Cannon, et al., n.d.)
[I converted the term trainable mentally retarded to how it is often classified now.]
References Used in Review:
Cannon, F. C., Moffett, W. W., & Moffett, L. O. (n.d.). Diagnostically designed
recreation program for trainable mentally retarded children. Therapeutic Recreation
Journal, 93-103.
Mundy, J. (1966). The Mundy recreation inventory for the trainable mentally retarded.
Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University. Unpublished manuscript.
Stumbo, N. J. (1991). Selected assessment resources: A review of instruments and
references. Annual in Therapeutic Recreation, 2, 8-24.
Stumbo, N. J. (2002). Client assessment in therapeutic recreation services. State College,
PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Ordering Information (publisher, address, cost):
Jean Mundy
Leisure Services/Studies
215 Stone Building
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306
[I got this from Stumbo, 1991. Another place to look for information on some assessments
is the Idyll Arbor website]
Cost is not available.
Specific Agency Assessment Used In:
The Mundy is often part of the Florida State University (FSU) Diagnostic Battery of
Recreative Functioning for the Trainable Mentally Retarded. The Purdue Perceptual
Motor Survey is also part of the FSU battery. The battery was used at the Sunland
Training Center for the Mentally Retarded in Marianna, FL. (Cannon, et al., n.d.)
General Description of the Instrument Content:
A. Leisure Ability Content: Functional Intervention – physical and cognitive as
prerequisites to recreation participation (e.g. physical = walk; cognitive = identify
left foot).
1
B. Category: Stumbo (2002) classified Mundy as “functional abilities.”
Description of Instrument Format and Type of Questions:
Mundy’s format is a structured observation. There are 96 items on the assessment. The
assessment has 6 sections. Following are the sections and sample items:
1. Object identification (9 items) – “Show me the box.” “Show me the block.”
2. Action concepts (9 items) – “Give me the box.” “Push the toy.”
3. Amount, position, direction, place, and space
a. Section A (17 items) – “Point to the top of the box.” “Put the block in
the box.”
b. Section B (5 items) – “Take one bead.” “Take four beads.”
c. Section C (8 items) – “Show me the blue card.” “Show me the black
card.”
d. Section D (8 items) – “Take a step.” “Walk fast to me.”
e. Section E (7 items) – “Walk to the back of the chair.” “Show me your
left hand.”
f. Section F (4 items) – “Step in the circle.” “Walk to the center of the
circle.”
g. Section G (4 items) – “Watch and then do what I do. Walk in to the
center of the circle, turn, and walk out to your starting point.”
4. Rhythm (6 items) – “The examiner should clap a slow 4/4 beat.” “Have the
subject march to a fast 4/4 beat.”
5. Manipulative skills (6 items) – “Have the subject trace the circle, square, and
triangle.” “Have the subject string the large beads.”
6. Motor skills
a. Catching (7 items) – “Throw the ball to the subject waist high.” “Left
quadrant.”
b. Throwing (2 items) – “Have the subject throw the ball overhanded.”
“Underhanded.”
c. Kicking (3 items) – “Roll the ball and say, Kick the ball to me.” “Kick
the ball with your right foot.” (Mundy, 1966)
Clarity of Instructions for Administration:
Mundy is administered by 2 people (1 administers and 1 scores). Time to administer will
depend on how familiar the person conducting the assessment is with the assessment.
Although not specifically stated, it appears that the assessment should be conducted in a
room free of distractions that has a table and chairs. The assessment notes that section 6
should be conducted outdoors or in a gymnasium. Staff qualifications are not specified.
The instructions are very detailed (Mundy, 1966).
Supplies needed for the assessment include: cigar box, jumbo beads, small beads, painted
yard stick, wooden block, wooden match sticks without heads, match boxes, crayons,
scissors, needle, thread, rubber ball, softball, table, chairs, masking tape, pencil, push-pull
toy, square color cards (Mundy, 1966).
2
Clarity of Instructions for Scoring:
Scoring is not described in the assessment text. A score sheet is included and indicates
items 1-77 and 83 are marked as either correct or incorrect. Items 78-80 have 4 samples
of subject’s responses which are coded as 0, 1, 2, or 3. Items 81-82, 84-96 provide 4
responses (e.g., #91. Move left. 3. Completes task. 2. Moves left and grasps but misses. 1.
Grasps but does not move left. 0. No attempt.). There are also places for comments on the
score sheet. Mundy (1966) noted, “Although it is possible to determine a composite
numerical score on the inventory, it is suggested that a summary sheet of the subject’s
strengths and weaknesses be utilized” (p. 3). It is assumed that the score sheet and a
writing utensil are all that is needed to score. Time and staff qualifications are not
indicated.
Clarity of Instructions for Interpretation:
Interpretation is not described in the assessment text. A sample inventory summary sheet
is provided. It appears that salient results are grouped into 3 areas: definite weakness,
functioning but needs improvement, and definite strengths. It is not clear what scores are
needed to be placed in these groups. It is assumed that low scores or scores of 0 will
indicate weaknesses, and high scores will indicate strengths. Goals and objectives are
developed from the items in the 3 areas. There is no mention of the specific programs to
go along with the assessment.
Validity:
A. Face: The items appear to go together. I question if someone has to have rhythm
as a prerequisite skill for recreation involvement. What about social or emotional
skills? It seems to me that these skills often serve as leisure barriers to youth with
developmental disabilities but they are not included in the assessment.
B. Content: Not overtly mentioned, but Cannon, et al. (n.d.) noted the assessment
was presented in detail at a conference sponsored by the American Association of
Health, Physical Education, and Recreation that led to the assessment being used
in their facilities. This might be an indication of review by an expert panel and
pilot testing.
C. Criterion-related
a. Predictive: Not reported.
b. Concurrent: Cannon, et al. (n.d.) reported a high correlation between
judges’ scores of observed recreation performance and the FSU Battery
suggests the FSU Battery was addressing recreative functioning. It also
showed high correlation between the judges and the Mundy.
D. Construct: Cannon, et al. (n.d.) discuss various correlations that might indicate
some work was conducted on construct validity.
Reliability:
A.
Stability: Cannon, et al. (n.d.) reported that the FSU Battery was reliable over
a one to two week period based on test-retest scores.
B.
Equivalency: Not reported and not needed. There are no equivalent forms.
C.
Internal consistency: No mention of split-half, Cronbach’s alpha, etc.
3
D.
Interrater reliability: Not reported. Because assessment is based on
observation, it could be important.
Applicability to Therapeutic Recreation Services (including usability):
The instrument is not readily available. You must contact the author. Since cost is not
available, it is unknown if the assessment is affordable. If one follows and practices with
the detailed directions that are provided with the assessment, it should be easy to
administer. Limited information on scoring and interpretation would make program
placement hard. Time to administer is not reported, however, needing to use two people
to complete the assessment really increases the time demands and staff demands. Since
the protocol is not very detailed in the items discussed above, it would be hard to train
staff and interns (Stumbo, 2002).
How Assessment Works in Practice:
It is difficult to have two people available to conduct the assessment. Directions were
detailed and fairly easy to follow. It was difficult for me to make the required beats. I
wanted to know what I do with the results and had to guess.
Student’s Overall Evaluative Comments:
A. Strengths: The assessment is fairly comprehensive with physical skills, especially
when it is part of the FSU Battery. The Mundy has an accompanying manual, and
instructions for administration are clear. The test has the quality of play so it
might hold the client’s attention. Reliability and validity are reported. Equipment
is clearly delineated and is not expensive. The assessment is designed for youth
who are fairly low functioning.
B. Weaknesses: The assessment only covers physical and cognitive skills, and
cognitive skills are only minimally addressed. Since it does not cover social or
emotional skills, I believe additional assessments would be necessary to design a
comprehensive program that addresses habilitative needs. The assessment is not
published so access to it is limited. The assessment requires 2 staff to administer
which is not always a good use of staff time and may not be possible if there is
only one CTRS in an agency. Without instructions for scoring or interpretation, it
is difficult to determine appropriate program placement. The language of the
instrument is very old and does not comply with person first terminology.
Other Notes:
A. How improve: A complete protocol needs to be designed that uses person first
terminology. I would like to review assessments and developmental scales to see
if items are missing. I would also like to have a panel of experts review the items.
Both of these actions would assist with content reliability. Content validity is
minimally required for any TR assessment, and I am not comfortable with the
content validity that is reported. I would also conduct some interrater reliability if
the assessment continues to use 2 people at each administration, or if I would
recommend only one person complete the assessment and scoring I would
conduct intrarater reliability.
4
B. Where search for additional information: Although I did not feel I needed
additional information to complete this review, I checked Stumbo (1991) to see if
other references were available. There were none reported.
C. What type programs match assessment content: Programs would need to focus
primarily on physical functional intervention, and secondarily on cognitive
functional intervention.
5