1. The KOPPITZ-2 A revision of Dr. Elizabeth Koppitz’
Bender Developmental
Scoring System for
Young Children.
Now for ages 5 years
thru 89 years.

2. What is the Koppitz-2?
The Koppitz-2 is an extensive revision, redevelopment, and extension (up and down) of the original Koppitz (1963, 1975) Bender-Gestalt Test for Young Children, one of the most popular individually administered tests for children of the last century.

3. How is Koppitz-2 Different from the Original Koppitz?
Original age range, 5-10 years.
--New = age range 5-89 years
• Original, 30 items
--New = 34 items ages 5-7, and 45 items for ages 8-89.
• Original, local sample of 1,100, all from NY
--New = National sample of 3,535

4. Key Differences in the Revision vs Original Koppitz, cont.
Original, only offered perceptual ages.
--New = Standard scores, percentile ranks, and
age equivalents
--Supplementary conversion to T-scores, z-
scores, NCEs, and stanines provided.
Original, 9 cards used at all ages
--New = 13 cards for ages 5-7 and 12 cards for
ages 8-89 (16 cards overall, Designs 5-13
used at all ages)

5. Key Differences in the Revision vs Original Koppitz, cont.
Original, scored via error count.
--New = scored in a positive direction via
an absence of errors
Original, items selected on group mean differences only
--New = classical true score theory
applied to item selection

6. And, How is it the same? Retains all 9 original Bender cards at all
age levels.
Retains Koppitz emphasis on the Bender as assessing VMI from a developmental perspective.
Retains Koppitz’ conceptual approach to interpretation of BG performance.
Retains the unstructured aspects of Bender administration.

7. And, How is it the same, cont.?
Provides data on time to completion.
Retains Koppitz’ emotional indicators but adds more scoring guides and provides an EI record form for ease of use.

8. Original scoring system
Koppitz (1963) original developmental scoring system derived from a list of distortions Koppitz observed in the drawings of young children using the original nine Bender (1938) cards.
Koppitz then chose items based on their ability to differentiate among 77 children from grades 1 through 4 on the basis of grade placement.
These items were then used to devise normative data from the protocols of 1100 children ages 5 through 10 years.

9. How were new items derived?
A group of experienced psychologists was gathered to write developmentally appropriate items for the new designs apparent in the Bender-Gestalt II and its 16 (versus 9 in the original) designs.
Additional scoring elements were written for the original Bender designs as well since it was not known how the original Koppitz items would fare using modern techniques of item selection.
Once these items were agreed upon (and there were more than 100 for initial analyses), trained, supervised staff scored all protocols according to the newly devised Koppitz Developmental Scoring System.

10. How were new items derived?
Classical test theory was used to guide the item analyses which were performed on all agreed upon scoring elements.
Corrected or partial point-biserial correlations between item and total score calculated at every age interval.
Using the item means and discrimination indexes (reviewed separately by age level), 34 items were retained for the 5 through 7 year olds and 45 items for the 8 year and older groups.

11. Koppitz-2 Materials 16 design cards of the Bender-Gestalt-II
• Two record forms
Ages 5-7 years
Ages 8-89 years
• Supplemental EI Record Form
• Scoring template
• Examiner’s Manual

12. The Koppitz-2 Standardization Sample
3,535 individuals drawn during 2001 and 2002 to represent the US population at large according to the 2000 US Census statistics, stratified on the basis of age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, and SES level (as estimated by educational attainment—of parents for children and the individual for adults).

13. How successful was the actual sampling?
Very!
On nearly all variables, the actual sample was within 1 percentage point of the population values. The largest discrepancy occurred on SES where the sample was off by 2.1%, under-sampling those with more than a HS education.
In calculation of the norms tables, sample weights were calculated to perfectly mimic the population data.

14. Summary of Reliability Results
The overall reliability of the Koppitz-2 DBGT VMI has been demonstrated to be quite good. Relative to Anastasi and Urbina’s (1997) three sources of test error (content, time, and scorer), the coefficients determined demonstrate very acceptable levels of score reliability. The internal consistency reliability of the VMI is consistently high across demographic classifications as well as various diagnostic groups. The magnitude of these reliability coefficients strongly suggests that the Koppitz DBGT scores generally possess relatively small, acceptable amounts of error and that test users can have confidence in the consistency of Koppitz DBGT results when obtained after carefully following the standardized administration and scoring procedures detailed in the manual.