The WRAVMA in Pediatric OT: Subtests, Scoring, Research, and Reporting Tips

When a student's handwriting is messy or slow, the question is why. Is it copying shapes, perceiving how shapes relate in space, or getting the fingers to move quickly and precisely? The Wide Range Assessment of Visual Motor Abilities (WRAVMA) was built to help pull those threads apart. It is an older test with real limits, but its design still earns it a place on many therapists' shelves.

Is there a WRAVMA-2?

No. As of this writing, the only edition is the original 1995 WRAVMA by Wayne Adams and David Sheslow. Pearson's current product listing shows the 1995 publication date and no newer edition (Pearson, n.d.-b). If you see "WRAVMA-2" in an old report or online, treat it as an error. That means the norms are roughly three decades old.

Why pediatric therapists use the WRAVMA

The WRAVMA's main selling point is its structure. It has three subtests that line up with three related but separate skills: visual motor integration (copying), visual spatial perception (matching without drawing), and fine motor speed and dexterity (pegboard). All three were normed on the same standardization sample, which Pearson reports as 2,600 children (Pearson, n.d.-b). Because the subtests share a norm group, you can compare a child's scores across them more fairly than you could when mixing tests normed on different samples.

That design supports a common clinical question. If a child scores low on Drawing but average on Matching and Pegboard, the difficulty may lie in putting perception and motor output together. If Matching is also low, perception may be contributing. If Pegboard is the outlier, fine motor speed and dexterity may be the bigger issue. Giving all three subtests helps show whether a weakness is spatial, motor, or integrative (Texas Statewide Leadership for Autism Training, n.d.).

What it is: the basics

• Authors: Wayne Adams, PhD, and David Sheslow, PhD
• Published: 1995
• Current distributor: Pearson (Pearson, n.d.-b). Some references list Western Psychological Services (WPS) as the source (Texas Statewide Leadership for Autism Training, n.d.). If you are hunting for it, start with Pearson rather than PAR.
• Ages: 3 to 17 years
• Format: Individually administered, paper and pencil plus a pegboard
• Time: Pearson lists 4 to 10 minutes per subtest (Pearson, n.d.-b)
• Qualification level: Pearson lists it at Level B (Pearson, n.d.-b).

What the three subtests measure

Drawing (visual motor)

The child copies a series of designs that increase in difficulty (Pearson, n.d.-b). It shows how well the child coordinates what they see with what the pencil does, and it is a good place to observe grasp, paper stabilization, pacing, and erasing.

Matching (visual spatial)

The child looks at a stimulus and selects the response option that relates best to it (Pearson, n.d.-b). No drawing is required, so motor output is kept to a minimum.

Pegboard (fine motor)

The child places as many pegs as possible into the pegboard within 90 seconds (Pearson, n.d.-b). It is a timed measure of fine motor speed and dexterity. Watch for in hand manipulation and hand switching.

Scoring and reporting

According to Pearson, each subtest yields a scaled score, a standard score, an age equivalent, and a percentile rank. When all three subtests are given, you can also calculate a Visual-Motor Integration Composite (Pearson, n.d.-b). Published research describes the subtest standard scores as having a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (Palaniappan et al., 2011). The scaled score metric and the descriptive classification labels are not listed on the publisher's page, so confirm those in your manual before you use them in a report.

• Lead with standard scores and percentile ranks; they are easiest for teams and families to follow.
• Use age equivalents sparingly. They are easy to misread.
• Report the composite only when all three subtests were given.
• Pair every score with what you observed.

A school example

Maya is a second grader referred for an OT evaluation because her teacher reports that her letters are poorly formed, she struggles to copy from the board, and she rarely finishes written work. The therapist gives all three WRAVMA subtests, along with a classroom observation, handwriting sample, and teacher interview.

During Drawing, Maya worked slowly, erased often, and had trouble with the angled and overlapping designs. On Matching she was quick and accurate. On Pegboard she used a mature pincer grasp but dropped several pegs and slowed down near the end of the 90 seconds.

Sample score summary (FICTIONAL)

These scores are invented for illustration only. They assume standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, with percentiles calculated from that metric. Confirm the composite's metric and the descriptive classifications in your WRAVMA manual.

• Drawing (visual motor): standard score 78, 7th percentile
• Matching (visual spatial): standard score 98, 45th percentile
• Pegboard (fine motor): standard score 92, 30th percentile
• Visual-Motor Integration Composite: standard score 86, 18th percentile

The pattern is the useful part: Matching is average and Drawing stands out as the weakness, which points toward visual motor integration rather than a primary visual spatial problem.

How to write it up

Keep the language plain and connect scores to classroom function:

Maya was given the Wide Range Assessment of Visual Motor Abilities (WRAVMA), a standardized test of visual motor integration, visual spatial perception, and fine motor skills for ages 3 to 17. On the Drawing subtest, which asks the student to copy designs of increasing difficulty, Maya earned a standard score of 78 (7th percentile), which is below what is expected for her age. She worked slowly and erased frequently, especially on angled and overlapping designs. On the Matching subtest, which measures visual spatial skills without requiring drawing, she scored 98 (45th percentile), within the average range for her age. On the Pegboard subtest, a 90 second test of fine motor speed, she scored 92 (30th percentile) and dropped several pegs. Taken together, these results suggest that Maya's visual perception is a relative strength, while combining what she sees with a precise pencil response is an area of need. This pattern is consistent with the teacher's report of difficulty copying from the board and forming letters accurately.

Then tie results to recommendations, such as near point copying, visually cued paper, and extra time for written work.

What the research says

The independent research base on the WRAVMA as a clinical tool is thin. Reliability and validity figures live in the 1995 manual, so check it directly.

The most directly relevant independent study is Obler and Avi-Itzhak (2011). They gave the WRAVMA and the Beery VMI to 91 typically developing children ages 4 to 11. They found no systematic concurrent validity between the two tests: only two WRAVMA subtests correlated significantly with the VMI, and those correlations were weak. The authors concluded that their results do not support using the WRAVMA as a substitute for the VMI.

The WRAVMA has also served as an outcome measure in large cohorts, including a Massachusetts study of prenatal fish intake and mercury exposure at age 3 (Oken et al., 2008). In a study of 814 children ages 3 to 7 in Chennai, India, higher blood lead levels were associated with lower visual motor scores (Palaniappan et al., 2011). Those authors noted there were no WRAVMA norms for Indian children and found Drawing scores higher, and Matching scores considerably lower, than U.S. norms would predict.

Practical cautions

• Old norms. The norms date from 1995. Be careful with borderline scores and interpret them alongside work samples.
• Not interchangeable with the Beery VMI. Avoid switching between the two when tracking progress (Obler & Avi-Itzhak, 2011).
• Handwriting is more than visual motor skill. The WRAVMA does not measure letter formation, legibility, or writing speed in context.
• Diverse learners. U.S. norms may not fit every child's background. Note cultural or experiential factors.

How it compares with related tools

• Beery VMI, 6th edition: The most widely used design copying test in school OT. Pearson lists ages 2 to 99, a 2010 publication date, and supplemental Visual Perception and Motor Coordination tests that use the same forms (Pearson, n.d.-a). Its supplemental tests give a similar breakdown with more current norms.
• DTVP-3: Developmental Test of Visual Perception, Third Edition, by Hammill, Pearson, and Voress (PRO-ED), for ages 4 to 12 years 11 months. It has five subtests spanning visual perception and visual motor integration (American Occupational Therapy Association, n.d.).
• TVMS-3: Test of Visual-Motor Skills, Third Edition, by Nancy Martin (Academic Therapy Publications), for ages 3 to 90 and older. It uses design copying and looks at accuracy, line quality, and spatial placement (American Occupational Therapy Association, n.d.).

The WRAVMA's distinguishing feature is its timed pegboard, normed on the same sample as the drawing and matching tasks.

Bottom line

The WRAVMA is a quick, three part test that helps sort out whether a child's difficulty is visual motor, visual spatial, or fine motor. There is no second edition, so you are working with 1995 norms and a modest research base. Use it for its profile, back up scores with observation, and confirm scoring details in your manual.

References

American Occupational Therapy Association. (n.d.). Visual perceptual and visual motor assessments [PDF]. https://cysis.aota.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Visual-perceptual-and-visual-motor-assessments.pdf

Obler, D. R., & Avi-Itzhak, T. (2011). Concurrent validity of the Wide Range Assessment of Visual Motor Abilities in typically developing children ages 4 to 11 years. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 113(2), 377-385. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.10.24.27.PMS.113.5.377-385

Oken, E., Radesky, J. S., Wright, R. O., Bellinger, D. C., Amarasiriwardena, C. J., Kleinman, K. P., Hu, H., & Gillman, M. W. (2008). Maternal fish intake during pregnancy, blood mercury levels, and child cognition at age 3 years in a US cohort. American Journal of Epidemiology, 167(10), 1171-1181. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn034

Palaniappan, K., Roy, A., Balakrishnan, K., Gopalakrishnan, L., Mukherjee, B., Hu, H., & Bellinger, D. C. (2011). Lead exposure and visual-motor abilities in children from Chennai, India. NeuroToxicology, 32(4), 465-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2011.03.011

Pearson. (n.d.-a). Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Sixth Edition. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Motor-Sensory/Beery-Buktenica-Developmental-Test-of-Visual-Motor-Integration-%7C-Sixth-Edition/p/100000663.html

Pearson. (n.d.-b). Wide Range Assessment of Visual Motor Abilities. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/en/usd/p/100001723.html

Texas Statewide Leadership for Autism Training. (n.d.). Wide Range Assessment of Visual Motor Abilities. https://txautism.net/evaluations/wide-range-assessment-of-visual-motor-abilities

‍

Speed up your evaluation report writing

You can use the scoring chart for this assessment and many others on Double Time Docs, our software that helps you write your evals significantly faster. Check it out!