| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Measurement of Intelligence - An Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the Use of the - Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon - Intelligence Scale
Author: Terman, Lewis M. (Lewis Madison)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Measurement of Intelligence - An Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the Use of the - Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon - Intelligence Scale" ***
RIVERSIDE TEXTBOOKS
IN EDUCATION
EDITED BY ELLWOOD P. CUBBERLEY
PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
DIVISION OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
UNDER THE EDITORIAL DIRECTION
OF ALEXANDER INGLIS
PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
THE MEASUREMENT
OF INTELLIGENCE
AN EXPLANATION OF AND A
COMPLETE GUIDE FOR THE USE OF THE
STANFORD REVISION AND EXTENSION OF
_The Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale_
BY
LEWIS M. TERMAN
PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
[Illustration]
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY
BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO SAN FRANCISCO
The Riverside Press Cambridge
COPYRIGHT, 1916, BY LEWIS M. TERMAN
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The Riverside Press
CAMBRIDGE · MASSACHUSETTS
PRINTED IN THE U.S.A.
To the Memory
OF
ALFRED BINET
PATIENT RESEARCHER, CREATIVE THINKER, UNPRETENTIOUS SCHOLAR;
INSPIRING AND FRUITFUL DEVOTEE
OF
INDUCTIVE AND DYNAMIC
PSYCHOLOGY
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION
The present volume appeals to the editor of this series as one of the
most significant books, viewed from the standpoint of the future of our
educational theory and practice, that has been issued in years. Not only
does the volume set forth, in language so simple that the layman can
easily understand, the large importance for public education of a
careful measurement of the intelligence of children, but it also
describes the tests which are to be given and the entire procedure of
giving them. In a clear and easy style the author sets forth scientific
facts of far-reaching educational importance, facts which it has cost
him, his students, and many other scientific workers, years of
painstaking labor to accumulate.
Only very recently, practically only within the past half-dozen years,
have scientific workers begun to appreciate fully the importance of
intelligence tests as a guide to educational procedure, and up to the
present we have been able to make but little use of such tests in our
schools. The conception in itself has been new, and the testing
procedure has been more or less unrefined and technical. The following
somewhat popular presentation of the idea and of the methods involved,
itself based on a scientific monograph which the author is publishing
elsewhere, serves for the first time to set forth in simple language the
technical details of giving such intelligence tests.
The educational significance of the results to be obtained from
careful measurements of the intelligence of children can hardly be
overestimated. Questions relating to the choice of studies, vocational
guidance, schoolroom procedure, the grading of pupils, promotional
schemes, the study of the retardation of children in the schools,
juvenile delinquency, and the proper handling of subnormals on the
one hand and gifted children on the other,--all alike acquire new
meaning and significance when viewed in the light of the measurement
of intelligence as outlined in this volume. As a guide to the
interpretation of the results of other forms of investigation relating
to the work, progress, and needs of children, intelligence tests form a
very valuable aid. More than all other forms of data combined, such
tests give the necessary information from which a pupil's possibilities
of future mental growth can be foretold, and upon which his further
education can be most profitably directed.
The publication of this revision and extension of the original
Binet-Simon scale for measuring intelligence, with the closer adaptation
of it to American conditions and needs, should mark a distinct step in
advance in our educational procedure. It means the perfection of another
and a very important measuring stick for evaluating educational
practices, and in particular for diagnosing individual possibilities and
needs. Just now the method is new, and its use somewhat limited, but it
is the confident prediction of many students of the subject that, before
long, intelligence tests will become as much a matter of necessary
routine in schoolroom procedure as a blood-count now is in physical
diagnosis. That our schoolroom methods will in turn become much more
intelligent, and that all classes of children, but especially the gifted
and the slow, will profit by such intellectual diagnosis, there can be
but little question.
That any parent or teacher, without training, can give these tests, the
author in no way contends. However, the observations of Dr. Kohs, cited
in Chapter VII, as well as the experience of the author and others who
have given courses in intelligence testing to teachers, alike indicate
that sufficient skill to enable teachers and school principals to give
such tests intelligently is not especially difficult to acquire. This
being the case it may be hoped that the requisite training to enable
them to handle these tests may be included, very soon, as a part of the
necessary pedagogical equipment of those who aspire to administrative
positions in our public and private schools.
Besides being of special importance to school officers and to students
of education in colleges and normal schools, this volume can confidently
be recommended to physicians and social workers, and to teachers and
parents interested in intelligence measurements, as at once the simplest
and the best explanation of the newly-evolved intelligence tests, which
has so far appeared in print.
ELLWOOD P. CUBBERLEY.
PREFACE
The constant and growing use of the Binet-Simon intelligence scale in
public schools, institutions for defectives, reform schools, juvenile
courts, and police courts is sufficient evidence of the intrinsic
worth of the method. It is generally recognized, however, that the
serviceableness of the scale has hitherto been seriously limited, both
by the lack of a sufficiently detailed guide and by a number of
recognized imperfections in the scale itself. The Stanford revision and
extension has been worked out for the purpose of correcting as many as
possible of these imperfections, and it is here presented with a rather
minute description of the method as a whole and of the individual tests.
The aim has been to present the explanations and instructions so clearly
and in such an untechnical form as to make the book of use, not only to
the psychologist, but also to the rank and file of teachers, physicians,
and social workers. More particularly, it is designed as a text for use
in normal schools, colleges, and teachers' reading-circles.
While the use of the intelligence scale for research purposes and for
accurate diagnosis will of necessity always be restricted to those who
have had extensive training in experimental psychology, the author
believes that the time has come when its wider use for more general
purposes should be encouraged.
However, it cannot be too strongly emphasized that no one, whatever his
previous training may have been, can make proper use of the scale unless
he is willing to learn the method of procedure and scoring down to the
minutest detail. A general acquaintance with the nature of the
individual tests is by no means sufficient.
Perhaps the best way to learn the method will be to begin by studying
the book through, in order to gain a general acquaintance with the
tests; then, if possible, to observe a few examinations; and finally to
take up the procedure for detailed study in connection with practice
testing. Twenty or thirty tests, made with constant reference to the
procedure as described in Part II, should be sufficient to prepare the
teacher or physician to make profitable use of the scale.
The Stanford revision of the scale is the result of a number of
investigations, made possible by the coöperation of the author's
graduate students. Grateful acknowledgment is especially due to
Professor H. G. Childs, Miss Grace Lyman, Dr. George Ordahl, Dr. Louise
Ellison Ordahl, Miss Neva Galbreath, Mr. Wilford Talbert, Mr. J. Harold
Williams, and Mr. Herbert E. Knollin. Without their assistance this book
could not have been written.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY,
_April, 1916_.
CONTENTS
PART I. PROBLEMS AND RESULTS
CHAPTER I
THE USES OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS 3
Intelligence tests of retarded school children. Intelligence
tests of the feeble-minded. Intelligence tests of delinquents.
Intelligence tests of superior children. Intelligence tests as a
basis for grading. Intelligence tests for vocational fitness.
Other uses of intelligence tests.
CHAPTER II
SOURCES OF ERROR IN JUDGING INTELLIGENCE 22
Are intelligence tests superfluous? The necessity of standards.
The intelligence of retarded children usually overestimated. The
intelligence of superior children usually underestimated. Other
fallacies in the estimation of intelligence. Binet's
questionnaire on teachers' methods of judging intelligence.
Binet's experiment on how teachers test intelligence.
CHAPTER III
DESCRIPTION OF THE BINET-SIMON METHOD 36
Essential nature of the scale. How the scale was derived. List of
tests. How the scale is used. Special characteristics of the
Binet-Simon method. The use of age standards. The kind of mental
functions brought into play. Binet would test "general
intelligence." Binet's conception of general intelligence. Other
conceptions of intelligence. Guiding principles in choice and
arrangement of tests. Some avowed limitations of the Binet tests.
CHAPTER IV
NATURE OF THE STANFORD REVISION AND EXTENSION 51
Sources of data. Method of arriving at a revision. List of tests
in the Stanford revision and extension. Summary of changes.
Effects of the revision on the mental ages secured.
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF ONE THOUSAND INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS 65
The distribution of intelligence. The validity of the
intelligence quotient. Sex differences. Intelligence of the
different social classes. The relation of the I Q to the quality
of the child's school work. The relation between I Q and grade
progress. Correlation between I Q and the teachers' estimates of
the children's intelligence. The validity of the individual
tests.
CHAPTER VI
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VARIOUS INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS 78
Frequency of different degrees of intelligence. Classification of
intelligence quotients. Feeble-mindedness. Border-line cases.
Examples of border-line deficiency. Dull normals. Average
intelligence. Superior intelligence. Very superior intelligence.
Examples of very superior intelligence. Genius and "near" genius.
Is the I Q often misleading?
CHAPTER VII
RELIABILITY OF THE BINET-SIMON METHOD 105
General value of the method. Dependence of the scale's
reliability on the training of the examiner. Influence of the
subject's attitude. The influence of coaching. Reliability of
repeated tests. Influence of social and educational advantages.
PART II
GUIDE FOR THE USE OF THE STANFORD REVISION AND EXTENSION
CHAPTER VIII
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 121
Necessity of securing attention and effort. Quiet and seclusion.
Presence of others. Getting into _rapport_. Keeping the child
encouraged. The importance of tact. Personality of the examiner.
The avoidance of fatigue. Duration of the examination. Desirable
range of testing. Order of giving the tests. Coaxing to be
avoided. Adhering to formula. Scoring. Recording responses.
Scattering of successes. Supplementary considerations.
Alternative tests. Finding mental age. The use of the
intelligence quotient. How to find the I Q of adult subjects.
Material for use in testing.
CHAPTER IX
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR III
1. Pointing to parts of the body 142
2. Naming familiar objects 143
3. Enumeration of objects in pictures 145
4. Giving sex 146
5. Giving the family name 147
6. Repeating six to seven syllables 149
Alternative test: Repeating three digits 150
CHAPTER X
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR IV
1. Comparison of lines 151
2. Discrimination of forms 152
3. Counting four pennies 154
4. Copying a square 155
5. Comprehension, first degree 157
6. Repeating four digits 159
Alternative test: Repeating twelve to thirteen syllables 160
CHAPTER XI
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR V
1. Comparison of weights 161
2. Naming colors 163
3. Æsthetic comparison 165
4. Giving definitions in terms of use 167
5. The game of patience 169
6. Three commissions 172
Alternative test: Giving age 173
CHAPTER XII
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR VI
1. Distinguishing right and left 175
2. Finding omissions in pictures 178
3. Counting thirteen pennies 180
4. Comprehension, second degree 181
5. Naming four coins 184
6. Repeating sixteen to eighteen syllables 185
Alternative test: Forenoon and afternoon 187
CHAPTER XIII
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR VII
1. Giving the number of fingers 189
2. Description of pictures 190
3. Repeating five digits 193
4. Tying a bow-knot 196
5. Giving differences from memory 199
6. Copying a diamond 204
Alternative test 1: Naming the days of the week 205
Alternative test 2: Repeating three digits reversed 207
CHAPTER XIV
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR VIII
1. The ball-and-field test 210
2. Counting backwards from 20 to 1 213
3. Comprehension, third degree 215
4. Giving similarities, two things 217
5. Giving definitions superior to use 221
6. Vocabulary (20 definitions, 3600 words) 224
Alternative test 1: Naming six coins 231
Alternative test 2: Writing from dictation 231
CHAPTER XV
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR IX
1. Giving the date 234
2. Arranging five weights 236
3. Making change 240
4. Repeating four digits reversed 242
5. Using three words in a sentence 242
6. Finding rhymes 248
Alternative test 1: Naming the months 251
Alternative test 2: Counting the value of stamps 252
CHAPTER XVI
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR X
1. Vocabulary (30 definitions, 5400 words) 255
2. Detecting absurdities 255
3. Drawing designs from memory 260
4. Reading for eight memories 262
5. Comprehension, fourth degree 268
6. Naming sixty words 272
Alternative test 1: Repeating six digits 277
Alternative test 2: Repeating twenty to twenty-two syllables 277
Alternative test 3: Healy's Construction Puzzle A 278
CHAPTER XVII
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR XII
1. Vocabulary (40 definitions, 7200 words) 281
2. Defining abstract words 281
3. The ball-and-field test (superior plan) 286
4. Dissected sentences 286
5. Interpretation of fables (score 4) 290
6. Repeating five digits reversed 301
7. Interpretation of pictures 302
8. Giving similarities, three things 306
CHAPTER XVIII
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR XIV
1. Vocabulary (50 definitions, 9000 words) 310
2. Induction test: finding a rule 310
3. Giving differences between a president and a king 313
4. Problem questions 315
5. Arithmetical reasoning 319
6. Reversing hands of a clock 321
Alternative test: Repeating seven digits 322
CHAPTER XIX
INSTRUCTIONS FOR "AVERAGE ADULT"
1. Vocabulary (65 definitions, 11,700 words) 324
2. Interpretation of fables (score 8) 324
3. Differences between abstract terms 324
4. Problem of the enclosed boxes 327
5. Repeating six digits reversed 329
6. Using a code 330
Alternative test 1: Repeating twenty-eight syllables 332
Alternative test 2: Comprehension of physical relations 333
CHAPTER XX
INSTRUCTIONS FOR "SUPERIOR ADULT"
1. Vocabulary (75 definitions, 13,500 words) 338
2. Binet's paper-cutting test 338
3. Repeating eight digits 340
4. Repeating thought of passage 340
5. Repeating seven digits reversed 345
6. Ingenuity test 345
SELECTED REFERENCES 349
INDEX 359
FIGURES AND DIAGRAMS
1. Distribution of Mental Ages of 62 Normal Adults 55
2. Distribution of I Q's of 905 Unselected Children, 5-14 Years
of Age 66
3. Median I Q of 457 Boys and 448 Girls, for the Ages 5-14 Years 69
4. Diamond drawn by R. W.; Age 13-10; Mental Age 7-6 82
5. Writing from Dictation. R. M., Age 15; Mental Age 9 83
6. Ball and Field Test. I. M., Age 14-2; Mental Age 9 84
7. Diamond drawn by A. W. 85
8. Drawing Designs from Memory. H. S., Age 11; Mental Age 8-3 86
9. Ball and Field Test. S. F., Age 17; Mental Age 11-6 88
10. Writing from Dictation. C. P., Age 10-2; Mental Age 7-11 90
11. Ball and Field Test. M. P., Age 14; Mental Age 10-8 91
12. Ball and Field Test. R. G., Age 13-5; Mental Age 10-6 93
13. Ball and Field Test. E. B., Age 7-9; I Q 130 98
14. Ball and Field Test. F. McA., Age 10-3; Mental Age 14-6 100
15. Drawing Designs from Memory. E. M., Age 6-11; Mental Age 10,
I Q 145 101
16. Ball and Field Test. B. F., Age 7-8; Mental Age 12-4; I Q 160 102
17. Healy and Fernald Construction Puzzle 279
THE MEASUREMENT OF INTELLIGENCE
PART I
PROBLEMS AND RESULTS
THE MEASUREMENT OF INTELLIGENCE
CHAPTER I
THE USES OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS
INTELLIGENCE TESTS OF RETARDED SCHOOL CHILDREN. Numerous studies of the
age-grade progress of school children have afforded convincing evidence
of the magnitude and seriousness of the retardation problem. Statistics
collected in hundreds of cities in the United States show that between a
third and a half of the school children fail to progress through the
grades at the expected rate; that from 10 to 15 per cent are retarded
two years or more; and that from 5 to 8 per cent are retarded at least
three years. More than 10 per cent of the $400,000,000 annually expended
in the United States for school instruction is devoted to re-teaching
children what they have already been taught but have failed to learn.
The first efforts at reform which resulted from these findings were
based on the supposition that the evils which had been discovered could
be remedied by the individualizing of instruction, by improved methods
of promotion, by increased attention to children's health, and by other
reforms in school administration. Although reforms along these lines
have been productive of much good, they have nevertheless been in a
measure disappointing. The trouble was, they were too often based upon
the assumption that under the right conditions all children would be
equally, or almost equally, capable of making satisfactory school
progress. Psychological studies of school children by means of
standardized intelligence tests have shown that this supposition is not
in accord with the facts. It has been found that children do not fall
into two well-defined groups, the "feeble-minded" and the "normal."
Instead, there are many grades of intelligence, ranging from idiocy on
the one hand to genius on the other. Among those classed as normal, vast
individual differences have been found to exist in original mental
endowment, differences which affect profoundly the capacity to profit
from school instruction.
We are beginning to realize that the school must take into account, more
seriously than it has yet done, the existence and significance of these
differences in endowment. Instead of wasting energy in the vain attempt
to hold mentally slow and defective children up to a level of progress
which is normal to the average child, it will be wiser to take account of
the inequalities of children in original endowment and to differentiate
the course of study in such a way that each child will be allowed to
progress at the rate which is normal to him, whether that rate be rapid
or slow.
While we cannot hold all children to the same standard of school
progress, we can at least prevent the kind of retardation which involves
failure and the repetition of a school grade. It is well enough
recognized that children do not enter with very much zest upon school
work in which they have once failed. Failure crushes self-confidence and
destroys the spirit of work. It is a sad fact that a large proportion of
children in the schools are acquiring the habit of failure. The remedy,
of course, is to measure out the work for each child in proportion to
his mental ability.
Before an engineer constructs a railroad bridge or trestle, he studies
the materials to be used, and learns by means of tests exactly the
amount of strain per unit of size his materials will be able to
withstand. He does not work empirically, and count upon patching up the
mistakes which may later appear under the stress of actual use. The
educational engineer should emulate this example. Tests and forethought
must take the place of failure and patchwork. Our efforts have been too
long directed by "trial and error." It is time to leave off guessing and
to acquire a scientific knowledge of the material with which we have to
deal. When instruction must be repeated, it means that the school, as
well as the pupil, has failed.
Every child who fails in his school work or is in danger of failing
should be given a mental examination. The examination takes less than
one hour, and the result will contribute more to a real understanding of
the case than anything else that could be done. It is necessary to
determine whether a given child is unsuccessful in school because of
poor native ability, or because of poor instruction, lack of interest,
or some other removable cause.
It is not sufficient to establish any number of special classes, if they
are to be made the dumping-ground for all kinds of troublesome
cases--the feeble-minded, the physically defective, the merely backward,
the truants, the incorrigibles, etc. Without scientific diagnosis and
classification of these children the educational work of the special
class must blunder along in the dark. In such diagnosis and
classification our main reliance must always be in mental tests,
properly used and properly interpreted.
INTELLIGENCE TESTS OF THE FEEBLE-MINDED. Thus far intelligence tests
have found their chief application in the identification and grading of
the feeble-minded. Their value for this purpose is twofold. In the first
place, it is necessary to ascertain the degree of defect before it is
possible to decide intelligently upon either the content or the method
of instruction suited to the training of the backward child. In the
second place, intelligence tests are rapidly extending our conception of
"feeble-mindedness" to include milder degrees of defect than have
generally been associated with this term. The earlier methods of
diagnosis caused a majority of the higher grade defectives to be
overlooked. Previous to the development of psychological methods the
low-grade moron was about as high a type of defective as most physicians
or even psychologists were able to identify as feeble-minded.
Wherever intelligence tests have been made in any considerable number in
the schools, they have shown that not far from 2 per cent of the
children enrolled have a grade of intelligence which, however long they
live, will never develop beyond the level which is normal to the average
child of 11 or 12 years. The large majority of these belong to the moron
grade; that is, their mental development will stop somewhere between the
7-year and 12-year level of intelligence, more often between 9 and 12.
The more we learn about such children, the clearer it becomes that they
must be looked upon as real defectives. They may be able to drag
along to the fourth, fifth, or sixth grades, but even by the age of
16 or 18 years they are never able to cope successfully with the more
abstract and difficult parts of the common-school course of study. They
may master a certain amount of rote learning, such as that involved in
reading and in the manipulation of number combinations but they cannot
be taught to meet new conditions effectively or to think, reason, and
judge as normal persons do.
It is safe to predict that in the near future intelligence tests will
bring tens of thousands of these high-grade defectives under the
surveillance and protection of society. This will ultimately result in
curtailing the reproduction of feeble-mindedness and in the elimination
of an enormous amount of crime, pauperism, and industrial inefficiency.
It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the high-grade cases, of the
type now so frequently overlooked, are precisely the ones whose
guardianship it is most important for the State to assume.
INTELLIGENCE TESTS OF DELINQUENTS. One of the most important facts
brought to light by the use of intelligence tests is the frequent
association of delinquency and mental deficiency. Although it has long
been recognized that the proportion of feeble-mindedness among
offenders is rather large, the real amount has, until recently, been
underestimated even by the most competent students of criminology.
The criminologists have been accustomed to give more attention to the
physical than to the mental correlates of crime. Thus, Lombroso and
his followers subjected thousands of criminals to observation and
measurement with regard to such physical traits as size and shape of the
skull, bilateral asymmetries, anomalies of the ear, eye, nose, palate,
teeth, hands, fingers, hair, dermal sensitivity, etc. The search was for
physical "stigmata" characteristic of the "criminal type."
Although such studies performed an important service in creating a
scientific interest in criminology, the theories of Lombroso have been
wholly discredited by the results of intelligence tests. Such tests have
demonstrated, beyond any possibility of doubt, that the most important
trait of at least 25 per cent of our criminals is mental weakness. The
physical abnormalities which have been found so common among prisoners
are not the stigmata of criminality, but the physical accompaniments of
feeble-mindedness. They have no diagnostic significance except in so far
as they are indications of mental deficiency. Without exception, every
study which has been made of the intelligence level of delinquents has
furnished convincing testimony as to the close relation existing between
mental weakness and moral abnormality. Some of these findings are as
follows:--
Miss Renz tested 100 girls of the Ohio State Reformatory and
reported 36 per cent as certainly feeble-minded. In every one of
these cases the commitment papers had given the pronouncement
"intellect sound."
Under the direction of Dr. Goddard the Binet tests were given to
100 juvenile court cases, chosen at random, in Newark, New
Jersey. Nearly half were classified as feeble-minded. One boy
17 years old had 9-year intelligence; another of 15½ had
8-year intelligence.
Of 56 delinquent girls 14 to 20 years of age tested by Hill and
Goddard, almost half belonged either to the 9- or the 10-year
level of intelligence.
Dr. G. G. Fernald's tests of 100 prisoners at the Massachusetts
State Reformatory showed that at least 25 per cent were
feeble-minded.
Of 1186 girls tested by Miss Dewson at the State Industrial
School for Girls at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 28 per cent were
found to have subnormal intelligence.
Dr. Katherine Bement Davis's report on 1000 cases entered in the
Bedford Home for Women, New York, stated that there was no doubt
but that at least 157 were feeble-minded. Recently there has
been established at this institution one of the most important
research laboratories of the kind in the United States, with a
trained psychologist, Dr. Mabel Fernald, in charge.
Of 564 prostitutes investigated by Dr. Anna Dwyer in connection
with the Municipal Court of Chicago, only 3 per cent had gone
beyond the fifth grade in school. Mental tests were not made,
but from the data given it is reasonably certain that half or
more were feeble-minded.
Tests, by Dr. George Ordahl and Dr. Louise Ellison Ordahl, of
cases in the Geneva School for Girls, Geneva, Illinois, showed
that, on a conservative basis of classification, at least
18 per cent were feeble-minded. At the Joliet Prison, Illinois,
the same authors found 50 per cent of the female prisoners
feeble-minded, and 26 per cent of the male prisoners. At the St.
Charles School for Boys 26 per cent were feeble-minded.
Tests, by Dr. J. Harold Williams, of 150 delinquents in the
Whittier State School for Boys, Whittier, California, gave
28 per cent feeble-minded and 25 per cent at or near the
border-line. About 300 other juvenile delinquents tested by
Mr. Williams gave approximately the same figures. As a result of
these findings a research laboratory has been established at the
Whittier School, with Dr. Williams in charge. In the girls'
division of the Whittier School, Dr. Grace Fernald collected a
large amount of psychological data on more than 100 delinquent
girls. The findings of this investigation agree closely with
those of Dr. Williams for the boys.
At the State Reformatory, Jeffersonville, Indiana, Dr. von
Klein-Schmid, in an unusually thorough psychological study of
1000 young adult prisoners, finds the proportion of
feeble-mindedness not far from 50 per cent.
But it is needless to multiply statistics. Those given are but samples.
Tests are at present being made in most of the progressive prisons,
reform schools, and juvenile courts throughout the country, and while
there are minor discrepancies in regard to the actual percentage who are
feeble-minded, there is no investigator who denies the fearful rôle
played by mental deficiency in the production of vice, crime, and
delinquency.[1]
[1] See References at end of volume.
Heredity studies of "degenerate" families have confirmed, in a striking
way, the testimony secured by intelligence tests. Among the best known
of such families are the "Kallikaks," the "Jukes," the "Hill Folk," the
"Nams," the "Zeros," and the "Ishmaelites."
_The Kallikak family._ Martin Kallikak was a youthful soldier in
the Revolutionary War. At a tavern frequented by the militia he
met a feeble-minded girl, by whom he became the father of a
feeble-minded son. In 1912 there were 480 known direct
descendants of this temporary union. It is known that 36 of
these were illegitimates, that 33 were sexually immoral, that 24
were confirmed alcoholics, and that 8 kept houses of ill-fame.
The explanation of so much immorality will be obvious when it is
stated that of the 480 descendants, 143 were known to be
feeble-minded, and that many of the others were of questionable
mentality.
A few years after returning from the war this same Martin
Kallikak married a respectable girl of good family. From this
union 496 individuals have been traced in direct descent, and in
this branch of the family there were no illegitimate children,
no immoral women, and only one man who was sexually loose. There
were no criminals, no keepers of houses of ill-fame, and only
two confirmed alcoholics. Again the explanation is clear when it
is stated that this branch of the family did not contain a
single feeble-minded individual. It was made up of doctors,
lawyers, judges, educators, traders, and landholders.[2]
[2] H. H. Goddard: _The Kallikak Family_. (1914.) 141 pp.
_The Hill Folk._ The Hill Folk are a New England family of which
709 persons have been traced. Of the married women, 24 per cent
had given birth to illegitimate offspring, and 10 per cent were
prostitutes. Criminal tendencies were clearly shown in
24 members of the family, while alcoholism was still more
common. The proportion of feeble-minded was 48 per cent. It was
estimated that the Hill Folk have in the last sixty years cost
the State of Massachusetts, in charitable relief, care of
feeble-minded, epileptic, and insane, conviction and punishment
for crime, prostitution pauperism, etc., at least $500,000.[3]
[3] Danielson and Davenport: _The Hill Folk_. Eugenics Record Office,
Memoir No. 1. 1912. 56 pp.
The Nam family and the Jukes give equally dark pictures as
regards criminality, licentiousness, and alcoholism, and
although feeble-mindedness was not as fully investigated in
these families as in the Kallikaks and the Hill Folk, the
evidence is strong that it was a leading trait. The 784 Nams who
were traced included 187 alcoholics, 232 women and 199 men known
to be licentious, and 40 who became prisoners. It is estimated
that the Nams have already cost the State nearly $1,500,000.[4]
[4] Estabrook and Davenport: _The Nam Family_. Eugenics Record Office
Memoir No. 2. (1912). 85 pp.
Of 540 Jukes, practically one fifth were born out of wedlock, 37
were known to be syphilitic, 53 had been in the poorhouse, 76
had been sentenced to prison, and of 229 women of marriageable
age 128 were prostitutes. The economic damage inflicted upon the
State of New York by the Jukes in seventy-five years was
estimated at more than $1,300,000, to say nothing of diseases
and other evil influences which they helped to spread.[5]
[5] R. L. Dugdale: _The Jukes_. (Fourth edition, 1910.) 120 pp. G. P.
Putnam's Sons.
But why do the feeble-minded tend so strongly to become delinquent? The
answer may be stated in simple terms. Morality depends upon two things:
(a) the ability to foresee and to weigh the possible consequences for
self and others of different kinds of behavior; and (b) upon the
willingness and capacity to exercise self-restraint. That there are many
intelligent criminals is due to the fact that (a) may exist without
(b). On the other hand, (b) presupposes (a). In other words, not
all criminals are feeble-minded, but all feeble-minded are at least
potential criminals. That every feeble-minded woman is a potential
prostitute would hardly be disputed by any one. Moral judgment, like
business judgment, social judgment, or any other kind of higher thought
process, is a function of intelligence. Morality cannot flower and fruit
if intelligence remains infantile.
All of us in early childhood lacked moral responsibility. We were as
rank egoists as any criminal. Respect for the feelings, the property
rights, or any other kind of rights, of others had to be laboriously
acquired under the whip of discipline. But by degrees we learned that
only when instincts are curbed, and conduct is made to conform to
principles established formally or accepted tacitly by our neighbors,
does this become a livable world for any of us. Without the intelligence
to generalize the particular, to foresee distant consequences of present
acts, to weigh these foreseen consequences in the nice balance of
imagination, morality cannot be learned. When the adult body, with its
adult instincts, is coupled with the undeveloped intelligence and weak
inhibitory powers of a 10-year-old child, the only possible outcome,
except in those cases where constant guardianship is exercised by
relatives or friends, is some form of delinquency.
Considering the tremendous cost of vice and crime, which in all
probability amounts to not less than $500,000,000 per year in the United
States alone, it is evident that psychological testing has found here
one of its richest applications. Before offenders can be subjected
to rational treatment a mental diagnosis is necessary, and while
intelligence tests do not constitute a complete psychological diagnosis,
they are, nevertheless, its most indispensable part.
INTELLIGENCE TESTS OF SUPERIOR CHILDREN. The number of children with
very superior ability is approximately as great as the number of
feeble-minded. The future welfare of the country hinges, in no small
degree, upon the right education of these superior children. Whether
civilization moves on and up depends most on the advances made by
creative thinkers and leaders in science, politics, art, morality, and
religion. Moderate ability can follow, or imitate, but genius must show
the way.
Through the leveling influences of the educational lockstep such
children at present are often lost in the masses. It is a rare child who
is able to break this lockstep by extra promotions. Taking the country
over, the ratio of "accelerates" to "retardates" in the school is
approximately 1 to 10. Through the handicapping influences of poverty,
social neglect, physical defects, or educational maladjustments, many
potential leaders in science, art, government, and industry are denied
the opportunity of a normal development. The use we have made of
exceptional ability reminds one of the primitive methods of surface
mining. It is necessary to explore the nation's hidden resources of
intelligence. The common saying that "genius will out" is one of those
dangerous half-truths with which too many people rest content.
Psychological tests show that children of superior ability are very
likely to be misunderstood in school. The writer has tested more than a
hundred children who were as much above average intelligence as moron
defectives are below. The large majority of these were found located
below the school grade warranted by their intellectual level. One third
had failed to reap any advantage whatever, in terms of promotion, from
their very superior intelligence. Even genius languishes when kept
over-long at tasks that are too easy.
Our data show that teachers sometimes fail entirely to recognize
exceptional superiority in a pupil, and that the degree of such
superiority is rarely estimated with anything like the accuracy which is
possible to the psychologist after a one-hour examination. _B. F._, for
example, was a little over 7½ years old when tested. He was in the
third grade, and was therefore thought by his teacher to be accelerated
in school. This boy's intelligence, however, was found to be above the
12-year level. There is no doubt that his mental ability would have
enabled him, with a few months of individual instruction, to carry fifth
or even sixth-grade work as easily as third, and without injury to body
or mind. Nevertheless, the teacher and both the parents of this child
had found nothing remarkable about him. In reality he belongs to a grade
of genius not found oftener than once in several thousand cases.
Another illustration is that of a boy of 10½ years who tested at the
"average adult" level. He was doing superior work in the sixth grade,
but according to the testimony of the teacher had "no unusual ability."
It was ascertained from the parents that this boy, at an age when most
children are reading fairy stories, had a passion for standard medical
literature and textbooks in physical science. Yet, after more than a
year of daily contact with this young genius (who is a relative of
Meyerbeer, the composer), the teacher had discovered no symptoms of
unusual ability.[6]
[6] See p. 26 _ff._ for further illustrations of this kind.
Teachers should be better trained in detecting the signs of superior
ability. Every child who consistently gets high marks in his school work
with apparent ease should be given a mental examination, and if his
intelligence level warrants it he should either be given extra
promotions, or placed in a special class for superior children where
faster progress can be made. The latter is the better plan, because it
obviates the necessity of skipping grades; it permits rapid but
continuous progress.
The usual reluctance of teachers to give extra promotions probably rests
upon three factors: (1) mere inertia; (2) a natural unwillingness to
part with exceptionally satisfactory pupils; and (3) the traditional
belief that precocious children should be held back for fear of dire
physical or mental consequences.
In order to throw light on the question whether exceptionally bright
children are specially likely to be one-sided, nervous, delicate,
morally abnormal, socially unadaptable, or otherwise peculiar, the
writer has secured rather extensive information regarding 31 children
whose mental age was found by intelligence tests to be 25 per cent above
the actual age. This degree of intelligence is possessed by about
2 children out of 100, and is nearly as far above average intelligence
as high-grade feeble-mindedness is below. The supplementary information,
which was furnished in most cases by the teachers, may be summarized as
follows:--
1. _Ability special or general._ In the case of 20 out of 31 the
ability is decidedly general, and with 2 it is mainly general.
The talents of 5 are described as more or less special, but
only in one case is it remarkably so. Doubtful 4.
2. _Health._ 15 are said to be perfectly healthy; 13 have one or
more physical defects; 4 of the 13 are described as delicate;
4 have adenoids; 4 have eye-defects; 1 lisps; and 1 stutters.
These figures are about the same as one finds in any group of
ordinary children.
3. _Studiousness._ "Extremely studious," 15; "usually studious" or
"fairly studious," 11; "not particularly studious," 5; "lazy,"
0.
4. _Moral traits._ Favorable traits only, 19; one or more
unfavorable traits, 8; no answer, 4. The eight with
unfavorable moral traits are described as follows: 2 are "very
self-willed"; 1 "needs close watching"; 1 is "cruel to
animals"; 1 is "untruthful"; 1 is "unreliable"; 1 is "a
bluffer"; 1 is "sexually abnormal," "perverted," and
"vicious."
It will be noted that with the exception of the last child,
the moral irregularities mentioned can hardly be regarded,
from the psychological point of view, as essentially abnormal.
It is perhaps a good rather than a bad sign for a child to be
self-willed; most children "need close watching"; and a
certain amount of untruthfulness in children is the rule and
not the exception.
5. _Social adaptability._ Socially adaptable, 25; not adaptable,
2; doubtful, 4.
6. _Attitude of other children._ "Favorable," "friendly," "liked
by everybody," "much admired," "popular," etc., 26; "not
liked," 1; "inspires repugnance," 1; no answer, 1.
7. _Is child a leader?_ "Yes," 14; "no," or "not particularly,"
12; doubtful, 5.
8. _Is play life normal?_ "Yes," 26; "no," 1; "hardly," 1;
doubtful, 3.
9. _Is child spoiled or vain?_ "No," 22; "yes," 5; "somewhat," 2;
no answer, 2.
According to the above data, exceptionally intelligent children are
fully as likely to be healthy as ordinary children; their ability is far
more often general than special, they are studious above the average,
really serious faults are not common among them, they are nearly always
socially adaptable, are sought after as playmates and companions, their
play life is usually normal, they are leaders far oftener than other
children, and notwithstanding their many really superior qualities they
are seldom vain or spoiled.
It would be greatly to the advantage of such children if their superior
ability were more promptly and fully recognized, and if (under proper
medical supervision, of course) they were promoted as rapidly as their
mental development would warrant. Unless they are given the grade of
work which calls forth their best efforts, they run the risk of falling
into lifelong habits of submaximum efficiency. The danger in the case of
such children is not over-pressure, but under-pressure.
INTELLIGENCE TESTS AS A BASIS FOR GRADING. Not only in the case of
retarded or exceptionally bright children, but with many others also,
intelligence tests can aid in correctly placing the child in school.
The pupil who enters one school system from another is a case in point.
Such a pupil nearly always suffers a loss of time. The indefensible
custom is to grade the newcomer down a little, because, forsooth, the
textbooks he has studied may have differed somewhat from those he is
about to take up, or because the school system from which he comes may
be looked upon as inferior. Teachers are too often suspicious of all
other educational methods besides their own. The present treatment
accorded such children, which so often does them injustice and injury,
should be replaced by an intelligence test. The hour of time required
for the test is a small matter in comparison with the loss of a school
term by the pupils.
Indeed, it would be desirable to make all promotions on the basis
chiefly of intellectual ability. Hitherto the school has had to rely on
tests of information because reliable tests of intelligence have not
until recently been available. As trained Binet examiners become more
plentiful, the information standard will have to give way to the
criterion which asks merely that the child shall be able to do the work
of the next higher grade. The brief intelligence test is not only more
enlightening than the examination; it is also more hygienic. The school
examination is often for the child a source of worry and anxiety; the
mental test is an interesting and pleasant experience.
INTELLIGENCE TESTS FOR VOCATIONAL FITNESS. The time is probably not far
distant when intelligence tests will become a recognized and widely used
instrument for determining vocational fitness. Of course, it is not
claimed that tests are available which will tell us unerringly exactly
what one of a thousand or more occupations a given individual is best
fitted to pursue. But when thousands of children who have been tested by
the Binet scale have been followed out into the industrial world, and
their success in various occupations noted, we shall know fairly
definitely the vocational significance of any given degree of mental
inferiority or superiority. Researches of this kind will ultimately
determine the minimum "intelligence quotient" necessary for success in
each leading occupation.
Industrial concerns doubtless suffer enormous losses from the employment
of persons whose mental ability is not equal to the tasks they are
expected to perform. The present methods of trying out new employees,
transferring them to simpler and simpler jobs as their inefficiency
becomes apparent, is wasteful and to a great extent unnecessary. A
cheaper and more satisfactory method would be to employ a psychologist
to examine applicants for positions and to weed out the unfit. Any
business employing as many as five hundred or a thousand workers, as,
for example, a large department store, could save in this way several
times the salary of a well-trained psychologist.
That the industrially inefficient are often of subnormal intelligence
has already been demonstrated in a number of psychological
investigations. Of 150 "hoboes" tested under the direction of the writer
by Mr. Knollin, at least 15 per cent belonged to the moron grade of
mental deficiency, and almost as many more were border-line cases. To be
sure, a large proportion were found perfectly normal, and a few even
decidedly superior in mental ability, but the ratio of mental deficiency
was ten or fifteen times as high as that holding for the general
population. Several had as low as 9- or 10-year intelligence, and one
had a mental level of 7 years. The industrial history of such subjects,
as given by themselves, was always about what the mental level would
lead us to expect--unskilled work, lack of interest in accomplishment,
frequent discharge from jobs, discouragement, and finally the "road."
The above findings have been fully paralleled by Mr. Glenn Johnson and
Professor Eleanor Rowland, of Reed College, who tested 108 unemployed
charity cases in Portland, Oregon. Both of these investigators made use
of the Stanford revision of the Binet scale, which is especially
serviceable in distinguishing the upper-grade defectives from normals.
It hardly needs to be emphasized that when charity organizations help
the feeble-minded to float along in the social and industrial world, and
to produce and rear children after their kind, a doubtful service is
rendered. A little psychological research would aid the united charities
of any city to direct their expenditures into more profitable channels
than would otherwise be possible.
OTHER USES OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS. Another important use of intelligence
tests is in the study of the factors which influence mental development.
It is desirable that we should be able to guard the child against
influences which affect mental development unfavorably; but as long as
these influences have not been sifted, weighed, and measured, we have
nothing but conjecture on which to base our efforts in this direction.
When we search the literature of child hygiene for reliable evidence as
to the injurious effects upon mental ability of malnutrition, decayed
teeth, obstructed breathing, reduced sleep, bad ventilation,
insufficient exercise, etc., we are met by endless assertion painfully
unsupported by demonstrated fact. We have, indeed, very little exact
knowledge regarding the mental effects of any of the factors just
mentioned. When standardized mental tests have come into more general
use, such influences will be easy to detect wherever they are really
present.
Again, the most important question of heredity is that regarding the
inheritance of intelligence; but this is a problem which cannot be
attacked at all without some accurate means of identifying the thing
which is the object of study. Without the use of scales for measuring
intelligence we can give no better answer as to the essential difference
between a genius and a fool than is to be found in legend and fiction.
Applying this to school children, it means that without such tests we
cannot know to what extent a child's mental performances are determined
by environment and to what extent by heredity. Is the place of the
so-called lower classes in the social and industrial scale the result of
their inferior native endowment, or is their apparent inferiority merely
a result of their inferior home and school training? Is genius more
common among children of the educated classes than among the children of
the ignorant and poor? Are the inferior races really inferior, or are
they merely unfortunate in their lack of opportunity to learn?
Only intelligence tests can answer these questions and grade the raw
material with which education works. Without them we can never
distinguish the results of our educational efforts with a given child
from the influence of the child's original endowment. Such tests would
have told us, for example, whether the much-discussed "wonder children,"
such as the Sidis and Wiener boys and the Stoner girl, owe their
precocious intellectual prowess to superior training (as their parents
believe) or to superior native ability. The supposed effects upon mental
development of new methods of mind training, which are exploited so
confidently from time to time (e.g., the Montessori method and the
various systems of sensory and motor training for the feeble-minded),
will have to be checked up by the same kind of scientific measurement.
In all these fields intelligence tests are certain to play an
ever-increasing rôle. With the exception of moral character there
is nothing as significant for a child's future as his grade of
intelligence. Even health itself is likely to have less influence in
determining success in life. Although strength and swiftness have always
had great survival value among the lower animals, these characteristics
have long since lost their supremacy in man's struggle for existence.
For us the rule of brawn has been broken, and intelligence has become
the decisive factor in success. Schools, railroads, factories, and the
largest commercial concerns may be successfully managed by persons who
are physically weak or even sickly. One who has intelligence constantly
measures opportunities against his own strength or weakness and adjusts
himself to conditions by following those leads which promise most toward
the realization of his individual possibilities.
All classes of intellects, the weakest as well as the strongest, will
profit by the application of their talents to tasks which are consonant
with their ability. When we have learned the lessons which intelligence
tests have to teach, we shall no longer blame mentally defective workmen
for their industrial inefficiency, punish weak-minded children because
of their inability to learn, or imprison and hang mentally defective
criminals because they lacked the intelligence to appreciate the
ordinary codes of social conduct.
CHAPTER II
SOURCES OF ERROR IN JUDGING INTELLIGENCE
ARE INTELLIGENCE TESTS SUPERFLUOUS? Binet tells us that he often
encountered the criticism that intelligence tests are superfluous, and
that in going to so much trouble to devise his measuring scale he was
forcing an open door. Those who made this criticism believed that the
observant teacher or parent is able to make an offhand estimate of a
child's intelligence which is accurate enough. "It is a stupid teacher,"
said one, "who needs a psychologist to tell her which pupils are not
intelligent." Every one who uses intelligence tests meets this attitude
from time to time.
This should not be surprising or discouraging. It is only natural that
those who are unfamiliar with the methods of psychology should
occasionally question their validity or worth, just as there are many
excellent people who do not "believe in" vaccination against typhoid and
small pox, operations for appendicitis, etc.
There is an additional reason why the applications of psychology have to
overcome a good deal of conservatism and skepticism; namely, the fact
that every one, whether psychologically trained or not, acquires in the
ordinary experiences of life a certain degree of expertness in the
observation and interpretation of mental traits. The possession of this
little fund of practical working knowledge makes most people slow to
admit any one's claim to greater expertness. When the astronomer tells
us the distance to Jupiter, we accept his statement, because we
recognize that our ordinary experience affords no basis for judgment
about such matters. But every one acquires more or less facility in
distinguishing the coarser differences among people in intelligence,
and this half-knowledge naturally generates a certain amount of
resistance to the more refined method of tests.
It should be evident, however, that we need more than the ability merely
to distinguish a genius from a simpleton, just as a physician needs
something more than the ability to distinguish an athlete from a man
dying of consumption. It is necessary to have a definite and accurate
diagnosis, one which will differentiate more finely the many degrees and
qualities of intelligence. Just as in the case of physical illness, we
need to know not merely that the patient is sick, but also why he is
sick, what organs are involved, what course the illness will run, and
what physical work the patient can safely undertake, so in the case of a
retarded child, we need to know the exact degree of intellectual
deficiency, what mental functions are chiefly concerned in the defect,
whether the deficiency is due to innate endowment, to physical illness,
or to faults of education, and what lines of mental activity the child
will be able to pursue with reasonable hope of success. In the diagnosis
of a case of malnutrition, the up-to-date physician does not depend upon
general symptoms, but instead makes a blood test to determine the exact
number of red corpuscles per cubic millimeter of blood and the exact
percentage of hæmoglobin. He has learned that external appearances are
often misleading. Similarly, every psychologist who is experienced in
the mental examination of school children knows that his own or the
teacher's estimate of a child's intelligence is subject to grave and
frequent error.
THE NECESSITY OF STANDARDS. In the first place, in order to judge an
individual's intelligence it is necessary to have in mind some standard
as to what constitutes normal intelligence. This the ordinary parent or
teacher does not have. In the case of school children, for example, each
pupil is judged with reference to the average intelligence of the
class. But the teacher has no means of knowing whether the average for
her class is above, equal to, or below that for children in general. Her
standard may be too high, too low, vague, mechanical, or fragmentary.
The same, of course, holds in the case of parents or any one else
attempting to estimate intelligence on the basis of common observation.
THE INTELLIGENCE OF RETARDED CHILDREN USUALLY OVERESTIMATED. One of the
most common errors made by the teacher is to overestimate the
intelligence of the over-age pupil. This is because she fails to take
account of age differences and estimates intelligence on the basis of
the child's school performance in the grade where he happens to be
located. She tends to overlook the fact that quality of school work is
no index of intelligence unless age is taken into account. The question
should be, not, "Is this child doing his school work well?" but rather,
"In what school grade should a child of this age be able to do
satisfactory work?" A high-grade imbecile may do average work in the
first grade, and a high-grade moron average work in the third or fourth
grade, provided only they are sufficiently over-age for the grade in
question.
Our experience in testing children for segregation in special classes
has time and again brought this fallacy of teachers to our attention. We
have often found one or more feeble-minded children in a class after
the teacher had confidently asserted that there was not a single
exceptionally dull child present. In every case where there has been
opportunity to follow the later school progress of such a child the
validity of the intelligence test has been fully confirmed.
The following are typical examples of the neglect of teachers to take
the age factor into account when estimating the intelligence of the
over-age child:--
_A. R. Girl, age 11; in low second grade._ She was able to do
the work of this grade, not well, but passably. The teacher's
judgment as to this child's intelligence was "dull but not
defective." What the teacher overlooked was the fact that she
had judged the child by a 7-year standard, and that, instead of
only being able to do the work of the second grade
indifferently, a child of this age should have been equal to the
work of the fifth grade. In reality, A. R. is definitely
feeble-minded. Although she is from a home of average culture,
is 11 years old, and has attended school five years, she has
barely the intelligence of the average child of six years.
_D. C. Boy, age 17; in fifth grade._ His teacher knew that he
was dull, but had not thought of him as belonging to the class
of feeble-minded. She had judged this boy by the 11-year
standard and had perhaps been further misled by his normal
appearance and exceptionally satisfactory behavior. The Binet
test quickly showed that he had a mental level of approximately
9 years. There is little probability that his comprehension will
ever surpass that of the average 10-year-old.
_R. A. Boy, age 17; mental age 11; sixth grade; school work
"nearly average"; teacher's estimate of intelligence "average."_
Test plainly shows this child to be a high-grade moron, or
border-liner at best. Had attended school regularly 11 years and
had made 6 grades. Teacher had compared child with his
12-year-old classmates.
_H. A. Boy, age 14; mental age 9-6; low fourth grade; school
work "inferior"; teacher's estimate of intelligence "average."_
The teacher blamed the inferior quality of school work to "bad
home environment." As a matter of fact, the boy's father is
feeble-minded and the normality of the mother is questionable.
An older brother is in a reform school. We are perfectly safe in
predicting that this boy will not complete the eighth grade even
if he attends school till he is 21 years of age.
_F. I. Boy, age 12-11; mental age 9-4; third grade; school work
"average"; teacher's estimate of intelligence "average"; social
environment "average"; health good and attendance regular._
Intelligence and school success are what we should expect of an
average 9-year-old.
_D. A. Boy, age 12; mental age 9-2; third grade; school work
"inferior"; teacher's estimate of intelligence "average."_
Teacher imputes inferior school work to "absence from school and
lack of interest in books"; we have yet to find a child with a
mental age 25 per cent below chronological age who _was_
particularly interested in books or enthusiastic about school.
_C. U. Girl, age 10; mental age 7-8; second grade; school work
"average"; teacher's estimate of intelligence "average."_
Teacher blames adenoids and bad teeth for retardation. No doubt
of child's mental deficiency.
_P. I. Girl, age 8-10; mental age 6-7; has been in first grade
2½ years; school work "average"; teacher's estimate of
intelligence "average."_ The mother and one brother of this girl
are both feeble-minded.
_H. O. Girl, age 7-10; mental age 5-2; first grade for 2 years;
school work "inferior"; teacher's estimate of intelligence
"average."_ The teacher nevertheless adds, "This child is not
normal, but her ability to respond to drill shows that she has
intelligence." It is of course true that even feeble-minded
children of 5-year intelligence are able to profit a little from
drill. Their weakness comes to light in their inability to
perform higher types of mental activity.
THE INTELLIGENCE OF SUPERIOR CHILDREN USUALLY UNDERESTIMATED. We have
already mentioned the frequent failure of teachers and parents to
recognize superior ability.[7] The fallacy here is again largely due to
the neglect of the age factor, but the resulting error is in the
opposite direction from that set forth above. The superior child is
likely to be a year or two younger than the average child of his grade,
and is accordingly judged by a standard which is too high. The following
are illustrations:--
[7] See p. 13 _ff._
_M. L. Girl, age 11-2; mental age "average adult" (16); sixth
grade; school work "superior"; teacher's estimate of
intelligence "average."_ Teacher credits superior school work to
"unusual home advantages." Father a college professor. The
teacher considers the child accelerated in school. In reality
she ought to be in the second year of high school instead of in
the sixth grade.
_H. A. Boy, age 11; mental age 14; sixth grade; school work
"average"; teacher's estimate of intelligence "average."_
According to the supplementary information the boy is
"wonderfully attentive," "studious," and possessed of
"all-round ability." The estimate of "average intelligence" was
probably the result of comparing him with classmates who
averaged about a year older.
_K. R. Girl, age 6-1; mental age 8-5; second grade; school work
"average"; teacher's estimate of intelligence "superior"; social
environment "average."_ Is it not evident that a child from
ordinary social environment, who does work of average quality in
the second grade when barely 6 years of age, should be judged
"very superior" rather than merely "superior" in intelligence?
The intelligence quotient of this girl is 140, which is not
reached by more than one child in two hundred.
_S. A. Boy, age 8-10; mental age 10-9; fourth grade; school work
"average"; teacher's estimate of intelligence "average."_
Teacher attributed school acceleration to "studiousness" and
"delight in school work." It would be more reasonable to infer
that these traits are indications of unusually superior
intelligence.
OTHER FALLACIES IN THE ESTIMATION OF INTELLIGENCE. Another source
of error in the teacher's judgment comes from the difficulty in
distinguishing genuine dullness from the mental condition which results
sometimes from unfavorable social environment or lack of training.
_V. P. Boy, age 7._ Had attended school one year and had
profited very little from the instruction. He had learned to
read very little, spoke chiefly in monosyllables, and seemed
"queer." The teacher suspected his intelligence and asked for a
mental examination. The Binet test showed that except for
vocabulary, which was unusually low, there was practically no
mental retardation. Inquiry disclosed the fact that the boy's
parents were uneducated deaf-mutes, and that the boy had
associated little with other children. Four years later this boy
was doing fairly well in school, though a year retarded because
of his unfavorable home environment.
_X. Y. Boy, age 10._ Son of a successful business man, he was
barely able to read in the second reader. The Binet test
revealed an intelligence level which was absolutely normal. The
boy was removed to a special class where he could receive
individual attention, and two years later was found doing good
work in a regular class of the fifth grade. His bad beginning
seemed to have been due to an unfavorable attitude toward school
work, due in turn to lack of discipline in the home, and to the
fact that because of the father's frequent change of business
headquarters the boy had never attended one school longer than
three months.
Another source of error in judging intelligence from common observation
is the tendency to overestimate the intelligence of the sprightly,
talkative, sanguine child, and to underestimate the intelligence of the
child who is less emotional, reacts slowly, and talks little. One
occasionally finds a feeble-minded adult, perhaps of only 9- or 10-year
intelligence, whose verbal fluency, mental liveliness, and
self-confidence would mislead the offhand judgment of even the
psychologist. One individual of this type, a border-line case at best,
was accustomed to harangue street audiences and had served as "major" in
"Kelly's Army," a horde of several hundred unemployed men who a few
years ago organized and started to march from San Francisco to
Washington.
BINET'S QUESTIONNAIRE ON TEACHERS' METHODS OF JUDGING INTELLIGENCE.[8]
Aroused by the skepticism so often shown toward his test method, Binet
decided to make a little study of the methods by which teachers are
accustomed to arrive at a judgment as to a child's intelligence.
Accordingly, through the coöperation of the director of elementary
education in Paris, he secured answers from a number of teachers to the
following questions:--
[8] See p. 169 _ff._ of reference 2, at end of this book
1. _By what means do you judge the intelligence of your pupils?_
2. _How often have you been deceived in your judgments?_
About 40 replies were received. Most of the answers to the first
question were vague, one-sided, "verbal," or bookish. Only a few showed
much psychological discrimination as to what intelligence is and
what its symptoms are. There was a very general tendency to judge
intelligence by success in one or more of the school studies. Some
thought that ability to master arithmetic was a sure criterion. Others
were influenced almost entirely by the pupil's ability to read. One
teacher said that the child who can "read so expressively as to make you
feel the punctuation" is certainly intelligent, an observation which is
rather good, as far as it goes. A few judged intelligence by the pupil's
knowledge of such subjects as history and geography, which, as Binet
points out, is to confound intelligence with the ability to memorize.
"Memory," says Binet, is a "great simulator of intelligence." It is a
wise teacher who is not deceived by it. Only a small minority mentioned
resourcefulness in play, capacity to adjust to practical situations, or
any other out-of-school criteria.
Some suggested asking the pupil such questions as the following:--
"Why do you love your parents?" "If it takes three persons seven
hours to do a piece of work, would it take seven persons any
longer?" "Which would you rather have, a fourth of a pie, or a
half of a half?" "Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a
pound of lead?" "If you had twenty cents what would you do with
it?"
A great many based their judgment mainly on the general appearance of
the face and eyes. An "active" or "passive" expression of the eyes was
looked upon as especially significant. One teacher thought that a mere
"glance of the eye" was sufficient to display the grade of intelligence.
If the eyes are penetrating, reflective, or show curiosity, the child
must be intelligent; if they are heavy and expressionless, he must be
dull. The mobility of countenance came in for frequent mention, also the
shape of the head.
No one will deny that intelligence displays itself to a greater or
less extent in the features; but how, asks Binet, are we going to
_standardize_ a "glance of the eye" or an "expression of curiosity" so
that it will serve as an exact measure of intelligence?
The fact is, the more one sees of feeble-minded children, the less
reliance one comes to place upon facial expression as a sign of
intelligence. Some children who are only slightly backward have the
general appearance of low-grade imbeciles. On the other hand, not a few
who are distinctly feeble-minded are pretty and attractive. With many
such children a ready smile takes the place of comprehension. If the
smile is rather sweet and sympathetic, as is often the case, the
observer is almost sure to be deceived.
As regards the shape of the head, peculiar conformation of the ears, and
other "stigmata," science long ago demonstrated that these are
ordinarily of little or no significance.
In reply to the second question, some teachers stated that they never
made a mistake, while others admitted failure in one case out of three.
Still others said, "Once in ten years," "once in twenty years," "once in
a thousand times," etc.
As Binet remarks, the answers to this question are not very enlightening.
In the first place, the teacher as a rule loses sight of the pupil when
he has passed from her care, and seldom has opportunity of finding out
whether his later success belies her judgment or confirms it. Errors go
undiscovered for the simple reason that there is no opportunity to check
them up. In the second place, her estimate is so rough that an error
must be very great in order to have any meaning. If I say that a man is
six feet and two inches tall, it is easy enough to apply a measuring
stick and prove the correctness or incorrectness of my assertion. But if
I say simply that the man is "rather tall," or "very tall," the error
must be very extreme before we can expose it, particularly since the
estimate can itself be checked up only by observation and not by
controlled experiment.
The teachers' answers seem to justify three conclusions:--
1. Teachers do not have a very definite idea of what constitutes
intelligence. They tend to confuse it variously with capacity for
memorizing, facility in reading, ability to master arithmetic, etc. On
the whole, their standard is too academic. They fail to appreciate the
one-sidedness of the school's demands upon intelligence.
In a quaintly humorous passage discussing this tendency, Binet
characterizes the child in a class as _dénaturé_, a French word which we
may translate (though rather too literally) as "denatured." Too often
this "denatured" child of the classroom is the only child the teacher
knows.
2. In judging intelligence teachers are too easily deceived by a
sprightly attitude, a sympathetic expression, a glance of the eye, or a
chance "bump" on the head.
3. Although a few teachers seem to realize the many possibilities of
error, the majority show rather undue confidence in the accuracy of
their judgment.
BINET'S EXPERIMENT ON HOW TEACHERS TEST INTELLIGENCE.[9] Finally, Binet
had three teachers come to his laboratory to judge the intelligence of
children whom they had never seen before. Each spent an afternoon in the
laboratory and examined five pupils. In each case the teacher was left
free to arrive at a conclusion in her own way. Binet, who remained in
the room and took notes, recounts with playful humor how the teachers
were unavoidably compelled to resort to the much-abused test method,
although their attempts at using it were sometimes, from the
psychologist's point of view, amusingly clumsy.
[9] See p. 182 _ff._ of reference 2 at end of this book.
One teacher, for example, questioned the children about some canals and
sluices which were in the vicinity, asking what their purpose was and
how they worked. Another showed the children some pretty pictures,
which she had brought with her for the purpose, and asked questions
about them. Showing the picture of a garret, she asked how a garret
differs from an ordinary room. One teacher asked whether in building a
factory it was best to have the walls thick or thin. As King Edward had
just died, another teacher questioned the children about the details of
this event, in order to find out whether they were in the habit of
reading the newspapers, or understood the things they heard others read.
Other questions related to the names of the streets in the neighborhood,
the road one should take to reach a certain point in the vicinity, etc.
Binet notes that many of the questions were special, and were only
applicable with the children of this particular school.
The method of proposing the questions and judging the responses was also
at fault. The teachers did not adhere consistently to any definite
formula in giving a particular test to the different children. Instead,
the questions were materially altered from time to time. One teacher
scored the identical response differently for two children, giving one
child more credit than the other because she had already judged his
intelligence to be superior. In several cases the examination was
needlessly delayed in order to instruct the child in what he did not
know.
The examination ended, quite properly for a teacher's examination, with
questions about history, literature, the metric system, etc., and with
the recitation of a fable.
A comparison of the results showed hardly any agreement among the
estimates of the three teachers. When questioned about the standard that
had been taken in arriving at their conclusions, one teacher said she
had taken the answers of the first pupil as a point of departure, and
that she had judged the other pupils by this one. Another judged all the
children by a child of her acquaintance whom she knew to be intelligent.
This was, of course, an unsafe method, because no one could say how the
child taken as an ideal would have responded to the tests used with the
five children.
In summarizing the result of his little experiment, Binet points out
that the teachers employed, as if by instinct, the very method which he
himself recommends. In using it, however, they made numerous errors.
Their questions were often needlessly long. Several were "dilemma
questions," that is, answerable by _yes_ or _no_. In such cases chance
alone will cause fifty per cent of the answers to be correct. Some of
the questions were merely tests of school knowledge. Others were
entirely special, usable only with the children of this particular
school on this particular day. Not all of the questions were put in the
same terms, and a given response did not always receive the same score.
When the children responded incorrectly or incompletely, they were often
given help, but not always to the same extent. In other words, says
Binet, it was evident that "the teachers employed very awkwardly a very
excellent method."
The above remark is as pertinent as it is expressive. As the statement
implies, the test method is but a refinement and standardization of the
common-sense approach. Binet remarks that most people who inquire into
his method of measuring intelligence do so expecting to find something
very surprising and mysterious; and on seeing how much it resembles the
methods which common sense employs in ordinary life, they heave a sigh
of disappointment and say, "Is that all?" Binet reminds us that the
difference between the scientific and unscientific way of doing a thing
is not necessarily a difference in the _nature_ of the method; it is
often merely a difference in _exactness_. Science does the thing better,
because it does it more accurately.
It was of course not the purpose of Binet to cast a slur upon the good
sense and judgment of teachers. The teachers who took part in the little
experiment described above were Binet's personal friends. The errors he
points out in his entertaining and good-humored account of the
experiment are inherent in the situation. They are the kind of errors
which any person, however discriminating and observant, is likely to
make in estimating the intelligence of a subject without the use of
standardized tests.
It is the writer's experience that the teacher's estimate of a child's
intelligence is much more reliable than that of the average parent; more
accurate even than that of the physician who has not had psychological
training.
Indeed, it is an exceptional school physician who is able to give any
very valuable assistance to teachers in the classification of mentally
exceptional children for special pedagogical treatment.
This is only to be expected, for the physician has ordinarily had much
less instruction in psychology than the teacher, and of course
infinitely less experience in judging the mental performances of
children. Even if graduated from a first-rank medical school, the
instruction he has received in the important subject of mental
deficiency has probably been less adequate than that given to the
students of a standard normal school. As a rule, the doctor has no
equipment or special fitness which gives him any advantage over the
teacher in acquiring facility in the use of intelligence tests.
As for parents, it would of course be unreasonable to expect from them a
very accurate judgment regarding the mental peculiarities of their
children. The difficulty is not simply that which comes from lack of
special training. The presence of parental affection renders impartial
judgment impossible. Still more serious are the effects of habituation
to the child's mental traits. As a result of such habituation the most
intelligent parent tends to develop an unfortunate blindness to all
sorts of abnormalities which exist in his own children.
The only way of escape from the fallacies we have mentioned lies in the
use of some kind of refined psychological procedure. Binet testing is
destined to become universally known and practiced in schools, prisons,
reformatories, charity stations, orphan asylums, and even ordinary
homes, for the same reason that Babcock testing has become universal in
dairying. Each is indispensable to its purpose.
CHAPTER III
DESCRIPTION OF THE BINET-SIMON METHOD
ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE SCALE. The Binet scale is made up of an extended
series of tests in the nature of "stunts," or problems, success in which
demands the exercise of intelligence. As left by Binet, the scale
consists of 54 tests, so graded in difficulty that the easiest lie well
within the range of normal 3-year-old children, while the hardest tax
the intelligence of the average adult. The problems are designed
primarily to test native intelligence, not school knowledge or home
training. They try to answer the question "How intelligent is this
child?" How much the child has learned is of significance only in so far
as it throws light on his ability to learn more.
Binet fully appreciated the fact that intelligence is not homogeneous,
that it has many aspects, and that no one kind of test will display it
adequately. He therefore assembled for his intelligence scale tests of
many different types, some of them designed to display differences of
memory, others differences in power to reason, ability to compare, power
of comprehension, time orientation, facility in the use of number
concepts, power to combine ideas into a meaningful whole, the maturity
of apperception, wealth of ideas, knowledge of common objects, etc.
HOW THE SCALE WAS DERIVED. The tests were arranged in order of
difficulty, as found by trying them upon some 200 normal children of
different ages from 3 to 15 years. It was found, for illustration, that
a certain test was passed by only a very small proportion of the younger
children, say the 5-year-olds, and that the number passing this test
increased rapidly in the succeeding years until by the age of 7 or
8 years, let us say, practically all the children were successful.
If, in our supposed case, the test was passed by about two thirds to
three fourths of the normal children aged 7 years, it was considered by
Binet a test of 7-year intelligence. In like manner, a test passed by
65 to 75 per cent of the normal 9-year-olds was considered a test of
9-year intelligence, and so on. By trying out many different tests in
this way it was possible to secure five tests to represent each age from
3 to 10 years (excepting age 4, which has only four tests), five for
age 12, five for 15, and five for adults, making 54 tests in all.
LIST OF TESTS. The following is the list of tests as arranged by Binet
in 1911, shortly before his untimely death:--
_Age 3:_
1. Points to nose, eyes, and mouth.
2. Repeats two digits.
3. Enumerates objects in a picture.
4. Gives family name.
5. Repeats a sentence of six syllables.
_Age 4:_
1. Gives his sex.
2. Names key, knife, and penny.
3. Repeats three digits.
4. Compares two lines.
_Age 5:_
1. Compares two weights.
2. Copies a square.
3. Repeats a sentence of ten syllables.
4. Counts four pennies.
5. Unites the halves of a divided rectangle.
_Age 6:_
1. Distinguishes between morning and afternoon.
2. Defines familiar words in terms of use.
3. Copies a diamond.
4. Counts thirteen pennies.
5. Distinguishes pictures of ugly and pretty faces.
_Age 7:_
1. Shows right hand and left ear.
2. Describes a picture.
3. Executes three commissions, given simultaneously.
4. Counts the value of six sous, three of which are double.
5. Names four cardinal colors.
_Age 8:_
1. Compares two objects from memory.
2. Counts from 20 to 0.
3. Notes omissions from pictures.
4. Gives day and date.
5. Repeats five digits.
_Age 9:_
1. Gives change from twenty sous.
2. Defines familiar words in terms superior to use.
3. Recognizes all the pieces of money.
4. Names the months of the year, in order.
5. Answers easy "comprehension questions."
_Age 10:_
1. Arranges five blocks in order of weight.
2. Copies drawings from memory.
3. Criticizes absurd statements.
4. Answers difficult "comprehension questions."
5. Uses three given words in not more than two sentences.
_Age 12:_
1. Resists suggestion.
2. Composes one sentence containing three given words.
3. Names sixty words in three minutes.
4. Defines certain abstract words.
5. Discovers the sense of a disarranged sentence.
_Age 15:_
1. Repeats seven digits.
2. Finds three rhymes for a given word.
3. Repeats a sentence of twenty-six syllables.
4. Interprets pictures.
5. Interprets given facts.
_Adult:_
1. Solves the paper-cutting test.
2. Rearranges a triangle in imagination.
3. Gives differences between pairs of abstract terms.
4. Gives three differences between a president and a king.
5. Gives the main thought of a selection which he has heard read.
It should be emphasized that merely to name the tests in this way gives
little idea of their nature and meaning, and tells nothing about Binet's
method of conducting the 54 experiments. In order to use the tests
intelligently it is necessary to acquaint one's self thoroughly with the
purpose of each test, its correct procedure, and the psychological
interpretation of different types of response.[10]
[10] See Part II of this volume, and References 1 and 29, for discussion
and interpretation of the individual tests.
In fairness to Binet, it should also be borne in mind that the scale of
tests was only a rough approximation to the ideal which the author had
set himself to realize. Had his life been spared a few years longer, he
would doubtless have carried the method much nearer perfection.
HOW THE SCALE IS USED. By means of the Binet tests we can judge the
intelligence of a given individual by comparison with standards of
intellectual performance for normal children of different ages. In order
to make the comparison it is only necessary to begin the examination of
the subject at a point in the scale where all the tests are passed
successfully, and to continue up the scale until no more successes are
possible. Then we compare our subject's performances with the standard
for normal children of the same age, and note the amount of acceleration
or retardation.
Let us suppose the subject being tested is 9 years of age. If he goes as
far in the tests as normal 9-year-old children ordinarily go, we can say
that the child has a "mental age" of 9 years, which in this case is
normal (our child being 9 years of age). If he goes only as far as
normal 8-year-old children ordinarily go, we say that his "mental age"
is 8 years. In like manner, a mentally defective child of 9 years may
have a "mental age" of only 4 years, or a young genius of 9 years may
have a mental age of 12 or 13 years.
SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BINET-SIMON METHOD. Psychologists had
experimented with intelligence tests for at least twenty years before
the Binet scale made its appearance. The question naturally suggests
itself why Binet should have been successful in a field where previous
efforts had been for the most part futile. The answer to this question
is found in three essential differences between Binet's method and those
formerly employed.
1. _The use of age standards._ Binet was the first to utilize the idea
of age standards, or norms, in the measurement of intelligence. It will
be understood, of course, that Binet did not set out to invent tests of
10-year intelligence, 6-year intelligence, etc. Instead, as already
explained, he began with a series of tests ranging from very easy to
very difficult, and by trying these tests on children of different ages
and noting the percentages of successes in the various years, he was
able to locate them (approximately) in the years where they belonged.
This plan has the great advantage of giving us standards which are
easily grasped. To say, for illustration, that a given subject has a
grade of intelligence equal to that of the average child of 8 years is a
statement whose general import does not need to be explained. Previous
investigators had worked with subjects the degree of whose intelligence
was unknown, and with tests the difficulty of which was equally unknown.
An immense amount of ingenuity was spent in devising tests which were
used in such a way as to preclude any very meaningful interpretation of
the responses.
The Binet method enables us to characterize the intelligence of a child
in a far more definite way than had hitherto been possible. Current
descriptive terms like "bright," "moderately bright," "dull," "very
dull," "feeble-minded," etc., have had no universally accepted meaning.
A child who is designated by one person as "moderately bright" may be
called "very bright" by another person. The degree of intelligence which
one calls "moderate dullness," another may call "extreme dullness," etc.
But every one knows what is meant by the term 8-year mentality, 4-year
mentality, etc., even if he is not able to define these grades of
intelligence in psychological terms; and by ascertaining experimentally
what intellectual tasks children of different ages can perform, we are,
of course, able to make our age standards as definite as we please.
Why should a device so simple have waited so long for a discoverer? We
do not know. It is of a class with many other unaccountable mysteries in
the development of scientific method. Apparently the idea of an
age-grade method, as this is called, did not come to Binet himself until
he had experimented with intelligence tests for some fifteen years. At
least his first provisional scale, published in 1905, was not made up
according to the age-grade plan. It consisted merely of 30 tests,
arranged roughly in order of difficulty. Although Binet nowhere gives
any account of the steps by which this crude and ungraded scale was
transformed into the relatively complete age-grade scale of 1908, we can
infer that the original and ingenious idea of utilizing age norms was
suggested by the data collected with the 1905 scale. However the
discovery was made, it ranks, perhaps, from the practical point of view,
as the most important in all the history of psychology.
2. _The kind of mental functions brought into play._ In the second
place, the Binet tests differ from most of the earlier attempts in that
they are designed to test the higher and more complex mental processes,
instead of the simpler and more elementary ones. Hence they set
problems for the reasoning powers and ingenuity, provoke judgments about
abstract matters, etc., instead of attempting to measure sensory
discrimination, mere retentiveness, rapidity of reaction, and the like.
Psychologists had generally considered the higher processes too complex
to be measured directly, and accordingly sought to get at them
indirectly by correlating supposed intelligence with simpler processes
which could readily be measured, such as reaction time, rapidity of
tapping, discrimination of tones and colors, etc. While they were
disputing over their contradictory findings in this line of exploration,
Binet went directly to the point and succeeded where they had failed.
It is now generally admitted by psychologists that higher intelligence
is little concerned in such elementary processes as those mentioned
above. Many of the animals have keen sensory discrimination.
Feeble-minded children, unless of very low grade, do not differ very
markedly from normal children in sensitivity of the skin, visual
acuity, simple reaction time, type of imagery, etc. But in power of
comprehension, abstraction, and ability to direct thought, in the nature
of the associative processes, in amount of information possessed, and in
spontaneity of attention, they differ enormously.
3. _Binet would test "general intelligence."_ Finally, Binet's success
was largely due to his abandonment of the older "faculty psychology"
which, far from being defunct, had really given direction to most of the
earlier work with mental tests. Where others had attempted to measure
memory attention, sense discrimination, etc., as separate faculties or
functions, Binet undertook to ascertain the _general level_ of
intelligence. Others had thought the task easier of accomplishment by
measuring each division or aspect of intelligence separately, and
summating the results. Binet, too, began in this way, and it was only
after years of experimentation by the usual methods that he finally
broke away from them and undertook, so to speak, to triangulate the
height of his tower without first getting the dimensions of the
individual stones which made it up.
The assumption that it is easier to measure a part, or one aspect, of
intelligence than all of it, is fallacious in that the parts are not
separate parts and cannot be separated by any refinement of experiment.
They are interwoven and intertwined. Each ramifies everywhere and
appears in all other functions. The analogy of the stones of the tower
does not really apply. Memory, for example, cannot be tested separately
from attention, or sense-discrimination separately from the associative
processes. After many vain attempts to disentangle the various
intellective functions, Binet decided to test their combined functional
capacity without any pretense of measuring the exact contribution
of each to the total product. It is hardly too much to say that
intelligence tests have been successful just to the extent to which they
have been guided by this aim.
Memory, attention, imagination, etc., are terms of "structural
psychology." Binet's psychology is dynamic. He conceives intelligence as
the sum total of those thought processes which consist in mental
adaptation. This adaptation is not explicable in terms of the old mental
"faculties." No one of these can explain a single thought process, for
such process always involves the participation of many functions whose
separate rôles are impossible to distinguish accurately. Instead of
measuring the intensity of various mental states (psycho-physics), it is
more enlightening to measure their combined effect on adaptation. Using
a biological comparison, Binet says the old "faculties" correspond to
the separate tissues of an animal or plant, while his own "scheme of
thought" corresponds to the functioning organ itself. For Binet,
psychology is the science of behavior.
BINET'S CONCEPTION OF GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. In devising tests of
intelligence it is, of course, necessary to be guided by some
assumption, or assumptions, regarding the nature of intelligence. To
adopt any other course is to depend for success upon happy chance.
However, it is impossible to arrive at a final definition of
intelligence on the basis of _a-priori_ considerations alone. To demand,
as critics of the Binet method have sometimes done, that one who would
measure intelligence should first present a complete definition of it,
is quite unreasonable. As Stern points out, electrical currents were
measured long before their nature was well understood. Similar
illustrations could be drawn from the processes involved in chemistry
physiology, and other sciences. In the case of intelligence it may be
truthfully said that no adequate definition can possibly be framed which
is not based primarily on the symptoms empirically brought to light by
the test method. The best that can be done in advance of such data is to
make tentative assumptions as to the probable nature of intelligence,
and then to subject these assumptions to tests which will show their
correctness or incorrectness. New hypotheses can then be framed for
further trial, and thus gradually we shall be led to a conception of
intelligence which will be meaningful and in harmony with all the
ascertainable facts.
Such was the method of Binet. Only those unacquainted with Binet's
more than fifteen years of labor preceding the publication of his
intelligence scale would think of accusing him of making no effort to
analyze the mental processes which his tests bring into play. It is true
that many of Binet's earlier assumptions proved untenable, and in this
event he was always ready, with exceptional candor and intellectual
plasticity, to acknowledge his error and to plan a new line of attack.
Binet's conception of intelligence emphasizes three characteristics of
the thought process: (1) Its tendency to take and maintain a definite
direction; (2) the capacity to make adaptations for the purpose of
attaining a desired end; and (3) the power of auto-criticism.[11]
[11] See Binet and Simon: "L'intelligence des imbeciles," in _L'Année
Psychologique_ (1909), pp. 1-147. The last division of this article is
devoted to a discussion of the essential nature of the higher thought
processes, and is a wonderful example of that keen psychological
analysis in which Binet was so gifted.
How these three aspects of intelligence enter into the performances with
various tests of the scale is set forth from time to time in our
directions for giving and interpreting the individual tests.[12] An
illustration which may be given here is that of the "patience test," or
uniting the disarranged parts of a divided rectangle. As described by
Binet, this operation has the following elements: "(1) to keep in mind
the end to be attained, that is to say, the figure to be formed; (2) to
try different combinations under the influence of this directing idea,
which guides the efforts of the subject even though he may not be
conscious of the fact; and (3) to judge the combination which has been
made, to compare it with the model, and to decide whether it is the
correct one."
[12] See especially pages 162 and 238.
Much the same processes are called for in many other of the Binet tests,
particularly those of arranging weights, rearranging dissected
sentences, drawing a diamond or square from copy, finding a sentence
containing three given words, counting backwards, etc.
However, an examination of the scale will show that the choice of tests
was not guided entirely by any single formula as to the nature of
intelligence. Binet's approach was a many-sided one. The scale includes
tests of time orientation, of three or four kinds of memory, of
apperception, of language comprehension, of knowledge about common
objects, of free association, of number mastery, of constructive
imagination, and of ability to compare concepts, to see contradictions,
to combine fragments into a unitary whole, to comprehend abstract terms,
and to meet novel situations.
OTHER CONCEPTIONS OF INTELLIGENCE. It is interesting to compare Binet's
conception of intelligence with the definitions which have been offered
by other psychologists. According to Ebbinghaus, for example, the
essence of intelligence lies in comprehending together in a unitary,
meaningful whole, impressions and associations which are more or less
independent, heterogeneous, or even partly contradictory. "Intellectual
ability consists in the elaboration of a whole into its worth and
meaning by means of many-sided combination, correction, and completion
of numerous kindred associations.... It is a _combination activity_."
Meumann offers a twofold definition. From the psychological point of
view, intelligence is the power of independent and creative elaboration
of new products out of the material given by memory and the senses. From
the practical point of view, it involves the ability to avoid errors, to
surmount difficulties, and to adjust to environment.
Stern defines intelligence as "the general capacity of an individual
consciously to adjust his thinking to new requirements: it is general
adaptability to new problems and conditions of life."
Spearman, Hart, and others of the English school define intelligence as
a "common central factor" which participates in all sorts of
special mental activities. This factor is explained in terms of a
psycho-physiological hypothesis of "cortex energy," "cerebral
plasticity," etc.
The above definitions are only to a slight extent contradictory or
inharmonious. They differ mainly in point of view or in the location of
the emphasis. Each expresses a part of the truth, and none all of it. It
will be evident that the conception of Binet is broad enough to include
the most important elements in each of the other definitions quoted.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN CHOICE AND ARRANGEMENT OF TESTS. In choosing his
tests Binet was guided by the conception of intelligence which we have
set forth above. Tests were devised which would presumably bring
into play the various mental processes thought to be concerned in
intelligence, and then these tests were tried out on normal children of
different ages. If the percentage of passes for a given test increased
but little or not at all in going from younger to older children this
test was discarded. On the other hand, if the proportion of passes
increased rapidly with age, and if children of a given age, who on other
grounds were known to be bright, passed more frequently than children of
the same age who were known to be dull, then the test was judged a
satisfactory test of intelligence. As we have shown elsewhere,[13]
practically all of Binet's tests fulfill these requirements reasonably
well, a fact which bears eloquent testimony to the keen psychological
insight of their author.
[13] See p. 55.
In arranging the tests into a system Binet's guiding principle was to
find an arrangement of the tests which would cause an average child of
any given age to test "at age"; that is, the average 5-year-old must
show a mental age of 5 years, the average 8-year-old a mental age of
8 years, etc. In order to secure this result Binet found that his data
seemed to require the location of an individual test in that year where
it was passed by about two thirds to three fourths of unselected
children.
It was in the assembling of the tests that the most serious faults of
the scale had their origin. Further investigation has shown that a great
many of the tests were misplaced as much as one year, and several of
them two years. On the whole, the scale as Binet left it was decidedly
too easy in the lower ranges, and too difficult in the upper. As a
result, the average child of 5 years was caused to test at not far from
6 years, the average child of 12 years not far from 11. In the Stanford
revision an effort has been made to correct this fault, along with
certain other generally recognized imperfections.
SOME AVOWED LIMITATIONS OF THE BINET TESTS. The Binet tests have often
been criticized for their unfitness to perform certain services which in
reality they were never meant to render. This is unfair. We cannot make
a just evaluation of the scale without bearing in mind its avowed
limitations.
For example, the scale does not pretend to measure the entire mentality
of the subject, but only _general intelligence_. There is no pretense of
testing the emotions or the will beyond the extent to which these
naturally display themselves in the tests of intelligence. The scale was
not designed as a tool for the analysis of those emotional or volitional
aberrations which are concerned in such mental disorders as hysteria,
insanity, etc. These conditions do not present a progressive reduction
of intelligence to the infantile level, and in most of them other
factors besides intelligence play an important rôle. Moreover, even in
the normal individual the fruitfulness of intelligence, the direction in
which it shall be applied, and its methods of work are to a certain
extent determined by the extraneous factors of emotion and volition.
It should, nevertheless, be pointed out that defects of intelligence, in
a large majority of cases, also involve disturbances of the emotional
and volitional functions. We do not expect to find perfectly normal
emotions or will power of average strength coupled with marked
intellectual deficiency, and as a matter of fact such a combination is
rare indeed. In the course of an examination with the Binet tests, the
experienced clinical psychologist is able to gain considerable insight
into the subject's emotional and volitional equipment, even though the
method was designed primarily for another purpose.
A second misunderstanding can be avoided by remembering that the Binet
scale does not pretend to bring to light the idiosyncrasies of special
talent, but only to measure the general level of intelligence. It cannot
be used for the discovery of exceptional ability in drawing, painting,
music, mathematics, oratory, salesmanship, etc., because no effort is
made to explore the processes underlying these abilities. It can,
therefore, never serve as a _detailed chart_ for the vocational guidance
of children, telling us which will succeed in business, which in art,
which in medicine, etc. It is not a new kind of phrenology. At the same
time, as we have already pointed out, _it is capable of bounding roughly
the vocational territory in which an individual's intelligence will
probably permit success, nothing else preventing_.[14]
[14] See p. 17.
In the third place, it must not be supposed that the scale can be used
as a complete pedagogical guide. Although intelligence tests furnish
data of the greatest significance for pedagogical procedure, they do not
suggest the appropriate educational methods in detail. These will
have to be worked out in a practical way for the various grades of
intelligence, and at great cost of labor and patience.
Finally, in arriving at an estimate of a subject's grade of intelligence
and his susceptibility to training, it would be a mistake to ignore the
data obtainable from other sources. No competent psychologist, however
ardent a supporter of the Binet method he might be, would recommend such
a policy. Those who accept the method as all-sufficient are as much in
error as those who consider it as no more important than any one of a
dozen other approaches. Standardized tests have already become and will
remain by far the most reliable single method for grading intelligence,
but the results they furnish will always need to be interpreted in the
light of supplementary information regarding the subject's personal
history, including medical record, accidents, play habits, industrial
efficiency, social and moral traits, school success, home environment,
etc. Without question, however, the improved Binet tests will contribute
more than all other data combined to the end of enabling us to forecast
a child's possibilities of future improvement, and this is the
information which will aid most in the proper direction of his
education.
CHAPTER IV
NATURE OF THE STANFORD REVISION AND EXTENSION
Although the Binet scale quickly demonstrated its value as an instrument
for the classification of mentally-retarded and otherwise exceptional
children, it had, nevertheless, several imperfections which greatly
limited its usefulness. There was a dearth of tests at the higher mental
levels, the procedure was so inadequately defined that needless
disagreement came about in the interpretation of data, and so many of
the tests were misplaced as to make the results of an examination more
or less misleading, particularly in the case of very young subjects and
those near the adult level. It was for the purpose of correcting
these and certain other faults that the Stanford investigation was
planned.[15]
[15] The writer wishes to acknowledge his very great indebtedness to
Miss Grace Lyman, Dr. George Ordahl, Dr. Louise Ellison Ordahl, Miss
Neva Galbreath, Mr. Wilford Talbert, Dr. J. Harold Williams, Mr. Herbert
E. Knollin, and Miss Irene Cuneo for their coöperation in making the
tests on which the Stanford revision is chiefly based. Without their
loyal assistance the investigation could not have been carried through.
Grateful acknowledgment is also made to the many public school teachers
and principals for their generous and invaluable coöperation in
furnishing subjects for the tests, and in supplying, sometimes at
considerable cost of labor, the supplementary information which was
called for regarding the pupils tested. Their contribution was made in
the interest of educational science, and without expectation of personal
benefits of any kind. Their professional spirit cannot be too highly
commended.
SOURCES OF DATA. Our revision is the result of several years of work,
and involved the examination of approximately 2300 subjects, including
1700 normal children, 200 defective and superior children, and more than
400 adults.
Tests of 400 of the 1700 normal children had been made by Childs and
Terman in 1910-11, and of 300 children by Trost, Waddle, and Terman in
1911-12. For various reasons, however, the results of these tests did
not furnish satisfactory data for a thoroughgoing revision of the scale.
Accordingly a new investigation was undertaken, somewhat more extensive
than the others, and more carefully planned. Its main features may be
described as follows:--
1. The first step was to assemble as nearly as possible all the results
which had been secured for each test of the scale by all the workers of
all countries. The result was a large sheet of tabulated data for each
individual test, including percentages passing the test at various ages,
conditions under which the results were secured, method of procedure,
etc. After a comparative study of these data, and in the light of
results we had ourselves secured, a provisional arrangement of the tests
was prepared for try-out.
2. In addition to the tests of the original Binet scale, 40 additional
tests were included for try-out. This, it was expected, would make
possible the elimination of some of the least satisfactory tests, and at
the same time permit the addition of enough new ones to give at least
six tests, instead of five, for each age group.
3. A plan was then devised for securing subjects who should be as nearly
as possible representative of the several ages. The method was to select
a school in a community of average social status, a school attended by
all or practically all the children in the district where it was
located. In order to get clear pictures of age differences the tests
were confined to children who were within two months of a birthday. To
avoid accidental selection, _all_ the children within two months of a
birthday were tested, in whatever grade enrolled. Tests of foreign-born
children, however, were eliminated in the treatment of results. There
remained tests of approximately 1000 children, of whom 905 were between
5 and 14 years of age.
4. The children's responses were, for the most part, recorded
_verbatim_. This made it possible to re-score the records according
to any desired standard, and thus to fit a test more perfectly to the
age level assigned it.
5. Much attention was given to securing uniformity of procedure. A
half-year was devoted to training the examiners and another half-year to
the supervision of the testing. In the further interests of uniformity
all the records were scored by one person (the writer).
METHOD OF ARRIVING AT A REVISION. The revision of the scale below
the 14-year level was based almost entirely on the tests of the
above-mentioned 1,000 unselected children. The guiding principle was to
secure an arrangement of the tests and a standard of scoring which would
cause the median mental age of the unselected children of each age group
to coincide with the median chronological age. That is, a correct scale
must cause the _average_ child of 5 years to test exactly at 5, the
_average_ child at 6 to test exactly at 6, etc. Or, to express the same
fact in terms of intelligence quotient,[16] a correct scale must give a
median intelligence quotient of unity, or 100 per cent, for unselected
children of each age.
[16] The intelligence quotient (often designated as I Q) is the ratio of
mental age to chronological age. (See pp. 65 _ff._ and 78 _ff._)
If the median mental age resulting at any point from the provisional
arrangement of tests was too high or too low, it was only necessary to
change the location of certain of the tests, or to change the standard
of scoring, until an order of arrangement and a standard of passing were
found which would throw the median mental age where it belonged. We had
already become convinced, for reasons too involved for presentation
here, that no satisfactory revision of the Binet scale was possible on
any theoretical considerations as to the percentage of passes which an
individual test ought to show in a given year in order to be considered
standard for that year.
As was to be expected, the first draft of the revision did not prove
satisfactory. The scale was still too hard at some points, and too easy
at others. In fact, three successive revisions were necessary, involving
three separate scorings of the data and as many tabulations of the
mental ages, before the desired degree of accuracy was secured. As
finally revised, the scale gives a median intelligence quotient closely
approximating 100 for the unselected children of each age from 4 to 14.
Since our school children who were above 14 years and still in the
grades were retarded left-overs, it was necessary to base the revision
above this level on the tests of adults. These included 30 business men
and 150 "migrating" unemployed men tested by Mr. H. E. Knollin, 150
adolescent delinquents tested by Mr. J. Harold Williams, and 50
high-school students tested by the writer.
The extension of the scale in the upper range is such that ordinarily
intelligent adults, little educated, test up to what is called the
"average adult" level. Adults whose intelligence is known from other
sources to be superior are found to test well up toward the "superior
adult" level, and this holds whether the subjects in question are well
educated or practically unschooled. The almost entirely unschooled
business men, in fact, tested fully as well as high-school juniors and
seniors.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of mental ages for 62 adults, including
the 30 business men and the 32 high-school pupils who were over 16 years
of age. It will be noted that the middle section of the graph represents
the "mental ages" falling between 15 and 17. This is the range which we
have designated as the "average adult" level. Those above 17 are called
"superior adults," those between 13 and 15, "inferior adults." Subjects
much over 15 years of age who test in the neighborhood of 12 years may
ordinarily be considered border-line cases.
[Illustration: FIG. 1. DISTRIBUTION OF MENTAL AGES OF 62 NORMAL ADULTS]
The following method was employed for determining the validity of a
test. The children of each age level were divided into three groups
according to intelligence quotient, those testing below 90, those
between 90 and 109, and those with an intelligence quotient of 110 or
above. The percentages of passes on each individual test at or near that
age level were then ascertained separately for these three groups. If a
test fails to show a decidedly higher proportion of passes in the
superior I Q group than in the inferior I Q group, it cannot be regarded
as a satisfactory test of intelligence. On the other hand, a test which
satisfies this criterion must be accepted as valid or the entire scale
must be rejected. Henceforth it stands or falls with the scale as a
whole.
When tried out by this method, some of the tests which have been most
criticized showed a high degree of reliability; certain others which
have been considered excellent proved to be so little correlated with
intelligence that they had to be discarded.
After making a few necessary eliminations, 90 tests remained, or 36 more
than the number included in the Binet 1911 scale. There are 6 at each
age level from 3 to 10, 8 at 12, 6 at 14, 6 at "average adult," 6 at
"superior adult," and 16 alternative tests. The alternative tests, which
are distributed among the different groups, are intended to be used only
as substitutes when one or more of the regular tests have been rendered,
by coaching or otherwise, undesirable.[17]
[17] See p. 137 _ff._ for explanations regarding the calculation of
mental age and the use of alternative tests.
Of the 36 new tests, 27 were added and standardized in the various
Stanford investigations. Two tests were borrowed from the Healy-Fernald
series, one from Kuhlmann, one was adapted from Bonser, and the
remaining five were amplifications or adaptations of some of the earlier
Binet tests.
Following is a complete list of the tests of the Stanford revision.
Those designated _al._ are alternative tests. The guide for giving and
scoring the tests is presented at length in Part II of this volume.
_The Stanford revision and extension_
_Year III._ (_6 tests, 2 months each._)
1. Points to parts of body. (3 to 4.)
Nose; eyes; mouth; hair.
2. Names familiar objects. (3 to 5.)
Key, penny, closed knife, watch, pencil.
3. Pictures, enumeration or better. (At least 3 objects enumerated
in one picture.)
(a) Dutch Home; (b) River Scene; (c) Post-Office.
4. Gives sex.
5. Gives last name.
6. Repeats 6 to 7 syllables. (1 to 3.)
Al. Repeats 3 digits. (1 success in 3 trials. Order correct.)
_Year IV._ (_6 tests, 2 months each._)
1. Compares lines. (3 trials, no error.)
2. Discrimination of forms. (Kuhlmann.) (Not over 3 errors.)
3. Counts 4 pennies. (No error.)
4. Copies square. (Pencil. 1 to 3.)
5. Comprehension, 1st degree. (2 to 3.) (Stanford addition.)
"What must you do": "When you are sleepy?" "Cold?" "Hungry?"
6. Repeats 4 digits. (1 to 3. Order correct.) (Stanford addition.)
Al. Repeats 12 to 13 syllables. (1 to 3 absolutely correct, or 2 with
1 error each.)
_Year V._ (_6 tests, 2 months each._)
1. Comparison of weights. (2 to 3.)
3-15; 15-3; 3-15.
2. Colors. (No error.)
Red; yellow; blue; green.
3. Æsthetic comparison. (No error.)
4. Definitions, use or better. (4 to 6.)
Chair; horse; fork; doll; pencil; table.
5. Patience, or divided rectangle. (2 to 3 trials. 1 minute each.)
6. Three commissions. (No error. Order correct.)
Al. Age.
_Year VI._ (_6 tests, 2 months each._)
1. Right and left. (No error.)
Right hand; left ear; right eye.
2. Mutilated pictures. (3 to 4 correct.)
3. Counts 13 pennies. (1 to 2 trials, without error.)
4. Comprehension, 2d degree. (2 to 3.) "What's the thing for
you to do":
(a) "If it is raining when you start to school?"
(b) "If you find that your house is on fire?"
(c) "If you are going some place and miss your car?"
5. Coins. (3 to 4.)
Nickel; penny; quarter; dime.
6. Repeats 16 to 18 syllables. (1 to 3 absolutely correct, or 2
with 1 error each.)
Al. Morning or afternoon.
_Year VII._ (_6 tests, 2 months each._)
1. Fingers. (No error.) Right; left; both.
2. Pictures, description or better. (Over half of performance
description:) Dutch Home; River Scene; Post-Office.
3. Repeats 5 digits. (1 to 3. Order correct.)
4. Ties bow-knot. (Model shown. 1 minute.) (Stanford addition.)
5. Gives differences. (2 to 3.)
Fly and butterfly; stone and egg; wood and glass.
6. Copies diamond. (Pen. 2 to 3.)
Al. 1. Names days of week. (Order correct. 2 to 3 checks correct.)
Al. 2. Repeats 3 digits backwards. (1 to 3.)
_Year VIII._ (_6 tests, 2 months each._)
1. Ball and field. (Inferior plan or better.) (Stanford addition.)
2. Counts 20 to 1. (40 seconds. 1 error allowed.)
3. Comprehension, 3d degree. (2 to 3.) "What's the thing for you to
do":
(a) "When you have broken something which belongs to some one
else?"
(b) "When you are on your way to school and notice that you are
in danger of being tardy?"
(c) "If a playmate hits you without meaning to do it?"
4. Gives similarities, two things. (2 to 4.) (Stanford addition.)
Wood and coal; apple and peach; iron and silver; ship and
automobile.
5. Definitions superior to use. (2 to 4.)
Balloon; tiger; football; soldier.
6. Vocabulary, 20 words. (Stanford addition. For list of words used,
see record booklet.)
Al. 1. First six coins. (No error.)
Al. 2. Dictation. ("See the little boy." Easily legible. Pen. 1 minute.)
_Year IX._ (_6 tests, 2 months each._)
1. Date. (Allow error of 3 days in _c_, no error in _a_, _b_, or _d_.)
(a) day of week; (b) month; (c) day of month; (d) year.
2. Weights. (3, 6, 9, 12, 15. Procedure not illustrated. 2 to 3.)
3. Makes change. (2 to 3. No coins, paper, or pencil.)
10--4; 15--12; 25--4.
4. Repeats 4 digits backwards. (1 to 3.) (Stanford addition.)
5. Three words. (2 to 3. Oral. 1 sentence or not over 2 coördinate
clauses.)
Boy, river, ball; work, money, men; desert, rivers, lakes.
6. Rhymes. (3 rhymes for two of three words. 1 minute for each part.)
Day; mill; spring.
Al. 1. Months. (15 seconds and 1 error in naming. 2 checks of 3 correct.)
Al. 2. Stamps, gives total value. (Second trial if individual values are
known.)
_Year X._ (_6 tests, 2 months each._)
1. Vocabulary, 30 words. (Stanford addition.)
2. Absurdities. (4 to 5. Warn. Spontaneous correction allowed.) (Four
of Binet's, one Stanford.)
3. Designs. (1 correct, 1 half correct. Expose 10 seconds.)
4. Reading and report. (8 memories. 35 seconds and 2 mistakes in
reading.) (Binet's selection.)
5. Comprehension, 4th degree. (2 to 3. Question may be repeated.)
(a) "What ought you to say when some one asks your opinion
about a person you don't know very well?"
(b) "What ought you to do before undertaking (beginning)
something very important?"
(c) "Why should we judge a person more by his actions than by
his words?"
6. Names 60 words. (Illustrate with clouds, dog, chair, happy.)
Al. 1. Repeats 6 digits. (1 to 2. Order correct.) (Stanford addition.)
Al. 2. Repeats 20 to 22 syllables. (1 to 3 correct, or 2 with 1 error
each.)
Al. 3. Form board. (Healy-Fernald Puzzle A. 3 times in 5 minutes.)
_Year XII._ (_8 tests, 3 months each._)
1. Vocabulary, 40 words. (Stanford addition.)
2. Abstract words. (3 to 5.)
Pity; revenge; charity; envy; justice.
3. Ball and field. (Superior plan.) (Stanford addition.)
4. Dissected sentences. (2 to 3. 1 minute each.)
5. Fables. (Score 4; i.e., two correct or the equivalent in half
credits.) (Stanford addition.)
Hercules and Wagoner; Maid and Eggs; Fox and Crow;
Farmer and Stork; Miller, Son, and Donkey.
6. Repeats 5 digits backwards. (1 to 3.) (Stanford addition.)
7. Pictures, interpretation. (3 to 4. "Explain this picture.")
Dutch Home; River Scene; Post-Office; Colonial Home.
8. Gives similarities, three things. (3 to 5.) (Stanford addition.)
Snake, cow, sparrow; book, teacher, newspaper; wool, cotton,
leather; knife-blade, penny, piece of wire; rose, potato,
tree.
_Year XIV._ (_6 tests, 4 months each._)
1. Vocabulary, 50 words. (Stanford addition.)
2. Induction test. (Gets rule by 6th folding.) (Stanford addition.)
3. President and king. (Power; accession; tenure. 2 to 3.)
4. Problems of fact. (2 to 3.) (Binet's two and one Stanford
addition.)
5. Arithmetical reasoning. (1 minute each. 2 to 3.) (Adapted from
Bonser.)
6. Clock. (2 to 3. Error must not exceed 3 or 4 minutes.)
6.22. 8.10. 2.46.
Al. Repeats 7 digits. (1 to 2. Order correct.)
"AVERAGE ADULT." (_6 tests, 5 months each._)
1. Vocabulary, 65 words. (Stanford addition.)
2. Interpretation of fables. (Score 8.) (Stanford addition.)
3. Difference between abstract words. (3 real contrasts out of 4.)
Laziness and idleness; evolution and revolution; poverty and
misery; character and reputation.
4. Problem of the enclosed boxes. (3 to 4.) (Stanford addition.)
5. Repeats 6 digits backwards. (1 to 3.) (Stanford addition.)
6. Code, writes "Come quickly." (2 errors. Omission of dot counts
half error. Illustrate with "war" and "spy.") (From Healy and
Fernald.)
Al. 1. Repeats 28 syllables. (1 to 2 absolutely correct.)
Al. 2. Comprehension of physical relations. (2 to 3.) (Stanford addition.)
Path of cannon ball; weight of fish in water; hitting distant
mark.
"SUPERIOR ADULT." (_6 tests, 6 months each._)
1. Vocabulary, 75 words. (Stanford addition.)
2. Binet's paper-cutting test. (Draws, folds, and locates holes.)
3. Repeats 8 digits. (1 to 3. Order correct.) (Stanford addition.)
4. Repeats thought of passage heard. (1 to 2.) (Binet's and Wissler's
selections adapted.)
5. Repeats 7 digits backwards. (1 to 3.) (Stanford addition.)
6. Ingenuity test. (2 to 3. 5 minutes each.) (Stanford addition.)
SUMMARY OF CHANGES. A comparison of the above list with either the Binet
1908 or 1911 series will reveal many changes. On the whole, it differs
somewhat more from the Binet 1911 scale than from that of 1908. Thus, of
the 49 tests below the "adult" group in the 1911 scale, 2 are eliminated
and 29 are relocated. Of these, 25 are moved downward and 4 upward. The
shifts are as follows:--
Down 1 year, 18
Down 2 years, 4
Down 3 years, 2
Down 6 years, 1
Up 1 year, 3
Up 2 years, 1
Of the adult group in Binet's 1911 series 1 is eliminated, 2 are moved
up to "superior adult," and 1 is moved up to 14. Accordingly, of Binet's
entire 54 tests, we have eliminated 3 and relocated 32, leaving only 19
in the positions assigned them by Binet. The 3 eliminated are: repeating
2 digits, resisting suggestion, and "reversed triangle."
The revision is really more extensive than the above figures would
suggest, since minor changes have been made in the scoring of a great
many tests in order to make them fit better the locations assigned them.
Throughout the scale the procedure and scoring have been worked over and
made more definite with the idea of promoting uniformity. This phase of
the revision is perhaps more important than the mere relocation of
tests. Also, the addition of numerous tests in the upper ranges of the
scale affects very considerably the mental ages above the level of
10 or 11 years.
EFFECTS OF THE REVISION ON THE MENTAL AGES SECURED. The most important
effect of the revision is to reduce the mental ages secured in the lower
ranges of the scale, and to raise considerably the mental ages above
10 or 11 years. This difference also obtains, though to a somewhat
smaller extent, between the Stanford revision and those of Goddard and
Kuhlmann.
For example, of 104 adult individuals testing by the Stanford revision
between 12 and 14 years, and who were therefore somewhat above the level
of feeble-mindedness as that term is usually defined, 50 per cent tested
below 12 years by the Goddard revision. That the dull and border-line
adults are so much more readily distinguished from the feeble-minded by
the Stanford revision than by other Binet series is due as much to the
addition of tests in the upper groups as to the relocation of existing
tests.
On the other hand, the Stanford revision causes young subjects to test
lower than any other version of the Binet scale. At 5 or 6 years the
mental ages secured by the Stanford revision average from 6 to 10 months
lower than other revisions yield.
The above differences are more significant than would at first appear.
An error of 10 months in the mental age of a 5-year-old is as serious as
an error of 20 months in the case of a 10-year-old. Stating the error in
terms of the intelligence quotient makes it more evident. Thus, an error
of 10 months in the mental age of a 5-year-old means an error of almost
15 per cent in the intelligence quotient. A scale which tests this much
too low would cause the child with a true intelligence quotient of 75
(which ordinarily means feeble-mindedness or border-line intelligence)
to test at 90, or only slightly below normal.
Three serious consequences came from the too great ease of the original
Binet scale at the lower end, and its too great difficulty at the upper
end:--
1. In young subjects the higher grades of mental deficiency were
overlooked, because the scale caused such subjects to test only a little
below normal.
2. The proportion of feeble-mindedness among adult subjects was greatly
overestimated, because subjects who were really of the 12- or 13-year
mental level could only earn a mental age of about 11 years.
3. Confusion resulted in efforts to trace the mental growth of either
feeble-minded or normal children. For example, by other versions of the
Binet scale an average 5-year-old will show an intelligence quotient
probably not far from 110 or 115; at 9, an intelligence quotient of
about 100; and at 14, an intelligence quotient of about 85 or 90.
By such a scale the true border-line case would test approximately as
follows:--
At age 5, 90 I Q (apparently not far below normal).
At age 9, 75 I Q (border-line).
At age 14, 65 I Q (moron deficiency).
On the other hand, re-tests of children by the Stanford revision have
been found to yield intelligence quotients almost identical with those
secured from two to four years earlier by the same tests. Those who
graded feeble-minded in the first test graded feeble-minded in the
second test: the dull remained dull, the average remained average, the
superior remained superior, and always in approximately the same
degree.[18]
[18] See "Some Problems relating to the Detection of Border-line Cases
of Mental Deficiency," by Lewis M. Terman and H. E. Knollin, in _Journal
of Psycho-Asthemes_, June, 1916.
It is unnecessary to emphasize further the importance of having an
intelligence scale which is equally accurate at all points. Absolute
perfection in this respect is not claimed for the Stanford revision, but
it is believed to be at least free from the more serious errors of other
Binet arrangements.
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF 1000 INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS
An extended account of the 1000 tests on which the Stanford revision is
chiefly based has been presented in a separate monograph. This chapter
will include only the briefest summary of some of those results of the
investigation which contribute to the intelligent use of the revision.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF INTELLIGENCE. The question as to the manner in which
intelligence is distributed is one of great practical as well as
theoretical importance. One of the most vital questions which can be
asked by any nation of any age is the following: "How high is the
average level of intelligence among our people, and how frequent are the
various grades of ability above and below the average?" With the
development of standardized tests we are approaching, for the first time
in history, a possible answer to this question.
Most of the earlier Binet studies, however, have thrown little light on
the distribution of intelligence because of their failure to avoid the
influence of accidental selection in choosing subjects for testing. The
method of securing subjects for the Stanford revision makes our results
on this point especially interesting.[19] It is believed that the
subjects used for this investigation were as nearly representative of
average American-born children as it is possible to secure.
[19] See p. 52 _ff._ for method used to avoid accidental selection of
subjects for the Stanford investigation.
The intelligence quotients for these 1000 unselected children were
calculated, and their distribution was plotted for the ages separately.
The distribution was found fairly symmetrical at each age from 5 to 14.
At 15 the range is on either side of 90 as a median, and at 16 on either
side of 80 as a median. That the 15- and 16-year-olds test low is due to
the fact that these children are left-over retardates and are below
average in intelligence.
[Illustration: FIG. 2. DISTRIBUTION OF I Q'S OF 905 UNSELECTED
CHILDREN. 5-14 YEARS OF AGE]
The I Q's were then grouped in ranges of ten. In the middle group were
thrown those from 96 to 105; the ascending groups including in order the
I Q's from 106 to 115, 116 to 125, etc.; correspondingly with the
descending groups. Figure 2 shows the distribution found by this
grouping for the 905 children of ages 5 to 14 combined. The subjects
above 14 are not included in this curve because they are left-overs and
not representative of their ages.
The distribution for the ages combined is seen to be remarkably
symmetrical. The symmetry for the separate ages was hardly less marked,
considering that only 80 to 120 children were tested at each age. In
fact, the range, including the middle 50 per cent of I Q's, was found
practically constant from 5 to 14 years. The tendency is for the middle
50 per cent to fall (approximately) between 93 and 108.
Three important conclusions are justified by the above facts:--
1. Since the frequency of the various grades of intelligence decreases
_gradually_ and at no point abruptly on each side of the median, it is
evident that there is no definite dividing line between normality and
feeble-mindedness, or between normality and genius. Psychologically, the
mentally defective child does not belong to a distinct type, nor does
the genius. There is no line of demarcation between either of these
extremes and the so-called "normal" child. The number of mentally
defective individuals in a population will depend upon the standard
arbitrarily set up as to what constitutes mental deficiency. Similarly
for genius. It is exactly as we should undertake to classify all people
into the three groups: abnormally tall, normally tall, and abnormally
short.[20]
[20] See Chapter VI for discussion of the significance of various I Q's.
2. The common opinion that extreme deviations below the median are more
frequent than extreme deviations above the median seems to have no
foundation in fact. Among unselected school children, at least, for
every child of any given degree of deficiency there is another child as
far above the average I Q as the former is below. We have shown
elsewhere the serious consequences of neglect of this fact.[21]
[21] See p. 12 _ff._
3. The traditional view that variability in mental traits becomes more
marked during adolescence is here contradicted, as far as intelligence
is concerned, for the distribution of I Q's is practically the same at
each age from 5 to 14. For example, 6-year-olds differ from one another
fully as much as do 14-year-olds.
THE VALIDITY OF THE INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT. The facts presented above
argue strongly for the validity of the I Q as an expression of a child's
intelligence status. This follows necessarily from the similar nature of
the distributions at the various ages. The inference is that a child's
I Q, as measured by this scale, remains relatively constant. Re-tests of
the same children at intervals of two to five years support the
inference. Children of superior intelligence do not seem to deteriorate
as they get older, nor dull children to develop average intelligence.
Knowing a child's I Q, we can predict with a fair degree of accuracy the
course of his later development.
The mental age of a subject is meaningless if considered apart from
chronological age. It is only the ratio of retardation or acceleration
to chronological age (that is, the I Q) which has significance.
It follows also that if the I Q is a valid expression of intelligence,
as it seems to be, then the Binet-Simon "age-grade method" becomes
transformed automatically into a "point-scale method," if one wants to
use it that way. As such it is superior to any other point scale that
has been proposed, because it includes a larger number of tests and its
points have definite meaning.[22]
[22] For discussion of the supposed advantages of the "point-scale
method," see Yerkes and Bridges: _A New Point Scale for Measuring Mental
Ability_. (Warwick and York, 1915.)
SEX DIFFERENCES. The question as to the relative intelligence of the
sexes is one of perennial interest and great social importance. The
ancient hypothesis, the one which dates from the time when only men
concerned themselves with scientific hypotheses, took for granted the
superiority of the male. With the development of individual psychology,
however, it was soon found that as far as the evidence of mental tests
can be trusted the _average_ intelligence of women and girls is as high
as that of men and boys.
If we accept this result we are then confronted with the difficult
problem of finding an explanation for the fact that so few of those who
have acquired eminence in the various intellectual fields have been
women. Two explanations have been proposed: (1) That women become
eminent less often than men simply for lack of opportunity and stimulus;
and (2) that while the average intelligence of the sexes is the same,
extreme variations may be more common in males. It is pointed out that
not only are there more eminent men than eminent women, but that
statistics also show a preponderance of males in institutions for the
mentally defective. Accordingly it is often said that women are grouped
closely about the average, while men show a wider range of distribution.
[Illustration: FIG. 3. MEDIAN I Q OF 457 BOYS (UNBROKEN LINE) AND
448 GIRLS (DOTTED LINE) FOR THE AGES 5-14 YEARS]
Many hundreds of articles and books of popular or quasi-scientific
nature have been written on one aspect or another of this question of
sex difference in intelligence; but all such theoretical discussions
taken together are worth less than the results of one good experiment.
Let us see what our 1000 I Q's have to offer toward a solution of the
problem.
1. When the I Q's of the boys and girls were treated separately there
was found a small but fairly constant superiority of the girls up to the
age of 13 years. At 14, however, the curve for the girls dropped below
that for boys. This is shown in Figure 3.
The supplementary data, including the teachers' estimates of
intelligence on a scale of five, the teachers' judgments in regard to
the quality of the school work, and records showing the age-grade
distribution of the sexes, were all sifted for evidence as to the
genuineness of the apparent superiority of the girls age for age. The
results of all these lines of inquiry support the tests in suggesting
that the superiority of the girls is probably real even up to and
including age 14, the apparent superiority of the boys at this age being
fully accounted for by the more frequent elimination of 14-year-old
girls from the grades by promotion to the high school.[23]
[23] It will be remembered that this series of tests did not follow up
and test those who had been promoted to high school.
2. However, the superiority of girls over boys is so slight (amounting
at most ages to only 2 to 3 points in terms of I Q) that for practical
purposes it would seem negligible. This offers no support to the opinion
expressed by Yerkes and Bridges that "at certain ages serious injustice
will be done individuals by evaluating their scores in the light of
norms which do not take account of sex differences."
3. Apart from the small superiority of girls, the distribution of
intelligence in the two sexes is not different. The supposed wider
variation of boys is not found. Girls do not group themselves about the
median more closely than do boys. The range of I Q including the middle
fifty per cent is approximately the same for the two sexes.[24]
[24] For an extensive summary of other data on the variability of the
sexes see the article by Leta S. Hollingworth, in _The American Journal
of Sociology_ (January, 1914), pp. 510-30. It is shown that the findings
of others support the conclusions set forth above.
4. When the results for the individual tests were examined, it was found
that not many showed very extreme differences as to the per cent of boys
and girls passing. In a few cases, however, the difference was rather
marked.
The boys were decidedly better in arithmetical reasoning, giving
differences between a president and a king, solving the form board,
making change, reversing hands of clock, finding similarities, and
solving the "induction test." The girls were superior in drawing designs
from memory, æsthetic comparison, comparing objects from memory,
answering the "comprehension questions," repeating digits and sentences,
tying a bow-knot, and finding rhymes.
Accordingly, our data, which for the most part agree with the results of
others, justify the conclusion that the intelligence of girls, at least
up to 14 years, does not differ materially from that of boys either as
regards the average level or the range of distribution. It may still be
argued that the mental development of boys beyond the age of 14 years
lasts longer and extends farther than in the case of girls, but as a
matter of fact this opinion receives little support from such tests as
have been made on men and women college students.
The fact that so few women have attained eminence may be due to wholly
extraneous factors, the most important of which are the following: (1)
The occupations in which it is possible to achieve eminence are for the
most part only now beginning to open their doors to women. Women's
career has been largely that of home-making, an occupation in which
eminence, in the strict sense of the word, is impossible. (2) Even of
the small number of women who embark upon a professional career, a
majority marry and thereafter devote a fairly large proportion of their
energy to bearing and rearing children. (3) Both the training given to
girls and the general atmosphere in which they grow up are unfavorable
to the inculcation of the professional point of view, and as a result
women are not spurred on by deep-seated motives to constant and
strenuous intellectual endeavor as men are. (4) It is also possible that
the emotional traits of women are such as to favor the development of
the sentiments at the expense of innate intellectual endowment.
INTELLIGENCE OF THE DIFFERENT SOCIAL CLASSES. Of the 1000 children, 492
were classified by their teachers according to social class into the
following five groups: _very inferior_, _inferior_, _average_,
_superior_, and _very superior_. A comparative study was then made of
the distribution of I Q's for these different groups.[25]
[25] The results of this comparison have been set forth in detail in the
monograph of source material and some of the conclusions have been set
forth on p. 115 _ff._ of the present volume.
The data may be summarized as follows:--
1. The median I Q for children of the superior social class is
about 7 points above, and that of the inferior social class
about 7 points below, the median I Q of the average social
group. This means that by the age of 14 inferior class children
are about one year below, and superior class children one year
above, the median mental age for all classes taken together.
2. That the children of the superior social classes make a
better showing in the tests is probably due, for the most part,
to a superiority in original endowment. This conclusion is
supported by five supplementary lines of evidence: (a) the
teachers' rankings of the children according to intelligence;
(b) the age-grade progress of the children; (c) the quality
of the school work; (d) the comparison of older and younger
children as regards the influence of social environment; and
(e) the study of individual cases of bright and dull children
in the same family.
3. In order to facilitate comparison, it is advisable to express
the intelligence of children of all social classes in terms of
the same objective scale of intelligence. This scale should be
based on the median for all classes taken together.
4. As regards their responses to individual tests, our children
of a given social class were not distinguishable from children
of the same intelligence in any other social class.
THE RELATION OF THE I Q TO THE QUALITY OF THE CHILD'S SCHOOL WORK. The
school work of 504 children was graded by the teachers on a scale of
five grades: _very inferior_, _inferior_, _average_, _superior_, and
_very superior_. When this grouping was compared with that made on the
basis of I Q, fairly close agreement was found. However, in about one
case out of ten there was rather serious disagreement; a child, for
example, would be rated as doing _average_ school work when his I Q
would place him in the _very inferior_ intelligence group.
When the data were searched for explanations of such disagreements it
was found that most of them were plainly due to the failure of teachers
to take into account the age of the child when grading the quality of
his school work.[26] When allowance was made for this tendency there
were no disagreements which justified any serious suspicion as to the
accuracy of the intelligence scale. Minor disagreements may, of course,
be disregarded, since the quality of school work depends in part on
other factors than intelligence, such as industry, health, regularity of
attendance, quality of instruction, etc.
[26] See p. 24 _ff._
THE RELATION BETWEEN I Q AND GRADE PROGRESS. This comparison, which was
made for the entire 1000 children, showed a fairly high correlation, but
also some astonishing disagreements. Nine-year intelligence was found
all the way from grade 1 to grade 7, inclusive; 10-year intelligence all
the way from grade 2 to grade 7; and 12-year intelligence all the way
from grade 3 to grade 8. Plainly the school's efforts at grading fail to
give homogeneous groups of children as regards mental ability. On the
whole, the grade location of the children did not fit their mental ages
much better than it did their chronological ages.
When the data were examined, it was found that practically every child
whose grade failed to correspond fairly closely with his mental age was
either exceptionally bright or exceptionally dull. Those who tested
between 96 and 105 I Q were never seriously misplaced in school. The
very dull children, however, were usually located from one to three
grades above where they belonged by mental age, and the duller the
child the more serious, as a rule, was the misplacement. On the other
hand, the very bright children were nearly always located from one to
three grades below where they belonged by mental age, and the brighter
the child the more serious the school's mistake. The child of 10-year
mental age in the second grade, for example, is almost certain to be
about 7 or 8 years old; the child of 10-year intelligence in the sixth
grade is almost certain to be 13 to 15 years of age.
All this is due to one fact, and one alone: _the school tends to promote
children by age rather than ability_. The bright children are held back,
while the dull children are promoted beyond their mental ability. The
retardation problem is exactly the reverse of what we have thought it to
be. It is the bright children who are retarded, and the dull children
who are accelerated.
The remedy is to be sought in differentiated courses (special classes)
for both kinds of mentally exceptional children. Just as many special
classes are needed for superior children as for the inferior. The social
consequences of suitable educational advantages for children of superior
ability would no doubt greatly exceed anything that could possibly
result from the special instruction of dullards and border-line
cases.[27]
[27] See Chapter VI for further discussion of the school progress
possible to children of various I Q's.
Special study of the I Q's between 70 and 79 revealed the fact that a
child of this grade of intelligence _never_ does satisfactory work in
the grade where he belongs by chronological age. By the time he has
attended school four or five years, such a child is usually found doing
"very inferior" to "average" work in a grade from two to four years
below his age.
On the other hand, the child with an I Q of 120 or above is almost never
found below the grade for his chronological age, and occasionally he is
one or two grades above. Wherever located, his work is always "superior"
or "very superior," and the evidence suggests strongly that it would
probably remain so even if extra promotions were granted.
CORRELATION BETWEEN I Q AND THE TEACHERS' ESTIMATES OF THE CHILDREN'S
INTELLIGENCE. By the Pearson formula the correlation found between the
I Q's and the teachers' rankings on a scale of five was .48. This is
about what others have found, and is both high enough and low enough to
be significant. That it is moderately high in so far corroborates the
tests. That it is not higher means that either the teachers or the tests
have made a good many mistakes.
When the data were searched for evidence on this point, it was found, as
we have shown in Chapter II, that the fault was plainly on the part of
the teachers. The serious mistakes were nearly all made with children
who were either over age or under age for their grade, mostly the
former. In estimating children's intelligence, just as in grading their
school success, the teachers often failed to take account of the age
factor. For example, the child whose mental age was, say, two years
below normal, and who was enrolled in a class with children about two
years younger than himself, was often graded "average" in intelligence.
The tendency of teachers is to estimate a child's intelligence according
to the quality of his school work _in the grade where he happens to be
located_. This results in overestimating the intelligence of older,
retarded children, and underestimating the intelligence of the younger,
advanced children. The disagreements between the tests and the teachers'
estimates are thus found, when analyzed, to confirm the validity of the
test method rather than to bring it under suspicion.
THE VALIDITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL TESTS. The validity of each test was
checked up by measuring it against the scale as a whole in the manner
described on p. 55. For example, if 10-year-old children having 11-year
intelligence succeed with a given test decidedly better than 10-year-old
children who have 9-year intelligence, then either this test must be
accepted as valid or the scale as a whole must be rejected. Since we
know, however, that the scale as a whole has at least a reasonably high
degree of reliability, this method becomes a sure and ready means of
judging the worth of a test.
When the tests were tried out in this way it was found that some of
those which have been most criticized have in reality a high correlation
with intelligence. Among these are naming the days of the week, giving
the value of stamps, counting thirteen pennies, giving differences
between president and king, finding rhymes, giving age, distinguishing
right and left, and interpretation of pictures. Others having a high
reliability are the vocabulary tests, arithmetical reasoning, giving
differences, copying a diamond, giving date, repeating digits in reverse
order, interpretation of fables, the dissected sentence test, naming
sixty words, finding omissions in pictures, and recognizing absurdities.
Among the somewhat less satisfactory tests are the following: repeating
digits (direct order), naming coins, distinguishing forenoon and
afternoon, defining in terms of use, drawing designs from memory, and
æsthetic comparison. Binet's "line suggestion" test correlated so little
with intelligence that it had to be thrown out. The same was also true
of two of the new tests which we had added to the series for try-out.
Tests showing a medium correlation with the scale as a whole include
arranging weights, executing three commissions, naming colors, giving
number of fingers, describing pictures, naming the months, making
change, giving superior definitions, finding similarities, reading for
memories, reversing hands of clock, defining abstract words, problems of
fact, bow-knot, induction test, and comprehension questions.
A test which makes a good showing on this criterion of agreement with
the scale as a whole becomes immune to theoretical criticisms. Whatever
it appears to be from mere inspection, it is a real measure of
intelligence. Henceforth it stands or falls with the scale as a whole.
The reader will understand, of course, that no single test used alone
will determine accurately the general level of intelligence. A great
many tests are required; and for two reasons: (1) because intelligence
has many aspects; and (2) in order to overcome the accidental influences
of training or environment. If many tests are used no one of them need
show more than a moderately high correlation with the scale as a whole.
As stated by Binet, "Let the tests be rough, if there are only enough of
them."
CHAPTER VI
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VARIOUS INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS
FREQUENCY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES OF INTELLIGENCE. Before we can interpret
the results of an examination it is necessary to know how frequently an
I Q of the size found occurs among unselected children. Our tests of
1000 unselected children enable us to answer this question with some
degree of definiteness. A study of these 1000 I Q's shows the following
significant facts:--
The lowest 1 % go to 70 or below, the highest 1 % reach 130 or above
" " 2 % " " 73 " " " " 2 % " 128 " "
" " 3 % " " 76 " " " " 3 % " 125 " "
" " 5 % " " 78 " " " " 5 % " 122 " "
" " 10 % " " 85 " " " " 10 % " 116 " "
" " 15 % " " 88 " " " " 15 % " 113 " "
" " 20 % " " 91 " " " " 20 % " 110 " "
" " 25 % " " 92 " " " " 25 % " 108 " "
" " 33+1/3% " " 95 " " " " 33+1/3% " 106 " "
Or, to put some of the above facts in another form:--
The child reaching 110 is equaled or excelled by 20 out of 100
" " " (about) 115 " " " " " 10 " " "
" " " " 125 " " " " " 3 " " "
" " " " 130 " " " " " 1 " " "
Conversely, we may say regarding the subnormals that:--
The child testing at (about) 90 is equaled or excelled by 80 out of 100
" " " " " 85 " " " " " 90 " " "
" " " " " 75 " " " " " 97 " " "
" " " " " 70 " " " " " 99 " " "
CLASSIFICATION OF INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS. What do the above I Q's imply
in such terms as feeble-mindedness, border-line intelligence, dullness,
normality, superior intelligence genius, etc.? When we use these terms
two facts must be borne in mind: (1) That the boundary lines between
such groups are absolutely arbitrary, a matter of definition only; and
(2) that the individuals comprising one of the groups do not make up a
homogeneous type.
Nevertheless, since terms like the above are convenient and will
probably continue to be used, it is desirable to give them as much
definiteness as possible. On the basis of the tests we have made,
including many cases of all grades of intelligence, the following
suggestions are offered for the classification of intelligence
quotients:--
_I Q_ _Classification_
Above 140 "Near" genius or genius.
120-140 Very superior intelligence.
110-120 Superior intelligence.
90-110 Normal, or average, intelligence.
80- 90 Dullness, rarely classifiable as feeble-mindedness.
70- 80 Border-line deficiency, sometimes classifiable as
dullness, often as feeble-mindedness.
Below 70 Definite feeble-mindedness.
Of the feeble-minded, those between 50 and 70 I Q include most of the
morons (high, middle, and low), those between 20 or 25 and 50 are
ordinarily to be classed as imbeciles, and those below 20 or 25 as
idiots. According to this classification the adult idiot would range up
to about 3-year intelligence as the limit, the adult imbecile would have
a mental level between 3 and 7 years, and the adult moron would range
from about 7-year to 11-year intelligence.
It should be added, however, that the classification of I Q's for the
various sub-grades of feeble-mindedness is not very secure, for the
reason that the exact curves of mental growth have not been worked out
for such grades. As far as the public schools are concerned this does
not greatly matter, as they never enroll idiots and very rarely even the
high-grade imbecile. School defectives are practically all of the moron
and border-line grades, and these it is important teachers should be
able to recognize. The following discussions and illustrative cases will
perhaps give a fairly definite idea of the significance of various
grades of intelligence.[28]
[28] The clinical descriptions to be given are not complete and are
designed merely to aid the examiner in understanding the significance of
intelligence quotients found.
FEEBLE-MINDEDNESS (RARELY ABOVE 75 I Q.) There are innumerable grades of
mental deficiency ranging from somewhat below average intelligence to
profound idiocy. In the literal sense every individual below the average
is more or less mentally weak or feeble. Only a relatively small
proportion of these, however, are technically known as feeble-minded. It
is therefore necessary to set forth the criterion as to what constitutes
feeble-mindedness in the commonly accepted sense of that word.
The definition in most general use is the one framed by the Royal
College of Physicians and Surgeons of London, and adopted by the English
Royal Commission on Mental Deficiency. It is substantially as follows:--
_A feeble-minded person is one who is incapable, because of mental
defect existing from birth or from an early age, (a) of competing on
equal terms with his normal fellows; or (b) of managing himself or his
affairs with ordinary prudence._
Two things are to be noted in regard to this definition: In the first
place, it is stated in terms of social and industrial efficiency. Such
efficiency, however, depends not merely on the degree of intelligence,
but also on emotional, moral, physical, and social traits as well. This
explains why some individuals with I Q somewhat below 75 can hardly be
classed as feeble-minded in the ordinary sense of the term, while others
with I Q a little above 75 could hardly be classified in any other
group.
In the second place, the criterion set up by the definition is not very
definite because of the vague meaning of the expression "ordinary
prudence." Even the expression "competing on equal terms" cannot be
taken literally, else it would include also those who are merely dull.
It is the second part of the definition that more nearly expresses the
popular criterion, for as long as an individual manages his affairs in
such a way as to be self-supporting, and in such a way as to avoid
becoming a nuisance or burden to his fellowmen, he escapes the
institutions for defectives and may pass for normal.
The most serious defect of the definition comes from the lax
interpretation of the term "ordinary prudence," etc. The popular
standard is so low that hundreds of thousands of high grade defectives
escape identification as such. Moreover, there are many grades of
severity in social and industrial competition. For example, most of the
members of such families as the Jukes, the Nams, the Hill Folk, and the
Kallikaks are able to pass as normal in their own crude environment, but
when compelled to compete with average American stock their deficiency
becomes evident. It is therefore necessary to supplement the social
criterion with a more strictly psychological one.
For this purpose there is nothing else as significant as the I Q. All
who test below 70 I Q by the Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon scale
should be considered feeble-minded, and it is an open question whether
it would not be justifiable to consider 75 I Q as the lower limit of
"normal" intelligence. Certainly a large proportion falling between
70 and 75 can hardly be classed as other than feeble-minded, even
according to the social criterion.
_Examples of feeble-minded school children_
_F. C. Boy, age 8-6; mental age 4-2; I Q approximately 50._ From
a very superior home. Has had the best medical care and other
attention. Attended a private kindergarten until rejected
because he required so much of the teacher's time and appeared
uneducable. Will probably develop to about the 6- or 7-year
mental level. High grade imbecile. Has since been committed to a
state institution. Cases as low as F. C. very rarely get into
the public schools.
_R. W. Boy, age 13-10; mental age 7-6; I Q approximately 55._
Home excellent. Is pubescent. Because of age and maturity has
been promoted to the third grade, though he can hardly do the
work of the second. Has attended school more than six years.
Will probably never develop much if any beyond 8 years, and will
never be self-supporting. Low-grade moron.
[Illustration: FIG. 4. DIAMOND DRAWN BY R. W., AGE 13-10; MENTAL
AGE 7-6]
_M. S. Girl, age 7-6; mental age 4-6; I Q 60._ Father a
gardener, home conditions and medical attention fair. Has twice
attempted first grade, but without learning to read more than a
few words. In each case teacher requested parents to withdraw
her. "Takes" things. Is considered "foolish" by the other
children. Will probably never develop beyond a mental level of
8 years.
_R. M. Boy, age 15; mental age 9; I Q 60._ Decidedly superior
home environment and care. After attending school eight years is
in fifth grade, though he cannot do the work of the fourth
grade. Parents unable to teach him to respect property. Boys
torment him and make his life miserable. At middle-moron level
and has probably about reached the limit of his development. Has
since been committed to a state institution.
[Illustration: FIG. 5. WRITING FROM DICTATION. R. M., AGE 15;
MENTAL AGE 9]
_S. M. Girl, age 19-2; mental age 10; I Q approximately 65 (not
counting age beyond 16)._ From very superior family. Has
attended public and private schools twelve years and has been
promoted to seventh grade, where she cannot do the work. Appears
docile and childlike, but is subject to spells of disobedience
and stubbornness. Did not walk until 4 years old. Plays with
young children. Susceptible to attention from men and has to be
constantly guarded. Writing excellent, knows the number
combinations, but missed all the absurdities and has the
vocabulary of an average 10-year-old. The type from which
prostitutes often come.
_R. H. Boy, age 14; mental age 8-4; I Q 65._ Father Irish,
mother Spanish. Family comfortable and home care average. Has
attended school eight years and is unable to do fourth-grade
work satisfactorily. Health excellent and attendance regular.
Reads in fourth reader without expression and with little
comprehension of what is read. Fair skill in number
combinations. Writing and drawing very poor. Cannot use a ruler.
Has no conception of an inch.
R. H. is described as high-tempered, irritable, lacking in
physical activity, clumsy, and unsteady. Plays little. Just
"stands around." Indifferent to praise or blame, has little
sense of duty, plays underhand tricks. Is slow, absent-minded,
easily confused, in thought, never shows appreciation or
interest. So apathetic that he does not hear commands. Voice
droning. Speech poor in colloquial expressions.
Three years later, at age of 17, was in a special class
attempting sixth-grade work. Reported as doing "absolutely
nothing" in that grade. Still sullen, indifferent, and slow in
grasping directions, and lacking in play interests. "No
apperception of anything, but has mastered such mechanical
things as reading (calling the words) and the fundamentals in
arithmetic."
In school work, moral traits, and out-of-school behavior R. H.
shows himself to be a typical case of moron deficiency.
_I. M. Girl, age 14-2; mental age 9; I Q approximately 65._
Father a laborer. Does unsatisfactory work in fourth grade.
Plays with little girls. A menace to the morals of the school
because of her sex interests and lack of self-restraint. Rather
good-looking if one does not hunt for appearances of
intelligence. Mental reactions intolerably slow. Will develop
but little further and will always pass as feeble-minded in any
but the very lowest social environment.
[Illustration: FIG. 6. BALL AND FIELD TEST. I. M., AGE 14-2;
MENTAL AGE 9]
_G. V. Boy, age 10; mental age 6-4; I Q 65._ Father Spanish,
mother English. Family poor but fairly respectable. Brothers and
sisters all retarded. In high first grade. Work all very poor
except writing, drawing, and hand work, in all of which he
excels. Is quiet and inactive, lacks self-confidence, and plays
little. Mentally slow, inert, "thick," and inattentive. Health
fair.
Three years later G. V. was in the low third grade and still
doing extremely poor work in everything except manual training,
drawing, and writing. Is not likely ever to go beyond the fourth
or fifth grade however long he remains in school.
_V. J. Girl, age 11-6; mental age 8; I Q 70._ Has been tested
three times in the last five years, always with approximately
the same result in terms of I Q. Home fair to inferior. Has been
in a special class two years and in school altogether nearly six
years. Is barely able to do third-grade work. Her
feeble-mindedness is recognized by teachers and by other pupils.
Belongs at about middle-moron to high-moron level.
_A. W. Boy, age 9-4; mental age 7; I Q 75._ A year and a half
ago he tested at 6-2. From superior family, brothers of very
superior intelligence. In school three years and has made about
a grade and a half. Has higher I Q than V. J. described above,
but his deficiency is fully as evident. Is generally recognized
as mentally defective. Slyly abstracted one of the pennies used
in the test and slipped it into his pocket. Has caused much
trouble at school by puncturing bicycle tires. High-grade moron.
[Illustration: FIG. 7. DIAMOND DRAWN BY A. W.]
_A. C. Boy, age 12; mental age 8-5; I Q 70._ From Portuguese
family of ten children. Has a feeble-minded brother. Parents in
comfortable circumstances and respectable. A. C. has attended
school regularly since he was 6 years old. Trying unsuccessfully
to do the work of the fourth grade. Reads poorly in the third
reader. Hesitates, repeats, miscalls words, and never gets the
thought. Writes about like a first-grade pupil. Cannot solve
such simple problems as "How many marbles can you buy for ten
cents if one marble costs five cents?" even when he has marbles
and money in his hands. Described by teacher as "mentally slow
and inert, inattentive, easily distracted, memory poor, ideas
vague and often absurd, does not appreciate stories, slow at
comprehending commands." Is also described as "unruly,
boisterous, disobedient, stubborn, and lacking sense of
propriety. Tattles."
Three years later, at age of 15, was in a special class and was
little if any improved. He had, however, learned the mechanics
of reading and had mastered the number combinations.
Deficiencies described as "of wide range." Conduct, however, had
improved. Was "working hard to get on."
A. C. must be considered definitely feeble-minded.
_H. S. Boy, age 11; mental age 8-3; I Q approximately 75._ At
8 years tested at 6. Parents highly educated, father a scholar.
Brother and sister of very superior intelligence. Started to
school at 7, but was withdrawn because of lack of progress.
Started again at 8 and is now doing poor work in the second
grade. Weakly and nervous. Painfully aware of his inability to
learn. During the test keeps saying, "I tried anyway," "It's all
I can do if I try my best, ain't it?" etc. Regarded defective by
other children. Will probably never be able to do work beyond
the fourth or fifth grade and is not likely to develop above the
11-year level, if as high.
[Illustration: FIG. 8. DRAWING DESIGNS FROM MEMORY. H. S.,
AGE 11; MENTAL AGE 8-3]
_I. S. Boy, age 9-6; mental age 7; I Q 75._ German parentage.
Started to school at 6. Now in low second grade and unable to do
the work. Health good. Inattentive, mentally slow and inert,
easily distracted, speech is monotone. Equally poor in reading,
writing, and numbers. I. S. is described as quiet, sullen,
indifferent, lazy, and stubborn. Plays little.
Three years later had advanced from low second to low fourth
grade, but was as poor as ever in his school work. "Miscalls the
simplest words." Moral traits unsatisfactory. May reach sixth or
seventh grade if he remains in school long enough.
I. S. learned to walk at 2 years and to talk at 3.
The above are cases of such marked deficiency that there could be no
disagreement among competent judges in classifying them in the group of
"feeble-minded." All are definitely institutional cases. It is a matter
of record, however, that one of the cases, H. S., was diagnosed by a
physician (without test) as "backward but not a defective." and with the
added encouragement that "the backwardness will be outgrown." Of course
the reverse is the case; the deficiency is becoming more and more
apparent as the boy approaches the age where more is expected of him.
In at least three of the above cases (S. M., I. S., and I. M.) the
teachers had not identified the backwardness as feeble-mindedness. Not
far from 2 children out of 100, or 2 out of 1000, in the average public
school are as defective as some of those just described. Teachers get so
accustomed to seeing a few of them in every group of 200 or 300 pupils
that they are likely to regard them as merely dull,--"dreadfully dull,"
of course,--but not defective.
Children like these, for their own good and that of other pupils, should
be kept out of the regular classes. They will rarely be equal to the
work of the fifth grade, however long they attend school. They will
make a little progress in a well-managed special class, but with the
approach of adolescence, at latest, the State should take them into
custodial care for its own protection.
BORDER-LINE CASES (USUALLY BETWEEN 70 AND 80 I Q). The border-line cases
are those which fall near the boundary generally recognized as such and
the higher group usually classed as normal but dull. They are the
doubtful cases, the ones we are always trying (rarely with success) to
restore to normality.
It must be emphasized, however, that this doubtful group is not marked
off by definite I Q limits. Some children with I Q as high as 75 or even
80 will have to be classified as feeble-minded; some as low as 70 I Q
may be so well endowed in other mental traits that they may manage as
adults to get along fairly well in a simple environment. The ability to
compete with one's fellows in the social and industrial world does not
depend upon intelligence alone. Such factors as moral traits, industry,
environment to be encountered, personal appearance, and influential
relatives are also involved. Two children classified above as
feeble-minded had an I Q as high as 75. In these cases the emotional,
moral, or physical qualities were so defective as to render a normal
social life out of the question. This is occasionally true even with an
I Q as high as 80. Some of the border-line cases, with even less
intelligence, may be so well endowed in other mental traits that they
are capable of becoming dependable unskilled laborers, and of supporting
a family after a fashion.
_Examples of border-line deficiency_
_S. F. Girl, age 17; mental age 11-6; I Q approximately 72
(disregarding age above 16 years)._ Father intelligent; mother
probably high-grade defective. Lives in a good home with aunt,
who is a woman of good sense and skillful in her management of
the girl. S. F. has attended excellent schools for eleven years
and has recently been promoted to the seventh grade. The teacher
admits, however, that she cannot do the work of that grade, but
says, "I haven't the heart to let her fail in the sixth grade
for the third time." She studies very hard and says she wants to
become a teacher! At the time the test was made she was actually
studying her books from two to three hours daily at home. The
aunt, who is very intelligent, had never thought of this girl as
feeble-minded, and had suffered much concern and humiliation
because of her inability to teach her to conduct herself
properly toward men and not to appropriate other people's
property.
[Illustration: FIG. 9. BALL AND FIELD TEST S. F., AGE 17; MENTAL
AGE 11-6]
S. F. is ordinarily docile, but is subject to fits of anger and
obstinacy. She finally determined to leave her home, threatening
to take up with a man unless allowed to work elsewhere. Since
then she has been tried out in several families, but after a
little while in a place she flies into a rage and leaves. She is
a fairly capable houseworker when she tries.
This young woman is feeble-minded and should be classed as such.
She is listed here with the border-line cases simply for the
reason that she belongs to a group whose mental deficiency is
almost never recognized without the aid of a psychological test.
Probably no physician could be found who would diagnose the
case, on the basis of a medical examination alone, as one of
feeble-mindedness.
_F. H. Boy, age 16-6; mental age 11-5; I Q approximately 72
(disregarding age above 16 years)._ Tested for three successive
years without change of more than four points in I Q. Father a
laborer, dull, subject to fits of rage, and beats the boy.
Mother not far from border-line. F. H. has always had the best
of school advantages and has been promoted to the seventh grade.
Is really about equal to fifth-grade work. Fairly rapid and
accurate in number combinations, but cannot solve arithmetical
problems which require any reasoning. Reads with reasonable
fluency, but with little understanding. Appears exceedingly
good-natured, but was once suspended from school for hurling
bricks at a fellow pupil. Played a "joke" on another pupil by
fastening a dangerous, sharp-pointed, steel paper-file in the
pupil's seat for him to sit down on. He is cruel, stubborn, and
plays truant, but is fairly industrious when he gets a job as
errand or delivery boy. Discharged once for taking money.
F. H. is generally called "queer," but is not ordinarily thought
of as feeble-minded. His deficiency is real, however, and it is
altogether doubtful whether he will be able to make a living and
to keep out of trouble, though he is now (at age 20) employed as
messenger boy for the Western Union at $30 per month. This is
considerably less than pick-and-shovel men get in the community
where he lives. Delinquents and criminals often belong to this
level of intelligence.
_W. C. Boy, age 16-8; mental age 12; I Q 75 (disregarding age
above 16 years)._ Father a college professor. All the other
children in the family of unusually superior intelligence. When
tested (four years ago) was trying to do seventh-grade work, but
with little success. Wanted to leave school and learn farming,
but father insisted on his getting the usual grammar-school and
high-school education. Made $25 one summer by raising vegetables
on a vacant lot. In the four years since the test was made he
has managed to get into high school. Teachers say that in spite
of his best efforts he learns next to nothing, and they regard
him as hopelessly dull. Is docile, lacks all aggressiveness,
looks stupid, and has head circumference an inch below normal.
Here is a most pitiful case of the overstimulated backward child
in a superior family. Instead of nagging at the boy and urging
him on to attempt things which are impossible to his inferior
intelligence, his parents should take him out of school and put
him at some kind of work which he could do. If the boy had been
the son of a common laborer he would probably have left school
early and have become a dependable and contented laborer. In a
very simple environment he would probably not be considered
defective.
_C. P. Boy, age 10-2; mental age 7-11; I Q 78._ Portuguese boy,
son of a skilled laborer. One of eleven children, most of whom
have about this same grade of intelligence. Has attended school
regularly for four years. Is in the third grade, but cannot do
the work. Except for extreme stubbornness his social development
is fairly normal. Capable in plays and games, but is regarded as
impossible in his school work. Like his brother, M. P., the next
case to be described, he will doubtless become a fairly reliable
laborer at unskilled work and will not be regarded, in his
rather simple environment, as a defective. From the
psychological point of view, however, his deficiency is real. He
will probably never develop beyond the 11- or 12-year level or
be able to do satisfactory school work beyond the fifth or sixth
grade.
[Illustration: FIG. 10. WRITING FROM DICTATION. C. P., AGE 10-2;
MENTAL AGE 7-11]
_M. P. Boy, age 14; mental age 10-8; I Q 77._ Has been tested
four successive years, I Q being always between 75 and 80.
Brother to C. P. above. In school nearly eight years and has
been promoted to the fifth grade. At 16 was doing poor work in
the sixth grade. Good school advantages, as the father has tried
conscientiously to give his children "a good education."
Perfectly normal in appearance and in play activities and is
liked by other children. Seems to be thoroughly dependable both
in school and in his outside work. Will probably become an
excellent laborer and will pass as perfectly normal,
notwithstanding a grade of intelligence which will not develop
above 11 or 12 years.
[Illustration: FIG. 11. BALL AND FIELD TEST. M. P., AGE 14;
MENTAL AGE 10-8]
What shall we say of cases like the last two which test at high-grade
moronity or at border-line, but are well enough endowed in moral
and personal traits to pass as normal in an uncomplicated social
environment? According to the classical definition of feeble-mindedness
such individuals cannot be considered defectives. Hardly any one would
think of them as institutional cases. Among laboring men and servant
girls there are thousands like them. They are the world's "hewers of
wood and drawers of water." And yet, as far as intelligence is
concerned, the tests have told the truth. These boys are uneducable
beyond the merest rudiments of training. No amount of school instruction
will ever make them intelligent voters or capable citizens in the true
sense of the word. Judged psychologically they cannot be considered
normal.
It is interesting to note that M. P. and C. P. represent the level of
intelligence which is very, very common among Spanish-Indian and Mexican
families of the Southwest and also among negroes. Their dullness seems
to be racial, or at least inherent in the family stocks from which they
come. The fact that one meets this type with such extraordinary
frequency among Indians, Mexicans, and negroes suggests quite forcibly
that the whole question of racial differences in mental traits will have
to be taken up anew and by experimental methods. The writer predicts
that when this is done there will be discovered enormously significant
racial differences in general intelligence, differences which cannot be
wiped out by any scheme of mental culture.
Children of this group should be segregated in special classes and be
given instruction which is concrete and practical. They cannot master
abstractions, but they can often be made efficient workers, able to look
out for themselves. There is no possibility at present of convincing
society that they should not be allowed to reproduce, although from a
eugenic point of view they constitute a grave problem because of their
unusually prolific breeding.
DULL NORMALS (I Q USUALLY 80 TO 90). In this group are included those
children who would not, according to any of the commonly accepted social
standards, be considered feeble-minded, but who are nevertheless far
enough below the actual average of intelligence among races of western
European descent that they cannot make ordinary school progress or
master other intellectual difficulties which average children are equal
to. A few of this class test as low as 75 to 80 I Q, but the majority
are not far from 85. The unmistakably normal children who go much below
this (in California, at least) are usually Mexicans, Indians, or
negroes.
_R. G. Negro boy, age 13-5; mental age 10-6; I Q approximately
80._ Normal in appearance and conduct, but very dull. Is
attempting fifth-grade work in a special class, but is failing.
From a fairly good home and has had ordinary school advantages.
In the examination his intelligence is very even as far as it
goes, but stops rather abruptly after the 10-year tests. Will
unquestionably pass as normal among unskilled laborers, but his
intelligence will never exceed the 12-year level and he is not
likely to advance beyond the seventh grade, if as far.
[Illustration: FIG. 12. BALL AND FIELD. R. G., AGE 13-5, MENTAL
AGE 10-6]
_F. D. Boy, tested at age 10-2; I Q 83, and again at 14-1;
I Q 79._ Mental age in the first test was 8-6 and in the second
test 11. Son of a barber. Father dead; mother capable; makes a
good home, and cares for her children well. At 10 was doing
unsatisfactory work in the fourth grade, and at 12
unsatisfactory work in low sixth. Good-looking, normal in
appearance and social development, and though occasionally
obstinate is usually steady. Any one unacquainted with his poor
school work and low I Q would consider him perfectly normal. No
physical or moral handicaps of any kind that could possibly
account for his retardation. Is simply dull. Needs purely a
vocational training, but may be able to complete the eighth
grade with low marks by the age of 16 or 17.
_G. G. Girl, age 12-4; mental age 10-10; I Q 82._ From average
home. Excellent educational advantages and no physical
handicaps. At 12 years was doing very poor work in fifth grade.
Appearance, play life, and attitude toward other children
normal. Simply dull. Will probably never go beyond the 12- or
13-year level and is not likely to get as far as the high
school.
Those testing 80 and 90 will usually be able to reach the eighth grade,
but ordinarily only after from one to three or four failures. They are
so very numerous (about 15 per cent of the school enrollment) that it is
doubtful whether we can expect soon to have special classes enough to
accommodate all. The most feasible solution is a differentiated course
of study with parallel classes in which every child will be allowed to
make the best progress of which he is capable, without incurring the
risk of failure and non-promotion. The so-called Mannheim system, or
something similar to it, is what we need.
AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE (I Q 90 TO 110). It is often said that the schools
are made for the average child, but that "the average child does not
exist." He does exist, and in very large numbers. About 60 per cent of
all school children test between 90 and 110 I Q, and about 40 per cent
between 95 and 105. That these children are average is attested by their
school records as well as by their I Q's. Our records show that, of more
than 200 children below 14 years of age and with I Q between 95 and 105,
not one was making much more nor much less than average school progress.
Four were two years retarded, but in each case this was due to late
start, illness, or irregular attendance. Children who test close to 90,
however, often fail to get along satisfactorily, while those testing
near 110 are occasionally able to win an extra promotion.
The children of this average group are seldom school problems, as far as
ability to learn is concerned. Nor are they as likely to cause trouble
in discipline as the dull and border-line cases. It is therefore hardly
necessary to give illustrative cases here.
The high school, however, does not fit their grade of intelligence as
well as the elementary and grammar schools. High schools probably enroll
a disproportionate number of pupils in the I Q range above 100. That is,
the average intelligence among high-school pupils is above the average
for the population in general. It is probably not far from 110. College
students are, of course, a still more selected group, perhaps coming
chiefly from the range above 115. The child whose school marks are
barely average in the elementary grades, when measured against children
in general, will ordinarily earn something less than average marks in
high school, and perhaps excessively poor marks in college.
SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE (I Q 110 TO 120). Children of this group
ordinarily make higher marks and are capable of making somewhat more
rapid progress than the strictly average child. Perhaps most of them
could complete the eight grades in seven years as easily as the average
child does in eight years. They are not usually the best scholars, but
on a scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, and failure they will usually
rank as good, though of course the degree of application is a factor. It
is rare, however, to find a child of this level who is positively
indolent in his school work or who dislikes school. In high school they
are likely to win about the average mark.
Intelligence of 110 to 120 I Q is approximately five times as common
among children of superior social status as among children of inferior
social status; the proportion among the former being about 24 per cent
of all, and among the latter only 5 per cent of all. The group is
made up largely of children of the fairly successful mercantile or
professional classes.
The total number of children between 110 and 120 is almost exactly the
same as the number between 80 and 90; namely, about 15 per cent. The
distance between these two groups (say between 85 and 115) is as great
as the distance between average intelligence and border-line deficiency,
and it would be absurd to suppose that they could be taught to best
advantage in the same classes. As a matter of fact, pupils between
110 and 120 are usually held back to the rate of progress which the
average child can make. They are little encouraged to do their best.
VERY SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE (I Q 120 TO 140). Children of this group are
better than somewhat above average. They are unusually superior. Not
more than 3 out of 100 go as high as 125 I Q, and only about 1 out of
100 as high as 130. In the schools of a city of average population only
about 1 child in 250 or 300 tests as high as 140 I Q.
In a series of 476 unselected children there was not a single one
reaching 120 whose social class was described as "below average."[29] Of
the children of superior social status, about 10 per cent reached 120 or
better. The 120-140 group is made up almost entirely of children whose
parents belong to the professional or very successful business classes.
The child of a skilled laborer belongs here occasionally, the child of a
common laborer very rarely indeed. At least this is true in the smaller
cities of California among populations made up of native-born Americans.
In all probability it would not have been true in the earlier history of
the country when ordinary labor was more often than now performed by men
of average intelligence, and it would probably not hold true now among
certain immigrant populations of good stock, but limited social and
educational advantages.
[29] In other investigations, however, we have found even brighter
children from very inferior homes. See p. 117 for an example.
What can children of this grade of ability do in school? The question
cannot be answered as satisfactorily as one could wish, for the simple
reason that such children are rarely permitted to do what they can. What
they do accomplish is as follows: Of 54 children (of the 1000 unselected
cases) falling in this group, 12½ per cent were advanced in the
grades two years, approximately 54 per cent were advanced one year,
28 per cent were in the grade where they belonged by chronological age,
and three children, or 5½ per cent, were actually retarded one year.
But wherever located, such children rarely get anything but the highest
marks, and the evidence goes to show that most of them could easily be
prepared for high school by the age of 12 years. Serious injury is done
them by schools which believe in "putting on the brakes."
The following are illustrations of children testing between 130 and 145.
Not all are taken from the 1000 unselected tests. The writer has
discovered several children of this grade as a result of lectures before
teachers' institutes. It is his custom, in such lectures, to ask the
teachers to bring in for a demonstration test the "brightest child in
the city" (or county, etc.). The I Q resulting from such a test is
usually between 130 and 140, occasionally a little higher.
_Examples of very superior intelligence_
_Margaret P. Age 8-10; mental age 11-1; I Q 130._ Father only a
skilled laborer (house painter), but a man of unusual
intelligence and character for his social class. Home care above
average. M. P. has attended school a little less than three
years and is completing fourth grade. Marks all "excellent."
Health perfect. Social and moral traits of the very best. Is
obedient, conscientious, and unusually reliable for her age.
Quiet and confident bearing, but no touch of vanity.
M. P. is known to be related on her father's side to John
Wesley, and her maternal grandfather was a highly skilled
mechanic and the inventor of an important train-coupling device
used on all railroads.
Although she is not yet 9 years old and is completing the fourth
grade, she is still about a grade below where she belongs by
mental age. She could no doubt easily be made ready for high
school by the age of 12.
_J. R. Girl, age 12-9; mental age 16 (average adult); I Q
approximately 130._ Daughter of a university professor. In first
year of high school. From first grade up her marks have been
nearly all of the A rank. For first semester of high school four
of six grades were A, the others B. A wonderfully charming,
delightful girl in every respect. Play life perfectly normal.
_J. R.'s_ parents have moved about a great deal and she has
attended eight different schools. She is two years above grade
in school, but of this gain only one-half grade was made in
school; _the other grade and a half she gained in a little over
a year by staying out of school and working a little each day
under the instruction of her mother_. But for this she would
doubtless now be in the seventh grade instead of in high school.
As it is she is at least a grade below where she belongs by
mental age. Something better than an average college record may
be safely predicted for J. R.
_E. B. Girl, age 7-9; mental age 10-2; I Q 130._ E. B. was
selected by the teachers of a small California city as the
brightest school child in that city (school population about
500). Her parents are said to be unusually intelligent. E. B. is
in the third grade, a year advanced, but her mental level shows
that she belongs in the fourth. The test was made as a
demonstration test in the presence of about 150 teachers, all
of whom were charmed by her delightful personality and keen
responses. No trace of vanity or queerness of any kind. Health
excellent. E. B. ought to be ready for high school at 12; she
will really have the intelligence to do high-school work by 11.
[Illustration: FIG. 13. BALL AND FIELD TEST. E. B., AGE 7-9;
I Q 130]
_L. B. Girl, age 8-6; mental age 11-6; I Q 135._ Tested nearly
three years earlier, age 5-11; mental age 7-6; I Q 127. Daughter
of a university professor. At age of 8-6 was doing very superior
work in the fifth grade. Later, at age of 10-6, is in the
seventh grade with all her marks excellent. Has two sisters who
test almost as high, both completing the eighth grade at barely
12 years of age. L. B. looks rather delicate, and though a
little nervous is ordinarily strong. We have known her since her
early childhood. Like both her sisters, she is a favorite with
young and old, as nearly perfection as the most charming little
girl could be.
_R. S. Boy, age 6-5; mental age 9-6; I Q 148._ When tested at
age 5-2 he had a mental age of 7-6, I Q 142. Father a university
professor. R. S. entered school at exactly 6 years of age, and
at the present writing is 7½ years old and is entering the
third grade. Leads his class in school and takes delight in the
work. Is normal in play life and social traits and is dependable
and thoughtful beyond his years. Should enter high school not
later than 12; could probably be made ready a year earlier, but
as he is somewhat nervous this might not be wise.
_T. F. Boy, age 10-6; mental age 14; I Q 133._ At 13-6 tested at
"superior adult," and had vocabulary of 13,000 (also "superior
adult"). Son of a college professor. Did not go to school till
age of 9 years and was not taught to read till 8½. At this
writing he is 15½ years old and is a senior in high school.
He will complete the high-school course in three and one-half
years with A to B marks, mostly A. Gets his hardest mathematics
lessons in five to ten minutes. Science is his play. When he
discovered Hodge's _Nature Study and Life_ at age of 11 years he
literally slept with the book till he almost knew it by heart.
Since age 12 he has given much time to magazines on mechanics
and electricity. At 13 he installed a wireless apparatus
without other aid than his electrical magazines. He has, for a
boy of his age, a rather remarkable understanding of the
principles underlying electrical applications. He is known by
his playmates as "the boy with a hobby." Stamp collections,
butterfly and moth collections (over 70 different varieties),
seashore collections, and wireless apparatus all show that the
appellation is fully merited. He chooses his hobbies and "rides"
them entirely on his own initiative.
_J. S. Boy, age 8-2; mental age 11-4; I Q 138._ Father was a
lawyer, parents now dead. Is in high fourth grade. Leads his
class. Attractive, healthy, normal-appearing lad. Full of good
humor. Is loving and obedient, strongly attached to his foster
mother (an aunt). Composes verses and fables for pastime. Here
are a couple of verses composed before his eighth birthday. They
are reproduced without change of spelling or punctuation:--
_Christmas_
Hurrah for Christmas
And all it's joy's
That come that day
For girls and boy's.
_Flowers_
Flowers in the garden.
That is all you see
Who likes them best?
That's the honey bee.
J. S. ought to be in the fifth grade, instead of the fourth. He
will easily be able to enter college by the age of 15 if he is
allowed to make the progress which would be normal to a child of
his intelligence. But it is too much to expect that the school
will permit this.
_F. McA. Boy, age 10-3; mental age 14-6; I Q 142._ Father a
school principal. F. is leading his class of 24 pupils in the
high seventh grade. Has received so many extra promotions only
because his father insisted that the teachers allow him to try
the next grade. The dire consequences which they predicted have
never followed. F. is perfectly healthy and one of the most
attractive lads the writer has ever seen. He has the normal play
instincts, but when not at play he has the dignified bearing of
a young prince, although without vanity. His vocabulary is 9000
(14 years), and his ability is remarkably even in all
directions. F. should easily enter college by the age of 15.
[Illustration: FIG. 14. BALL AND FIELD F. McA., AGE 10-3, MENTAL
AGE 14-6]
_E. M. Boy, age 6-11; mental age 10; I Q 145._ Learned to read
at age of 5 without instruction and shortly afterward had
learned from geography maps the capitals of all the States of
the Union. Started to school at 7½. Entered the first grade
at 9 A.M. and had been promoted to the fourth grade by 3 P.M. of
the same day! Has now attended school a half-year and is in the
fifth grade, age 7 years, 8 months. Father is on the faculty of
a university.
E. M. is as superior in personal and moral traits as in
intelligence. Responsible, sturdy, playful, full of humor,
loving, obedient. Health is excellent. Has had no home
instruction in school work. His progress has been perfectly
natural.
[Illustration: FIG. 15. DRAWING DESIGNS FROM MEMORY. E. M.,
AGE 6-11; MENTAL AGE 10, I Q 145
(This performance is satisfactory for year 10)]
The above list of "very superior" children includes only a few of those
we have tested who belong to this grade of intelligence. Every child in
the list is so interesting that it is hard to omit any. We have found
all such children (with one or two exceptions not included here) so
superior to average children in all sorts of mental and moral traits
that one is at a loss to understand how the popular superstitions about
the "queerness" of bright children could have originated or survived.
Nearly every child we have found with I Q above 140 is the kind one
feels, before the test is over, one would like to adopt. If the crime of
kidnaping could ever be forgiven it would be in the case of a child like
one of these.
GENIUS AND "NEAR" GENIUS. Intelligence tests have not been in use long
enough to enable us to define genius definitely in terms of I Q. The
following two cases are offered as among the highest test records of
which the writer has personal knowledge. It is doubtful whether more
than one child in 10,000 goes as high as either. One case has been
reported, however, in which the I Q was not far from 200. Such a
record, if reliable, is certainly phenomenal.
_E. F. Russian boy, age 8-5; mental age 13; I Q approximately
155._ Mother is a university student apparently of very superior
intelligence. E. F. has a sister almost as remarkable as
himself. E. F. is in the sixth grade and at the head of his
class. Although about four grades advanced beyond his
chronological age he is still one grade retarded! He could
easily carry seventh-grade work. In all probability E. F. could
be made ready for college by the age of 12 years without injury
to body or mind. His mother has taken the only sensible course;
she has encouraged him without subjecting him to
overstimulation.
E. F. was selected for the test as probably one of the brightest
children in a city of a third of a million population. He may
not be the brightest in that city, but he is one of the three or
four most intelligent the writer has found after a good deal of
searching. He is probably equaled by not more than one in
several thousand unselected children. How impatiently one waits
to see the fruit of such a budding genius!
_B. F. Son of a minister, age 7-8; mental age 12-4; I Q 160._
Vocabulary 7000 (12 years). This test was not made by the
writer, but by one of his graduate students. The record included
the _verbatim_ responses, so that it was easy to verify the
scoring. There can be no doubt as to the substantial accuracy
of the test. This I Q of 160 is the highest one in the Stanford
University records. B. F. has excellent health, normal play
interests, and is a favorite among his playfellows. Parents had
not thought of him as especially remarkable. He is only in the
third grade, and is therefore about three grades below his
mental age.
[Illustration: FIG. 16. BALL AND FIELD. B. F., AGE 7-8; MENTAL
AGE 12-4; I Q 160
(This is a 12-year performance)]
It is especially noteworthy that not one of the children we have
described with I Q above 130 has ever had any unusual amount or kind of
home instruction. In most cases the parents were not aware of their very
great superiority. Nor can we give the credit to the school or its
methods. The school has in most cases been a deterrent to their
progress, rather than a help. These children have been taught in classes
with average and inferior children, like those described in the first
part of this chapter. Their high I Q is only an index of their
extraordinary cerebral endowment. This endowment is for life. There is
not the remotest probability that any of these children will deteriorate
to the average level of intelligence with the onset of maturity. Such an
event would be no less a miracle (barring insanity) than the development
of an imbecile into a successful lawyer or physician.
IS THE I Q OFTEN MISLEADING? Do the cases described in this chapter give
a reliable picture as to what one may expect of the various I Q levels?
Does the I Q furnish anything like a reliable index of an individual's
general educational possibilities and of his social worth? Are there not
"feeble-minded geniuses," and are there not children of exceptionally
high I Q who are nevertheless fools?
We have no hesitation in saying that there is not one case in fifty in
which there is any serious contradiction between the I Q and the child's
performances in and out of school. We cannot deny the existence of
"feeble-minded geniuses," but after a good deal of search we have not
found one. Occasionally, of course, one finds a feeble-minded person
who is an expert penman, who draws skillfully, who plays a musical
instrument tolerably well, or who handles number combinations with
unusual rapidity; but these are not geniuses; they are not authors,
artists, musicians, or mathematicians.
As for exceptionally intelligent children who appear feeble-minded, we
have found but one case, a boy of 10 years with an I Q of about 125.
This boy, whom we have tested several times and whose development we
have followed for five years, was once diagnosed by a physician as
feeble-minded. His behavior among other persons than his familiar
associates is such as to give this impression. Nothing less than an
entire chapter would be adequate for a description of this case, which
is in reality one of disturbed emotional and social development with
superior intelligence.
It should be emphasized, however, that what we have said about the
significance of various I Q's holds only for the I Q's secured by the
use of the Stanford revision. As we have shown elsewhere (p. 62 _ff._)
the I Q yielded by other versions of the Binet tests are often so
inaccurate as to be misleading.
We have not found a single child who tested between 70 and 80 I Q by the
Stanford revision who was able to do satisfactory school work in the
grade where he belonged by chronological age. Such children are usually
from two to three grades retarded by the age of 12 years. On the other
hand, the child with an I Q of 120 or above is almost never found below
the grade for his chronological age, and occasionally he is one or two
grades above. Wherever located, his school work is so superior as to
suggest strongly the desirability of extra promotions. Those who test
between 96 and 105 are almost never more than one grade above or below
where they belong by chronological age, and even the small displacement
of one year is usually determined by illness, age of beginning school,
etc.
CHAPTER VII
RELIABILITY OF THE BINET-SIMON METHOD
GENERAL VALUE OF THE METHOD. In a former chapter we have noted certain
imperfections of the scale devised by Binet and Simon; namely, that many
of the tests were not correctly located, that the choice of tests was in
a few cases unsatisfactory, that the directions for giving and scoring
the tests were sometimes too indefinite, and that the upper and lower
ranges of the scale especially stood in need of extensions and
corrections. All of these faults have been quite generally admitted. The
method itself, however, after being put to the test by psychologists of
all countries and of all faiths, by the skeptical as well as the
friendly, has amply demonstrated its value. The agreement on this point
is as complete as it is regarding the scale's imperfections.
The following quotations from prominent psychologists who have studied
the method will serve to show how it is regarded by those most entitled
to an opinion:--
There can be no question about the fact that the Binet-Simon
tests do not make half as frequent or half as great errors in
the mental ages (of feeble-minded children) as are included in
gradings based on careful, prolonged general observation by
experienced observers.[30]
[30] Dr. F. Kuhlmann: "The Binet-Simon Tests of Intelligence in Grading
Feeble-Minded Children," in _Journal of Psycho-Asthenics_ (1912),
p. 189.
All of the different authors who have made these researches
(with Binet's method) are in a general way unanimous in
recognizing that the principle of the scale is extremely
fortunate, and all believe that it offers the basis of a most
useful method for the examination of intelligence.[31]
[31] Dr. Otto Bobertag: "L'échelle métrique de l'intelligence," in
_L'Année Psychologique_ (1912), p. 272.
It serves as a relatively simple and speedy method of securing,
by means accessible to every one, a true insight into the
average level of ability of a child between 3 and 15 years of
age.[32]
[32] Dr. Ernest Meumann: _Experimentelle Pädagogik_ (1913), vol. II,
p. 277.
That, despite the differences in race and language, despite the
divergences in school organization and in methods of
instruction, there should be so decided agreement in the
reactions of the children--is, in my opinion, the best
vindication of the _principle_ of the tests that one could
imagine, because this agreement demonstrates that _the tests do
actually reach and discover the general developmental conditions
of intelligence_ (so far as these are operative in
public-school children of the present cultural epoch), and not
mere fragments of knowledge and attainments acquired by
chance.[33]
[33] Dr. W. Stern: _The Psychological Methods of Testing Intelligence._
Translated by Whipple (1913), p. 49.
It is without doubt the most satisfactory and accurate method of
determining a child's intelligence that we have, and so far
superior to everything else which has been proposed that as yet
there is nothing else to be considered.[34]
[34] Dr. H. H. Goddard: "The Binet Measuring Scale of
Intelligence; What it is and How it is to be Used," in _The
Training School Bulletin_ (1912).
The value of the method lies both in the swiftness and the accuracy with
which it works. One who knows how to apply the tests correctly and who
is experienced in the psychological interpretation of responses can in
forty minutes arrive at a more accurate judgment as to a subject's
intelligence than would be possible without the tests after months or
even years of close observation. The reasons for this have already been
set forth.[35] The difference is something like that between measuring a
person's height with a yardstick and estimating it by guess. That this
is not an unfair statement of the case is well shown by the following
candid confession by a psychologist who tested 200 juvenile delinquents
brought before Judge Lindsey's court:--
[35] See this volume, p. 24 _ff._
As a matter of interest I estimated the mental ages of 150 of my
subjects before testing them. In 54 of the estimates the error
was not more than one year in either direction; 70 of the
subjects were estimated too high, the average error being
2 years and 7 months; 26 of the subjects were estimated too low,
the average error being 2 years and 2 months. _These figures
would seem to imply that an estimate with nothing to support it
is wholly unreliable, more especially as many of the estimates
were four or five years wide of the mark._[36]
[36] C. S. Bluemel: "Binet Tests on 200 Delinquents," in _The Training
School Bulletin_ (1915), p. 192. (Italics inserted.)
Criticisms of the Binet method have also been frequently voiced, but
chiefly by persons who have had little experience with it or by those
whose scientific training hardly justifies an opinion. It cannot be too
strongly emphasized that eminence in law, medicine, education, or any
other profession does not of itself enable any one to pass judgment on
the validity of a psychological method.
DEPENDENCE OF THE SCALE'S RELIABILITY ON THE TRAINING OF THE EXAMINER.
On this point two radically different opinions have been urged. On the
one hand, some have insisted that the results of a test made by other
than a thoroughly trained psychologist are absolutely worthless. At the
opposite extreme are a few who seem to think that any teacher or
physician can secure perfectly valid results after a few hours'
acquaintance with the tests.
The dispute is one which cannot be settled by the assertion of opinion,
and, unfortunately, thoroughgoing investigations have not yet been made
as to the frequency and extent of errors made by untrained or partially
trained examiners. The only study of this kind which has so far been
reported is the following:--[37]
[37] Samuel C. Kohs: "The Binet Test and the Training of Teachers," in
_The Training School Bulletin_ (1914), pp. 113-17.
Dr. Kohs gives the results of tests made by 58 inexperienced teachers
who were taking a summer course in the Training School at Vineland. The
class met three times a week for instruction in the use of the Binet
scale. During the first week the students listened to three lectures by
Dr. Goddard. The second week was given over to demonstration testing.
Each student saw four children tested, and attended two discussion
periods of an hour each. During the third, fourth, and fifth weeks each
student tested one child per week, and observed the testing of two
others. The student was allowed to carry the test through in his own
way, but received criticism after it was finished. Twice a week
Dr. Goddard spent an hour with the class, discussing experimental
procedure. The subjects tested were feeble-minded children whose exact
mental ages were already known, and for this reason it was possible to
check up the accuracy of each student's work.
Kohs's table of results for the trial testing of the 174 children
showed:--
(1) That 50 per cent of the work was as exact as any one in the
laboratory could make it;
(2) That in an additional 38 per cent the results were within
three fifths of a year of being exact;
(3) That nearly 90 per cent of the work of the summer students was
sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes;
(4) That the records improved during the brief training so that
during the third week only one test missed the real mental age
by as much as a year.
Since hardly any of these students had had any previous experience with
the Binet tests, Dr. Kohs seems to be entirely justified in his
conclusion that it is possible, in the brief period of six weeks, to
teach people to use the tests with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
What shall we say of the teacher or of the physician who has not even
had this amount of instruction? The writer's experience forces him to
agree with Binet and with Dr. Goddard, that any one with intelligence
enough to be a teacher, and who is willing to devote conscientious study
to the mastery of the technique, can use the scale accurately enough to
get a better idea of a child's mental endowment than he could possibly
get in any other way. It is necessary, however, for the untrained person
to recognize his own lack of experience, and in no case would it be
justifiable to base important action or scientific conclusions upon the
results of the inexpert examiner. As Binet himself repeatedly insisted,
the method is not absolutely mechanical, and cannot be made so by
elaboration of instructions.
It is sometimes held that the examination and classification of backward
children for special instruction should be carried out by the school
physicians. The fact is, however, that there is nothing in the
physician's training to give him any advantage over the ordinary teacher
in the use of the Binet tests. Because of her more intimate knowledge of
children and because of her superior tact and adaptability, the average
teacher is perhaps better equipped than the average physician to give
intelligence tests.
Finally, it should be emphasized that whatever the previous training or
experience of the examiner may have been, his ability to adjust to the
child's personality and his willingness to follow conscientiously the
directions for giving the tests are important factors in his equipment.
INFLUENCE OF THE SUBJECT'S ATTITUDE. One continually meets such queries
as, "How do you know the subject did his best?" "Possibly the child was
nervous or frightened," or, "Perhaps incorrect answers were purposely
given." All such objections may be disposed of by saying that the
competent examiner can easily control the experiment in such a way that
embarrassment is soon replaced by self-confidence, and in such a way
that effort is kept at its maximum. As for mischievous deception, it
would be a poor clinicist who could not recognize and deal with the
little that is likely to arise.
Cautions regarding embarrassment, fatigue, fright, illness, etc. are
given in Chapter IX. Most of the errors which have been reported along
this line are such as can nearly always be avoided by ordinary prudence,
coupled with a little power of observation.[38] We must not charge the
mistakes of untrained and indiscreet examiners against the validity of
the method itself.
[38] See, for example, the rather ludicrous "errors" of the Binet method
reported in _The Psychological Clinic_ for 1915, pp. 140 _ff._ and
167 _ff._
It is possibly true that even if the examiner is tactful and prudent an
unfavorable attitude on the part of the subject may occasionally affect
the results of a test to some extent, but it ought not seriously to
invalidate one examination out of five hundred. The greatest danger is
in the case of a young subject who has been recently arrested and
brought before a court. Even here a little common sense and scientific
insight should enable one to guard against a mistaken diagnosis.
THE INFLUENCE OF COACHING. It might be supposed that after the
intelligence scale had been used with a few pupils in a given school all
of their fellows would soon be apprised of the nature of the tests, and
so learn the correct responses. Experience shows, however, that there is
little likelihood of such influence except in the case of a small
minority of the tests. Experiments in the psychology of testimony have
demonstrated that children's ability to report upon a complex set of
experiences is astonishingly weak. In testing with the Stanford revision
a child is ordinarily given from twenty-four to thirty different tests,
many of which are made up of three or more items. Of the total forty to
fifty items the child is ordinarily able to report but few, and these
not always correctly.
Such tests as memory for sentences and digits, drawing the square and
diamond, reproducing the designs from memory, comparing weights and
lines, describing and interpreting pictures, æsthetic comparison,
vocabulary, dissected sentences, fables, reading for memories, finding
differences and similarities, arithmetical reasoning, and the form-board
test, are hardly subject to report at all. While almost any of the other
tests might, theoretically, be communicated, there is little danger that
many of them will be. It is assumed, of course, that the examiner will
take proper precautions to prevent any of his blanks or other materials
from falling into the hands of those who are to be examined.
The following tests are the ones most subject to the influence of
coaching: Ball and field, giving date, naming sixty words, finding
rhymes, changing hands of clock, comprehension of physical relations,
"induction test," and "ingenuity test."
In several instances we have interviewed children an hour or two after
they had taken the examination, in order to find out how many of the
tests they could recall. A boy of 4 years, after repeated questioning,
could only say: "He showed me some pictures. He had a knife and a penny.
He told me to shut the door." A girl of 3 years could recall nothing
whatever that was intelligible.
An 8-year-old boy said: "He made me tie a knot. He asked me about a ship
and an auto. He wanted me to count backwards. He made me say over some
things, numbers and things."
A boy of 12 years said: "He told me to say all the words I could think
of. He said some foolish things and asked what was foolish [he could not
repeat a single absurdity]. I had to put some blocks together. I had to
do some problems in arithmetic [he could not repeat a single problem].
He read some fables to me. [Asked about the fables he was able to recall
only part of one, that of the fox and the crow.] He showed me the
picture of a field and wanted to know how to find a ball."
It is evident from the above samples of report that the danger of
coaching increases considerably with the age of the children concerned.
With young subjects the danger is hardly present at all; with children
of the upper-grammar grades, in the high school, and most of all in
prisons and reformatories, it must be taken into account. Alternative
tests may sometimes be used to advantage when there is evidence of
coaching on any of the regular tests. It would be desirable to have two
or three additional scales which could be used interchangeably with the
Binet-Simon.
RELIABILITY OF REPEATED TESTS. Will the same tests give consistent
results when used repeatedly with the same subject? In general we
may say that they do. Something depends, however, on the age and
intelligence of the subject and on the time interval between the
examinations.
Goddard proves that feeble-minded individuals whose intelligence has
reached its full development continue to test at exactly the same mental
age by the Binet scale, year after year. In their case, familiarity with
the tests does not in the least improve the responses. At each retesting
the responses given at previous examinations are repeated with only the
most trivial variations. Of 352 feeble-minded children tested at
Vineland, three years in succession, 109 gave absolutely no variation,
232 showed a variation of not more than two fifths of a year, while 22
gained as much as one year in the three tests. The latter, presumably,
were younger children whose intelligence was still developing.
Goddard has also tested 464 public-school children for three successive
years. Approximately half of these showed normal progress or more in
mental age, while most of the remainder showed somewhat less than normal
progress.
Bobertag's retesting of 83 normal children after an interval of
a year gave results entirely in harmony with those of Goddard.
The reapplication of the tests showed absolutely no influence of
familiarity, the correlation of the two tests being almost perfect
(.95). Those who tested "at age" in the first test had advanced, on
the average, exactly one year. Those who tested _plus_ in the first
test advanced in the twelve months about a year and a quarter, as we
should expect those to do whose mental development is accelerated.
Correspondingly, those who tested _minus_ at the first test advanced
only about three fourths of a year in mental age during the
interval.[39]
[39] Otto Bobertag: "Ueber Intelligenz Prüfungen," in _Zeitsch. f.
Angew. Psychol._ (1912), p. 521 _ff._
Our own results with a mixed group of normal, superior, dull and
feeble-minded children agree fully with the above findings. In this case
the two tests were separated by an interval of two to four years, and
the correlation between their results was practically perfect. The
average difference between the I Q obtained in the second test and that
obtained in the first was only 4 per cent, and the greatest difference
found was only 8 per cent.[40]
[40] See _The Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Scale
for Measuring Intelligence_. (Warwick and York, 1916.)
The repetition of the test at shorter intervals will perhaps affect the
result somewhat more, but the influence is much less than one might
expect. The writer has tested, at intervals of only a few days to a few
weeks, 14 backward children of 12 to 18 years, and 8 normal children of
5 to 13 years. The backward children showed an average improvement in
the second test of about two months in mental age, the normal children
an average improvement of little more than three months. No child varied
in the second test more than half a year from the mental age first
secured. On the whole, normal children profit more from the experience
of a previous test than do the backward and feeble-minded.
Berry tested 45 normal children and 50 defectives with the Binet 1908
and 1911 scales at brief intervals. The author does not state which
scale was applied first, but the mental ages secured by the two scales
were practically the same when allowance was made for the slightly
greater difficulty of the 1911 series of tests.[41]
[41] Charles Scott Berry: "A Comparison of the Binet Tests of 1908 and
1911," in _Journal of Educational Psychology_ (1912), pp. 444-51.
We may conclude, therefore, that while it would probably be desirable
to have one or more additional scales for alternative use in testing the
same children at very brief intervals, the same scale may be used for
repeated tests at intervals of a year or more with little danger of
serious inaccuracy. Moreover, results like those set forth above are
important evidence as to the validity of the test method.
INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL ADVANTAGES. The criticism has often
been made that the responses to many of the tests are so much subject to
the influence of school and home environment as seriously to invalidate
the scale as a whole. Some of the tests most often named in this
connection are the following: Giving age and sex; naming common objects,
colors, and coins; giving the value of stamps; giving date; naming the
months of the year and the days of the week; distinguishing forenoon and
afternoon; counting; making change; reading for memories; naming sixty
words; giving definitions; finding rhymes; and constructing a sentence
containing three given words.
It has in fact been found wherever comparisons have been made that
children of superior social status yield a higher average mental age
than children of the laboring classes. The results of Decroly and Degand
and of Meumann, Stern, and Binet himself may be referred to in this
connection. In the case of the Stanford investigation, also, it was
found that when the unselected school children were grouped in three
classes according to social status (superior, average, and inferior),
the average I Q for the superior social group was 107, and that of the
inferior social group 93. This is equivalent to a difference of one year
in mental age with 7-year-olds, and to a difference of two years with
14-year-olds.
However, the common opinion that the child from a cultured home does
better in tests solely by reason of his superior home advantages is an
entirely gratuitous assumption. Practically all of the investigations
which have been made of the influence of nature and nurture on mental
performance agree in attributing far more to original endowment than to
environments. Common observation would itself suggest that the social
class to which the family belongs depends less on chance than on the
parents' native qualities of intellect and character.
The results of five separate and distinct lines of inquiry based on the
Stanford data agree in supporting the conclusion that the children of
successful and cultured parents test higher than children from wretched
and ignorant homes for the simple reason that their heredity is better.
The results of this investigation are set forth in full elsewhere.[42]
[42] See _The Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon
Measuring Scale of Intelligence_. (Warwick and York, 1916)
It would, of course, be going too far to deny all possibility of
environmental conditions affecting the result of an intelligence test.
Certainly no one would expect that a child reared in a cage and denied
all intercourse with other human beings could by any system of mental
measurement test up to the level of normal children. There is, however,
no reason to believe that _ordinary_ differences in social environment
(apart from heredity), differences such as those obtaining among
unselected children attending approximately the same general type of
school in a civilized community, affects to any great extent the
validity of the scale.
A crucial experiment would be to take a large number of very young
children of the lower classes and, after placing them in the most
favorable environment obtainable, to compare their later mental
development with that of children born into the best homes. No extensive
study of this kind has been made, but the writer has tested twenty
orphanage children who, for the most part, had come from very inferior
homes. They had been in a well-conducted orphanage for from two to
several years, and had enjoyed during that time the advantages of an
excellent village school. Nevertheless, all but three tested below
average, ranging from 75 to 90 I Q.
The impotence of school instruction to neutralize individual differences
in native endowment will be evident to any one who follows the school
career of backward children. The children who are seriously retarded in
school are not normal, and cannot be made normal by any refinement of
educational method. As a rule, the longer the inferior child attends
school, the more evident his inferiority becomes. It would hardly be
reasonable, therefore, to expect that a little incidental instruction in
the home would weigh very heavily against these same native differences
in endowment. Cases like the following show conclusively that it does
not:--
X is the son of unusually intelligent and well-educated parents.
The home is everything one would expect of people of scholarly
pursuits and cultivated tastes. But X has always been
irresponsible, troublesome, childish, and queer. He learned to
walk at 2 years, to talk at 3, and has always been delicate and
nervous. When brought for examination he was 8 years old. He had
twice attempted school work, but could accomplish nothing and
was withdrawn. His play-life was not normal, and other children,
younger than himself, abused and tormented him. The Binet tests
gave an I Q of approximately 75; that is, the retardation
amounted to about two years. The child was examined again three
years later. At that time, after attending school two years, he
had recently completed the first grade. This time the I Q was
73. Strange to say, the mother is encouraged and hopeful because
she sees that her boy is learning to read. She does not seem to
realize that at his age he ought to be within three years of
entering high school.
The forty-minute test had told more about the mental ability of
this boy than the intelligent mother had been able to learn in
eleven years of daily and hourly observation. For X is
feeble-minded; he will never complete the grammar school; he
will never be an efficient worker or a responsible citizen.
Let us change the picture. Z is a bright-eyed, dark-skinned girl
of 9 years. She is dark-skinned because her father is a mixture
of Indian and Spanish. The mother is of Irish descent. With her
strangely mated parents and two brothers she lives in a dirty,
cramped, and poorly furnished house in the country. The parents
are illiterate, and the brothers are retarded and dull, though
not feeble-minded.
It is Z's turn to be tested. I inquire the name. It is familiar,
for I have already tested the two stupid brothers. I also know
her ignorant parents and the miserable cabin in which she lives.
The examination begins with the 8-year tests. The responses are
quick and accurate. We proceed to the 9-year group. There is no
failure, and there is but one minor error. Successes and
failures alternate for a while until the latter prevail. Z has
tested at 11 years. In spite of her wretched home, she is
mentally advanced nearly 25 per cent. By the vocabulary test she
is credited with a knowledge of nearly 6000 words, or nearly
four times as many as X, the boy of cultured home and scholarly
parents, had learned by the age of 8 years.
Five years have passed. When given the test, Z was in the fourth
grade and, as we have already stated, 9 years of age. As a
result of the test she was transferred to the fifth grade. Later
she skipped again and at the age of 14 is a successful student
in the second year of high school. To assay her intelligence and
determine its quality was a task of forty-five minutes.
The above cases, each of which could be paralleled by many others which
we have found, will serve to illustrate the fact that exceptionally
superior endowment is discoverable by the tests, however unfavorable the
home from which it comes, and that inferior endowment cannot be
normalized by all the advantages of the most cultured home. Quoting
again from Stern, "The tests actually reach and discover the general
developmental conditions of intelligence, and not mere fragments of
knowledge and attainments acquired by chance."
PART II
GUIDE FOR THE USE OF THE STANFORD REVISION AND EXTENSION
CHAPTER VIII
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
NECESSITY OF SECURING ATTENTION AND EFFORT. The child's intelligence is
to be judged by his success in the performance of certain tasks. These
tasks may appear to the examiner to be very easy, indeed; but we must
bear in mind that they are often anything but easy for the child. Real
effort and attention are necessary for his success, and occasionally
even his best efforts fall short of the desired result. If the tests are
to display the child's real intellectual ability it will be necessary,
therefore, to avoid as nearly as possible every disturbing factor which
would divide his attention or in any other way injure the quality of
his responses. To insure this it will be necessary to consider somewhat
in detail a number of factors which influence effort, such as degree of
quiet, the nature of surroundings, presence or absence of others, means
of gaining the child's confidence, the avoidance of embarrassment,
fatigue, etc.
One should not expect, however, to secure an absolutely equal degree of
attention from all subjects. The power to give sustained attention to a
difficult task is characteristically weak in dull and feeble-minded
children. What we should labor to secure is the maximum attention of
which the child is capable, and if this is unsatisfactory without
external cause, we are to regard the fact as symptomatic of inferior
mental ability, not as an extenuating factor or an excuse for lack of
success in the tests.
Attention, of course, cannot be normal if any acute physical or mental
disturbance is present. Toothache, headache, earache, nausea, fever,
cold, etc., all render the test inadvisable. The same is true of mental
anxiety or fear, as in the case of the child who has just been arrested
and brought before the court.
QUIET AND SECLUSION. The tests should be conducted in a quiet room,
located where the noises of the street and other outside distractions
cannot enter. A reasonably small room is better than a very large one,
because it is more homelike. The furnishings of the room should be
simple. A table and two chairs are sufficient. If the room contains a
number of unfamiliar objects, such as psychological apparatus, pictures
on the walls, etc., the attention of the child is likely to be drawn
away from the tasks which he is given to do. The halls and corridors
which it is sometimes necessary to use in testing school children are
usually noisy, cold, or otherwise objectionable.
PRESENCE OF OTHERS. A still more disturbing influence is the presence of
other persons. Generally speaking, if accurate results are to be secured
it is not permissible to have any auditor, besides possibly an
assistant to record the responses. Even the assistant, however quiet and
unobtrusive, is sometimes a disturbing element. Though something of a
convenience, the assistant is by no means necessary, after the examiner
has thoroughly mastered the procedure of the tests and has acquired some
skill in the use of abbreviations in recording the answers. If an
assistant or any other person is present, he should be seated somewhat
behind the child, not too close, and should take no notice of the child
either when he enters the room or at any time during the examination.
At all events, the presence of parent, teacher, school principal, or
governess is to be avoided. Contrary to what one might expect, these
distract the child much more than a strange personality would do. Their
critical attitude toward the child's performance is very likely to cause
embarrassment. If the child is alone with the examiner, he is more at
ease from the mere fact that he does not feel that there is a reputation
to sustain. The praise so lavishly bestowed upon him by the friendly and
sympathetic examiner lends to the same effect.
As Binet emphasizes, if the presence of others cannot be avoided, it
is at least necessary to require of them absolute silence. Parents,
and sometimes teachers, have an almost irrepressible tendency to
interrupt the examination with excuses for the child's failures and
with disturbing explanations which are likely to aid the child in
comprehending the required task. Without the least intention of doing
so, they sometimes practically tell the child how to respond. Parents,
especially, cannot refrain from scolding the child or showing impatience
when his answers do not come up to expectation. This, of course,
endangers the child's success still further.
The psychologist is not surprised at such conduct. It would be foolish
to expect average parents, even apart from their bias in the particular
case at hand, to adopt the scientific attitude of the trained examiner.
Since we cannot in a few moments at our disposal make them over into
psychologists, our only recourse is to deal with them by exclusion.
This is not to say that it is impossible to test a child satisfactorily
in the presence of others. If the examiner is experienced, and if the
child is not timid, it is sometimes possible to make a successful test
in the presence of quite a number of auditors, provided they remain
silent, refrain from staring, and otherwise conduct themselves with
discretion. But not even the veteran examiner can always be sure of the
outcome in demonstration testing.
GETTING INTO "RAPPORT." The examiner's first task is to win the
confidence of the child and overcome his timidity. Unless _rapport_ has
first been established, the results of the first tests given are likely
to be misleading. The time and effort necessary for accomplishing this
are variable factors, depending upon the personality of both the
examiner and the subject. In a majority of cases from three to five
minutes should be sufficient, but in a few cases somewhat more time is
necessary.
The writer has found that when a strange child is brought to the clinic
for examination, it is advantageous to go out of doors with him for a
little walk around the university buildings. It is usually possible to
return from such a stroll in a few minutes, with the child chattering
away as though to an old friend. Another approach is to begin by showing
the child some interesting object, such as a toy, or a form-board, or
pictures not used in the test. The only danger in this method is that
the child is likely to find the object so interesting that he may not be
willing to abandon it for the tests, or that his mind will keep
reverting to it during the examination.
Still another method is to give the child his seat as soon as he is
ushered into the room, and, after a word of greeting, which must be
spoken in a kindly tone but without gushiness, to open up a conversation
about matters likely to be of interest. The weather, place of residence,
pets, sports, games, toys, travels, current events, etc., are suitable
topics if rightly employed. When the child has begun to express himself
without timidity and it is clear that his confidence has been gained,
one may proceed, as though in continuance of the conversation, to
inquire the name, age, and school grade. The examiner notes these down
in the appropriate blanks, rather unconcernedly, at the same time
complimenting the child (unless it is clearly a case of serious
retardation) on the fine progress he has made with his studies.
KEEPING THE CHILD ENCOURAGED. Nothing contributes more to a satisfactory
_rapport_ than praise of the child's efforts. Under no circumstances
should the examiner permit himself to show displeasure at a response,
however absurd it may be. In general, the poorer the response, the
better satisfied one should appear to be with it. An error is always to
be passed by without comment, unless it is painfully evident to the
child himself, in which case the examiner will do well to make some
excuse for it; e.g., "You are not quite old enough to answer questions
like that one; but, never mind, you are doing beautifully," etc.
Exclamations like "fine!" "splendid!" etc., should be used lavishly.
Almost any innocent deception is permissible which keeps the child
interested, confident, and at his best level of effort. The examination
should begin with tests that are fairly easy, in order to give the child
a little experience with success before the more difficult tests are
reached.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TACT. It goes without saying that children's
personalities are not so uniform and simple that we can adhere always to
a single stereotyped procedure in working our way into their good
graces. Suggestions like the above have their value, but, like rules of
etiquette, they must be supported by the tact which comes of intuition
and cannot be taught. The address which flatters and pleases one child
may excite disgust in another. The examiner must scent the situation and
adapt his method to it. One child is timid and embarrassed; another may
think his mental powers are under suspicion and so react with sullen
obstinacy; a third may be in an angry mood as a result of a recent
playground quarrel. Situations like these are, of course, exceptional,
but in any case it is necessary to create in the child a certain mood,
or indefinable attitude of mind, before the test begins.
PERSONALITY OF THE EXAMINER. Doubtless there are persons so lacking in
personal adaptability that success in this kind of work would be for
them impossible. The wooden, mechanical, matter-of-fact and unresponsive
personality is as much out of place in the psychological clinic as the
traditional bull in the china shop. It would make an interesting study
for some one to investigate, by exact methods, the influence on test
results of the personality of different examiners who have been equally
trained in the methods to be employed and who are equally conscientious
in applying them according to rules.
On the whole, differences of this kind are probably not very great among
experienced and reasonably competent examiners. Adaptability grows with
experience and with increase of self-confidence. After a few score tests
there should be no serious failure from inability to get into _rapport_
with the child. Even in those rare cases where the child breaks down and
cries from timidity, or perhaps refuses to answer out of embarrassment,
the difficulty can be overcome by sufficient tact so that the
examination may proceed as though nothing had happened.
If the examiner has the proper psychological and personal equipment, the
testing of twenty or thirty children forms a fairly satisfactory
apprenticeship. Without psychological training, no amount of experience
will guarantee absolute accuracy of the results.
THE AVOIDANCE OF FATIGUE. Against the validity of intelligence tests it
is often argued that the result of an examination depends a great deal
on the time of day when it is made, whether in the morning hours when
the mind is at its best, or in the afternoon when it is supposedly
fatigued. Although no very extensive investigation has been made of this
influence, there is no evidence that the ordinary fatigue incident to
school work injures the child's performance appreciably. Our tests of
1000 children showed no inferiority of results secured from 1 to 4 P.M.,
as compared with tests made from 9 to 12 A.M.
An explanation for this is not hard to find. Although school work causes
fatigue, in the sense that a part of the child's available supply of
mental energy is used up, there is always a reserve of energy sufficient
to carry the child through a thirty-to fifty-minute test. The fact that
the required tasks are novel and interesting to a high degree insures
that the reserve energy will really be brought into play. This
principle, of course, has its natural limits. The examiner would avoid
testing a child who was exhausted either from work or play, or a child
who was noticeably sleepy.
DURATION OF THE EXAMINATION. About the only danger of fatigue lies in
making the examination too long. Young children show symptoms of
weariness much more quickly than older children, and it is therefore
fortunate that not so much time is needed for testing them. The
following allowances of time will usually be found sufficient:--
Children 3-5 years old 25-30 minutes
" 6-8 " " 30-40 "
" 9-12 " " 40-50 "
" 13-15 " " 50-60 "
Adults 60-90 "
This allowance ordinarily includes the time necessary for getting into
_rapport_ with the child, in addition to that actually consumed in the
tests. But the examiner need not expect to hold fast to any schedule.
Some subjects respond in a lively manner, others are exasperatingly
slow. It is more often the mentally retarded child who answers slowly,
but exceptions to this rule are not uncommon. One 8-year-old boy
examined by the writer answered so hesitatingly that it required two
sittings of nearly an hour each to complete the test. The result,
however, showed a mental age of 11½ years, or an I Q of 143.
It is permissible to hurry the child by an occasional "that's fine; now,
quickly," etc., but in doing this caution must be exercised, or the
child's mental process may be blocked. The appearance of nagging must be
carefully avoided. If the test goes so slowly that it cannot be
completed in the above limits of time, it is usually best to stop and
complete the examination at another time. When this is not possible, it
is advisable to take a ten-minute intermission and a little walk out of
doors.
Time can be saved by having all the necessary materials close at hand
and conveniently arranged. The coins should be kept in a separate purse,
and the pictures, colors, stamps, and designs for drawing should be
mounted on stiff cardboard which may be punched and kept in a notebook
cover. The series of sentences, digits, comprehension questions, fables,
etc., should either be mounted in similar fashion, or else printed in
full on the record sheets used in the tests. The latter is more
convenient.[43] All other materials should be kept where they will not
have to be hunted for.
[43] Examiners will find it a great convenience to use the record
booklet which has been specially devised for testing with the Stanford
revision. It contains all the necessary printed material, including
digits, sentences, absurdities, fables, the vocabulary list, the reading
selection, the square and diamond for copying, etc., and in addition
gives with each test the standard for scoring. It is so arranged as to
afford ample room for a _verbatim_ record of all the child's responses,
and contains other features calculated to make testing easy and
accurate. Regarding purchasing of supplies see p. 141.
Besides saving valuable time, a little methodical foresight of this kind
adds to the success of the test. If the child is kept waiting, the test
loses its interest and attention strays. See to it, if possible, that no
lull occurs in the performance.
Inexperienced examiners sometimes waste time foolishly by stopping to
instruct the child on his failures. This is doubly bad, for besides
losing time it makes the child conscious of the imperfection of his
responses and creates embarrassment. Adhere to the purpose of the test,
which is to ascertain the child's intellectual level, not to instruct
him.
DESIRABLE RANGE OF TESTING. There are two considerations here of equal
importance. It is necessary to make the examination thorough, but in the
pursuit of thoroughness we must be careful not to produce fatigue or
ennui. Unless there is reason to suspect mental retardation, it is
usually best to begin with the group of tests just below the child's
age. However, if there is a failure in the tests of that group, it is
necessary to go back and try all the tests of the previous group. In
like manner the examination should be carried up the scale, until a test
group has been found in which all the tests are failed.
It must be admitted, however, that because of time limitations and
fatigue, it is not always practicable to adhere to this ideal of
thoroughness. In testing normal children, little error will result if we
go back no farther than the year which yielded only one failure, and if
we stop with the year in which there was only one success. _This is the
lowest permissible limit of thoroughness._ Defectives are more uneven
mentally than normal children, and therefore scatter their successes and
failures over a wider range. With such subjects it is absolutely
imperative that the test be thorough.
In the case of defectives it is sometimes necessary to begin with random
testing, until a rough idea is gained of the mental level. But the
skilled observer soon becomes able to utilize symptoms in the child's
conversation and conduct and to dispense with most of this preliminary
exploration.
ORDER OF GIVING THE TESTS. The child's efforts in the tests are
sometimes markedly influenced by the order in which they are given. If
language tests or memory tests are given first, the child is likely to
be embarrassed. More suitable to begin with are those which test
knowledge or judgment about objective things, such as the pictures,
weights, stamps, bow-knot, colors, coins, counting pennies, number
of fingers, right and left, time orientation, ball and field,
paper-folding, etc. Tests like naming sixty words, finding rhymes,
giving differences or similarities, making sentences, repeating
sentences, and drawing are especially unsuitable because they tend to
provoke self-consciousness.
The tests as arranged in this revision are in the order which it is
usually best to follow, but one should not hesitate to depart from the
order given when it seems best in a given case to do so. It is necessary
to be constantly alert so that when the child shows a tendency to balk
at a given type of test, such as those of memory, language, numbers,
drawing, "comprehension," etc., the work can be shifted to more
agreeable tasks. When the child is at his ease again, it is usually
possible to return to the troublesome tests with better success. In the
case of 8-year-old D. C., who is a speech defective but otherwise above
normal, it was quite impossible at the first sitting to give such tests
as sentence-making, naming sixty words, reading, repeating sentences,
giving definitions, etc.; at each test of this type the child's voice
broke and he was ready to cry, due, no doubt, to sensitiveness regarding
his speech defect. Others do everything willingly except the drawing and
copying. The younger children sometimes refuse to repeat the sentences
or digits. In all such cases it is best to pass on to something else.
After a few minutes the rejected task may be done willingly.
COAXING TO BE AVOIDED. Although we should always encourage the child to
believe that he can answer correctly, if he will only try, we must avoid
the common practice of dragging out responses by too much urging and
coaxing. The sympathies of the examiner tend to lead him into the habit
of repeating and explaining the question if the child does not answer
promptly. This is nearly always a mistake, for the question is one which
should be understood. Besides, explanations and coaxing are too often
equivalent to answering the question for the child. It is almost
impossible to impress this danger sufficiently upon the untrained
examiner. One who is not familiar with the psychology of suggestion may
put the answer in the child's mouth without suspecting what he is doing.
ADHERING TO FORMULA. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that unless we
follow a standardized procedure the tests lose their significance. The
danger is chiefly that of unintentionally and unconsciously introducing
variations which will affect the meaning of the test. One who has not
had a thorough training in the methods of mental testing cannot
appreciate how numerous are the opportunities for the unconscious
transformation of a test. Many of these are pointed out in the
description of the individual tests, but it would be folly to undertake
to warn the experimenter against every possible error of this kind.
Sometimes the omission or the addition of a single phrase in giving
the test will alter materially the significance of the response.
Only the trained psychologist can vary the formula without risk of
invalidating the result, and even he must be on his guard. All sorts of
misunderstandings regarding the correct placing of tests and regarding
their accuracy or inaccuracy have come about through the failure of
different investigators to follow the same procedure.
One who would use the tests for any serious purpose, therefore,
must study the procedure for each and every test until he knows it
thoroughly. After that a considerable amount of practice is necessary
before one learns to avoid slips. During the early stages of practice it
is necessary to refer to the printed instructions frequently in order to
check up errors before they have become habitual.
The instructions hitherto available are at fault in not defining the
procedure with sufficient definiteness, and it is the purpose of this
volume to make good this deficiency as far as possible.
It is too much, however, to suppose that the instructions can be made
"fool-proof." With whatever definiteness they may be set forth,
situations are sure to arise which the examiner cannot be formally
prepared for. There is no limit to the multitude of misunderstandings
possible. After testing hundreds of children one still finds new
examples of misapprehension. In a few such cases the instruction may be
repeated, if there is reason to think the child's hearing was at fault
or if some extraordinary distraction has occurred. But unless otherwise
stated in the directions, the repetition of a question is ordinarily to
be avoided. Supplementary explanations are hardly ever permissible.
In short, numberless situations may arise in the use of a test which may
injure the validity of the response, events which cannot always be
dealt with by preconceived rule. Accordingly, although we must urge
unceasingly the importance of following the standard procedure, it is
not to be supposed that formulas are an adequate substitute either for
scientific judgment or for common sense.
SCORING. The exact method of scoring the individual tests is set forth
in the following chapters. Reference to the record booklet for use in
testing will show that the records are to be kept in detail. Each
subdivision of a test should be scored separately, in order that the
clinical picture may be as complete as possible. This helps in the final
evaluation of the results. It makes much difference, for example,
whether success in repeating six digits is earned by repeating all three
correctly or only one; or whether the child's lack of success with the
absurdities is due to failure on two, three, four, or all of them. Time
should be recorded whenever called for in the record blanks.
RECORDING RESPONSES. Plus and minus signs alone are not usually
sufficient. Whenever possible the entire response should be recorded. If
the test results are to be used by any other person than the examiner,
this is absolutely essential. Any other standard of completeness opens
the door to carelessness and inaccuracy. In nearly all the tests, except
that of naming sixty words, the examiner will find it possible by the
liberal use of abbreviations to record practically the entire response
_verbatim_. In doing so, however, one must be careful to avoid keeping
the child waiting. Occasionally it is necessary to leave off recording
altogether because of the embarrassment sometimes aroused in the child
by seeing his answer written down. The writer has met the latter
difficulty several times. When for any reason it is not feasible to
record anything more than score marks, success may be indicated by the
sign +, failure by -, and half credit by ½. An exceptionally good
response may be indicated by ++ and an exceptionally poor response by --.
If there is a slight doubt about a success or failure the sign? may
be added to the + or -. In general, however, score the response either +
or -, avoiding half credit as far as it is possible to do so.
If the entire response is not recorded it is necessary to record at
least the score mark for each test _when the test is given_. It must be
borne in mind that the scoring is not a purely mechanical affair.
Instead, the judgment of the examiner must come into play with every
record made. If the scoring is delayed, there is not only the danger of
forgetting a response, but the judgment is likely to be influenced by
the subject's responses to succeeding questions. Our special record
booklet contains wide margins, so that extended notes and observations
regarding the child's responses and behavior can be recorded as the test
proceeds.
SCATTERING OF SUCCESSES. It is sometimes a source of concern to the
untrained examiner that the successes and failures should be scattered
over quite an extensive range of years. Why, it may be asked, should not
a child who has 10-year intelligence answer correctly all the tests up
to and including group X, and fail on all the tests beyond? There are
two reasons why such is almost never the case. In the first place, the
intelligence of an individual is ordinarily not even. There are many
different kinds of intelligence, and in some of these the subject is
better endowed than in others. A second reason lies in the fact that no
test can be purely and simply a test of native intelligence. Given a
certain degree of intelligence, accidents of experience and training
bring it about that this intelligence will work more successfully with
some kinds of material than with others. For both of these reasons there
results a scattering of successes and failures over three or four years.
The subject fails first in one or two tests of a group, then in two or
three tests of the following group, the number of failures increasing
until there are no successes at all. Success "tapers off" from
100 per cent to 0. Once in a great while a child fails on several of the
tests of a given year and succeeds with a majority of those in the next
higher year. This is only an extreme instance of uneven intelligence or
of specialized experience, and does not necessarily reflect upon the
reliability of the tests for children in general. The method of
calculation given above strikes a kind of average and gives the general
level of intelligence, which is essentially the thing we want to know.
SUPPLEMENTARY CONSIDERATIONS. It would be a mistake to suppose that any
set of mental tests could be devised which would give us complete
information about a child's native intelligence. There are no tests
which are absolutely pure tests of intelligence. All are influenced to a
greater or less degree also by training and by social environment. For
this reason, all the ascertainable facts bearing on such influences
should be added to the record of the mental examination, and should be
given due weight in reaching a final conclusion as to the level of
intelligence.
The following supplementary information should be gathered, when
possible:--
1. Social status (very superior, superior, average, inferior, or
very inferior).
2. The teacher's estimate of the child's intelligence (very
superior, superior, average, inferior, or very inferior).
3. School opportunities, including years of attendance,
regularity, retardation or acceleration, etc.
4. Quality of school work (very superior, superior, average,
inferior, or very inferior).
5. Physical handicaps, if any (adenoids, diseased tonsils, partial
deafness, imperfect vision, malnutrition, etc.).
In addition, the examiner will need to take account of the general
attitude of the child during the examination. This is provided for in
the record blanks under the heading "comments." The comments should
describe as fully as possible the conduct and attitude of the child
during the examination, with emphasis upon such disturbing factors as
fear, timidity, unwillingness to answer, overconfidence, carelessness,
lack of attention, etc. Sometimes, also, it is desirable to verify the
child's age and to make record of the verification.
Once more let it be urged that no degree of mechanical perfection of the
tests can ever take the place of good judgment and psychological
insight. Intelligence is too complicated to be weighed, like a bag of
grain, by any one who can read figures.
ALTERNATIVE TESTS. The tests designated as "alternative tests" are not
intended for regular use. Inasmuch as they have been standardized and
belong in the year group where they are placed, they may be used as
substitute tests on certain occasions. Sometimes one of the regular
tests is spoiled in giving it, or the requisite material for it may not
be at hand. Sometimes there may be reason to suspect that the subject
has become acquainted with some of the tests. In such cases it is a
great convenience to have a few substitutes available.
It is necessary, however, to warn against a possible misuse of
alternative tests. _It is not permissible to count success in an
alternative test as offsetting failure in a regular test._ This would
give the subject too much leeway of failure. There are very exceptional
cases, however, when it is legitimate to break this rule; namely, when
one of the regular tests would be obviously unfair to the subject being
tested. In year X, for example, one of the three alternative tests
should be substituted for the reading test (X, 4) in case we are testing
a subject who has not had the equivalent of at least two years of
school work. In year VIII, it would be permissible to substitute the
alternative test of naming six coins, instead of the vocabulary test, in
the case of a subject who came from a home where English was not spoken.
In VII, it would perhaps not be unfair to substitute the alternative
test, in place of the test of copying a diamond, in the case of a
subject who, because of timidity or embarrassment, refused to attempt
the diamond. But it would be going entirely too far to substitute an
alternative test in the place of every regular test which the subject
responded to by silence. In the large majority of cases persistent
silence deserves to be scored failure.
Certain tests have been made alternatives because of their inferior
value, some because the presence of other tests of similar nature in the
same year rendered them less necessary.
FINDING MENTAL AGE. As there are six tests in each age group from III to
X, each test in this part of the scale counts 2 months toward mental
age. There are eight tests in group XII, which, because of the omission
of the 11-year group, have a combined value of 24 months, or 3 months
each. Similarly, each of the six tests in XIV has a value of 4 months
(24 ÷ 6 = 4). The tests of the "average adult" group are given a value
of 5 months each, and those of the "superior adult" group a value of
6 months each. These values are in a sense arbitrary, but they are
justified in the fact that they are such as to cause ordinary adults to
test at the "average adult" level.
The calculation of mental age is therefore simplicity itself. The rule
is: (1) Credit the subject with all the tests below the point where the
examination begins (remembering that the examination goes back until a
year group has been found in which all the tests are passed); and (2)
add to this basal credit 2 months for each test passed successfully up
to and including year X, 3 months for each test passed in XII, 4 months
for each test passed in XIV, 5 months for each success in "average
adult," and 6 months for each success in "superior adult."
For example, let us suppose that a child passes all the tests in VI,
five of the six tests in VII, three in VIII, two in IX, and one in X.
The total credit earned is as follows:--
_Years__Months_
Credit presupposed, years I to V 5
Credit earned in VI, 6 tests passed, 2 months each 1
Credit earned in VII, 5 tests passed, 2 months each 10
Credit earned in VIII, 3 tests passed, 2 months each 6
Credit earned in IX, 2 tests passed, 2 months each 4
Credit earned in X, 1 test passed, 2 months 2
---- ----
Total credit 7 10
Taking a subject who tests higher, let us suppose the following tests
are passed: All in X, six of the eight in XII, two of the six in XIV,
and one of the six in "average adult." The total credit is as follows:--
_Years__Months_
Credit presupposed, years I to IX 9
Credit earned in X, 6 tests passed, 2 months each 1
Credit earned in XII, 6 tests passed, 3 months each 1 6
Credit earned in XIV, 2 tests passed, 4 months each 0 8
Credit earned in "average adult," 1 success, 5 months 5
---- ----
Total credit 12 7
One other point: If one or more tests of a year group have been omitted,
as sometimes happens either from oversight or lack of time, the question
arises how the tests which were given in such a year group should be
evaluated. Suppose, for example, a subject has been given only four of
the six tests in a given year, and that he passes two, or half of those
given. In such a case the probability would be that had all six tests
been given, three would have been passed; that is, one half of all.
It is evident, therefore, that when a test has been omitted, a
proportionately larger value should be assigned to each of those given.
If all six tests are given in any year group below XII, each has a value
of 2 months. If only four are given, each has a value of 3 months
(12 ÷ 4 = 3). If five tests only are given, each has a value of
2.4 months (12 ÷ 5 = 2.4). If in year group XII only six of the eight
tests are given, each has a value of 4 months (24 ÷ 6 = 4). If in the
"average adult" group only five of the six tests are given, each has a
value of 6 months instead of the usual 5 months. In this connection it
will need to be remembered that the six "average adult" tests have a
combined value of 30 months (6 tests, 5 months each); also that the
combined value of the six "superior adult" tests is 36 months
(6 × 6 = 36). Accordingly, if only five of the six "superior adult"
tests are given, the value of each is 36 ÷ 5 = 7.2 months.
For example, let us suppose that a subject has been tested as follows:
All the six tests in X were given and all were passed; only six of the
eight in XII were given and five were passed; five of the six in XIV
were given and three were passed; five of the six in "average adult"
were given and one was passed; five were given in "superior adult" and
no credit earned. The result would be as follows:--
_Years__Months_
Credit presupposed, years I to IX 9
Credit earned in X, 6 given, 6 successes 1
Credit earned in XII, 6 given, 5 passed. Unit value
of each test given is 24 ÷ 6 = 4. Total value
of the 5 tests passed is 5 × 4 or 1 8
Credit earned in XIV, 5 tests given, 3 passed. Unit
value of each of the 5 given is 24 ÷ 5 = 4.8.
Value of the 3 passed is 3 × 4.8, or 0 14+
Credit earned in "average adult," 5 tests given,
1 passed. Unit value of the 5 tests given is
30 ÷ 5 = 6. Value of the 1 success 0 6
Credit earned in "superior adult" 0 0
---- ----
Total credit 13 4+
The calculation of mental age is really simpler than our verbal
illustrations make it appear. After the operation has been performed
twenty or thirty times, it can be done in less than a half-minute
without danger of error.
THE USE OF THE INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT. As elsewhere explained, the mental
age alone does not tell us what we want to know about a child's
intelligence status. The significance of a given number of years of
retardation or acceleration depends upon the age of the child. A
3-year-old child who is retarded one year is ordinarily feeble-minded; a
10-year-old retarded one year is only a little below normal. The child
who at 3 years of age is retarded one year will probably be retarded two
years at the age of 6, three years at the age of 9, and four years at
the age of 12.
What we want to know, therefore, is the ratio existing between mental
age and real age. This is the intelligence quotient, or I Q. To find it
we simply divide mental age (expressed in years and months) by real age
(also expressed in years and months). The process is easier if we
express each age in terms of months alone before dividing. The division
can, of course, be performed almost instantaneously and with much less
danger of error by the use of a slide rule or a division table. One who
has to calculate many intelligence quotients should by all means use
some kind of mechanical help.
HOW TO FIND THE I Q OF ADULT SUBJECTS. Native intelligence, in so far as
it can be measured by tests now available, appears to improve but little
after the age of 15 or 16 years. It follows that in calculating the I Q
of an adult subject, it will be necessary to disregard the years he has
lived beyond the point where intelligence attains its final development.
Although the location of this point is not exactly known, it will be
sufficiently accurate for our purpose to assume its location at
16 years. Accordingly, any person over 16 years of age, however old, is
for purposes of calculating I Q considered to be just 16 years old. If a
youth of 18 and a man of 60 years both have a mental age of 12 years,
the I Q in each case is 12 ÷ 16, or .75.
The significance of various values of the I Q is set forth
elsewhere.[44] Here it need only be repeated that 100 I Q means exactly
average intelligence; that nearly all who are below 70 or 75 I Q are
feeble-minded; and that the child of 125 I Q is about as much above the
average as the high-grade feeble-minded individual is below the average.
For ordinary purposes all who fall between 95 and 105 I Q may be
considered as average in intelligence.
[44] See Chapter VI.
MATERIAL FOR USE IN TESTING. It is strongly recommended that in testing
by the Stanford revision the regular Stanford record booklets be
used. These are so arranged as to make testing accurate, rapid, and
convenient. They contain square, diamond, round field, vocabulary list,
fables, sentences, digits, and selections for memory tests, the reading
selection barred for scoring, the dissected sentences, arithmetical
problems, etc. One is required for each child tested.[45]
[45] Houghton Mifflin Company will supply all the printed material
needed in the tests, including the lines for the forms for VI, 2, the
four pictures for "enumeration," "description," and "interpretation,"
the pictures for V, 3 and VI, 2, the colors, designs for X, 3, the code
for Average Adult 6, and score cards for square, diamond, designs, and
ball-and-field.
This is all the material required for the use of the Stanford revision,
except the five weights for IX, 2, and V, 1, and the Healy-Fernald
Construction Puzzle for X. These may be purchased of C. H. Stoelting &
Co., 3037 Carroll Avenue, Chicago. It is not necessary, however, to have
the weights and the Construction Puzzle, as the presence of one or
more alternative tests in each year makes it possible to substitute
other tests instead of those requiring these materials. This saves
considerable expense. Apart from these, which may either be made at home
(see pages 278, 279) or dispensed with, the only necessary equipment for
using the Stanford revision is a copy of this book with the accompanying
set of printed matter, and the record booklets. The record booklets are
supplied only in packages of 25.
CHAPTER IX
Instructions For Year III
III, 1. POINTING TO PARTS OF THE BODY
PROCEDURE. After getting the child's attention, say: "_Show me your
nose._" "_Put your finger on your nose._" Same with eyes, mouth, and
hair.
Tact is often necessary to overcome timidity. If two or three
repetitions of the instruction fail to bring a response, point to the
child's chin or ear and say: "_Is this your nose?_" "_No?_" "_Then where
is your nose?_" Sometimes, after one has tried two or three parts of the
test without eliciting any response, the child may suddenly release his
inhibitions and answer all the questions promptly. In case of persistent
refusal to respond it is best not to harass the child for an answer, but
to leave the test for a while and return to it later. This is a rule
which applies generally throughout the scale. In the case of one
exceptionally timid little girl, it was impossible to get any response
by the usual procedure, but immediately when a doll was shown the child
pointed willingly to its nose, eyes, mouth, and hair. The device was
successful because it withdrew the child's attention from herself and
centered it upon something objective.
SCORING. _Three responses out of four_ must be correct. Instead of
pointing, the child sometimes responds by winking the eyes, opening the
mouth, etc., which is counted as satisfactory.
REMARKS. Binet's purpose in this test is to ascertain whether the
subject is capable of comprehending simple language. The ability to
comprehend and use language is indeed one of the most reliable
indications of the grade of mental development. The appreciation of
gestures comes first, then the comprehension of language heard, next the
ability to repeat words and sentences mechanically, and finally the
ability to use language as a means of communication. The present test,
however, is not more strictly a test of language comprehension than the
others of the 3-year group, and in any case it could not be said to mark
the _beginning_ of the power to comprehend spoken language. That is
fairly well advanced by the age of 2 years. The test closely resembles
III, 2 (naming familiar objects), and III, 3 (enumeration of objects in
a picture), except that it brings in a personal element and gives some
clue to the development of the sense of self. All the data agree in
locating the test at year III.
III, 2. NAMING FAMILIAR OBJECTS
PROCEDURE. Use a key, a penny, a closed knife, a watch, and an ordinary
lead pencil. The key should be the usual large-sized doorkey, not one of
the Yale type. The penny should not be too new, for the freshly made,
untarnished penny resembles very little the penny usually seen. Any
ordinary pocket knife may be used, and it is to be shown unopened. The
formula is, "_What is this?_" or, "_Tell me what this is._"
SCORING. There must be at least _three correct responses out of five_. A
response is not correct unless the object is named. It is not sufficient
for the child merely to show that he knows its use. A child, for
example, may take the pencil and begin to mark with it, or go to the
door and insert the key in the lock, but this is not sufficient. At the
same time we must not be too arbitrary about requiring a particular
name. "Cent" or "pennies" for "penny" is satisfactory, but "money" is
not. The watch is sometimes called "a clock" or "a tick-tock," and we
shall perhaps not be too liberal if we score these responses _plus_.
"Pen" for "pencil," however, is unsatisfactory. Substitute names for
"key" and "knife" are rarely given. Mispronunciations due to baby-talk
are of course ignored.
REMARKS. The purpose of this test is to find out whether the child has
made the association between familiar objects and their names. The
mental processes necessary to enable the child to pass this test are
very elementary, and yet, as far as they go, they are fundamental.
Learning the names of objects frequently seen is a form of mental
activity in which the normally endowed child of 2 to 4 years finds great
satisfaction. Any marked retardation in making such associations is a
grave indication of the lack of that spontaneity which is so necessary
for the development of the higher grades of intelligence. It would be
entirely beside the point, therefore, to question the validity of the
test on the ground that a given child may not have been _taught_ the
names of the objects used. Practically all children 3 years old, however
poor their environment, have made the acquaintance of at least three of
the five objects, and if intelligence is normal they have learned their
names as a result of spontaneous inquiry.
Always use the list of objects here given, because it has been
standardized. Any improvised selection would be sure to contain some
objects either less or more familiar than those in the standardized
list. Note also that three correct responses out of five are sufficient.
If we required five correct answers out of six (like Kuhlmann), or three
out of three (like Binet, Goddard, and Huey), the test would probably
belong at the 4-year level. Binet states that this test is materially
harder than that of naming objects in a picture, since in the latter the
child selects from a number of objects in the picture those he knows
best, while in the former test he must name the objects we have
arbitrarily chosen. This difference does not hold, however, if we
require only three correct responses out of five for passing the test of
naming objects, instead of Binet's three out of three. All else being
equal, it is of course easier to recognize and name a real object shown
than it is to recognize and name it from a picture.
III, 3. ENUMERATION OF OBJECTS IN PICTURES
PROCEDURE. Use the three pictures designated as "Dutch Home," "River
Scene," and "Post-Office." Say, "_Now I am going to show you a pretty
picture._" Then, holding the first one before the child, close enough to
permit distinct vision, say: "_Tell me what you see in this picture._"
If there is no response, as sometimes happens, due to embarrassment or
timidity, repeat the request in this form: "_Look at the picture and
tell me everything you can see in it._" If there is still no response,
say: "_Show me the ..._" (naming some object in the picture). Only one
question of this type, however, is permissible. If the child answers
correctly, say: "_That is fine; now tell me everything you see in the
picture._" From this point the responses nearly always follow without
further coaxing. Indeed, if _rapport_ has been properly cultivated
before the test begins, the first question will ordinarily be
sufficient. If the child names one or two things in a picture and then
stops, urge him on by saying "_And what else_" Proceed with pictures _b_
and _c_ in the same manner.
SCORING. The test is passed if the child enumerates as many as _three_
objects in _one_ picture _spontaneously_; that is, without intervening
questions or urging. Anything better than enumeration (as description
or interpretation) is also acceptable, but description is rarely
encountered before 5 years and interpretation rarely before 9 or 10.[46]
[46] See instructions for VII, 2, and XII, 7.
REMARKS. The purpose of the test in this year is to find out whether the
sight of a familiar object in a picture provokes recognition and calls
up the appropriate name.[47] The average child of 3 or 4 years is in
what Binet calls "the identification stage"; that is, familiar objects
in a picture will be identified but not described, their relations to
one another will not be grasped.
[47] For a discussion of the significance of the different types of
response, enumeration, description, and interpretation, see VII, 2, and
XII, 7.
In giving the test, always present the pictures in the same order,
first Dutch Home, then River Scene, then Post-Office. The order of
presentation will no doubt seem to the uninitiated too trivial a matter
to insist upon, but a little experience teaches one that an apparently
insignificant change in the procedure may exert a considerable influence
upon the response. Some pictures tend more strongly than others to
provoke a particular type of response. Some lend themselves especially
to enumeration, others to description, others to interpretation. The
pictures used in the Stanford revision have been selected from a number
which have been tried because they are more uniform in this respect
than most others in use. However, they are not without their
differences, picture _b_, for example, tending more than the others to
provoke description.
There seems to be no disagreement as to the proper location of this
test.
III, 4. GIVING SEX
PROCEDURE. If the subject is a boy, the formula is: "_Are you a little
boy or a little girl?_" If a girl, "_Are you a little girl or a little
boy?_" This variation in the formula is necessary because of the
tendency in young children to repeat mechanically the last word of
anything that is said to them. If there is no response, say: "_Are you a
little girl?_" (if a boy); or, "_Are you a little boy?_" (if a girl). If
the answer to the last question is "no" (or a shake of the head), we
then say: "_Well, what are you? Are you a little boy or a little girl?_"
(or _vice versa_).
SCORING. The response is satisfactory if it indicates that the child has
really made the discrimination, but we must be cautious about accepting
any other response than the direct answer, "A little girl," or, "A
little boy." "Yes" and "no" in response to the second question must be
carefully checked up.
REMARKS. Binet and Goddard say that 3-year-olds cannot pass this test
and that 4-year-olds almost never fail. We can accept the last part of
this statement, but not the first part. Nearly all of our 3-year-old
subjects succeed with it.
The test probably has nothing to do with sex consciousness, as such.
Success in it would seem to depend on the ability to discriminate
between familiar class names which are in a certain degree related.
III, 5. GIVING THE FAMILY NAME
PROCEDURE. The child is asked, "_What is your name?_" If the answer, as
often happens, includes only the first name (Walter, for example), say:
"_Yes, but what is your other name? Walter what?_" If the child is
silent, or if he only repeats the first name, say: "_Is your name
Walter ... ?_" (giving a fictitious name, as Jones, Smith, etc.). This
question nearly always brings the correct answer if it is known.
SCORING. Simply + or -. No attention is paid to faults of pronunciation.
REMARKS. There is unanimous agreement that this test belongs in the
3-year group. Although the child has not had as much opportunity to
learn the family name as his first name, he is almost certain to have
heard it more or less, and if his intelligence is normal the interest in
self will ordinarily cause it to be remembered.
The critic of the intelligence scale need not be unduly exercised over
the fact that there may be an occasional child of 3 years who has never
heard his family name. We have all read of such children, but they
are so extremely rare that the chances of a given 3-year-old being
unjustly penalized for this reason are practically negligible. In
the second place, contingencies of this nature are throughout the
scale consistently allowed for in the percentage of passes required
for locating a test. Since (in the year groups below XIV) the
individual tests are located at the age level where they are passed by
60 to 70 per cent of unselected children of that age, it follows that
the child of average ability _is expected_ to fail on about one third of
the tests of his age group. The plan of the scale is such as to warrant
this amount of leeway. But even granting the possibility that one
subject out of a hundred or so may be unjustly penalized for lack of
opportunity to acquire the knowledge which the test calls for, the
injustice done does not greatly alter the result. A single test affects
mental age only to the extent of two months, and the chances of two such
injustices occurring with the same child are very slight. Herein lies
the advantage of a multiplicity of tests. No test considered by itself
is very dependable, but two dozen tests, properly arranged, are almost
infinitely reliable.
III, 6. REPEATING SIX TO SEVEN SYLLABLES
PROCEDURE. Begin by saying: "_Can you say 'mamma'? Now, say 'nice
kitty.'_" Then ask the child to say, "_I have a little dog._" Speak the
sentence distinctly and with expression, but in a natural voice and not
too slowly. If there is no response, the first sentence may be repeated
two or three times. Then give the other two sentences: "_The dog runs
after the cat_," and, "_In summer the sun is hot._" A great deal of tact
is sometimes necessary to enlist the child's coöperation in this test.
If he cannot be persuaded to try, the alternative test of three digits
may be substituted.
SCORING. The test is passed if at least _one sentence is repeated
without error after a single reading_. "Without error" is to be taken
literally; there must be no omission, insertion, or transposition
of words. Ignore indistinctness of articulation and defects of
pronunciation as long as they do not mutilate the sentence beyond easy
recognition.
REMARKS. The test does not presuppose that the child should have
the ability to make and use sentences like these for purposes of
communication, or even that he should know the meaning of all the words
they contain. Its purpose is to bring out the ability of the child to
repeat a six-syllable series of more or less familiar language sounds.
As every one knows, the normal child of 2 or 3 years is constantly
imitating the speech of those around him and finds this a great source
of delight. Long practice in the semi-mechanical repetition of language
sounds is necessary for the learning of speech coördinations and is
therefore an indispensable preliminary to the purposeful use of
language. High-grade idiots and the lowest grade of imbeciles never
acquire much facility in the repetition of language heard. The test gets
at one of the simplest forms of mental integration.
Binet says that children of 3 years _never_ repeat sentences of
ten syllables. This is not strictly true, for six out of nineteen
3-year-olds succeeded in doing so. All the data agree, however, that the
_average_ child of 3 years repeats only six to seven syllables
correctly.
III. ALTERNATIVE TEST: REPEATING THREE DIGITS
PROCEDURE. Use the following digits: 6-4-1, 3-5-2, 8-3-7. Begin with two
digits, as follows: "_Listen; say 4-2_." "_Now, say 6-4-1_." "_Now, say
3-5-2_," etc. Pronounce the digits in a distinct voice and with
perfectly uniform emphasis at a rate just a little faster than one per
second. Two per second, as recommended by Binet, is too rapid.
Young subjects, because of their natural timidity in the presence of
strangers, sometimes refuse to respond to this test. With subjects under
5 or 6 years of age it is sometimes necessary in such cases to re-read
the first series of digits several times in order to secure a response.
The response thus secured, however, is not counted in scoring, the
purpose of the re-reading being merely to break the child's silence. The
second and third series may be read but once. With the digits tests
above year IV the re-reading of a series is never permissible.
SCORING. Passed if the child repeats correctly, _after a single reading,
one series out of the three_ series given. Not only must the correct
digits be given, but the order also must be correct.
REMARKS. Others, on the basis of rather scanty data, have usually
located this test at the 4-year level. Our results show that with the
procedure described above it is fully as easy as the test of repeating
sentences of 6 to 7 syllables.[48]
[48] See p. 194 _ff._ for further discussion of the digits test.
CHAPTER X
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR IV
IV, 1. COMPARISON OF LINES
PROCEDURE. Present the appropriate accompanying card with the lines in
horizontal position. Point to the lines and say: "_See these lines. Look
closely and tell me which one is longer. Put your finger on the longest
one._" We use the superlative as well as the comparative form of _long_
because it is often more familiar to young subjects. If the child does
not respond, say: "_Show me which line is the biggest._" Then withdraw
the card, turn it about a few times, and present it again with the
position of the two lines reversed, saying: "_Now show me the longest._"
Turn the card again and make a third presentation.
SCORING. All three comparisons must be made correctly; or if only two
responses out of three are correct, all three pairs are again shown,
just as before, and if there is no error this time, the test is passed.
The standard, therefore, is _three correct responses out of three, or
five out of six_.
Sometimes the child points, but at no particular part of the card. In
such cases it may be difficult to decide whether he has failed to
comprehend and to make the discrimination or has only been careless in
pointing. It is then necessary to repeat the experiment until the
evidence is clear.
REMARKS. As noted by Binet, success in this test depends on the
comprehension of the verbal directions rather than on actual
discrimination of length. The child who would unerringly choose the
larger of two pieces of candy might fail on the comparison of lines.
However, since the child must correctly compare the lines three times in
succession, or at least in five out of six trials, _willingness to
attend_ also plays a part. The attention of the low-grade imbecile, or
even of the normal child of 3 years, is not very obedient to the
suggestions of the experimenter. It may be gained momentarily, but it is
not easily held to the same task for more than a few seconds. Hence some
children who perfectly comprehend this task fail to make a succession of
correct comparisons because they are unable or unwilling to bring to
bear even the small amount of attention which is necessary. This does
not in the least condone the failure, for it is exactly in such
voluntary control of mental processes that we find one of the most
characteristic differences between bright and dull, or mature and
immature subjects.
There has been little disagreement as to the proper location of this
test.
IV, 2. DISCRIMINATION OF FORMS
PROCEDURE. Use the forms supplied with this book. First, place the
circle of the duplicate set at "X", and say: "_Show me one like
this_," at the same time passing the finger around the circumference of
the circle. If the child does not respond, say: "_Do you see all of
these things?_" (running the finger over the various forms); "_And do
you see this one?_" (pointing again to the circle); "_Now, find me
another one just like this._" Use the square next, then the triangle,
and the others in any order.
Correct the child's first error by saying: "_No, find one just like
this_" (again passing the finger around the outline of the form at "X").
Make no comment on errors after the first one, proceeding at once with
the next card, but each time the choice is correct encourage the child
with a hearty "That's good," or something similar.
SCORING. The test is passed if _seven out of ten_ choices, are correct,
the first corrected error being counted.
REMARKS. In the test of discriminating forms, unlike the test of
comparing lines, lack of success is less often due to inability to
understand the task than to failure to discriminate. The test may be
regarded as a variation of the form-board test. It displays the
subject's ability to compare and contrast successive visual perceptions
of form. The accurate perception of even a fairly simple form requires
the integration of a number of sensory elements into one whole. The
forms used in this test have meaning. They are far from nonsense figures
even for the (normal) child of 4 years, who has, of course, never heard
about "triangles," "squares," "rectangles," etc. The meaning present at
this level of intelligence is probably a compound of such factors as
appreciation of symmetry and direction, and discrimination of quantity
and number.
Another element in success, especially in the latter part of the
experiment, is the ability to make an _attentive_ comparison between the
form shown and the others. The child may be satisfied to point to the
first form his eye happens to fall upon. Far from being a legitimate
excuse for failure, such an exhibition of inattention and of weakness of
the critical faculty is symptomatic of a mental level below 4 years.
In addition to counting the number of errors made, it is interesting to
note with what forms they occur. To match the circle with the ellipse or
the octagon, for example, is a less serious error than to match it with
the square or triangle.
This test was devised and standardized by Dr. Fred Kuhlmann. It is
inserted here without essential alteration, except that the size
recommended for the forms is slightly reduced and minor changes have
been made in the wording of the directions. Our own results are
favorable to the test and to the location assigned it by its author.
IV, 3. COUNTING FOUR PENNIES
PROCEDURE. Place four pennies in a horizontal row before the child. Say:
"_See these pennies. Count them and tell me how many there are. Count
them with your finger, this way_" (pointing to the first one on the
child's left)--"_One_"--"_Now, go ahead._" If the child simply gives the
number (whether right or wrong) without pointing, say: "_No; count them
with your finger, this way_," starting him off as before. Have him count
them aloud.
SCORING. The test is passed only if the counting tallies with the
pointing. It is not sufficient merely to state the correct number
without pointing.
REMARKS. Contrary to what one might think, this is not to any great
extent a test of "schooling." Practically all children of this age have
had opportunity to learn to count as far as four, and with normal
children the spontaneous interest in number is such that very few
4-year-olds, even from inferior social environment, fail to pass the
test.
While success requires more than the ability to repeat the number names
by rote, it does not presuppose any power of calculation or a mastery of
the number concepts from one to four. Many children who will readily
say, mechanically, "one, two, three, four," when started off, are not
able to pass the test. On the other hand, it is not expected that the
child who passes will also necessarily understand that four is made up
of two two's, or four one's, or three plus one, etc.
Binet, Goddard, and Kuhlmann place this test in the 5-year group, but
three separate series of tests made for the Stanford revision, as well
as nearly all the statistics available from other sources, show that it
belongs at 4 years.
IV, 4. COPYING A SQUARE
PROCEDURE. Place before the child a cardboard on which is drawn in heavy
black lines a square about 1¼ inches on a side.[49] Give the child a
pencil and say: "_You see that_ (pointing to the square). _I want you to
make one just like it. Make it right here_ (showing where it is to be
drawn). _Go ahead. I know you can do it nicely._"
[49] No material is needed if the regular Stanford record blanks are
used, as these all contain the square and diamond.
Avoid such an expression as, "_I want you to draw a figure like that._"
The child may not know the meaning of either _draw_ or _figure_. Also,
in pointing to the model, take care not to run the finger around the
four sides.
Children sometimes have a deep-seated aversion to drawing on request and
a bit of tactful urging may be necessary. Experience and tact will
enable the experimenter in all but the rarest cases to come out
victorious in these little battles with balky wills. Give three trials,
saying each time: "_Make it exactly like this_," pointing to model.
Make sure that the child is in an easy position and that the paper used
is held so it cannot slip.
SCORING. The test is passed if at least _one drawing out of the three_
is as good as those marked + on the score card. Young subjects usually
reduce figures in drawing from copy, but size is wholly disregarded in
scoring. It is of more importance that the right angles be fairly well
preserved than that the lines should be straight or the corners entirely
closed. The scoring of this test should be rather liberal.
REMARKS. After the three copies have been made say: "_Which one do you
like best?_" In this way we get an idea of the subject's power of
auto-criticism, a trait in which the mentally retarded are nearly always
behind normal children of their own age. Normal children, when young,
reveal the same weakness to a certain extent. It is especially
significant when the subject shows complete satisfaction with a very
poor performance.
Observe whether the child makes each part with careful effort, looking
at the model from time to time, or whether the strokes are made in a
haphazard way with only an initial glance at the original. The latter
procedure is quite common with young or retarded subjects. Curiously
enough, the first trial is more successful than either of the others,
due perhaps to a waning of effort and attention.
Note that pencil is used instead of pen and that only one success is
necessary. Binet gives only one trial and requires pen. Goddard allows
pencil, but permits only one trial. Kuhlmann requires pen and passes the
child only when two trials out of three are successful. But these
authors locate the test at 5 years. Our results show that nearly three
fourths of 4-year-olds succeed with pencil in one out of three trials if
the scoring is liberal. It makes a great deal of difference whether pen
or pencil is used, and whether two successes are required or only one.
No better illustration could be given of the fact that without
thoroughgoing standardization of procedure and scoring the best mental
test may be misleading as to the degree of intelligence it indicates.
Copying a square is one of three drawing tests used in the Binet scale,
the others being the diamond (year VII), and the designs to be copied
from memory (year X). These tests do not to any great extent test what
is usually known as "drawing ability." Only the square and the diamond
tests are strictly comparable with one another, the other having a
psychologically different purpose. In none of them does success seem to
depend very much on the amount of previous instruction in drawing. To
copy a figure like a square or a diamond requires first of all an
appreciation of spacial relationships. The figure must be perceived as a
whole, not simply as a group of meaningless lines. In the second place,
success depends upon the ability to use the visual impression in guiding
a rather complex set of motor coördinations. The latter is perhaps the
main difficulty, and is one which is not fully overcome, at least for
complicated movements, until well toward adult life.
It is interesting to compare the square and the diamond as to relative
difficulty. They have the same number of lines and in each case the
opposite sides are parallel; but whereas 4-year intelligence is equal to
the task of copying a square, the diamond ordinarily requires 7-year
intelligence. Probably no one could have foreseen that a change in the
angles would add so much to the difficulty of the figure. It would be
worth while to devise and standardize still more complicated figures.
IV, 5. COMPREHENSION, FIRST DEGREE
PROCEDURE. After getting the child's attention, say: "_What must you do
when you are sleepy?_" If necessary the question may be repeated a
number of times, using a persuasive and encouraging tone of voice. No
other form of question may be substituted. About twenty seconds may be
allowed for an answer, though as a rule subjects of 4 or 5 years usually
answer quite promptly or not at all.
Proceed in the same way with the other two questions: "_What ought you
to do when you are cold?_" "_What ought you to do when you are hungry?_"
SCORING. There must be _two correct responses out of three_. No one form
of answer is required. It is sufficient if the question is comprehended
and given a reasonably sensible answer. The following are samples of
correct responses:--
(a) "Go to bed." "Go to sleep." "Have my mother get me ready for
bed." "Lie still, not talk, and I'll soon be asleep."
(b) "Put on a coat" (or "cloak," "furs," "wrap up," etc.).
"Build a fire." "Run and I'll soon get warm." "Get close to
the stove." "Go into the house," or, "Go to bed," may possibly
deserve the score _plus_, though they are somewhat doubtful
and are certainly inferior to the responses just given.
(c) "Eat something." "Drink some milk." "Buy a lunch." "Have my
mamma spread some bread and butter," etc.
With the comprehension questions in this year it is nearly always easy
to decide whether the response is acceptable, failure being indicated
usually either by silence or by an absurd or irrelevant answer. One
8-year-old boy who had less than 4-year intelligence answered all three
questions by putting his finger on his eye and saying: "I'd do that."
"Have to cry" is a rather common incorrect response.
REMARKS. The purpose of these questions is to ascertain whether the
child can comprehend the situations suggested and give a reasonably
pertinent reply. The first requirement, of course, is to understand the
language; the second is to tell how the situation suggested should be
met.
The question may be raised whether a given child might not fail to
answer the questions correctly and yet have the intelligence to do the
appropriate thing if the real situation were present. This is at least
conceivable, but since it would not be practicable to make the subject
actually cold, sleepy, or hungry in order to observe his behavior, we
must content ourselves with suggesting a situation to be imagined. It
probably requires more intelligence to tell what one ought to do in a
situation which has to be imagined than to do the right thing when the
real situation is encountered.
The comprehension questions of this year had not been standardized until
the Stanford investigation of 1913-14. Questions _a_ and _b_ were
suggested by Binet in 1905, while _c_ is new. They make an excellent
test of 4-year intelligence.
IV, 6. REPEATING FOUR DIGITS
PROCEDURE. Say: "_Now, listen. I am going to say over some numbers and
after I am through, I want you to say them exactly like I do. Listen
closely and get them just right--4-7-3-9._" Same with 2-8-5-4 and
7-2-6-1. The examiner should consume nearly four seconds in pronouncing
each series, and should practice in advance until this speed can be
closely approximated. If the child refuses to respond, the first series
may be repeated as often as may be necessary to prove an attempt, but
_success with a series which has been re-read may not be counted_. The
second and third series may be pronounced but once.
SCORING. Passed if the child repeats correctly, _after a single reading,
one series out of the three_ series given. The order must be correct.
REMARKS. The test of repeating four digits was not included by Binet in
the scale and seems not to have been used by any of the Binet workers.
It is passed by about three fourths of our 4-year-olds.
IV. ALTERNATIVE TEST: REPEATING TWELVE TO THIRTEEN SYLLABLES
The three sentences are:--
(a) "_The boy's name is John. He is a very good boy._"
(b) "_When the train passes you will hear the whistle blow._"
(c) "_We are going to have a good time in the country._"
PROCEDURE. Get the child's attention and say: "_Listen, say this: 'Where
is kitty?'_" After the child responds, add: "_Now say this ..._,"
reading the first sentence in a natural voice, distinctly and with
expression. If the child is too timid to respond, the first sentence may
be re-read, but in this case the response is not counted. _Re-reading is
permissible only with the first sentence._
SCORING. The test is passed if at least _one sentence is repeated
without error after a single reading_. As in the alternative test of
year III, we ignore ordinary indistinctness and defects of pronunciation
due to imperfect language development, but the sentence must be repeated
without addition, omission, or transposition of words.
REMARKS. Sentences of twelve syllables had not been standardized
previous to the Stanford revision, but Binet locates memory for ten
syllables at year V, and others have followed his example. Our own data
show that even 4-year-olds are usually able to repeat twelve syllables
with the procedure here set forth.
CHAPTER XI
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR V
V, 1. COMPARISON OF WEIGHTS
MATERIALS. It is necessary to have two weights, identical in shape,
size, and appearance, weighing respectively 3 and 15 grams.[50] If
manufactured weights are not at hand, it is easy to make satisfactory
substitutes by taking stiff cardboard pill-boxes, about 1¼ inches in
diameter, and filling them with cotton and shot to the desired weight.
The shot must be embedded in the center of the cotton so as to prevent
rattling. After the box has been loaded to the exact weight, the lid
should be glued on firmly. If one does not have access to laboratory
scales, it is always possible to secure the help of a druggist in the
rather delicate task of weighing the boxes accurately. A set of pill-box
weights will last through hundreds of tests, if handled carefully, but
they will not stand rough usage. The manufactured blocks are more
durable, and so more satisfactory in the long run. If the weights are
not at hand, the alternative test may be substituted.
[50] The weights required for this test, and also for IX, 2, may be
purchased of C. H. Stoelting & Co., 3037 Carroll Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois.
PROCEDURE. Place the 3- and 15-gram weights on the table before the
child some two or three inches apart. Say: "_You see these blocks. They
look just alike, but one of them is heavy and one is light. Try them and
tell me which one is heavier._" If the child does not respond, repeat
the instructions, saying this time, "_Tell me which one is the
heaviest._" (Many American children have heard only the superlative form
of the adjective used in the comparison of two objects.)
Sometimes the child merely points to one of the boxes or picks up one at
random and hands it to the examiner, thinking he is asked to _guess_
which is heaviest. We then say: "_No, that is not the way. You must take
the boxes in your hands and try them, like this_" (illustrating by
lifting with one hand, first one box and then the other, a few inches
from the table). Most children of 5 years are then able to make the
comparison correctly. Very young subjects, however, or older ones who
are retarded, sometimes adopt the rather questionable method of lifting
both weights in the same hand at once. This is always an unfavorable
sign, especially if one of the blocks is placed in the hand on top of
the other block.
After the first trial, the weights are shuffled and again presented for
comparison as before, _this time with the positions reversed_. The third
trial follows with the blocks in the same position as in the first
trial. Some children have a tendency to stereotyped behavior, which in
this test shows itself by choosing always the block on a certain
side. Hence the necessity of alternating the positions.[51] Reserve
commendation until all three trials have been given.
[51] For discussion of "stereotypy" see p. 203.
SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ comparisons are
correct. If there is reason to suspect that the successful responses
were due to lucky guesses, the test should be entirely repeated.
REMARKS. This test is decidedly more difficult than that of comparing
lines (IV, 1). It is doubtful, however, if we can regard the difference
as one due primarily to the relative difficulty of visual discrimination
and muscular discrimination. In fact, the test with weights hardly taxes
sensory discrimination at all when used with children of 5-year
intelligence. Success depends, in the first place, on the ability to
understand the instructions; and in the second place, on the power to
hold the instructions in mind long enough to guide the process of making
the comparison. The test presupposes, in elementary form, a power which
is operative in all the higher independent processes of thought, the
power to neglect the manifold distractions of irrelevant sensations and
ideas and to drive direct toward a goal. Here the goal is furnished by
the instruction, "Try them and see which is heavier." This must be held
firmly enough in mind to control the steps necessary for making the
comparison. Ideas of piling the blocks on top of one another, throwing
them, etc., must be inhibited. Sometimes the low-grade imbecile starts
off in a very promising way, then apparently forgets the instructions
(loses sight of the goal), and begins to play with the boxes in a random
way. His mental processes are not consecutive, stable, or controlled. He
is blown about at the mercy of every gust of momentary interest.
There is very general agreement in the assignment of this test to
year V.
V, 2. NAMING COLORS
MATERIALS. Use saturated red, yellow, blue, and green papers, about
2 × 1 inch in size, pasted one half inch apart on white or gray
cardboard. For sake of uniformity it is best to match the colors
manufactured especially for this test.[52]
[52] Printed cards showing these colors are included in the set of
material furnished by the publishers of this book.
PROCEDURE. Point to the colors in the order, red, yellow, blue, green.
Bring the finger close to the color designated, in order that there may
be no mistake as to which one is meant, and say: "_What is the name of
that color?_" Do not say: "_What color is that?_" or, "_What kind of a
color is that?_" Such a formula might bring the answer, "The first
color"; or, "A pretty color." Still less would it do to say: "_Show me
the red_," "_Show me the yellow_," etc. This would make it an entirely
different test, one that would probably be passed a year earlier than
the Binet form of the experiment. Nor is it permissible, after a color
has been miscalled, to return to it and again ask its name.
SCORING. The test is passed only if _all_ the colors are named correctly
and without marked uncertainty. However, prefixing the adjective "dark,"
or "light," before the name of a color is overlooked.
REMARKS. Naming colors is not a test of color discrimination, for that
capacity is well developed years below the level at which this test is
used. All 5-year-olds who are not color blind discriminate among the
four primary colors here used as readily as adults do. As stated by
Binet, it is a test of the "verbalization of color perception." It tells
us whether the child has associated the names of the four primary colors
with his perceptual imagery of those colors.
The _ability_ to make simple associations between a sense impression and
a name is certainly present in normal children some time before the
above color associations are actually made. Many objects of experience
are correctly named two or three years earlier, and it may seem at
first a little strange that color names are learned so late. But it must
be remembered that the child does not have numerous opportunities to
observe and hear the names of several colors at once, nor does the
designation of colors by their names ordinarily have much practical
value for the young child. When he finally learns their names, it is
more because of his spontaneous interest in the world of sense. Lack of
such spontaneous interest is always an unfavorable sign, and it is not
surprising, therefore, that imbecile intelligence has ordinarily never
taken the trouble to associate colors with their names. Girls are
somewhat superior to boys in this test, due probably to a greater
natural interest in colors.
Binet originally placed this test in year VIII, changing it to year VII
in the 1911 scale. Goddard places it in year VII, while Kuhlmann omits
it altogether. With a single exception, all the actual statistics with
normal children justify the location of the test in year V. Bobertag's
figures are the exception, opposed to which are Rowe, Winch, Dumville,
Dougherty, Brigham, and all three of the Stanford investigations.
The test is probably more subject to the influence of home environment
than most of the other tests of the scale, and if the social status of
the child is low, failure would not be especially significant until
after the age of 6 years. On the whole it is an excellent test.
V, 3. ÆSTHETIC COMPARISON
Use the three pairs of faces supplied with the printed forms. It goes
without saying that improvised drawings may not be substituted for
Binet's until they have first been standardized.
PROCEDURE. Show the pairs in order from top to bottom. Say: "_Which of
these two pictures is the prettiest?_" Use both the comparative and the
superlative forms of the adjective. Do not use the question, "Which face
is the uglier (ugliest)?" unless there is some difficulty in getting the
child to respond. It is not permitted, in case of an incorrect response,
to give that part of the test again and to allow the child a chance to
correct his answer; or, in case this is done, we must consider only the
original response in scoring.
SCORING. The test is passed only if all _three_ comparisons are made
correctly. Any marked uncertainty is failure. Sometimes the child
laughingly designates the ugly picture as the prettier, yet shows by his
amused expression that he is probably conscious of its peculiarity or
absurdity. In such cases "pretty" seems to be given the meaning of
"funny" or "amusing." Nevertheless, we score this response as failure,
since it betokens a rather infantile tolerance of ugliness.
REMARKS. From the psychological point of view this is a most interesting
test. One might suppose that æsthetic judgment would be relatively
independent of intelligence. Certainly no one could have known in
advance of experience that intellectual retardation would reveal itself
in weakness of the æsthetic sense about as unmistakably as in memory,
practical judgment, or the comprehension of language. But such is the
case. The development of the æsthetic sense parallels general mental
growth rather closely. The imbecile of 4-year intelligence, even though
he may have lived forty years, has no more chance of passing this test
than any other test in year V. It would be profitable to devise and
standardize a set of pictures of the same general type which would
measure a less primitive stage of æsthetic development.
The present test was located by Binet in year VI and has been retained
in that year in other revisions; but three separate Stanford
investigations, as well as the statistics of Winch, Dumville, Brigham,
Rowe, and Dougherty, warrant its location in year V.
V, 4. GIVING DEFINITIONS IN TERMS OF USE
PROCEDURE. Use the words: _Chair_, _horse_, _fork_, _doll_, _pencil_,
and _table_. Say: "_You have seen a chair. You know what a chair is.
Tell me, what is a chair?_" And so on with the other words, always in
the order in which they are named above.
Occasionally there is difficulty in getting a response, which is
sometimes due merely to the child's unwillingness to express his
thoughts in sentences. The earlier tests require only words and phrases.
In other cases silence is due to the rather indefinite form of the
question. The child could answer, but is not quite sure what is expected
of him. Whatever the cause, a little tactful urging is nearly always
sufficient to bring a response. In this test we have not found the
difficulty of overcoming silence nearly as great as others have stated
it to be. In consecutive tests of 150 5- and 6-year-old children we
encountered unbreakable silence with 8 words out of the total 900
(150 × 6). This is less than 1 per cent. But tactful encouragement is
sometimes necessary, and it is best to take the precaution of not giving
the test until _rapport_ has been well established.
The urging should take the following form: "_I'm sure you know what a
... is. You have seen a .... Now, tell me, what is a ... ?_" That is, we
merely repeat the question with a word of encouragement and in a
coaxing tone of voice. It would not at all do to introduce other
questions, like, "_What does a ... look like?_" or, "_What is a ...
for?_" "_What do people do with a ... ?_"
Sometimes, instead of attempting a definition (of _doll_, for example),
the child begins to talk in a more or less irrelevant way, as "I have a
great big doll. Auntie gave it to me for Christmas," etc. In such cases
we repeat the question and say, "_Yes, but tell me; what is a doll?_"
This is usually sufficient to bring the little chatter-box back to the
task.
Unless it is absolutely necessary to give the child lavish
encouragement, it is best to withhold approval or disapproval until the
test has been finished. If the first response is a poor one and we
pronounce it "fine" or "very good," we tempt the child to persist in his
low-grade type of definition. By withholding comment until the last word
has been defined, we give greater play to spontaneity and initiative.
SCORING. As a rule, children of 5 and 6 years define an object in terms
of use, stating what it does, what it is for, what people do with it,
etc. Definitions by description, by telling what substance it is made
of, and by giving the class to which it belongs are grouped together as
"definitions superior to use." It is not before 8 years that two thirds
of the children spontaneously give a large proportion of definitions in
terms superior to use.
The test is passed in year V if _four words out of the six_ are defined
in terms of use (or better than use). The following are examples of
satisfactory responses:--
_Chair_: "To sit on." "You sit on it." "It is made of wood and
has legs and back," etc.
_Horse_: "To drive." "To ride." "What people drive." "To pull
the wagon." "It is big and has four legs," etc.
_Fork_: "To eat with." "To stick meat with." "It is hard and has
three sharp things," etc.
_Doll_: "To play with." "What you dress and put to bed." "To
rock," etc.
_Pencil_: "To write with." "To draw." "They write with it." "It
is sharp and makes a black mark."
_Table_: "To eat on." "What you put the dinner on." "Where you
write." "It is made of wood and has legs."
Examples of failure are such responses as the following: "A chair is a
chair"; "There is a chair"; or simply, "There" (pointing to a chair). We
record such responses without pressing for a further definition. About
the only other type of failure is silence.
REMARKS. It is not the purpose of this test to find out whether the
child knows the meaning of the words he is asked to define. Words have
purposely been chosen which are perfectly familiar to all normal
children of 5 years. But with young children there is a difference
between knowing a word and giving a definition of it. Besides, we desire
to find out how the child apperceives the word, or rather the object for
which it stands; whether the thing is thought of in terms of use,
appearance (shape, size, color, etc.), material composing it, or class
relationships.
This test, because it throws such interesting light on the maturity of
the child's apperceptive processes, is one of the most valuable of all.
It is possible to differentiate at least a half-dozen degrees of
excellence in definitions, according to the intellectual maturity of the
subject. A volume, indeed, could be written on the development of word
definitions and the growth of meanings; but we will postpone further
discussion until VIII, 5. Our concern at present is to know that
children of 5 years should at least be able to define four of these six
words in terms of use.
Binet placed the test in year VI, but our own figures and those of
nearly all the other investigations indicate that it is better located
in year V.
V, 5. THE GAME OF PATIENCE
MATERIAL. Prepare two rectangular cards, each 2 × 3 inches, and divide
one of them into two triangles by cutting it along one of its diagonals.
PROCEDURE. Place the uncut card on the table with one of its longer
sides to the child. By the side of this card, a little nearer the child
and a few inches apart, lay the two halves of the divided rectangle with
their hypothenuses turned from each other as follows:
[Illustration]
Then say to the child: "_I want you to take these two pieces_ (touching
the two triangles) _and put them together so they will look exactly like
this_" (pointing to the uncut card). If the child hesitates, we repeat
the instructions with a little urging. Say nothing about hurrying, as
this is likely to cause confusion. Give three trials, of one minute
each. If only one trial is given, success is too often a result of
chance moves; but luck is not likely to bring two successes in three
trials. If the first trial is a failure, move the cut halves back to
their original position and say: "_No; put them together so they will
look like this_" (pointing to the uncut card). Make no other comment of
approval or disapproval. Disregard in silence the inquiring looks of the
child who tries to read his success or failure in your face.
If one of the pieces is turned over, the task becomes impossible, and it
is then necessary to turn the piece back to its original position and
begin over, not counting this trial. Have the under side of the pieces
marked so as to avoid the risk of presenting one of them to the child
wrong side up.
SCORING. There must be _two successes in three trials_. About the only
difficulty in scoring is that of deciding what constitutes a trial. We
count it a trial when the child brings the pieces together and (after
few or many changes) leaves them in some position. Whether he succeeds
after many moves, or leaves the pieces with approval in some absurd
position, or gives up and says he cannot do it, his effort counts as one
trial. A single trial may involve a number of unsuccessful changes of
position in the two cards, but these changes may not consume altogether
more than one minute.
REMARKS. As aptly described by Binet, the operation has the following
elements: "(1) To keep in mind the end to be attained, that is to say,
the figure to be formed. It is necessary to comprehend this end and not
to lose sight of it. (2) To try different combinations under the
influence of this directing idea, which guides the efforts of the child
even though he be unconscious of the fact. (3) To judge the formed
combination, compare it with the model, and decide whether it is the
correct one."
It may be classed, therefore, as one of the many forms of the
"combination method." Elements must be combined into some kind of whole
under the guidance of a directing idea. In this respect it has something
in common with the form-board test, the Ebbinghaus test, and the test
with dissected sentences (XII, 4). Binet designates it a "test of
patience," because success in it depends upon a certain willingness to
persist in a line of action under the control of an idea.
Not all failures in this test are equally significant. A bright child of
5 years sometimes fails, but usually not without many trial combinations
which he rejects one after another as unsatisfactory. A dull child of
the same age often stops after he has brought the pieces into any sort
of juxtaposition, however absurd, and may be quite satisfied with his
foolish effort. His mind is not fruitful and he lacks the power of
auto-criticism.
It would be well worth while to work out a new and somewhat more
difficult "test of patience," but with special care to avoid the
puzzling features of the usual games of anagrams. The one given us by
Binet is rather easy for year V, though plainly somewhat too difficult
for year IV.
V, 6. THREE COMMISSIONS
PROCEDURE. After getting up from the chair and moving with the child to
the center of the room, say: "_Now, I want you to do something for me.
Here's a key. I want you to put it on that chair over there; then I want
you to shut (or open) that door, and then bring me the box which you see
over there_ (pointing in turn to the objects designated). _Do you
understand? Be sure to get it right. First, put the key on the chair,
then shut_ (open) _the door, then bring me the box_ (again pointing).
_Go ahead._" Stress the words _first_ and _then_ so as to emphasize the
order in which the commissions are to be executed.
Give the commissions always in the above order. Do not repeat the
instructions again or give any further aid whatever, even by the
direction of the gaze. If the child stops or hesitates it is never
permissible to say: "_What next?_" Have the self-control to leave the
child alone with his task.
SCORING. _All three commissions must be executed and in the proper
order._ Failure may result, therefore, either from leaving out one or
more of the commands or from changing the order. The former is more
often the case.
REMARKS. Success depends first on the ability to comprehend the
commands, and secondly, on the ability to hold them in mind. It is
therefore a test of memory, though of a somewhat different kind from
that involved in repeating digits or sentences. It is an excellent test,
for it throws light on a kind of intelligence which is demanded in all
occupations and in everyday life. A more difficult test of the same type
ought to be worked out for a higher age level.
Binet originally located this test in year VI, but in 1911 changed it to
year VII. This is unfortunate, for the three Stanford investigations, as
well as the statistics of all other investigators, show conclusively
that it is easy enough for year V.
V. ALTERNATIVE TEST: GIVING AGE
PROCEDURE. The formula is simply, "_How old are you?_" The child of this
age is, of course, not expected to know the date of his birthday, but
merely how many years old he is.
SCORING. About the only danger in scoring is in the failure to verify
the child's response. Some children give an incorrect answer with
perfect assurance, and it is therefore always necessary to verify.
REMARKS. Inability to give the age may or may not be significant. If the
child has arrived at the age of 7 or 8 years and has had anything like a
normal social environment, failure in the test is an extremely
unfavorable sign. But if the child is an orphan or has grown up in
neglect, ignorance of age has little significance for intelligence.
About all we can say is that if a child gives his age correctly, it is
because he has had sufficient interest and intelligence to remember
verbal statements which have been made concerning him in his presence.
He may even pass the test without attaching any definite meaning to the
word "year." On the other hand, if he has lived seven or eight years in
a normal environment, it is safe to assume that he has heard his age
given many times, and failure to remember it would then indicate either
a weak memory or a grave inferiority of spontaneous interests, or both.
Normal children have a natural interest in the things they hear said
about themselves, while the middle-grade imbecile of even 40 years may
fail to remember his age, however often he may have heard it stated.
Binet placed the test in year VI of the 1908 series, but omitted it
altogether in 1911. Kuhlmann and Goddard also omit it, perhaps wisely.
Nevertheless, it is always interesting to give as a supplementary test.
Children from good homes acquire the knowledge about a year earlier than
those from less favorable surroundings. Unselected children of
California ordinarily pass the test at 5 years.
CHAPTER XII
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR VI
VI, 1. DISTINGUISHING RIGHT AND LEFT
PROCEDURE. Say to the child: "_Show me your right hand._" After this is
responded to, say: "_Show me your left ear._" Then: "_Show me your right
eye._" Stress the words _left_ and _ear_ rather strongly and equally;
also _right_ and _eye_. If there is one error, repeat the test, this
time with left hand, right ear, and left eye. Carefully avoid giving any
help by look of approval or disapproval, by glancing at the part of the
body indicated, or by supplementary questions.
SCORING. The test is passed if all three questions are answered
correctly, or if, in case of one error, the three additional questions
are all answered correctly. The standard, therefore, _is three out of
three, or five out of six_.
The chief danger of variation among different examiners in scoring
comes from double responses. For example, the child may point first to
one ear and then to the other. In all cases of double response, the rule
is to count the second response and disregard the first. This holds
whether the first response was wrong and the second right, or _vice
versa_.
REMARKS. It is interesting to follow the child's acquisitions
of language distinctions relating to spacial orientation. Other
distinctions of this type are those between up and down, above and
below, near and far, before and behind, etc. As Bobertag has pointed
out, the child first masters such distinctions as up and down, above and
below, before and behind, etc., and arrives at a knowledge of right and
left rather tardily.
How may we explain the late distinction of right and left as compared
with up and down? At least four theories may be advanced: (1) Something
depends on the frequency with which children have occasion to make the
respective distinctions. (2) It may be explained on the supposition that
kinæsthetic sensations are more prominently involved in distinctions of
up and down than in distinctions of right and left. It is certainly true
that, in distinguishing the two sides of a thing, less bodily movement
is ordinarily required than in distinctions of its upper and lower
aspects. The former demands only a shift of the eyes, the latter often
requires an upward or downward movement of the head. (3) It may be due
to the fact that the appearance of an object is more affected by
differences in vertical orientation than by those of horizontal
orientation. We see an object now from one side, now from the other, and
the two aspects easily blend, while the two aspects corresponding to
above and below are not viewed in such rapid succession and so remain
much more distinct from one another in the child's mind. Or, (4), the
difference may be mainly a matter of language. The child undoubtedly
hears the words _up_ and _down_ much oftener than _right_ and _left_,
and thus learns their meaning earlier. Horizontal distinctions are
commonly made in such terms as _this side_ and _that side_, or merely by
pointing, while in the case of vertical distinctions the words _up_ and
_down_ are used constantly. This last explanation is a very plausible
one, but it is very probable that other factors are also involved.
The distinction between right and left has a certain inherent and more
or less mysterious difficulty. To convince one's self of this it is only
necessary to try a little experiment on the first fifty persons one
chances to meet. The experiment is as follows. Say: "I am going to ask
you a question and I want you to answer it as quickly as you can." Then
ask: "Which is your right hand?" About forty persons out of fifty will
answer correctly without a second's hesitation, several will require two
or three seconds to respond, while a few, possibly four or five
per cent, will grow confused and perhaps be unable to respond for five
or ten seconds. Some very intelligent adults cannot possibly tell which
is the right or left hand without first searching for a scar or some
other distinguishing mark which is known to be on a particular hand.
Others resort to incipient movements of writing, and since, of course,
every one knows which hand he writes with, the writing movements
automatically initiated give the desired clue. One bright little girl of
8 years responded by trying to wink first one eye and then the other.
Asked why she did this, she said she knew she could wink her left eye,
but not her right! One who is resourceful enough to adopt such an
ingenious method is surely not less intelligent than the one who is able
to respond by a direct instead of an intermediate association.
It seems that normal people never encounter a corresponding difficulty
in distinguishing up and down. The writer has questioned several hundred
without finding a single instance, whereas a great many have to employ
some intermediate association in order to distinguish right and left. It
is the "p's and q's" that children must be told to mind; not the "p's
and b's." The former is a horizontal, the latter a vertical distinction.
Considering the difficulty which normal adults sometimes have in
distinguishing right and left, is it fair to use this test as a measure
of intelligence? We may answer in the affirmative. It is fair because
normal adults, notwithstanding momentary uncertainty, are invariably
able to make the distinction, if not by direct association, then by an
intermediate one. We overlook the momentary confusion and regard only
the correctness of the response. Subjects who are below middle-grade
imbecile, however long they have lived, seldom pass the test.
This test found a place in year VI of Binet's 1908 scale, but was
shifted to year VII in the 1911 revision. The Stanford statistics, and
all other available data, with the exception of Bobertag's, justify its
retention in year VI. It is possible that the children of different
nations do not have equal opportunity and stimulus for learning the
distinction between right and left, but the data show that as far as
American and English children are concerned we have a right to expect
this knowledge in children of 6 years.
VI, 2. FINDING OMISSIONS IN PICTURES
PROCEDURE. Show the pictures to the child one at a time in the order in
which they are lettered, _a_, _b_, _c_, _d_. When the first picture is
shown (that with the eye lacking), say: "_There is something wrong with
this face. It is not all there. Part of it is left out. Look carefully
and tell me what part of the face is not there._" Often the child gives
an irrelevant answer; as, "The feet are gone," "The stomach is not
there," etc. These statements are true, but they do not satisfy the
requirements of the test, so we say: "_No; I am talking about the face.
Look again and tell me what is left out of the face._" If the correct
response does not follow, we point to the place where the eye should be
and say: "_See, the eye is gone._" When picture _b_ is shown we say
merely: "_What is left out of this face?_" Likewise with picture _c_.
For picture _d_ we say: "_What is left out of this picture?_" No help of
any kind is given unless (if necessary) with the first picture. With the
others we confine ourselves to the single question, and the answer
should be given promptly, say within twenty to twenty-five seconds.
SCORING. Passed if the omission is correctly pointed out in _three out
of four_ of the pictures. Certain minor errors we may overlook, such as
"eyes" instead of "eye" for the first picture; "nose and one ear"
instead of merely "nose" for the third; "hands" instead of "arms" for
the fourth, etc. Errors like the following, however, count as failure:
"The other eye," or "The other ear" for the first or third; "The ears"
for the fourth, etc.
REMARKS. The test is one of the two or three dozen forms of the
so-called "completion test," all of which have it in common that from
the given parts of a whole the missing parts are to be found. The whole
to be completed may be a word, a sentence, a story, a picture, a group
of pictures, an object, or in fact almost anything. Sometimes all the
parts of the whole are given and only the arrangement or order is to be
found, as in the test with dissected sentences.
Further discussion of the completion test will be found in connection
with test 4, year XII. For the present we will only observe that
notwithstanding a certain similarity among the tests of this type, they
do not all call into play the same mental processes. The factor most
involved may be verbal language coherence, visual perception of form,
the association of abstract ideas, etc. To pass Binet's test with
mutilated pictures requires, (1) that the parts of the picture be
perceived as constituting a whole; and (2) that the idea of a human face
or form be so easily and so clearly reproducible that it may act, even
before it comes fully into consciousness, as a model or pattern, for the
criticism of the picture shown. The younger the child, the less
adequate, in this sense, is his perceptual familiarity with common
objects. In standardizing a series of "absurd pictures," the writer has
found that normal children of 3 years often see nothing wrong in a
picture which shows a cat with two legs or a hen with four legs. Such
children would, of course, never mistake a cat for a hen. Their trouble
lies in the inability to call up in clear form a "free idea" of a cat or
a hen for comparison with the perceptual presentation offered by the
picture. Middle-grade imbeciles of adult age have much the same
difficulty as normal children of 4 years in recognizing mutilations or
absurdities in pictures of familiar objects.
Binet first placed this test in year VII, changing it to year VIII in
the 1911 revision. In other revisions it has been retained in year VII,
although all the available statistics except Bobertag's warrant its
location in year VI.
VI, 3. COUNTING THIRTEEN PENNIES
PROCEDURE. The procedure is the same as in the test of counting four
pennies (year IV, test 3). If the first response contains only a minor
error, such as the omission of a number in counting, failure to tally
with the finger, etc., a second trial is given.
SCORING. The test is passed if there is _one success in two trials_.
Success requires that the counting should tally with the pointing. It is
not sufficient merely to state the number of pennies without pointing,
for unless the child points and counts aloud we cannot be sure that his
correct answer may not be the joint result of two errors in opposite
directions and equal; for example, if one penny were skipped and
another were counted twice the total result would still be correct, but
the performance would not satisfy the requirements.
REMARKS. Does success in this test depend upon intelligence or upon
schooling? The answer is, intelligence mainly. There are possibly a few
normal 6-year-old children who could not pass the test for lack of
instruction, but children of this age usually have enough spontaneous
interest in numbers to acquire facility in counting as far as 13 without
formal teaching. Certainly, inability to do so by the age of 7 years is
a suspicious sign unless the child's environment has been extraordinarily
unfavorable. On the other hand, feeble-minded adults of the 5-year level
usually have to have a great deal of instruction before they acquire
the ability to count 13, and many of them are hardly able to learn it at
all. So much does our learning depend on original endowment.
Binet originally placed this test in year VII, but moved it to year VI
in 1911. All the statistics, without exception, show that this change
was justified. Bobertag says that nearly all 7-year-olds who are not
feeble-minded can pass it, a statement with which we can fully agree.
VI, 4. COMPREHENSION, SECOND DEGREE
PROCEDURE. The questions used in this year are:--
(a) "_What's the thing to do if it is raining when you start to
school?_"
(b) "_What's the thing to do if you find that your house is on
fire?_"
(c) "_What's the thing to do if you are going some place and
miss your train (car)?_"
Note that the wording of the first part of the questions is slightly
different from that in year IV, test 5.
If there is no response, or if the child looks puzzled, the question may
be repeated once or twice. The form of the question must not under any
circumstances be altered. Question _b_, for example, would be materially
changed if we should say: "_Suppose you were to come home from school
and find that your house was burning up. What would you do?_" The
expression "burning up" would probably be much less likely to suggest
calling a fireman than would the words "on fire."
SCORING. _Two out of three_ must be answered correctly. The harder the
comprehension questions are, the greater the variety of answers and the
greater the difficulty of scoring. Because of the difficulty many
examiners find in scoring this test, we will list the most common
satisfactory, unsatisfactory, and doubtful responses to each question.
(a) _If it is raining when you start to school_
_Satisfactory._ "Take umbrella," "Bring a parasol," "Put on
rubbers," "Wear an overcoat," etc. This type of response
occurred 61 times out of 72 successes. "Have my father bring me"
also counts _plus_.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Go home," "Stay at home," "Stay in the
house," "Have the rainbow," "Stay in school," etc. "Stay at
home" is the most common failure and might at first seem to the
examiner to be a satisfactory response. As a matter of fact,
this answer rests on a slight misunderstanding of the question,
the import of which is that one is to go to school and it is
raining.
_Doubtful._ "Run" as an answer is a little more troublesome. It
may reasonably be scored _plus_ if it can be ascertained that
the child is accustomed to meet the situation in this way. It is
a common response with children in those regions of the
Southwest where rains are so infrequent that umbrellas are
rarely used. "Bring my lunch" may be considered a satisfactory
response in case the child is in the habit of so doing on rainy
days.
(b) _If you find that your house is on fire_
_Satisfactory._ "Ring the fire alarm," "Call the firemen," "Call
for help," "Put water on it," etc.
_Unsatisfactory._ The most common failure, accounting for nearly
half of all, is to suggest finding other shelter; _e.g._, "Go to
the hotel," "Get another house," "Stay with your friends,"
"Build a new house," etc. Others are: "Tell them you are sorry
it burned down," "Be careful and not let it burn again," "Have
it insured," "Cry," "Call the policeman," etc.
_Doubtful._ Instead of suggesting measures to put out the fire,
a good many children suggest mere escape or the saving of
household articles. Responses of this type are: "Jump out of the
windows," "Save yourself," "Get out as fast as you can," "Save
the baby," "Get my dolls and jewelry and hurry and get out."
These answers are about one seventh as frequent as the perfectly
satisfactory ones, and the rule for scoring them is a matter of
some importance. Under certain circumstances the logical thing
to do would be to save one's self or valuables without wasting
time trying to call help. There may be no help in reach, or a
fire which the child imagines may be too far along for help to
be effective. In order to avoid the possibility of doing a
subject an injustice, it may be desirable to score such answers
_plus_. We must not be too arbitrary.
(c) _If you miss your train_
_Satisfactory._ The answer we expect is, "Wait for another,"
"Take the next car," or something to that effect. This type of
answer includes about 85 per cent of the responses which do not
belong obviously in the unsatisfactory group. "Take a jitney" is
a modern variation of this response which must be counted as
satisfactory.
_Unsatisfactory._ These are endless. One continues to meet new
examples of absurdity, however many children one has tested. The
possibilities are literally inexhaustible, but the following are
among the most common: "Wait for it to come back," "Have to
walk," "Be mad," "Don't swear," "Run and try to catch it," "Try
to jump on," "Don't go to that place," "Go to the next station,"
etc.
_Doubtful._ The main doubtful response is, "Go home again,"
"Come back next day and catch another," etc. In small or
isolated towns having only one or two trains per day, this is
the logical thing to do, and in such cases the score is _plus_.
Fortunately, only about one answer in ten gives rise to any
difference of opinion among even partly trained examiners.
REMARKS. The three comprehension questions of this group were all
suggested by Binet in 1905. Only one of them, however, "What would you
do if you were going some place and missed your train?" was incorporated
in the 1908 or 1911 series, and this was used in year X with seven
others much harder. The other two remained unstandardized previous to
the Stanford investigation.[53]
[53] For general discussion of the comprehension questions as a test,
see p. 158.
VI, 5. NAMING FOUR COINS
PROCEDURE. Show a nickel, a penny, a quarter, and a dime, asking each
time: "_What is that?_" If the child misunderstands and answers,
"Money," or "A piece of money," we say: "_Yes, but what do you call that
piece of money?_" Show the coins always in the order given above.
SCORING. The test is passed if _three of the four_ questions are
correctly answered. Any correct designation of a coin is satisfactory,
including provincialisms like "two bits" for the 25-cent piece, etc. If
the child changes his response for a coin, we count the second answer
and ignore the first. No supplementary questions are permissible.
REMARKS. Some of the critics of the Binet scale regard this test as of
little value, because, they say, the ability to identify pieces of money
depends entirely on instruction or other accidents of environment. The
figures show, however, that it is not greatly influenced by differences
of social environment, although children from poor homes do slightly
better with it than those from homes of wealth and culture. The fact
seems to be that practically all children by the age of 6 years have
had opportunity to learn the names of the smaller coins, and if they
have failed to learn them it betokens a lack of that spontaneity of
interest in things which we have mentioned so often as a fundamental
presupposition of intelligence. It is by no means a test of mere
mechanical memory.
This test was given a place in year VII of Binet's 1908 scale, the coins
used being the 1-sou, 2-sous, 10-sous, and 5-franc pieces. It was
omitted from the Binet 1911 revision and also from that of Goddard.
Kuhlmann retains it in year VII. Others, however, have required all four
coins to be correctly named, and when this standard is used the test is
difficult enough for year VII. Germany has six coins up to and including
the 1-mark piece, all of which could be named by 76 per cent of
Bobertag's 7-year-olds. With the coins and the standard of scoring used
in the Stanford revision the test belongs well in year VI.
VI, 6. REPEATING SIXTEEN TO EIGHTEEN SYLLABLES
The sentences are:--
(a) "_We are having a fine time. We found a little mouse in the
trap._"
(b) "_Walter had a fine time on his vacation. He went fishing
every day._"
(c) "_We will go out for a long walk. Please give me my pretty
straw hat._"
PROCEDURE. The instructions should be given as follows: "_Now, listen. I
am going to say something and after I am through I want you to say it
over just like I do. Understand? Listen carefully and be sure to say
exactly what I say._" Then read the first sentence rather slowly, in a
distinct voice, and with expression. If the response is not too bad,
praise the child's efforts. Then proceed with the second and third
sentences, prefacing each with an exhortation to "say exactly what I
say."
In this year and in the memory-for-sentences test of later years it is
not permissible to re-read even the first sentence. The only reason for
allowing a repetition of one of the sentences in the earlier test of
this kind was to overcome the child's timidity. With children of 6 years
or upward we seldom encounter the timidity which sometimes makes it so
hard to secure responses in some of the tests of the earlier years.
SCORING. The test is passed _if at least one sentence out of three is
repeated without error, or if two are repeated with not more than one
error each_. A single omission, insertion, or transposition counts as an
error. Faults of pronunciation are of course overlooked. It is not
sufficient that the thought be reproduced intact; the exact language
must be repeated. The responses should be recorded _verbatim_. This is
easily done if record blanks used for scoring have the sentences printed
in full.
REMARKS. In this test and in later tests of memory for sentences, it is
interesting to ask after each response: "_Did you get it right?_" As in
the tests with digits, it is an unfavorable sign when the child is
perfectly satisfied with a very poor response.
It is evident that tests of this type give opportunity for different
degrees of failure. To repeat only a half or a third of each sentence is
much more serious than to make but one error in each sentence (one word
omitted, inserted, or misplaced). It would be possible to use the same
sentences at three or four different age levels, by setting the
appropriate standard for success at each age. If the standard is one
sentence out of three repeated with no more than two errors, the test
belongs in year V. If we require two absolutely correct responses out of
three, the test belongs at about year VII. The shifting standard is
rendered unnecessary, however, by the use of other tests of the same
kind, easier ones in the lower years and more difficult ones in the
upper.
Sentences of sixteen syllables found a place in Binet's 1908 scale and
were correctly located in year VI, but later revisions, including that
of Binet, have omitted the test.
VI. ALTERNATIVE TEST: FORENOON AND AFTERNOON
PROCEDURE. If it is morning, ask: "_Is it morning or afternoon?_" If it
is afternoon, put the question in the reverse form, "_Is it afternoon or
morning?_" This precaution is necessary because of the tendency of some
children to choose always the latter of two alternatives. Do not
cross-question the child or give any suggestion that might afford a clue
as to the correct answer.
SCORING. The test is passed if the correct response is given with
apparent assurance. If the child says he is not sure but _thinks_ it
forenoon (or afternoon, as the case may be), we score the response a
failure even if the answer happens to be correct. However, this type of
response is not often encountered.
REMARKS. It is interesting to follow the child's development with regard
to orientation in time. This development proceeds much more slowly than
we are wont to assume. Certain distinctions with regard to space, as up
and down, come much earlier. As Binet remarks, schools sometimes try to
teach the events of national history to children whose time orientation
is so rudimentary that they do not even know morning from afternoon!
The test has two rather serious faults: (1) It gives too much play to
chance, for since only two alternatives are offered, guesses alone would
give about fifty per cent of correct responses. (2) We cannot be sure
that the verbal distinction between forenoon and afternoon always
corresponds the two divisions of the day. It is possible that the
temporal discrimination precedes the formation of the correct verbal
association.
This test was included in the year VI group of the 1908 scale, but was
omitted from the 1911 revision. Nearly all the data except Bobertag's
show that it is rather easy for year VI, though too difficult for
year V. Bobertag's figures would place the test in year VII. Possibly
the corresponding German words are not as easy to learn as our _morning_
and _afternoon_.
CHAPTER XIII
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR VII
VII, 1. GIVING THE NUMBER OF FINGERS
PROCEDURE. "_How many fingers have you on one hand?_" "_How many on the
other hand?_" "_How many on both hands together?_" If the child begins
to count in response to any of the questions, say: "_No, don't count.
Tell me without counting._" Then repeat the question.
SCORING. Passed _if all three questions are answered correctly and
promptly_ without the necessity of counting. Some subjects do not
understand the question to include the thumbs. We disregard this if the
number of fingers exclusive of thumbs is given correctly.
REMARKS. Like the two tests of counting pennies, this one, also, throws
light on the child's spontaneous interest in numbers. However, the
mental processes it calls into play are a little less simple than those
required for mere counting. If the child is able to give the number of
fingers, it is ordinarily because he has previously counted them and has
remembered the result. The memory would hardly be retained but for a
certain interest in numbers as such. Middle-grade imbeciles of even
adult age seldom remember how many fingers they have, however often
they may have been told. They are not able to form accurate concepts of
other than the simplest number relationships, and numbers have little
interest or meaning for them.
Binet gave this test a place in year VII of the 1908 series, but omitted
it in the 1911 revision. Goddard omits it, while Kuhlmann retains it in
year VII, where, according to our own figures, it unmistakably belongs.
Bobertag finds it rather easy for year VII, though too difficult for
year VI.
Our data prove that this test fulfills the requirements of a good test.
It shows a rapid but even rise from year V to year VIII in the per cent
passing, the agreement among the different testers is extraordinarily
close, and it is relatively little influenced by training and social
environment. For these reasons, and because it is so easy to give and
score with uniformity, it well deserves a place in the scale.
VII, 2. DESCRIPTION OF PICTURES
PROCEDURE. Use the same pictures as in III, 3, presenting them always in
the following order: Dutch Home, River Scene, Post-Office. The formula
for the test in this year is somewhat different from that of year III.
Say: "_What is this picture about? What is this a picture of?_" Use the
double question, and follow the formula exactly. It would ruin the test
to say: "_Tell me everything you see in this picture_," for this form of
question tends to provoke the enumeration response even with intelligent
children of this age.
When there is no response, the question may be repeated as often as is
necessary to break the silence.
SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ pictures are described
or interpreted. Interpretation, however, is seldom encountered at this
age. Often the response consists of a mixture of enumeration and
description. The rule is that the reaction to a picture should not
be scored _plus_ unless it is made up chiefly of description (or
interpretation).
Study of the following samples of satisfactory responses will give a
fairly definite idea of the requirements for satisfactory description:--
_Picture (a): satisfactory responses_
"The little girl is crying. The mother is looking at her and
there is a little kitten on the floor."
"The mother is watching the baby, and the cat is looking at a
hole in the floor, and there is a lamp and a table so I guess
it's a dining room."
"The little girl has wooden shoes. Her mother is sitting in a
chair and has a funny cap on her head. The cat is sitting on the
floor and there is a basket by the mother and a table with
something on it."
"It's about Holland. The little Dutch girl is crying and the
mother is sitting down."
"A little Dutch girl and her mother and that's a kitten, and the
little girl has her hand up as if she was doing something to her
forehead. She has shoes that curve up in front."
"Dutch lady, and the little baby doesn't want to come to her
mother and the cat is looking for some mice."
"The mother is sitting down and the little one has her hands up
over her eyes. There's a pail by the mother and a chair with
some clothes on it and a table with dishes. And here's a lamp
and here's some curtains."
_Picture (b): satisfactory responses_
"Some people in a boat. The water is high and if they don't look
out the boat will tip over."
"Some Indians and a lady and man. They are in a boat on the
river and the boat is about to upset, and there are some dead
trees going to fall."
"There's a lot of water coming up to drown the people. There are
two people in the boat and the boat is sinking."
"There's some people sailing in a canoe and the woman is leaning
over on the man because she is afraid."
"There's an Indian and some white people in the boat. I suppose
they are out for a ride in a canoe."
"Picture about some man and lady in a canoe and going down to
the sea."
"They are taking a boat ride on the ocean and the water is up so
high that one of them is scared. Here are some trees and two of
them are going to fall down. Here's a little place or bridge you
can stand on. The man is touching this one's head and this one
has his hand on the cover."
"The water is splashing all over. There's trees on this bank and
there's a rock and some trees falling down. The people have a
blanket over them."
_Picture (c): satisfactory responses_
"A man selling eggs and two men reading the paper together and
two men watching."
"A few men reading a newspaper and one has a basket of eggs and
this one has been fishing."
"There's a man with a basket of eggs and another is reading the
paper and a woman is hanging out clothes. There's a house near."
"There's a man trying to read the paper and the others want to
read it too. Here's a lady walking up to the barn. There are
houses over there and one man has a basket."
"There's a big brick house and five men by it and a man with a
basket of eggs and a post-office sign and a lady going home."
"They are all looking at the paper. He is looking over the other
man's shoulder and this one is looking at the back of the paper.
There's a woman cleaning up her back yard and some coops for
hens."
"A man reading a paper, a man with eggs, a woman and a tree and
another house. That man has an apron on. This is the
post-office."
Unsatisfactory responses are those made up entirely or mainly of
enumeration. A phrase or two of description intermingled with a larger
amount of enumeration counts _minus_. Sometimes the description is
satisfactory as far as it goes, but is exceedingly brief. In such cases
a little tactful urging ("_Go ahead_," etc.) will extend the response
sufficiently to reveal its true character.
REMARKS. Description is better than enumeration because it involves
putting the elements of a picture together in a simple way or noting
their qualities. This requires a higher type of mental association
(combinative power) than mere enumeration. An unusually complete
description indicates relative wealth of mental content and facility of
association.
Binet placed this test in year VII, and it seems to have been retained
in this location in all revisions except Bobertag's. However, the
statistics of various workers show much disagreement. Lack of agreement
is easily accounted for by the fact that different investigators have
used different series of pictures and doubtless also different standards
for success. The pictures used by Binet have little action or detail and
are therefore rather difficult for description. On the other hand, the
Jingleman-Jack pictures used by Kuhlmann represent such familiar
situations and have so much action that even 5- or 6-year intelligence
seldom fails with them. The pictures we employ belong without question
in year VII.
No better proof than the above could be found to show how ability of a
given kind does not make its appearance suddenly. There is no one time
in the life of even a single child when the power to describe pictures
suddenly develops. On the contrary, pictures of a certain type will
ordinarily provoke description, rather than enumeration, as early as
5 or 6 years; others not before 7 or 8 years, or even later.
VII, 3. REPEATING FIVE DIGITS
PROCEDURE. Use: 3-1-7-5-9; 4-2-3-8-5; 9-8-1-7-6. Tell the child to
listen and to say after you just what you say. Then read the first
series of digits at a slightly faster rate than one per second, in a
distinct voice, and with perfectly uniform emphasis. _Avoid rhythm._
In previous tests with digits, it was permissible to re-read the first
series if the child refused to respond. In this year, and in the digits
tests of later years, this is not permissible. Warning is not given as
to the number of digits to be repeated. Before reading each series, get
the child's attention. Do not stare at the child during the response, as
this is disconcerting. Look aside or at the record sheet.
SCORING. Passed if the child repeats correctly, after a single reading,
_one series out of the three_ series given. The order must be correct.
REMARKS. Psychologically the repetition of digits differs from the
repetition of sentences mainly in the fact that digits have less meaning
(fewer associations) than the words of a sentence. It is because they
are not as well knit together in meaning that three digits tax the
memory as much as six syllables making up a sentence.
Testing auditory memory for digits is one of the oldest of intelligence
tests. It is easy to give and lends itself well to exact quantitative
standardization. Its value has been questioned, however, on two grounds:
(1) That it is not a test of pure memory, but depends largely on
attention; and (2) that the results are too much influenced by the
child's type of imagery. As to the first objection, it is true that more
than one mental function is brought into play by the test. The same may
be said of every other test in the Binet scale and for that matter of
any test that could be devised. It is impossible to isolate any function
for separate testing. In fact, the functions called memory, attention,
perception, judgment, etc., never operate in isolation. There are no
separate and special "faculties" corresponding to such terms, which are
merely convenient names for characterizing mental processes of various
types. In any test it is "general ability" which is operative, perhaps
now _chiefly_ in remembering, at another time _chiefly_ in sensory
discrimination, again in reasoning, etc.
The second objection, that the test is largely invalidated by the
existence of imagery types, is not borne out by the facts. Experiments
have shown that pure imagery types are exceedingly rare, and that
children, especially, are characterized by "mixed" imagery. There are
probably few subjects so lacking in auditory imagery as to be placed at
a serious disadvantage in this test.
Lengthening a series by the addition of a single digit adds greatly to
the difficulty. While four digits can usually be repeated by children of
4 years, five digits belong in year VII and six in year X.
It is always interesting to note the type of errors made. The most
common error is to omit one or more of the digits, usually in the first
part of the series. If the child's ability is decidedly below the test
he may give only the last two or three out of the five or six heard.
Substitutions are also quite frequent, and if so many substitutions are
made as to give a series quite unlike that which the child has heard, it
is an unfavorable sign, indicating weakness of the critical sense which
is so often found with low-level intelligence. In case of extreme
weakness of the power of auto-criticism, the child in response to the
series 9-8-1-7-6-, may say 1-2-3-4-5-6, or perhaps merely a couple of
digits like 8-6, and still express complete satisfaction with his absurd
response. After each series, therefore, the examiner should say, "_Was
it right?_"[54] Very young subjects, however, have a tendency to answer
"yes" to any question of this type, and it is therefore best not to call
for criticism of a performance below the age of 6 or 7 years.
[54] "_Was it wrong?_" is not an equivalent question and should not be
used.
Digit series of a given length are not always of equal difficulty, and
for this reason it is never wise to use series improvised at the moment
of the experiment. We must avoid especially series of regularly
ascending or descending value, the repetition at regular intervals of a
particular digit, and all other peculiarities of arrangement which would
favor the grouping of the digits for easier retention.
It remains to mention two or three further cautions in regard to
procedure. It is best to begin with a series about one digit below the
child's expected ability. If the child has a probable intelligence of
about 6 or 7 years, we should begin with four digits; in case of
probable 10-year intelligence we begin with five digits, etc. On the
other hand, we should avoid beginning too far down, because then the
result is too much complicated by the effects of practice and fatigue.
It is not necessary, and often it is not expedient, to give the digits
tests of all the different years in succession; that is, without other
tests intervening. While this may be permissible with older children, in
young children the power of sustained attention is so weak that no
single kind of test should occupy more than two or three minutes.
Children below 6 or 7 years should ordinarily be given the tests in the
order in which they are listed in the record booklet.
In his 1911 revision of the scale Binet unfortunately shifted this test
from year VII to year VIII. Goddard follows his example, but Kuhlmann
retains it in year VII. The data from more than a dozen leading
investigations in America, England, and Germany agree in showing that
the test should remain in year VII.
VII, 4. TYING A BOW-KNOT
PROCEDURE. Prepare a shoestring tied in a bow-knot around a stick. The
knot should be an ordinary "double bow," with wings not over three or
four inches long. Make this ready in advance of the experiment and show
the child only the completed knot.
Place the model before the subject with the wings pointing to the right
and left, and say: "_You know what kind of knot this is, don't you? It
is a bow-knot. I want you to take this other piece of string and tie the
same kind of knot around my finger._" At the same time give the child a
piece of shoestring, of the same length as that which is tied around the
stick, and hold out a finger pointed toward the child and in convenient
position for the operation. It is better to have the subject tie the
string around the examiner's finger than around a pencil or other object
because the latter often falls out of the string and is otherwise
awkward to handle.
Some children who assert that they do not know how to tie a bow-knot are
sometimes nevertheless successful when urged to try. It is always
necessary, therefore, to secure an actual trial.
SCORING. The test is passed if a double bow-knot (both ends folded in)
is made _in not more than a minute_. A single bow-knot (only one end
folded in) counts half credit, because children are often accustomed to
use the single bow altogether. The usual plain common knot, which
precedes the bow-knot proper, must not be omitted if the response is to
count as satisfactory, for without this preliminary plain knot a
bow-knot will not hold and is of no value. To be satisfactory the knot
should also be drawn up reasonably close, not left gaping.
REMARKS. This test, which had not before been standardized, was
suggested to the writer by the late Dr. Huey, who in a conversation
once remarked upon the frequent inability of feeble-minded adults to
perform the little motor tasks which are universally learned by normal
persons in childhood. The test was therefore incorporated in the
Stanford trial series of 1913-14 and tried with 370 non-selected
children within two months of the 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th birthday. It was
expected that the test would probably be found to belong at about the
8-year level, but it proved to be easy enough for year VII, where
69 per cent of the children passed it. Only 35 per cent of the
6-year-olds succeeded, but after that age the per cent passing increased
rapidly to 94 per cent at 9 years.
This little experiment, simple as it is, seems to fulfill reasonably
well the requirements of a good test. The main objection which might be
brought against it is that it is much subject to the influence of
training. If this were true in any marked degree, the mentally retarded
children of 7-year intelligence should be expected to succeed better
with it than mentally advanced children of the same mental level, since
the former would have had at least two or three years more in which to
learn the task. A comparison of the two groups, however, shows no great
difference. The factor of age, apart from mental age, affects the
results so little that it is evident we have here a real test of
intelligence.
It would, of course, be easy to imagine a child of 7 years who had not
had reasonable opportunity to make the acquaintance of bow-knots or to
learn to tie them. But such children are seldom encountered in the ages
above 6 or 7. Of 68 7-year-olds who were asked whether they had ever
seen a bow-knot ("a knot like that") only two replied in the negative.
It cannot be denied, however, that specific instruction and special
stimulus to practice do play a certain part. This is suggested by the
fact that girls excel the boys somewhat at each age, doubtless because
bow-knots play a larger rôle in feminine apparel. Social status affects
the results in only a moderate degree, though it might be supposed that
poor ragamuffins, on the one hand, and children of the very rich, on the
other, would both make a poor showing in this test; the former because
of their scanty apparel, the latter because they sometimes have servants
to dress them.
The following are probably the chief factors determining success with
this test: (1) Interest in common objective things; (2) ability to form
permanent associative connections between successive motor coördinations
(memory for a series of acts); and (3) skill in the acquisition of
voluntary motor control. The last factor is probably much less important
than the other two. Motor awkwardness often prolongs the time from the
usual ten or fifteen seconds to thirty or forty seconds, but it is
rarely a cause of a failure. The important thing is to be able to
reproduce the appropriate succession of acts, acts which nearly all
children of 7 years, under the joint stimulus of example and spontaneous
interest, have before performed or tried to perform.
VII, 5. GIVING DIFFERENCES FROM MEMORY
PROCEDURE. Say: "_What is the difference between a fly and a
butterfly?_" If the child does not seem to understand, say: "_You know
flies, do you not? You have seen flies? And you know the butterflies!
Now, tell me the difference between a fly and a butterfly._" Proceed in
the same way with _stone and egg_, and _wood and glass_. A little
coaxing is sometimes necessary to secure a response, but supplementary
questions and suggestions of every kind are to be avoided. For example,
it would not be permissible for the examiner to say: "_Which is larger,
a fly or a butterfly?_" This would give the child his cue and he would
immediately answer, "A butterfly." The child must be left to find a
difference by himself. Sometimes a difference is given, but without any
indication as to its direction, as, for example, "One is bigger than the
other" (for fly and butterfly). It is then permissible to ask: "_Which
is bigger?_"
SCORING. Passed if a real difference is given in _two out of three
comparisons_. It is not necessary, however, that an _essential_
difference be given; the difference may be trivial, only it must be a
real one. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory
responses:--
_Fly and butterfly_
_Satisfactory._ "Butterfly is larger." "Butterfly has bigger
wings." "Fly is black and a butterfly is not." "Butterfly is
yellow (or white, etc.) and fly is black." "Fly bites you and
butterfly don't." "Butterfly has powder on its wings, fly does
not." "Fly flies straighter." "Butterfly is outdoors and a fly
is in the house." "Flies are more dangerous to our health."
"Flies haven't anything to sip honey with." "Butterfly doesn't
live as long as a fly." "Butterfly comes from a caterpillar."
Sometimes a double contrast is meant, but not fully expressed;
as, "A fly is small and a butterfly is pretty." Here the thought
is probably correct, only the language is awkward.
Of 102 correct responses, 70 were in terms of size, or size plus
color or form; 12 were in terms of both form and color; 6 in
terms of color alone; and the rest scattered among such
responses as those mentioned above.
_Unsatisfactory._ These are mostly misstatements of facts; as:
"Fly is bigger." "Fly has legs and butterfly hasn't." "Butterfly
has no feet and fly has." "Butterfly makes butter." "Fly is a
fly and a butterfly is not." Failures due to misstatement of
fact are of endless variety. If an indefinite response is given,
like "The fly is different," or "They don't look alike," we ask,
"_How is it different?_" or, "_Why don't they look alike?_" It
is satisfactory if the child then gives a correct answer.
_Stone and egg_
_Satisfactory._ "Stone is harder." "Egg is softer." "Egg breaks
easier." "Egg breaks and stone doesn't." "Stone is heavier."
"Egg is white and stone is not." "Egg has a shell and stone does
not." "Eggs have a white and a yellow in them." "You put eggs in
a pudding." "An egg is rounder than a stone." We may also accept
statements which are only qualifiedly true; as, "You can break
an egg, but not a stone." Likewise double but incomplete
comparisons are satisfactory; as, "An egg you fry and a stone
you throw," "A stone is tough and an egg you eat," etc.
A little over three fourths of the comparisons made by children
of 6, 7, and 8 years are in terms of hardness. The other
responses are widely scattered.
_Unsatisfactory._ "A stone is bigger (or smaller) than an egg."
"A stone is square and an egg is round." "An egg is yellow and a
stone is white." "Stones are red (or black, etc.) and eggs are
white." "An egg is to eat and a stone is to plant." "An egg is
round and a stone is sometimes round."
It will be noted that the above responses are partly true and
partly false. The error they contain renders them unacceptable.
Most of the failures are due to misstatements as to size, shape,
or color, but occasionally one meets a bizarre answer.
_Wood and glass_
_Satisfactory._ "Glass breaks easier than wood." "Glass breaks
and wood does not." "Wood is stronger than glass." "Glass you
can see through and wood you can't." "Glass cuts you and wood
doesn't." "You get splinters from wood and you don't from
glass." "Glass melts and wood doesn't." "Wood burns and glass
doesn't." "Wood has bark and glass hasn't." "Wood grows and
glass doesn't." "Glass is heavier than wood." "Glass glistens in
the sun and wood does not."
An incomplete double comparison is also counted satisfactory;
as, "Wood you can burn and glass you can see through."
_Unsatisfactory._ "Wood is black and glass is white." (Color
differences are always unsatisfactory in this comparison unless
transparency is also mentioned.) "Glass is square and wood is
round." "Glass is bigger than wood" (or _vice versa_). "Wood is
oblong and glass is square." "Glass is thin and wood is thick."
"Wood is made out of trees and glass out of windows." "There is
no glass in wood."
The two most frequent types of failures are misstatements
regarding color and thickness. The other failures are widely
scattered.
REMARKS. The test is one which all the critics agree in commending,
largely because it is so little influenced by ordinary school
experience. Its excellence lies mainly, however, in the fact that it
throws light upon the character of the child's higher thought processes,
for thinking means essentially the association of ideas on the basis of
differences or similarities. Nearly all thought processes, from the most
complex to the very simplest, involve to a greater or less degree one or
the other of these two types of association. They are involved in the
simple judgments made by children, in the appreciation of puns, in
mechanical inventions, in the creation of poetry, in the scientific
classification of natural phenomena, and in the origination of the
hypotheses of science or philosophy.
The ability to note differences precedes somewhat the ability to note
resemblances, though the contrary has sometimes been asserted by
logician-psychologists. The difficulty of the test is greatly increased
by the fact that the objects to be compared are not present to the
senses, which means that the free ideas must be called up for comparison
and contrast. Failure may result either from weakness in the power of
ideational representation of objects, or from the inadequacy of the
associations themselves, or from both. Probably both factors are usually
involved.
Intellectual development is especially evident in increased ability to
note _essential_ differences and likenesses, as contrasted with those
which are trivial, superficial, and accidental. To distinguish an egg
from a stone on the basis of one being organic, the other inorganic
matter requires far higher intelligence than to distinguish them on the
basis of shape, color, fragibility, etc. It is not till well toward the
adult stage that the ability to give very essential likenesses and
differences becomes prominent, and when we get a comparison of this type
from a child of 7 or 8 years it is a very favorable sign.
It would be well worth while to standardize a new test of this kind for
use in the upper years and especially adapted to display the ability to
give essential likenesses and differences. At year VII we must accept as
satisfactory any real difference.
One point remains. In the tests of giving differences and similarities,
it is well to make note of any tendency to _stereotypy_, by which is
meant the mechanical reappearance of the same idea, or element, in
successive responses. For example, the child begins by comparing fly and
butterfly on the basis of size; as, "A butterfly is bigger than a fly."
So far, this is quite satisfactory; but the child with a tendency to
stereotypy finds himself unable to get away from the dominating idea of
size and continues to make it the basis of the other comparisons: "A
stone is larger than an egg," "Wood is larger than glass," etc. In case
of stereotypy in all three responses, we should have to score the total
response failure even though the idea employed happened to fit all three
parts of the question. As a rule it is encountered only with very young
children or with older children who are mentally retarded. It is
therefore an unfavorable sign.
Although this test has been universally used in year VIII, all the
available statistics, with the exception of Bobertag's and Bloch's,
indicate that it is decidedly too easy for that year. Binet himself says
that nearly all 7-year-olds pass it. Goddard finds 97 per cent passing
at year VIII, and Dougherty 90 per cent at year VI. With the standard of
scoring given in the present revision, and with the substitution of
_stone and egg_ instead of the more difficult _paper and cloth_, the
test is unquestionably easy enough for year VII.
VII, 6. COPYING A DIAMOND
PROCEDURE. On a white cardboard draw in heavy black lines a diamond with
the longer diagonal three inches and the shorter diagonal an inch and a
half. The specially prepared record booklet contains the diamond as well
as many other conveniences.
Place the model before the child with the longer diagonal pointing
directly toward him, and giving him _pen and ink_ and paper, say: "_I
want you to draw one exactly like this._" Give three trials, saying each
time: "_Make it exactly like this one._" In repeating the above formula,
merely point to the model; do not pass the fingers around its edge.
Unlike the test of copying a square in year IV, there is seldom any
difficulty in getting the child to try this one. By the age of 7 the
child has grown much less timid and has become more accustomed to the
use of writing materials.
Note whether the child draws each part carefully, looking at the model
from time to time, or whether the strokes are made in a more or less
haphazard manner with only an initial glance at the original.
After each trial, say to the child: "_Is it good?_" And after the three
copies have been made say: "_Which one is the best?_" Retarded children
are sometimes entirely satisfied with the most nondescript drawings
imaginable, but they are more likely correctly to pick out the best of
three than to render a correct judgment about the worth of each drawing
separately.
SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ drawings are at least
as good as those marked satisfactory on the score card. The diamond
should be drawn approximately in the correct position, and the diagonals
must not be reversed. Disregard departures from the model with respect
to size.
REMARKS. The test is a good one. Age and training, apart from
intelligence, affect it only moderately. There are few adult imbeciles
of 6-year intelligence who are able to pass it, while but few subjects
who have reached the 8-year level fail on it.[55]
[55] For further discussion of drawing tests, see V, 1, and X, 3.
This test was located in year VII of the 1908 scale, but was shifted to
year VI in Binet's 1911 revision. The change was without justification,
for Binet expressly states, both in 1908 and 1911, that only half of the
6-year-olds succeed with it. The large majority of investigations have
given too low a proportion of successes at 6 years to warrant its
location at that age, particularly if pen is required instead of pencil.
Location at year VI would be warranted only on the condition that the
use of pencil be permitted and only one success required in three
trials.
VII, ALTERNATIVE TEST 1: NAMING THE DAYS OF THE WEEK
PROCEDURE. Say: "_You know the days of the week, do you not? Name the
days of the week for me._" Sometimes the child begins by naming various
annual holidays, as Christmas, Fourth of July, etc. Perhaps he has not
comprehended the task; at any rate, we give him one more trial by
stopping him and saying: "_No; that is not what I mean. I want you to
name the days of the week._" No supplementary questions are permissible,
and we must be careful not to show approval or disapproval in our looks
as the child is giving his response.
If the days have been named in correct order, we check up the response
to see whether the real order of days is known or whether the names have
only been repeated mechanically. This is done by asking the following
questions: "_What day comes before Tuesday?_" "_What day comes before
Thursday?_" "_What day comes before Friday?_"
SCORING. The test is passed if, within _fifteen seconds_, the days of
the week are _all named in correct order_, and if the child succeeds in
at least _two of the three check questions_. We disregard the point of
beginning.
REMARKS. The test has been criticized as too dependent on rote memory.
Bobertag says a child may pass it without having any adequate conception
of "week," "yesterday," "day before yesterday," etc. This criticism
holds if the test is given according to the older procedure, but does
not apply with the procedure above recommended. The "checking-up"
questions enable us at once to distinguish responses that are given by
rote from those which rest upon actual knowledge.
The test has been shown to be much more influenced by age, apart from
intelligence, than most other tests of the scale. Notwithstanding this
fault, it seems desirable to keep the test, at least as an alternative,
because it forms one of a group which may be designated as tests of time
orientation. The others of this group are: "_Distinguishing forenoon and
afternoon_" (VI), "_Giving the date_" and "_Naming the months_" (IX). It
would be well if we had even more of this type, for interest in the
passing of time and in the names of time divisions is closely correlated
with intelligence. One reason for the inferiority of the dull and
feeble-minded in tests of this type is that their mental associations
are weaker and less numerous. The greater poverty of their associations
brings it about that their remembered experiences are less definitely
located in time with reference to other events.
The test was located in year IX of the 1908 scale, but was omitted from
the 1911 revision. Kuhlmann also omits it, while Goddard places it in
year VIII. The statistics from every American investigation, however,
warrant its location in year VII. It may be located in year VIII only on
the condition that the child be required to name the days backwards, and
that within a rather low time limit.
VII, ALTERNATIVE TEST 2: REPEATING THREE DIGITS REVERSED
PROCEDURE. The digits used are: 2-8-3; 4-2-7; 5-9-6. The test should be
given after, but not immediately after, the tests of repeating digits
forwards.
Say to the child: "_Listen carefully. I am going to read some numbers
again, but this time I want you to say them backwards. For example, if I
should say 1-2-3, you would say 3-2-1. Do you understand?_" When it is
evident that the child has grasped the instructions, say: "_Ready now;
listen carefully, and be sure to say the numbers backwards._" Then read
the series at the same rate and in the same manner as in the other
digits tests. It is not permissible to re-read any of the series.
If the first series is repeated forwards instead of backwards series
exhort the child to listen carefully and to be sure to repeat the
numbers backwards.
SCORING. The test is passed if _one series out of three_ is repeated
backwards without error.
REMARKS. The test of repeating digits backwards was suggested by
Bobertag in 1911, but appears not to have been used or standardized
previous to the Stanford investigation.
It is very much harder to repeat a series of digits backwards in the
direct order at year VII, and six at year X. Reversing the order places
three digits in year VII, four in year X, five in year XII, and six in
"average adult." Even intelligent adults sometimes have difficulty in
repeating six digits backwards, once in three trials.
As a test of intelligence this test is better than that of repeating
digits in the direct order. It is less mechanical and makes a much
heavier demand on attention. The digits must be so firmly fixated in
memory that they can be held there long enough to be told off, one by
one, backwards.
Feeble-minded children find this test especially difficult, perhaps
mainly because of its element of novelty. School children are often
asked to write numbers dictated by the teacher, and even the very dull
acquire a certain proficiency in doing so; but the test of repeating
digits backwards requires a certain facility in adjusting to a new task,
exactly the sort of thing in which the feeble-minded are so markedly
deficient.
As a rule the response consumes much more time than in the other digits
test. This is particularly true when the series to be repeated backwards
contains four or more digits. The chance of success is greatly increased
if the subject first thinks the series through two or three times in the
direct order before attempting the reverse order. The subject who
responds immediately is likely to begin correctly, but to give the first
part of the original series in the direct order. For example, 6-5-2-8 is
given 8-2-6-5.
Sometimes the child gives one or two numbers and then stops, having
completely lost the rest of the series in the stress of adjusting to the
novel and relatively difficult task of beginning with the final digit.
In such cases the feeble-minded are prone to fill in with any numbers
they may happen to think of. A good method for the subject is to break
the series up into groups and to give each group separately. Thus,
6-5-2-8 is given 8-2 (pause) 5-6. As a rule only the more intelligent
subjects adopt this method. One 12-year-old girl attending high school
was able to repeat eight digits backwards by the aid of this device.
It would be well worth while to investigate the relation of this test to
imagery type. Such a study would have to make use of adult subjects
trained in introspection. It would seem that success might be favored by
the ability to translate the auditory impression into visual imagery, so
that the remembered numbers could be read off as from a book; but this
may or may not be the case. At any rate, success seems to depend largely
upon the ability to manipulate mental imagery.
The degree of certainty as to the correctness of the response is usually
much less than in repeating digits forwards.
CHAPTER XIV
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR VIII
VIII, 1. THE BALL-AND-FIELD TEST (SCORE 2, INFERIOR PLAN)
PROCEDURE. Draw a circle about two and one half inches in diameter,
leaving a small gap in the side next the child. Say: "_Let us suppose
that your baseball has been lost in this round field. You have no idea
what part of the field it is in. You don't know what direction it came
from, how it got there, or with what force it came. All you know is
that the ball is lost somewhere in the field. Now, take this pencil and
mark out a path to show me how you would hunt for the ball so as to be
sure not to miss it. Begin at the gate and show me what path you would
take._"[56]
[56] The Stanford record booklet contains the circle ready for use.
Give the instructions always as worded above. Avoid using an expression
like, "_Show me how you would walk around in the field_"; the word
_around_ might suggest a circular path.
Sometimes the child merely points or tells how he would go. It is then
necessary to say: "_No; you must mark out your path with the pencil so I
can see it plainly._" Other children trace a path only a little way and
stop, saying: "Here it is." We then say: "_But suppose you have not
found it yet. Which direction would you go next?_" In this way the child
must be kept tracing a path until it is evident whether any plan governs
his procedure.
SCORING. The performances secured with this test are conveniently
classified into four groups, representing progressively higher types.
The first two types represent failures; the third is satisfactory at
year VIII, the fourth at year XII. They may be described as follows:--
_Type a_ (failure). The child fails to comprehend the
instructions and either does nothing at all or else, perhaps,
takes the pencil and makes a few random strokes which could not
be said to constitute a search.
_Type b_ (also failure). The child comprehends the instructions
and carries out a search, but without any definite plan. Absence
of plan is evidenced by the crossing and re-crossing of paths,
or by "breaks." A break means that the pencil is lifted up and
set down in another part of the field. Sometimes only two or
three fragments of paths are drawn, but more usually the field
is pretty well filled up with random meanderings which cross
each other again and again. Other illustrations of type _b_ are:
A single straight or curved line going direct to the ball, short
haphazard dashes or curves, bare suggestion of a fan or spiral.
_Type c_ (satisfactory at year VIII). A successful performance
at year VIII is characterized by the presence of a plan, but one
ill-adapted to the purpose. That some forethought is exercised
is evidenced, (1) by fewer crossings, (2) by a tendency either
to make the lines more or less parallel or else to give them
some kind of symmetry, and (3) by fewer breaks. The
possibilities of type _c_ are almost unlimited, and one is
continually meeting new forms. We have distinguished more than
twenty of these, the most common of which may be described as
follows:--
1. Very rough or zigzag circles or similarly imperfect spirals.
2. Segments of curves joined in a more or less symmetrical fashion.
3. Lines going back and forth across the field, joined at the ends
and not intended to be parallel.
4. The "wheel plan," showing lines radiating from near the center
of the field toward the circumference.
5. The "fan plan," showing a number of lines radiating (usually)
from the gate and spreading out over the field.
6. "Fan ellipses" or "fan spirals" radiating from the gate like the
lines just described.
7. The "leaf plan," "rib plan," or "tree plan," with lines branching
off from a trunk line like ribs, veins of a leaf, or branches of
a tree.
8. Parallel lines which cross at right angles and mark off the field
like a checkerboard.
9. Paths making one or more fairly symmetrical geometrical figures,
like a square, a diamond, a star, a hexagon, etc.
10. A combination of two or more of the above plans.
_Type d_ (satisfactory at year XII). Performances of this type
meet perfectly, or almost perfectly, the logical requirements of
the problem. The paths are almost or quite parallel, and there
are no intersections or breaks. The possibilities of type _d_
are fewer and embrace chiefly the following:--
1. A spiral, perfect or almost perfect, and beginning either at
the gate or at the center of the field. 2. Concentric circles.
3. Transverse lines, parallel or almost so, and joined at the
ends.
Up to about 4 years most children failed entirely to comprehend the
task. By the age of 6 years the task is usually understood, but the
search is conducted without plan. Type _c_ is not attained by two
thirds before the mental level of 8 years, and score 3 ordinarily not
until 11 or 12 years.
Grading presents some difficulties because of occasional border-line
performances which have a value almost midway between the types _b_ and
_c_ or between _c_ and _d_. Frequent reference to the scoring card will
enable the examiner, after a little experience, to score nearly all the
doubtful performances satisfactorily.
REMARKS. The ball-and-field problem may be called a test of practical
judgment. Unlike a majority of the other tests, it gives the subject a
chance to show how well he can meet the demands of a real, rather
than an imagined, situation. Tests like this, involving practical
adjustments, are valuable in rounding out the scale, which, as left by
Binet, placed rather excessive emphasis on abstract reasoning and the
comprehension of language. The test requires little time and always
arouses the child's interest.
Our analysis of the responses of nearly 1500 subjects shows that
improvement with increasing mental age is steady and fairly rapid.
Occasionally, however, one meets a high-grade performance with children
of 6 or 7 years, and a low-grade performance with adults of average
intelligence. Like all the other tests of the scale, it is unreliable
when used alone.
VIII, 2. COUNTING BACKWARDS FROM 20 TO 1
PROCEDURE. Say to the child: "_You can count backwards, can you not? I
want you to count backwards for me from 20 to 1. Go ahead._" In the
great majority of cases this is sufficient; the child comprehends the
task and begins. If he does not comprehend, and is silent, or starts in,
perhaps, to count forwards from 1 or 20, say: "_No; I want you to count
backwards from 20 to 1, like this: 20-19-18, and clear on down to 1.
Now, go ahead._"
Insist upon the child trying it even though he asserts he cannot do it.
In many such cases an effort is crowned with success. Say nothing about
hurrying, as this confuses some subjects. Prompting is not permissible.
SCORING. The test is passed if the child counts from 20 to 1 _in not
over forty seconds and with not more than a single error_ (one omission
or one transposition). Errors which the child spontaneously corrects are
not counted as errors.
REMARKS. The statistics on this test agree remarkably well. It is
plainly too easy for year IX, and no one has found it easy enough for
year VII. The main lack of uniformity has been in the adherence to a
time limit. Binet required that the task be completed in twenty seconds,
and Goddard and most others adhere rather strictly to this rule.
Kuhlmann, however, allows thirty seconds if there is no error and twenty
seconds if one error is committed. We agree with Bobertag that owing to
the nature of this test we should not be pedantic about the time. While
a majority of children who are able to count backwards do the task in
twenty seconds, there are some intelligent but deliberate subjects who
require as much as thirty-five or forty seconds. If the counting is done
with assurance and without stumbling, there is no reason why we should
not allow even forty seconds. Beyond this, however, our generosity
should not go, because of the chance it would give for the use of
special devices such as counting forwards each time to the next number
wanted.
It may be said that counting backwards is a test of schooling, and to a
certain extent this is true. It is reasonable to suppose that special
training would enable the child to pass the test a little earlier than
he would otherwise be able to do, though it is doubtful whether many
children below 7 years of age have had enough of such training to
influence the performance very materially. On the other hand, when the
child has reached an intelligence level of 8 or at most 9 years, he is
ordinarily able to count from 20 to 1 whether he has ever tried it
before or not.
What psychological factors are involved in this test? It presupposes, in
the first place, the ability to count from 1 to 20. But this alone does
not guarantee success in counting backwards. Something more is required
than a mere rote memory for the number names in their order from 1 up to
20. The quantitative relationships of the numbers must also be
apprehended if the task is to be performed smoothly without a great deal
of special training. In addition to being reasonably secure in his
knowledge of the number relationships involved, the child must be able
to give sustained attention until the task is completed. His mental
processes must be dominated by the guiding idea, "count backwards."
Associations which do not harmonize with this aim, or which fail to
further it, must be inhibited. Even momentary relaxation of attention
means a loss of directive force in the guiding idea and the dominance of
better known associations which may be suggested by the task, but are
out of harmony with it. Thus, if a child momentarily loses sight of the
end after counting backwards successfully from 20 to 14, he is likely to
be overpowered by the law of habit and begin counting forwards,
14-15-16-17, etc. We may regard the test, therefore, as a test of
attention, or prolonged thought control. The ability to exercise
unbroken vigilance for a period of twenty or thirty seconds is rarely
found below the level of 7- or 8-year intelligence.
VIII, 3. COMPREHENSION, THIRD DEGREE
The questions for this year are:--
(a) "_What's the thing for you to do when you have broken
something which belongs to some one else?_"
(b) "_What's the thing for you to do when you notice on your way
to school that you are in danger of being tardy?_"
(c) "_What's the thing for you to do if a playmate hits you
without meaning to do it?_"
The procedure is the same as in previous comprehension questions.[57]
Each question may be repeated once or twice, but its form must not be
changed. No explanations are permissible.
[57] See IV, 5, and VI, 4.
SCORING:--
_Question a (If you have broken something)_
_Satisfactory responses_ are those suggesting either restitution
or apology, or both. Confession is not satisfactory unless
accompanied by apology. The following are satisfactory: "Buy a
new one." "Pay for it." "Give them something instead of it."
"Have my father mend it." "Apologize." "Tell them I'm sorry,
that I did not mean to break it," etc. Of 92 correct answers, 76
suggested restitution, while 16 suggested apology, or apology
and restitution.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Tell them I did it." "Go tell my mother."
"Feel sorry." "Be ashamed." "Pick it up," etc. Mere confession
accounts for over 20 per cent of all failures.
_Question b (In danger of being tardy)_
_Satisfactory._ The expected response is, "Hurry," "Walk
faster," or something to that effect. One bright city boy said
he would take a car. Of the answers not obviously incorrect,
nearly 95 per cent suggest hurrying. The rule ordinarily
recommended is to grade all other responses _minus_. But this
rule is too sweeping to be followed blindly. One who would use
intelligence tests must learn to discriminate. "I would go back
home and not go to school that day" is a good answer in those
cases (fortunately rare) in which children are forbidden by the
teacher to enter the schoolroom if tardy. "Go back home and get
mother to write an excuse" would be good policy if by so doing
the child might escape the danger of incurring an extreme
penalty. When teachers inflict absurd penalties for unexcused
tardiness, it is the part of wisdom for children to incur no
risks! When such a response is given, it is well to inquire into
the school's method of dealing with tardiness and to score the
response accordingly.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Go to the principal." "Tell the teacher I
couldn't help it." "Have to get an excuse." "Go to school
anyway." "Get punished." "Not do it again." "Not play hooky."
"Start earlier next time," etc.
Lack of success results oftenest from failure to get the exact
shade of meaning conveyed by the question. It is implied, of
course, that something is to be done at once to avoid tardiness;
but the subject of dull comprehension may suggest a suitable
thing to do in case tardiness has been incurred. Hence the
response, "I would go to the principal and explain." Answers of
this type are always unsatisfactory.
_Question c (Playmate hits you)_
_Satisfactory responses_ are only those which suggest either
excusing or overlooking the act. These ideas are variously
expressed as follows: "I would excuse him" (about half of all
the correct answers). "I would say 'yes' if he asked my pardon."
"I would say it was all right." "I would take it for a joke." "I
would just be nice to him." "I would go right on playing." "I
would take it kind-hearted." "I would not fight or run and tell
on him." "I would not blame him for it." "Ask him to be more
careful," etc.
_Unsatisfactory responses_ are all those not of the above two
types; as: "I would hit them back." "I would not hit them back,
but I would get even some other way." "Tell them not to do it
again." "Tell them to 'cut it out.'" "Tell him it's a wrong
thing to do." "Make him excuse himself." "Make him say he's
sorry." "Would not play with him." "Tell my mamma." "I would ask
him why he did it." "He'd say 'excuse me' and I'd say 'thank
you.'" "He should excuse me." "He is supposed to say 'excuse
me.'"
REMARKS. All three comprehension questions of this year were used by
Binet, Goddard, Huey, and others in year X; two of them in the "easy
series" and one in the "hard series." The Stanford data show that they
belong at the 8-year level on the standard of scoring above set forth.
The three differ little among themselves in difficulty, but all of them
are decidedly easier than the other five used by Binet. It would be
absurd to go on using the comprehension questions as Binet bunched them,
eight together, ranging in difficulty from one which is easy enough for
6-year intelligence ("What's the thing to do if you miss your train?")
to one which is hard for the 12-year level ("Why is a bad act done when
one is angry more excusable than the same act done when one is not
angry?").
VIII, 4. GIVING SIMILARITIES; TWO THINGS
PROCEDURE. Say to the child: "_I am going to name two things which are
alike in some way, and I want you to tell me how they are alike. Wood
and coal: in what way are they alike?_" Proceed in the same manner
with:--
_An apple and a peach._
_Iron and silver._
_A ship and an automobile._
After the first pair the formula may be abbreviated to "_In what way are
... and ... alike?_" It is often necessary to insist a little if the
child is silent or says he does not know, but in doing this we must
avoid supplementary questions and suggestions. In giving the first pair,
for example, it would not be permissible to ask such additional
questions as, "_What do you use wood for? What do you use coal for? And
now, how are wood and coal alike?_" This is really putting the answer in
the child's mouth. It is only permissible to repeat the original
question in a persuasive tone of voice, and perhaps to add: "_I'm sure
you can tell me how ... and ... are alike_," or something to that
effect.
A very common mistake which the child makes is to give differences
instead of similarities. This tendency is particularly strong if test 5,
year VII (giving differences), has been given earlier in the sitting,
but it happens often enough in other cases also to suggest that finding
differences is, to a much greater extent than finding similarities, the
child's preferred method of making a comparison. When a difference is
given, instead of a similarity, we say: "_No, I want you to tell me how
they are alike. In what way are ... and ... alike?_" Unless the child is
of rather low intelligence level this is sufficient, but the mentally
retarded sometimes continue to give differences persistently in spite
of repeated admonitions, or if they cease to do so for one or two
comparisons, they are likely to repeat the mistake in the latter part of
the test.
SCORING. The test is passed if a likeness is given in _two out of four_
comparisons. We accept as satisfactory any real likeness, whether
fundamental or superficial, though, of course, the more essential the
resemblance, the better indication it is of intelligence. The following
are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory answers:--[58]
[58] For aid in classifying the responses in this and certain other
tests the writer is indebted to Miss Grace Lyman.
(a) _Wood and coal_
_Satisfactory._ "Both burn." "Both keep you warm." "Both are
used for fuel." "Both are vegetable matter." "Both come from the
ground." "Can use them both for running engines." "Both hard."
"Both heavy." "Both cost money."
Of 80 correct answers, 64, or 80 per cent, referred in one way
or another to combustibility.
_Unsatisfactory._ Most frequent is the persistent giving of a
difference instead of a similarity. This accounts for a little
over half of all the failures. About half of the remainder are
cases of inability to give any response. Incorrect statements
with regard to color are rather common. Sample failures of this
type are: "Both are black," or "Both the same color." Other
failures are: "Both are dirty on the outside;" "You can't break
them;" "Coal burns better;" "Wood is lighter than coal," etc.
(b) _An apple and a peach_
_Satisfactory._ "Both are round." "Both the same shape." "They
are about the same color." "Both nearly always have some red on
them." "Both good to eat." "Can make pies of both of them."
"Both can be cooked." "Both mellow when they are ripe." "Both
have a stem" (or seeds, skin, etc.). "Both come from trees."
"Can be dried in the same way." "Both are fruits." "Both green
(in color) when they are not ripe."
Of 82 correct answers, 25 per cent mention color; 25 per cent,
form; 22 per cent, edibility; 20 per cent, having stem, seed, or
skin; and 5 per cent, that both grow on trees.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Both taste the same." "Both have a lot of
seeds." "Both have a fuzzy skin." "An apple is bigger than a
peach." "One is red and one is white," etc.
Again, over 50 per cent of the failures are due to giving
differences and about 18 per cent to silence.
(c) _Iron and silver_
_Satisfactory._ "Both are metals" (or mineral). "Both come out
of the ground." "Both cost money." "Both are heavy." "Both are
hard." "Both can be melted." "Both can be bent." "Both used for
utensils." "You manufacture things out of both of them." "Both
can be polished."
These are named most frequently in the following order: (1)
hardness, (2) origin from the ground, (3) heaviness, (4) use in
making things.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Both thin" (or thick). "Sometimes they are
the same shape." "Both the same color." "A little silver and
lots of iron weigh the same." "Both made by the same company."
"They rust the same." "You can't eat them" (!)[59]
[59] One is here reminded of the puzzling conundrum, "Why is a
brick like an elephant?" The answer being, "Because neither can
climb a tree!" A response of this type states a fact, but because
of its bizarre nature should hardly be counted satisfactory.
Of 60 failures, 32 were due to giving differences and 14 to
silence or unwillingness to hazard a reply.
(d) _A ship and an automobile_
_Satisfactory._ "Both means of travel." "Both go." "You ride in
them." "Both take you fast." "They both use fuel." "Both run by
machinery." "Both have a steering gear." "Both have engines in
them." "Both have wood in them." "Both can be wrecked." "Both
break if they hit a rock."
About 45 per cent of the answers are in terms of running or
travel, 37 per cent in terms of machinery or structure, the rest
scattered.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Both black" (or some other color). "Both very
big." "They are made alike." "Both run on wheels." "Ship is for
the water and automobile for the land." "Ship goes on water and
an automobile sometimes goes in water." "An auto can go faster."
"Ship is run by coal and automobile by gasoline."
Of 51 failures, 32 were due to giving differences and 14 to
failure to reply.
REMARKS. The test of finding similarities was first used by Binet in
1905. Our results show that it is fully as satisfactory as the test of
giving differences. The test reveals in a most interesting way one of
the fundamental weaknesses of the feeble mind. Young normal children,
say of 7 or 8 years, often fail to pass, but it is the feeble-minded who
give the greatest number of absurd answers and who also find greatest
difficulty in resisting the tendency to give differences.[60]
[60] For further discussion of the processes involved, see VII, 5.
VIII, 5. GIVING DEFINITIONS SUPERIOR TO USE
PROCEDURE. The words for this year are _balloon_, _tiger_, _football_,
and _soldier_. Ask simply: "_What is a balloon?_" etc.
If it appears that any of the words are not familiar to the child,
substitution may be made from the following: _automobile_,
_battle-ship_, _potato_, _store_.
Make no comments on the responses until all the words have been given.
In case of silence or hesitation in answering, the question may be
repeated with a little encouragement; but supplementary questions are
never in order. Ordinarily there is no difficulty in securing a response
to the definition test of this year. The trouble comes in scoring the
response.
SCORING. The test is passed if two of the four words are defined in
terms superior to use. "Superior to use" includes chiefly: (a)
Definitions which describe the object or tell something of its nature
(form, size, color, appearance, etc.); (b) definitions which give the
substance or the materials or parts composing it; and (c) those which
tell what class the object belongs to or what relation it bears to
other classes of objects.
It is possible to distinguish different grades of definitions in each of
the above classes. A definition by description (type _a_) may be brief
and partial, mentioning only one or two qualities or characteristics, or
it may be relatively rich and complete. Likewise with definitions of
type _b_. Classificatory definitions (type _c_) are of particularly
uneven value, the lowest order being those which subsume the object to
be defined under a remote class and give few if any characteristics to
distinguish it from other members of the same class; as, for example, "A
football is a thing you can have fun with," or, "A soldier is a person."
The best classificatory definitions are those which subsume the object
under the next higher class and give the more essential traits (perhaps
a number of them) which distinguish the object from others of the class
named; as, for example, "A tiger is a large animal like a cat; it lives
in the jungle and eats men and other animals," or, "A soldier is a man
who goes to war." These shades of distinction give interesting and
valuable clues to the maturity and richness of the apperceptive
processes, but for purposes of scoring it is necessary merely to decide
whether the definition is given in terms superior to use.
The following are samples of satisfactory definitions, those for each
word being arranged roughly in the order of their value from excellent
to barely passing:--
(a) _Balloon_
_Satisfactory._ "A balloon is a means of traveling through the
air." "It is a kind of airship, made of cloth and filled with
air so it can go up." "It is big and made of cloth. It has gas
in it and carries people up in a basket that's fastened on to
the bottom." "It is a thing you hold by a string and it goes
up." "It is like a big bag with air in it." "It is a big thing
that goes up."
_Unsatisfactory._ "To go up in the air." "What you go up in."
"When you go up." "They go up in it." "It's full of gas." "To
carry you up." "A balloon is a balloon," etc. "It is big." "They
go up," etc.
(b) _Tiger_
_Satisfactory._ "It is a wild animal of the cat family." "It is
an animal that's a cousin to the lion." "It is an animal that
lives in the jungle." "It is a wild animal." "It looks like a
big cat." "It lives in the woods and eats flesh." "Something
that eats people."
_Unsatisfactory._ "To eat you up." "To kill people." "To travel
in the circus." "What eats people." "It is a tiger," etc. "You
run from it," etc.
(c) _Football_
_Satisfactory._ "It is a leather bag filled with air and made
for kicking." "It is a ball you kick." "It is a thing you play
with." "It is made of leather and is stuffed with air." "It is a
thing you kick." "It is brown and filled with air." "It is a
thing shaped like a watermelon."
_Unsatisfactory._ "To kick." "To play with." "What they play
with." "Boys play with it." "It's filled with air." "It is a
football." "It is a basket ball." "It is round." "You kick it."
(d) _Soldier_
_Satisfactory._ "A man who goes to war." "A brave man." "A man
that walks up and down and carries a gun." "It is a man who
minds his captain and stands still and walks straight." "It is a
man who goes to war and shoots." "It is a man who stands
straight and marches."
_Unsatisfactory._ "To shoot." "To go to war." "It is a soldier."
"A soldier that marches." "He fights." "He shoots." "What
fights," etc. "When you march and shoot."
Silence accounts for only a small proportion of the failures with
children of 8, 9, and 10 years.
REMARKS. The "use definitions" sometimes given at this age are usually
of slightly better quality than those given in year V. Younger children
more often use the infinitive form, "to play with" (doll), "to drive"
(horse), "to eat on" (table), etc. Use definitions of this year more
often begin with "they," or "what"; as, "they go up in it" (balloon),
"they kick it" (football), etc.
Why, it may be asked, is the use definition regarded as inferior to the
descriptive or the classificatory definition? Is not the use to which an
object may be put the most essential thing about it, for the child at
least? Is it not more important to know that a fork is to eat with than
to be able to name the material it is made of? Is not the use primary
and does it not determine most of the physical characteristics of the
object?
The above questions may sound reasonable, but they are based on poor
psychology. We must rest our case upon the facts. The first lesson which
the student of child psychology must learn is that it is unsafe to set
up criteria of intelligence, of maturity, or of any other mental trait
on the basis of theoretical considerations. Experiment teaches that
normal children of 5 or 6 years, also older feeble-minded persons of the
5-year intelligence level, define objects in terms of use; also that
normal children of 8 or 9 years and older feeble-minded persons of this
mental level have for the most part developed beyond the stage of use
definitions into the descriptive or classificatory stage. An ounce of
fact is worth a ton of theory.
The test has usually been located in year IX, with the requirement of
three successes out of five trials and with somewhat more rigid scoring
of the individual definitions. When only two successes are required in
four trials, and when scored leniently, the test belongs at the 8-year
level.
VIII, 6. VOCABULARY; TWENTY DEFINITIONS, 3600 WORDS
PROCEDURE. Use the list of words given in the record booklet. Say to the
child: "_I want to find out how many words you know. Listen; and when I
say a word you tell me what it means._" If the child can read, give him
a printed copy of the word list and let him look at each word as you
pronounce it.
The words are arranged approximately (though not exactly) in the order
of their difficulty, and it is best to begin with the easier words and
proceed to the harder. With children under 9 or 10 years, begin with the
first. Apparently normal children of 10 years may safely be credited
with the first ten words without being asked to define them. Apparently
normal children of 12 may begin with word 16, and 15-year-olds with
word 21. Except with subjects of almost adult intelligence there is no
need to give the last ten or fifteen words, as these are almost never
correctly defined by school children. A safe rule to follow is to
continue until eight or ten successive words have been missed and to
score the remainder _minus_ without giving them.
The formula is as follows: "What is an _orange_?" "What is a _bonfire_?"
"_Roar_; what does _roar_ mean?" "_Gown_; what is a _gown_?" "What does
_tap_ mean?" "What does _scorch_ mean?" "What is a _puddle_?" etc.
Some children at first show a little hesitation about answering,
thinking that a strictly formal definition is expected. In such cases a
little encouragement is necessary; as: "_You know what a bonfire is. You
have seen a bonfire. Now, what is a bonfire?_" If the child still
hesitates, say: "_Just tell me in your own words; say it any way you
please. All I want is to find out whether you know what a bonfire is._"
Do not torture the child, however, by undue insistence. If he persists
in his refusal to define a word which he would ordinarily be expected to
know, it is better to pass on to the next one and to return to the
troublesome word later. Above all, avoid helping the child by
illustrating the use of a word in a sentence. Adhere strictly to the
formula given above. If the definition as given does not make it clear
whether the child has the correct idea, say: "_Explain_," or, "_I don't
understand; explain what you mean._"
Encourage the child frequently by saying: "That's fine. You are doing
beautifully. You know lots of words," etc. Never tell the child his
definition is not correct, and never ask for a different definition.
Avoid saying anything which would suggest a model form of definition, as
the type of definition which the child spontaneously chooses throws
interesting light on the degree of maturity of the apperceptive
processes. Record all definitions _verbatim_ if possible, or at least
those which are exceptionally good, poor, or doubtful.
SCORING. Credit a response in full if it gives one correct meaning for
the word, regardless of whether that meaning is the most common one, and
regardless of whether it is the original or a derived meaning.
Occasionally half credit may be given, but this should be avoided as far
as possible.
To find the entire vocabulary, multiply the number of words known by
180. (This list is made up of 100 words selected by rule from a
dictionary containing 18,000 words.) Thus, the child who defines
20 words correctly has a vocabulary of 20 × 180 = 3600 words; 50 correct
definitions would mean a vocabulary of 9000 words, etc. The following
are the standards for different years, as determined by the vocabulary
reached by 60 to 65 per cent of the subjects of the various mental
levels:--
8 years 20 words vocabulary 3,600
10 years 30 words vocabulary 5,400
12 years 40 words vocabulary 7,200
14 years 50 words vocabulary 9,000
Average adult 65 words vocabulary 11,700
Superior adult 75 words vocabulary 13,500
Although the form of the definition is significant, it is not taken into
consideration in scoring. The test is intended to explore the range of
ideas rather than the evolution of thought forms. When it is evident
that the child has one fairly correct meaning for a word, he is given
full credit for it, however poorly the definition may have been stated.
While there is naturally some difficulty now and then in deciding
whether a given definition is correct, this happens much less frequently
than one would expect. In order to get a definite idea of the extent of
error due to the individual differences among examiners, we have had the
definitions of 25 subjects graded independently by 10 different persons.
The result showed an average difference below 3 in the number of
definitions scored _plus_. Since these subjects attempted on an average
about 60 words, the average number of doubtful definitions per subject
was below 5 per cent of the number attempted.
An idea of the degree of leniency to be exercised may be had from the
following examples of definitions, which are mostly of low grade, but
acceptable unless otherwise indicated:--
1. _Orange._ "An orange is to eat." "It is yellow and grows on a
tree." (Both full credit.)
2. _Bonfire._ "You burn it outdoors." "You burn some leaves or
things." "It's a big fire." (All full credit.)
3. _Roar._ "A lion roars." "You holler loud." (Full credit.)
4. _Gown._ "To sleep in." "It's a nightie." "It's a nice gown that
ladies wear." (All full credit.)
7. _Puddle._ "You splash in it." "It's just a puddle of water."
(Both full credit.)
9. _Straw._ "It grows in the field." "It means wheat-straw." "The
horses eat it." (All full credit.)
10. _Rule._ "The teacher makes rules." "It means you can't do
something." "You make marks with it," i.e., a ruler, often
called a _rule_ by school children. (All full credit.)
11. _Afloat._ "To float on the water." "A ship floats." (Both full
credit.)
12. _Eyelash._ If the child says, "It's over the eye," tell him to
point to it, as often the word is confused with _eyebrow_.
14. _Copper._ "It's a penny." "It means some copper wire." (Both
full credit.)
15. _Health._ "It means good health or bad health." "It means
strong." (Both full credit.)
17. _Guitar._ "You play on it." (Full credit.)
18. _Mellow._ If the child says, "It means a mellow apple," ask
what kind of apple that would be. For full credit the answer
must be "soft," "mushy," etc.
19. _Pork._ If the answer is "meat," ask what animal it comes
from. Half credit if wrong animal is named.
21. _Plumbing._ "You fix pipes." (Full credit.)
25. _Southern._ If the answer is "Southern States," or
"Southern California," say: "_Yes; but what does 'southern'
mean?_" Do not credit unless explanation is forthcoming.
26. _Noticeable._ "You notice a thing." (Full credit.)
29. _Civil._ "Civil War." (Failure unless explained.) "It means to
be nice." (Full credit.)
30. _Treasury._ Give half credit for definitions like "Valuables,"
"Lots of money," etc.; i.e., if the word is confused with
_treasure._
32. _Ramble._ "To go about fast." (Half credit.)
38. _Nerve._ Half credit if the slang use is defined, "You've got
nerve," etc.
41. _Majesty._ "What you say to a king." (Full credit.)
45. _Sportive._ "To like sports." (Half credit.) "Playful" or
"happy." (Full credit.)
46. _Hysterics._ "You laugh and cry at the same time." "A kind of
sickness." "A kind of fit." (All full credit.)
48. _Repose._ "You pose again." (Failure.)
52. _Coinage._ "A place where they make money." (Half credit.)
56. _Dilapidated._ "Something that's very old." (Half credit.)
58. _Conscientious._ "You're careful how you do your work." (Full
credit.)
60. _Artless._ "No art." (Failure unless correctly explained.)
61. _Priceless._ "It has no price." (Failure.)
66. _Promontory._ "Something prominent." (Failure unless child can
explain what it refers to.)
68. _Milksop._ "You sop up milk." (Failure.)
73. _Harpy._ "A kind of bird." (Full credit.)
80. _Exaltation._ "You feel good." (Full credit.)
85. _Retroactive._ "Acting backward." (Full credit.)
92. _Theosophy._ "A religion." (Full credit.)
It is seen from the above examples that a very liberal standard has been
used. Leniency in judging definitions is necessary because the child's
power of expression lags farther behind his understanding than is true
of adults, and also because for the young subject the word has a
relatively less unitary existence.
REMARKS. Our vocabulary test was derived by selecting the last word
of every sixth column in a dictionary containing approximately
18,000 words, presumably the 18,000 most common words in the language.
The test is based on the assumption that 100 words selected according to
some arbitrary rule will be a large enough sampling to afford a fairly
reliable index of a subject's entire vocabulary. Rather extensive
experimentation with this list and others chosen in a similar manner
has proved that the assumption is justified. Tests of the same
75 individuals with five different vocabulary tests of this type showed
that the average difference between two tests of the same person was
less than 5 per cent. This means that any one of the five tests used is
reliable enough for all practical purposes. It is of no special
importance that a given child's vocabulary is 8000 rather than 7600; the
significance lies in the fact that it is approximately 8000 and not
4000, 12,000, or some other widely different number.
It may seem to the reader almost incredible that so small a sampling of
words would give a reliable index of an individual's vocabulary. That it
does so is due to the operation of the ordinary laws of chance. It is
analogous to predicting the results of an election when only a small
proportion of the ballots have been counted. It is known that a ballot
box contains 600 votes, and if when only 30 have been counted it is
found that they are divided between two candidates in the proportion of
20 and 10, it is safe to predict that a complete count will give the two
candidates approximately 400 and 200 respectively.[61] In 1914 about
1,000,000 votes were cast for governor in California, and when only
10,000 votes had been counted, or a hundredth of all, it was announced
and conceded that Governor Johnson had been reëlected by the 150,000
plurality. The completed count gave him 188,505 plurality. The error was
less than 4 per cent of the total vote.
[61] Supposing the ballots to have been shuffled.
The vocabulary test has a far higher value than any other single test of
the scale. Used with children of English-speaking parents (with children
whose home language is not English it is of course unreliable), it
probably has a higher value than any three other tests in the scale. Our
statistics show that in a large majority of cases the vocabulary test
alone will give us an intelligence quotient within 10 per cent of that
secured by the entire scale. Out of hundreds of English-speaking
children we have not found one testing significantly above age who had a
significantly low vocabulary; and correspondingly, those who test much
below age never have a high vocabulary.
Occasionally, however, a subject tests somewhat higher or lower in
vocabulary than the mental age would lead us to expect. This is often
the case with dull children in cultured homes and with very intelligent
children whose home environment has not stimulated language development.
But even in these cases we are not seriously misled, for the dull child
of fortunate home surroundings shows his dullness in the quality of his
definitions if not in their quantity; while the bright child of
illiterate parents shows his intelligence in the aptness and accuracy of
his definitions.
We have not worked out a satisfactory method of scoring the quality of
definitions in our vocabulary test, but these differences will be
readily observed by the trained examiner. Definitions in terms of use
and definitions which are slightly inaccurate or hazy are quite
characteristic of the lower mental ages. Children of the lower mental
age have also a tendency to venture wild guesses at words they do not
know. This is especially characteristic of retarded subjects and is
another example of their weakness of auto-criticism. One feeble-minded
boy of 12 years, with a mental age of 8 years, glibly and confidently
gave definitions for every one of the hundred words. About 70 of the
definitions were pure nonsense.
This vocabulary test was arranged and partially standardized by Mr.
H. G. Childs and the writer in 1911. Many experiments since then have
proved its value as a test of intelligence.
VIII, ALTERNATIVE TEST 1: NAMING SIX COINS
PROCEDURE is exactly as in VI, 5 (naming four coins). The dollar should
be shown before the half-dollar.
SCORING. _All six coins must be correctly named._ If a response is
changed the rule is to count the second answer and ignore the first.
REMARKS. Binet used nine pieces and required knowledge of all at year X
(1908), but at year IX in the 1911 revision. Most other workers have
used the same method, with the test located in either year IX or year X.
VIII, ALTERNATIVE TEST 2: WRITING FROM DICTATION
PROCEDURE. Give the child pen, ink, and paper, place him in a
comfortable position for writing, and say: "_I want you to write
something for me as nicely as you can. Write these words: 'See the
little boy.' Be sure to write it all: 'See the little boy.'_"
Do not dictate the words separately, but give the sentence as a whole.
Further repetition of the sentence is not permissible, as ability to
remember what has been dictated is a part of the test. Copy, of course,
must not be shown.
SCORING. Passed if the sentence is written legibly enough to be easily
recognized, and if no word has been omitted. Ordinary mistakes of
spelling are disregarded. The rule is that the mistake in spelling must
not mutilate the word beyond easy recognition. The performance may be
graded by the use of Thorndike's handwriting scale. The handwriting of
8-year-old children who have been in school not less than one year or
more than two usually falls between quality 7 and quality 9 on this
scale, but we shall, perhaps, not be too liberal if we consider a
performance satisfactory which does not grade below quality 6, provided
it is not seriously mutilated by errors, omissions, etc.[62]
[62] See scoring card for samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory
performances.
REMARKS. This test found a place in year VIII of Binet's 1908 scale, but
has been omitted from all the other revisions, including Binet's own.
Bobertag did not even regard the test as worthy of a trial. The
universal criticism has been that it is a test of schooling rather than
of intelligence. That the performance depends, in a certain sense, upon
special instruction is self-evident. Without such instruction no child
of 8 years, however intelligent, would be able to pass the test. Nature
does not give us a conventionalized language, either written or spoken.
It must be acquired. It is also true that a high-grade feeble-minded
child, say 8 years of age and of 6-year intelligence, is sometimes
(though not always) able to pass the test after two years of
school instruction. It is exceedingly improbable, however, that a
feeble-minded subject with less than 6-year intelligence will ever be
able to pass this test, however long he remains in school.
The conclusions to be drawn from these facts are as follows: (1)
Inability to pass the test should not be counted against the child
unless it is known that he has had at least a full year of the usual
school instruction. (2) Ability to pass the test after only two years of
school instruction is almost certain proof that the child has reached a
mental level of at least 6 years. (3) Failure to pass the test must be
regarded as a grave symptom in the case of the child 9 or more years of
age who is known to have attended school as much as two years. (4) For
mental levels higher than 8 years the test has hardly any diagnostic
value, since feeble-minded persons of 8- or 9-year intelligence can
usually be taught to write quite legibly.
If the limitations above set forth are kept in mind, the test is by no
means without value, and is always worth giving as a supplementary test.
Learning to write simple sentences from dictation is no mean
accomplishment. It demands, in the first place, a fairly complete
mastery of rather difficult muscular coördinations. Moreover, these
coördinations must be firmly associated with the corresponding letters
and words, for if the writing coördinations are not fairly automatic, so
much attention will be required to carry them out that the child will
not be able to remember what he has been told to write. The necessity of
remembering the passage acts as a distraction, and writing from
dictation is therefore a more difficult task than writing from copy.
CHAPTER XV
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR IX
IX, 1. GIVING THE DATE
PROCEDURE. Ask the following questions in order:--
(a) "_What day of the week is it to-day?_"
(b) "_What month is it?_"
(c) "_What day of the month is it?_"
(d) "_What year is it?_"
If the child misunderstands and gives the day of the month for the day
of the week, or _vice versa_, we merely repeat the question with
suitable emphasis, but give no other help.
SCORING. An error of three days in either direction is allowed for _c_,
but _a_, _b_, and _d_ must all be given correctly. If the child makes an
error and spontaneously corrects it, the change is allowed, but
corrections must not be called for or suggested.
REMARKS. Binet originally located this test in year IX, but
unfortunately moved it to year VIII in the 1911 revision. Kuhlmann,
Goddard, and Huey all retain it in year IX, where, according to our own
data, it unquestionably belongs. With the exception of Binet's 1911
results, the statistics for the test are in remarkably close agreement
for children in France, Germany, England, and Eastern and Western United
States. It seems that practically all children in civilized countries
have ample opportunity to learn the divisions of the year, month, and
week, and to become oriented with respect to these divisions. Special
instruction is doubtless capable of hastening time orientation to a
certain degree, but not greatly. Binet tells of a French _école
maternelle_ attended by children 4 to 6 years of age, where instruction
was given daily in regard to the date, and yet not a single one of the
children was able to pass this test. This is a beautiful illustration of
the futility of precocious teaching. In spite of well-meant instruction,
it is not until the age of 8 or 9 years that children have enough
comprehension of time periods, and sufficient interest in them, to keep
very close track of the date. Failure to pass the test at the age of
10 or 11 years is a decidedly unfavorable sign, unless the error is very
slight.
The fact that normal adults are occasionally unable to give the day of
the month is no argument against the validity of the test, since the
system of tests is so constructed as to allow for accidental failures on
any particular test. As a matter of fact, very nearly 100 per cent of
normal 12-year-old children pass this test.
The unavoidable fault of the test is its lack of uniformity in
difficulty at different dates. It is easier for school children to give
the day of the week on Monday or Friday than on Tuesday, Wednesday, or
Thursday. Mistakes in giving the day of the month are less likely to
occur at the beginning or end of the month than at any other time, while
mistakes in naming the month are most likely to occur then.
It is interesting to compare the four parts of this test in regard to
difficulty. Binet and Bobertag both state that ability to name the year
comes last, but they give no figures. Our own data show that the four
parts of the test are of almost exactly the same difficulty and that
this is true at all ages.
IX, 2. ARRANGING FIVE WEIGHTS
Use the five weights, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 grams. Be sure that the
weights are identical in appearance. The weights may be made as
described under V, 1, or they may be purchased of C. H. Stoelting & Co.,
Chicago, Illinois. If no weights are at hand one of the alternative
tests may be substituted.
PROCEDURE. Place the five boxes on the table in an irregular group
before the child and say: "_See the boxes. They all look alike, don't
they? But they are not alike. Some of them are heavy, some are not quite
so heavy, and some are still lighter. No two weigh the same. Now, I want
you to find the heaviest one and place it here. Then find the one that
is just a little lighter and put it here. Then put the next lighter one
here, and the next lighter one here, and the lightest of all at this
end_ (pointing each time at the appropriate spot). _Do you understand?_"
Whatever the child answers, in order to make sure that he does
understand, we repeat the instructions thus: "_Remember now, that no two
weights are the same. Find the heaviest one and put it here, the next
heaviest here, and lighter, lighter, until you have the very lightest
here. Ready; go ahead._"
It is best to follow very closely the formula here given, otherwise
there is danger of stating the directions so abstractly that the subject
could not comprehend them. A formula like "_I want you to arrange the
blocks in a gradually decreasing series according to weight_" would be
Greek to most children of 10 years.
If the subject still seems at a loss to know what to do, the
instructions may be again repeated. But no further help of any kind may
be given. Do not tell the subject to take the blocks one at a time in
the hand and try them, and do not illustrate by hefting the blocks
yourself. It is a part of the test to let the subject find his own
method.
Give three trials, shuffling the boxes after each. Do not repeat the
instructions before the second and third trials unless the subject has
used an absurd procedure in the previous trial.
SCORING. The test is passed if the blocks are arranged in the correct
order _twice out of three trials_. Always record the order of
arrangement and note the number and extent of displacement. Obviously an
arrangement like 12-6-15-3-9 is very much more serious than one like
15-12-6-9-3, but we require that two trials be absolutely without error.
Scoring is facilitated if the blocks are marked on the bottom so that
they may be easily identified. It is then necessary to exercise some
care to see that the subject does not examine the bottom of the blocks
for a clue as to the correct order.
REMARKS. Binet originally located this test in year IX, but in his 1911
revision changed it to year VIII. Other revisions have retained it in
year IX. The correct location depends upon the weights used and upon the
procedure and scoring. Kuhlmann uses weights of 3, 9, 18, 27, 36, and
45 grams, and this probably makes the test easier. Bobertag tried two
sets of boxes, one set being of larger dimensions than the other. The
larger gave decidedly the more errors. If we require only one success in
three trials the test could be located a year or two lower in the scale,
while three successes as a standard would require that it be moved
upward possibly as much as two years.
Much depends also on whether the child is left to find his own method,
and on this there has been much difference of procedure. Kuhlmann,
Bobertag, and Wallin illustrate the correct method of making the
comparison by first hefting and arranging the weights while the subject
looks on. We prefer to keep the test in its original form, and with the
procedure and scoring we have used it is well located in year IX.
Wallin carries his assistance still further by saying, after the first
block has been placed, "Now, find the heaviest of the four," and after
the second has been placed, "Now, find the heaviest of the three," etc.
Finally, when the arrangement has been made, he tells the subject to try
them again to make sure the order is correct, allowing the subject to
make whatever changes he thinks necessary. This procedure robs the test
of its most valuable features. The experiment was not devised primarily
as a test of sensory discrimination, for it has long been recognized
that individuals who have developed as far as the 9- or 10-year level of
intelligence are ordinarily but little below normal in sensory capacity.
Psychologically, the test resembles that of comparing weights in V, 1.
Success depends, in the first place, upon the correct comprehension of
the task and the setting of a goal to be attained; secondly, upon the
choice of a suitable method for realizing the goal; and finally, upon
the ability to keep the end clearly in consciousness until all the steps
necessary for its attainment have been gone through. Elementary as are
the processes involved, they represent the prototype of all purposeful
behavior. The statesman, the lawyer, the teacher, the physician, the
carpenter, all in their own way and with their own materials, are
continually engaged in setting goals, choosing means, and inhibiting the
multitudinous appeals of irrelevant and distracting ideas.
In this experiment the subject may fail in any one of the three
requirements of the test or in all of them. (1) He may not comprehend
the instructions and so be unable to set the goal. (2) Though
understanding what is expected of him, he may adopt an absurd method of
carrying out the task. Or (3) he may lose sight of the end and begin to
play with the blocks, stacking them on top of one another, building
trains, tossing them about, etc. Sometimes the guiding idea is not
completely lost, but is weakened or rendered only partially operative.
In such a case the subject may compare some of the blocks carefully,
place others without trying them at all, but continue in his
half-rational, half-irrational procedure until all the blocks have been
arranged.
It is essential, therefore, to supplement the mere record of success or
failure by jotting down a brief but accurate description of the
performance. Note any hesitation or inability to grasp the instructions.
Note especially any absurd procedure, such as placing all the blocks
without hefting any of them, comparing only some of them, holding them
up and shaking them, hefting two at once in the same hand, etc. The
ideal method, of course, is to try all the blocks carefully before
placing any of them, then to make a tentative arrangement, and finally,
to correct this tentative arrangement by means of individual
comparisons. A slight departure from this method does not always bring
failure, but it renders success less probable. As a rule it is only the
very intelligent children of 10 years who think to test out their first
arrangement by making a final and additional trial of each block in
turn. Contrary to what might be supposed, success is slightly favored by
hefting the blocks successively with one hand rather than by taking one
in each hand for simultaneous comparison, but as the child cannot be
expected to know this, we must regard the two methods as equally
logical.
The test of arranging weights has met universal praise. Its special
advantage is that it tests the subject's intelligence in the
manipulation of _things_ rather than his capacity for dealing with
_abstractions_. It tests his ability to do something rather than his
ability to express himself in language. It throws light upon certain
factors of motor adaptation and practical judgment which play a great
part in the everyday life of the average human being. It depends as
little upon school, perhaps, as any other test of the scale, and it is
readily usable with children of all nations without danger of being
materially altered in translation Moreover, it is always an interesting
test for the child. Bobertag goes so far as to say that any 8- or 9-year
child who passes this test cannot possibly be feeble-minded. This may be
true; but the converse is hardly the case; that is, the failure of older
children is by no means certain proof of mental retardation. The same
observation, however, applies equally well to many other of the Binet
tests, some of which correlate more closely with true mental age than
this one. A rather considerable fraction of normal 12-year-olds fail on
it, and it is in fact somewhat less dependable than certain other tests
if we wish to differentiate between 9-year and 11-year intelligence. But
it is a test we could ill afford to eliminate.[63]
[63] Compare with V, 1.
IX, 3. MAKING CHANGE
PROCEDURE. Ask the following questions in the order here given:--
(a) "_If I were to buy 4 cents worth of candy and should give
the storekeeper 10 cents, how much money would I get back?_"
(b) "_If I bought 13 cents worth and gave the storekeeper
15 cents, how much would I get back?_"
(c) "_If I bought 4 cents worth and gave the storekeeper
25 cents, how much would I get back?_"
Coins are not used, and the subject is not allowed the help of pencil
and paper. If the subject forgets the statement of the problem, it is
permissible to repeat it once, but only once. The response should be
made in ten or fifteen seconds for each problem.
SCORING, The test is passed if _two out of three_ problems are answered
correctly in the allotted time. In case two answers are given to a
problem, we follow the usual rule of counting the second and ignoring
the first.
REMARKS. Problems of this nature, when thoroughly standardized, are
extremely valuable as tests of intelligence. The difficulty of the test,
as we have used it, does not lie in the subtraction of 4 from 10, 12
from 15, etc. Such subtractions, when given as problems in subtraction,
are readily solved by practically all normal 8-year-olds who have
attended school as much as two years. The problems of the test have a
twofold difficulty: (1) The statement of the problem must be
comprehended and held in mind until the solution has been arrived at;
(2) the problem is so stated that the subject must himself select the
fundamental operation which applies. The latter difficulty is somewhat
the greater of the two, addition sometimes being employed instead of
subtraction.
It is just such difficulties as this that prove so perplexing to the
feeble-minded. High-grade defectives, although they require more than
the usual amount of drill and are likely to make occasional errors, are
nevertheless capable of learning to add, subtract, multiply, and divide
fairly well. Their main trouble comes in deciding which of these
operations a given problem calls for. They can master routine, but as
regards initiative, judgment, and power to reason they are little
educable. The psychology and pedagogy of mental deficiency is epitomized
in this statement.
There has been little disagreement as to the proper location of the test
of making change, but various procedures have been employed. Coins have
generally been employed, in which case the subject is actually allowed
to make the change. Most other revisions have also given only a single
problem, usually 4 cents out of 20 cents, or 4 out of 25, or 9 out of
25. It is evident that these are not all of equal difficulty. There is
general agreement, however, that normal children of 9 years should be
able to make simple change.
IX, 4. REPEATING FOUR DIGITS REVERSED
The series are 6-5-2-8; 4-9-3-7; 3-6-2-9.
PROCEDURE AND SCORING. Exactly as in VII, alternate test 2.[64]
[64] See discussion, p. 207 _ff._
IX, 5. USING THREE WORDS IN A SENTENCE
PROCEDURE The words used are:--
(a) _Boy_, _ball_, _river_.
(b) _Work_, _money_, _men_.
(c) _Desert_, _rivers_, _lakes_.
Say: "_You know what a sentence is, of course. A sentence is made up of
some words which say something. Now, I am going to give you three words,
and you must make up a sentence that has all three words in it. The
three words are 'boy,' 'ball,' 'river.' Go ahead and make up a sentence
that has all three words in it._" The others are given in the same way.
Note that the subject is not shown the three words written down, and
that the reply is to be given orally.
If the subject does not understand what is wanted, the instruction may
be repeated, but it is not permissible to illustrate what a sentence is
by giving one. There must be no preliminary practice.
A curious misunderstanding which is sometimes encountered comes from
assuming that the sentence must be constructed entirely of the three
words given. If it appears that the subject is stumbling over this
difficulty, we explain: "_The three words must be put with some other
words so that all of them together will make a sentence._"
Nothing is said about hurrying, but if a sentence is not given within
one minute the rule is to count that part of the test a failure and to
proceed to the next trio of words.
Give only one trial for each part of the test.
Do not specially caution the child to avoid giving more than one
sentence, as this is implied in the formula used and should be
understood.
SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ sentences are
satisfactory. In order to be satisfactory a sentence must fulfill the
following requirements: (1) It must either be a simple sentence, or, if
compound, must not contain more than two distinct ideas; and (2) it must
not express an absurdity.
Slight changes in one or more of the key words are disregarded, as
_river_ for _rivers_, etc.
The scoring is difficult enough to justify rather extensive
illustration.
(a) _Boy, ball, river_
_Satisfactory._ An analysis of 128 satisfactory responses gave
the following classification:--
(1) Simple sentence containing a simple subject and a simple
predicate; as: "The boy threw his ball into the river." "The boy
lost his ball in the river." "The boy's ball fell into the
river." "The boy swam into the river after his ball," etc. This
group contains 76 per cent of the correct responses.
(2) A sentence with a simple subject and a compound predicate;
as: "A boy went to the river and took his ball with him." About
8 per cent of all were of this type.
(3) A complex sentence containing a relative clause (2 per cent
only); as: "The boy ran after his ball which was rolling toward
the river."
(4) A compound sentence containing two independent clauses
(about 14 per cent); as: "The boy had a ball and he lost it in
the river."
_Unsatisfactory._ The failures fall into four chief groups:--
(1) Sentences with three clauses (or else three separate
sentences).
(2) Sentences containing an absurdity.
(3) Sentences which omit one of the key words.
(4) Silence, due ordinarily to inability to comprehend the task.
Group 1 includes 78 per cent of the failures; group 2, about
12 per cent; and group 3 and 4 about 5 per cent each. Samples of
group 1 are: "There was a boy, and he bought a ball, and it fell
into the river." "I saw a boy, and he had a ball, and he was
playing by the river." Illustration of an absurd sentence, "The
boy was swimming in the river and he was playing ball."
(b) _Work, money, men_
_Satisfactory_:--
(1) Sentence with a simple subject and simple predicate
(including 75 per cent of 116 satisfactory responses); as: "Men
work for their money." "Men get money for their work," etc.
(2) A complex sentence with a relative clause (12 per cent of
correct answers); as: "Men who work earn much money." "It is
easy for men to earn money if they are willing to work," etc.
(3) A compound sentence with two independent, coördinate clauses
(13 per cent); as: "Men work and they earn money." "Some men
have money and they do not work."
_Unsatisfactory_:--
(1) Three clauses; as: "I know a man and he has money, and he
works at the store."
(2) Sentences which are absurd or meaningless; as: "Men work
with their money."
(3) Omission of one of the words.
(4) Inability to respond.
(c) _Desert, rivers, lakes_
_Satisfactory_:--
(1) Sentences with a simple subject and a simple predicate
(including 84 per cent of 126 correct answers); as: "There are
no rivers or lakes in the desert." "The desert has one river and
one lake," etc.
(2) A complex sentence with a relative clause (only 2 per cent);
as: "In the desert there was a river which flowed into a lake."
(3) A compound sentence with two independent, coördinate clauses
(11 per cent); as: "We went to the desert, and it had no rivers
or lakes."
(4) A compound, complex sentence (3 per cent of all); as: "There
was a desert, and near by there was a river that emptied into a
lake."
_Unsatisfactory_:--
(1) Sentences with three clauses (40 per cent of all failures);
as: "A desert is dry, rivers are long, lakes are rough."
(2) Sentences containing an absurdity (12 per cent of the
failures): as: "a desert is dry, rivers are long, lakes are
filled with swimming boys." "The lake went through the desert
and the river." "There was a desert and rivers and lakes in the
forest." "The desert is full of rivers and lakes."
(3) Omission of one of the words (40 per cent of the failures).
(4) Inability to respond (8 per cent).
REMARKS. The test of constructing a sentence containing given words was
first used by Masselon and is known as "the Masselon experiment."
Meumann, who used it in a rather extended experiment,[65] finds it a
good test of intelligence and a reliable index as to the richness,
definiteness, and maturity of the associative processes. As Meumann
shows, it is instructive to study the qualitative differences between
the responses of bright and dull children, apart from questions of
sentence structure. These differences are especially discernible
in (a) the logical qualities of the associations, and (b) the
definiteness of statement. As regards (a), bright children are much
more likely to use the given words as keystones in the construction of a
sentence which would be logically suggested by them. For example,
_donkey_, _blows_, suggest some such sentence as, "The donkey receives
blows because he is lazy." In like manner we have found that the words
_work_, _money_, _men_ usually suggest to the more intelligent children
a sentence like "Men work for their money" (or "because they need
money," etc.), while the dull child is more likely to give some such
sentence as "The men have work and they don't have much money." That is,
the sentence of the dull child, even though correct in structure and
free enough from outright absurdity to satisfy the standard of scoring
which we have set forth, is likely to express ideas which are more or
less nondescript, ideas not logically suggested by the set of words
given.
[65] "Ueber eine neue Methode der Intelligenzprüfung und über den Wert
der Kombinationsmethoden," in _Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie
und Experimentelle Pädagogik_ (1912), pp. 145-63.
The experiment is one of the many forms of the "completion test," or
"the combination method." As we have already noted, the power to combine
more or less separate and isolated elements into a logical whole is one
of the most essential features of intelligence. The ability to do so in
a given case depends, in the first place, upon the number and logical
quality of the associations which have previously been made with each of
the given elements separately, and in the second place, upon the
readiness with which these ideational stores yield up the particular
associations necessary for weaving the given words into some kind of
unity. The child must pass from what is given to what is not given but
merely suggested. This requires a certain amount of invention. Scattered
fragments must be conceived as the skeleton of a thought, and this
skeleton, or partial skeleton, must be assembled and made whole. The
task is analogous to that which confronts the palæontologist, who is
able to reconstruct, with a high degree of certainty, the entire
skeleton of an extinct animal from the evidence furnished by three or
four fragments of bones. It is no wonder, therefore, that subjects whose
ideational stores are scanty, and whose associations are based upon
accidental rather than logical connections, find the test one of
peculiar difficulty. Invention thrives in a different soil.
Binet located this test in year X. Goddard and Kuhlmann assign it the
same location, though their actual statistics agree closely with our
own. Our procedure makes the test somewhat easier than that of Binet,
who gave only one trial and used the somewhat more difficult words
_Paris_, _river_, _fortune_. Others have generally followed the Binet
procedure, merely substituting for Paris the name of a city better known
to the subject. Binet's requirement of a written response also makes the
test harder.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to uniformity in the use of the test comes
from the difficulty of scoring, particularly in deciding whether the
sentence contains enough absurdity to disqualify it, and whether it
expresses three separate ideas or only two. It is hoped that the rather
large variety of sample responses which we have given will reduce these
difficulties to a minimum.
An additional word is necessary in regard to what constitutes an
absurdity in (b). A sentence like "There are some rivers and lakes in
the desert" is not an absurdity in certain parts of Western United
States. In Professor Ordahl's tests at Reno, Nevada, many children whose
intelligence was altogether above suspicion gave this reply. The
statement is, indeed, perfectly true for the semi-arid region in the
vicinity of Reno known as "the desert." On the other hand, such
sentences as "The desert is full of rivers and lakes," or "There are
forty rivers and lakes in the desert," can hardly be considered
satisfactory. Similar difficulties are presented by (c), though not so
frequently. "Men who work do not have money" expresses, unfortunately,
more truth than nonsense.
IX, 6. FINDING RHYMES
PROCEDURE. Say to the child: "_You know what a rhyme is, of course. A
rhyme is a word that sounds like another word. Two words rhyme if they
end in the same sound. Understand?_" Whether the child says he
understands or not, we proceed to illustrate what a rhyme is, as
follows: "_Take the two words 'hat' and 'cat.' They sound alike and so
they make a rhyme. 'Hat,' 'rat,' 'cat,' 'bat' all rhyme with one
another._"
That is, we first explain what a rhyme is and then we give an
illustration. A large majority of American children who have reached the
age of 9 years understand perfectly what a rhyme is, without any
illustration. A few, however, think they understand, but do not; and in
order to insure that all are given equal advantage it is necessary never
to omit the illustration.
After the illustration say: "_Now, I am going to give you a word and you
will have one minute to find as many words as you can that rhyme with
it. The word is 'day.' Name all the words you can think of that rhyme
with 'day.'_"
If the child fails with the first word, before giving the second we
repeat the explanation and give sample rhymes for _day_; otherwise we
proceed without further explanation to _mill_ and _spring_, saying,
"_Now, you have another minute to name all the words you can think of
that rhyme with 'mill,'_" etc. Apart from the mention of "one minute"
say nothing to suggest hurrying, as this tends to throw some children
into mental confusion.
SCORING. Passed if in _two out of the three_ parts of the experiment the
child finds _three words_ which rhyme with the word given, the time
limit for each series being _one minute_. Note that in each case there
must be three words in addition to the word given. These must be real
words, not meaningless syllables or made-up words. However, we should be
liberal enough to accept such words as _ding_ (from "ding-dong ") for
_spring_, _Jill_ (see "Jack and Jill") for _mill_, _Fay_ (girl's name)
for _day_, etc.
REMARKS. At first thought it would seem that the demands made by this
test upon intelligence could not be very great. Sound associations
between words may be contrasted unfavorably with associations like those
of cause and effect, part to whole, whole to part, opposites, etc. But
when we pass from _a-priori_ considerations to an examination of the
actual data, we find that the giving of rhymes is closely correlated
with general intelligence.
The 9-year-olds who test at or above 10 years nearly always do well in
finding rhymes, while 9-year-olds who test as low as 8 years seldom
pass. When a test thus shows high correlation with the scale as a whole,
we must either accept the test as valid or reject the scale altogether.
While the feeble-minded do not do as well in this test as normal
children of corresponding mental age, the percentage successes for them
rises rapidly between mental age 8 and mental age 10 or 11.
Closer psychological analysis of the processes involved will show why
this is true. To find rhymes for a given word means that one must hunt
out verbal associations under the direction of a guiding idea. Every
word has innumerable associations and many of these tend, in greater or
less degree, to be aroused when the stimulus word is given. In order to
succeed with the test, however, it is necessary to inhibit all
associations which are not relevant to the desired end. The directing
idea must be held so firmly in mind that it will really direct the
thought associations. Besides acting to inhibit the irrelevant, it must
create a sort of magnetic stress (to borrow a figure from physics) which
will give dominance to those associative tendencies pointing in the
right direction. Even the feeble-minded child of imbecile grade has in
his vocabulary a great many words which rhyme with _day_, _mill_, and
_spring_. He fails on the test because his verbal associations cannot be
subjugated to the influence of a directing idea. The end to be attained
does not dominate consciousness sufficiently to create more than a faint
stress. Instead of a single magnetic pole there is a conflict of forces.
The result is either chaos or partial success. _Mill_ may suggest
_hill_, and then perhaps the directing idea becomes suddenly inoperative
and the child gives _mountain_, _valley_, or some other irrelevant
association. The lack of associations, however, is a more frequent cause
of failure than inability to inhibit the irrelevant.
If any one supposes that finding rhymes does not draw upon the higher
mental powers, let him try the experiment upon himself in various stages
of mental efficiency, say at 9 A.M., when mentally refreshed by a good
night of sleep and again when fatigued and sleepy. Poets questioned by
Galton on this point all testified to the greater difficulty of finding
rhymes when mentally fatigued. In this and in many other respects the
mental activities of the fatigued or sleepy individual approach the type
of mentation which is normal to the feeble-minded.
It is important to note that adults make a less favorable showing
in this test than normal children of corresponding mental age,
Mr. Knollin's "hoboes" of 12-year intelligence doing hardly as well as
school children of 10-year intelligence. Those who are habitually
employed in school exercises probably acquire an adeptness in verbal
associations which is later gradually lost in the preoccupations of real
life.
There has been more disagreement as to the proper location of this test
than of any other test of the Binet scale. Binet placed it in year XII
of the 1908 scale, but shifted it to year XV in 1911. Kuhlmann retains
it in year XII, while Goddard drops it down to year XI. However, when we
examine the actual statistics for normal children we do not find very
marked disagreement, and such disagreement as is present can be largely
accounted for by variations in procedure and by differing conclusions
drawn from identical data. In the first place, Binet gave but one trial.
This, of course, makes the test much harder than when three trials are
given and only two successes are required. To make one trial equal in
difficulty to three trials we should perhaps need to demand only two
rhymes, instead of three, in the one trial. In the second place, the
word used by Binet (_obeissance_) is much harder than one-syllable words
like _day_, _mill_, and _spring_. Finally, the wide shift of the test
from year XII to year XV was not justified by the statistics of Binet
himself, and the figures of Kuhlmann and Goddard are really in
exceptionally close agreement with our own, notwithstanding the fact
that Goddard required three successes instead of two. In four series of
tests, considered together, we have found 62 per cent passing at
year IX, 81 per cent at year X, 83 per cent at year XI, and 94 per cent
at year XII.
IX, ALTERNATIVE TEST 1: NAMING THE MONTHS
PROCEDURE. Simply ask the subject to "_name all the months of the
year_." Do not start him off by naming one month; give no look of
approval or disapproval as the months are being named, and make no
suggestions or comments of any kind.
When the months have been named, we "check up" the performance by
asking: "_What month comes before April?_" "_What month comes before
July?_" "_What month comes before November?_"
SCORING. Passed if the months are named in about _fifteen or twenty
seconds with no more than one error_ of omission, repetition, or
displacement, and if _two out of the three check questions_ are answered
correctly. Disregard place of beginning.
REMARKS. Some are inclined to consider this test of little value,
because of its supposed dependence on accidental training. With this
opinion we cannot fully agree. The arguments already given in favor of
the retention of naming the days of the week (year VII), apply equally
well in the present case. It has been shown, however, that age, apart
from intelligence, does have some effect on the ability to name the
months. Defective adults of 9-year intelligence do about as well with it
as normal children of 10-year intelligence.
The test appears in year X of Binet's 1908 scale and in year IX of the
1911 revision. Goddard places it correctly in year IX, while Kuhlmann
and Bobertag have omitted it.
IX, ALTERNATIVE TEST 2: COUNTING THE VALUE OF STAMPS
PROCEDURE. Place before the subject a cardboard on which are pasted
three 1-cent and three 2-cent stamps arranged as follows: 111222. Be
sure to lay the card so that the stamps will be right side up for the
child. Say: "_You know, of course, how much a stamp like this costs_
(pointing to a 1-cent stamp). _And you know how much one like this
costs_ (pointing to a 2-cent stamp). _Now, how much money would it take
to buy all these stamps?_"
Do not tell the individual values of the stamps if these are not known,
for it is a part of the test to ascertain whether the child's
spontaneous curiosity has led him to find out and remember their values.
If the individual values are known, but the first answer is wrong, a
second trial may be given. In such cases, however, it is necessary to be
on guard against guessing.
If the child merely names an incorrect sum without saying anything to
indicate how he arrived at his answer, it is well to tell him to figure
it up aloud. "_Tell me how you got it._"
SCORING. Passed if the correct value is given in not over fifteen
seconds.
REMARKS. The value of this test may be questioned on two grounds: (1)
That it has an ambiguous significance, since failure to pass it may
result either from incorrect addition or from lack of knowledge of the
individual values of the stamps; (2) that familiarity with stamps and
their values is so much a matter of accident and special instruction
that the test is not fair.
Both criticisms are in a measure valid. The first, however, applies
equally well to a great many useful intelligence tests. In fact, it is
only a minority in which success depends on but one factor. The other
criticism has less weight than would at first appear. While it is, of
course, not impossible for an intelligent child to arrive at the age of
9 years without having had reasonable opportunity to learn the cost of
the common postage stamps, the fact is that a large majority have had
the opportunity and that most of those of normal intelligence have taken
advantage of it. It is necessary once more to emphasize the fact that in
its method of locating a test the Binet system makes ample allowance for
"accidental" failures.
Like the tests of naming coins, repeating the names of the days of the
week or the months of the year, giving the date, tying a bow-knot,
distinguishing right and left, naming the colors, etc., this one also
throws light on the child's spontaneous interest in common objects. It
is mainly the children of deficient intellectual curiosity who do not
take the trouble to learn these things at somewhere near the expected
age.
The test was located in year VIII of the Binet scale. However, Binet
used coins, three single and three double sous. Since we do not have
either a half-cent or a 2-cent coin, it has been necessary to substitute
postage stamps. This changes the nature of the test and makes it much
harder. It becomes less a test of ability to do a simple sum, and more a
test of knowledge as to the value of the stamps used. That the test is
easy enough for year VIII when it can be given in the original form is
indicated by all the French, German, and English statistics available,
but four separate series of Stanford tests agree in finding it too hard
for year VIII when stamps are substituted and the test is carried out
according to the procedure described above.
CHAPTER XVI
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR X
X, 1. VOCABULARY (THIRTY DEFINITIONS, 5400 WORDS)
PROCEDURE AND SCORING AS IN VIII, 6. At year X, thirty words should be
correctly defined.
X, 2. DETECTING ABSURDITIES
PROCEDURE. Say to the child: "_I am going to read a sentence which has
something foolish in it, some nonsense. I want you to listen carefully
and tell me what is foolish about it._" Then read the sentences, rather
slowly and in a matter-of-fact voice, saying after each: "_What is
foolish about that?_" The sentences used are the following:--
(a) "_A man said: 'I know a road from my house to the city which
is downhill all the way to the city and downhill all the way
back home.'_"
(b) "_An engineer said that the more cars he had on his train the
faster he could go._"
(c) "_Yesterday the police found the body of a girl cut into
eighteen pieces. They believe that she killed herself._"
(d) "_There was a railroad accident yesterday, but it was not very
serious. Only forty-eight people were killed._"
(e) "_A bicycle rider, being thrown from his bicycle in an
accident, struck his head against a stone and was instantly
killed. They picked him up and carried him to the hospital,
and they do not think he will get well again._"
Each should ordinarily be answered within thirty seconds. If the child
is silent, the sentence should be repeated; but no other questions or
suggestions of any kind are permissible. Such questions as "_Could the
road be downhill both ways?_" or, "_Do you think the girl could have
killed herself?_" would, of course, put the answer in the child's mouth.
It is even best to avoid laughing as the sentence is read.
Owing to the child's limited power of expression it is not always easy
to judge from the answer given whether the absurdity has really been
detected or not. In such cases ask him to explain himself, using some
such formula as: "_I am not sure I know what you mean. Explain what you
mean. Tell me what is foolish in the sentence I read._" This usually
brings a reply the correctness or incorrectness of which is more
apparent, while at the same time the formula is so general that it
affords no hint as to the correct answer. Additional questions must be
used with extreme caution.
SCORING. Passed if the absurdity is detected in _four out of the five_
statements. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory
answers:--
(a) _The road downhill_
_Satisfactory._ "If it was downhill to the city it would be
uphill coming back." "It can't be downhill both directions."
"That could not be." "That is foolish. (Explain.) Because it
must be uphill one way or the other." "That would be a funny
road. (Explain.) No road can be like that. It can't be downhill
both ways."
_Unsatisfactory._ "Perhaps he took a little different road
coming back." "I guess it is a very crooked road." "Coming back
he goes around the hill." "The man lives down in a valley." "The
road was made that way so it would be easy." "Just a road. I
don't see anything foolish." "He should say, 'a road which
goes.'"
(b) _What the engineer said_
_Satisfactory._ "If he has more cars he will go slower." "It is
the other way. If he wants to go faster he mustn't have so many
cars." "The man didn't mean what he said, or else it was a slip
of the tongue." "That's the way it would be if he was going
downhill." "Foolish, because the cars don't help pull the
train." "He ought to say _slower_, not _faster_."
_Unsatisfactory._ "A long train is nicer." "The engine pulls
harder if the train has lots of cars." "That's all right. I
suppose he likes a big train." "Nothing foolish; when I went to
the city I saw a train that had lots of cars and it was going
awfully fast." "He should have said, 'the faster I can _run_.'"
(c) _The girl who was thought to have killed herself_
_Satisfactory._ "She could not have cut herself into eighteen
pieces." "She would have been dead before that." "She might have
cut two or three pieces off, but she couldn't do the rest."
(Laughing) "Well, she may have killed herself; but if she did
it's a sure thing that some one else came along after and
chopped her up." "That policeman must have been a fool.
(Explain.) To think that she could chop herself into eighteen
pieces."
_Unsatisfactory._ "_Think_ that she killed herself; they _know_
she did." "They can't be sure. Some one may have killed her."
"It was a foolish girl to kill herself." "How can they tell who
killed her?" "No girl would kill herself unless she was crazy."
"It ought to read: 'They think that she committed suicide.'"
(d) _The railroad accident_
_Satisfactory._ "That was very serious." "I should like to know
what you would call a serious accident!" "You could say it was
not serious if two or three people were killed, but
forty-eight,--that is serious."
_Unsatisfactory._ "It was a foolish mistake that made the
accident." "They couldn't help it. It was an accident." "It
might have been worse." "Nothing foolish; it's just sad."
(e) _The bicycle rider_
_Satisfactory._ "How could he get well after he was already
killed?" "Why, he's already dead." "No use to take a dead man to
the hospital." "They ought to have taken him to a grave-yard!"
_Unsatisfactory._ "Foolish to fall off of a bicycle. He should
have known how to ride." "They ought to have carried him home.
(Why?) So his folks could get a doctor." "He should have been
more careful." "Maybe they can cure him if he isn't hurt very
bad." "There's nothing foolish in that."
REMARKS. The detection of absurdities is one of the most ingenious and
serviceable tests of the entire scale. It is little influenced by
schooling, and it comes nearer than any other to being a test of
that species of mother-wit which we call common sense. Like the
"comprehension questions," it may be called a test of judgment, using
this term in the colloquial and not in the logical sense. The stupid
person, whether depicted in literature, proverb, or the ephemeral joke
column, is always (and justly, it would seem) characterized by a huge
tolerance for absurd contradictions and by a blunt sensitivity for the
fine points of a joke. Intellectual discrimination and judgment are
inferior. The ideas do not cross-light each other, but remain relatively
isolated. Hence, the most absurd contradictions are swallowed, so to
speak, without arousing the protest of the critical faculty. The latter,
indeed, is only a name for the tendency of intellectually irreconcilable
elements to clash. If there is no clash, if the elements remain apart,
it goes without saying that there will be no power of criticism.
The critical faculty begins its development in the early years and
strengthens _pari passu_ with the growing wealth of inter-associations
among ideas; but in the average child it is not until the age of about
10 years that it becomes equal to tasks like those presented in this
test. Eight-year intelligence hardly ever scores more than two or three
correct answers out of five. By 12, the critical ability has so far
developed that the test is nearly always passed. It is an invaluable
test for the higher grades of mental deficiency.
As a test of the critical powers Binet first used "trap questions"; as,
for example, "Is snow red or black?" The results were disappointing, for
it was found that owing to timidity, deference, and suggestibility
normal children often failed on such questions. Deference is more marked
in normal than in feeble-minded children, and it is because of the
influence of this trait that it is necessary always to forewarn the
subject that the sentence to be given contains nonsense.
Binet located the test in year XI of the 1908 scale, but changed it to
year X in 1911. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it in year XI. The large
majority of the statistics, including those of Goddard and Kuhlmann,
warrant the location of the test in year X. Not all have used the same
absurdities, and these have not been worded uniformly. Most have
required three successes out of five, but Bobertag and Kuhlmann require
three out of four; Bobertag's procedure is also different in that he
does not forewarn the child that an absurdity is to follow.
The present form of the test is the result of three successive
refinements. It will be noted that we have made two substitutions in
Binet's list of absurdities. Those omitted from the original scale are:
"_I have three brothers--Paul, Ernest, and myself_," and, "_If I were
going to commit suicide I would not choose Friday, because Friday is an
unlucky day and would bring me misfortune._" The last has a puzzling
feature which makes it much too hard for year X, and the other is
objectionable with children who are accustomed to hear a foreign
language in which the form of expression used in the absurdity is
idiomatically correct.
The two we have substituted for these objectionable absurdities are,
"The road downhill" and "What the engineer said." The five we have
used, though of nearly equal difficulty, are here listed in the order
from easiest to hardest. Our series as a whole is slightly easier than
Binet's.
X, 3. DRAWING DESIGNS FROM MEMORY
PROCEDURE. Use the designs shown on the accompanying printed form. If
copies are used they must be exact in size and shape. Before showing the
card say: "_This card has two drawings on it. I am going to show them to
you for ten seconds, then I will take the card away and let you draw
from memory what you have seen. Examine both drawings carefully and
remember that you have only ten seconds._"
Provide pencil and paper and then show the card for ten seconds, holding
it at right angles to the child's line of vision and with the designs in
the position given in the plate. Have the child draw the designs
immediately after they are removed from sight.
SCORING. The test is passed if _one of the designs is reproduced
correctly and the other about half correctly_. "Correctly" means that
the _essential plan_ of the design has been grasped and reproduced.
Ordinary irregularities due to lack of motor skill or to hasty execution
are disregarded. "Half correctly" means that some essential part of the
design has been omitted or misplaced, or that parts have been added.
The sample reproductions shown on the scoring card will serve as a
guide. It will be noted that an inverted design, or one whose right and
left sides have been transposed, is counted only half correct, however
perfect it many be in other respects; also that design _b_ is counted
only half correct if the inner rectangle is not located off center.
REMARKS. Binet states that the main factors involved in success are
"attention, visual memory, and a little analysis." The power of rapid
analysis would seem to be the most important, for if the designs are
analyzed they may be reproduced from a verbal memory of the analysis.
Without some analysis it would hardly be possible to remember the
designs at all, as one of them contains thirteen lines and the other
twelve. The memory span for unrelated objects is far too limited to
permit us to grasp and retain that number of unrelated impressions.
Success is possible only by grouping the lines according to their
relationships, so that several of them are given a unitary value and
remembered as one. In this manner, the design to the right, which is
composed of twelve lines, may be reduced to four elements: (1) The outer
rectangle; (2) the inner rectangle; (3) the off-center position of the
inner rectangle; and (4) the joining of the angles. Of course the child
does not ordinarily make an analysis as explicit as this; but analysis
of some kind, even though it be unconscious, is necessary to success.
Ability to pass the test indicates the presence, in a certain definite
amount, of the tendency for the contents of consciousness to fuse into a
meaningful whole. Failure indicates that the elements have maintained
their unitary character or have fused inadequately. It is seen,
therefore, that the test has a close kinship with the test of memory for
sentences. The latter, also, permits the fusion or grouping of
impressions according to meaning, with the result that five or six times
as many meaningful syllables as nonsense syllables or digits can be
retained.
Binet had many more failures on design _a_ than on design _b_. This was
probably due to the fact that he showed the designs with our _b_ to the
left. A majority of subjects, probably because of the influence of
reading habits, examine first the figure to the left, and because of the
short time allowed for the inspection are unable to devote much time to
the design at the right. We have placed the design of greater intrinsic
difficulty at the left, with the result that the failures are almost
equally divided between the two.
Binet used this test in his unstandardized series of 1905, omitted it in
1908, but included it in the 1911 revision, locating it in year X.
Except for Goddard, who recommends year XI, there is rather general
agreement that the test belongs at year X. Our own data show that it may
be placed either at year X or year XI, according as the grading is rigid
or lenient.
X, 4. READING FOR EIGHT MEMORIES
MATERIAL. We use Binet's selection, slightly adapted, as follows:--
_New York, September 5th. A fire last night burned three houses
near the center of the city. It took some time to put it out.
The loss was fifty thousand dollars, and seventeen families lost
their homes. In saving a girl, who was asleep in a bed, a
fireman was burned on the hands._
The copy of the selection used by the subject should be printed in heavy
type and should not contain the bars dividing it into memories. The
Stanford record booklet contains the selection in two forms, one
suitable for use in scoring, the other in heavy type to be read by the
subject.
PROCEDURE. Hand the selection to the subject, who should be seated
comfortably in a good light, and say: "_I want you to read this for me
as nicely as you can._" The subject must read aloud.
Pronounce all the words which the subject is unable to make out, not
allowing more than five seconds' hesitation in such a case.
Record all errors made in reading the selection, and the exact time. By
"error" is meant the omission, substitution, transposition, or
mispronunciation of one word.
The subject is not warned in advance that he will be asked to report
what he has read, but as soon as he has finished reading, put the
selection out of sight and say: "_Very well done. Now, I want you to
tell me what you read. Begin at the first and tell everything you can
remember._" After the subject has repeated everything he can recall and
has stopped, say: "_And what else? Can you remember any more of it?_"
Give no other aid of any kind. It is of course not permissible, when the
child stops, to prompt him with such questions as, "_And what next?
Where were the houses burned? What happened to the fireman?_" etc. The
report must be spontaneous.
Now and then, though not often, a subject hesitates or even refuses to
try, saying he is unable to do it. Perhaps he has misunderstood the
request and thinks he is expected to repeat the selection word for word,
as in the tests of memory for sentences. We urge a little and repeat:
"_Tell me in your own words all you can remember of it._" Others
misunderstand in a different way, and thinking they are expected to tell
merely what the story is about, they say: "It was about some houses that
burned." In such cases we repeat the instructions with special emphasis
on the words _all you can remember_.
SCORING. The test is passed _if the selection is read in thirty-five
seconds with not more than two errors, and if the report contains at
least eight "memories."_ By underscoring the memories correctly
reproduced, and by interlineations to show serious departures from the
text, the record can be made complete with a minimum of trouble.
The main difficulty in scoring is to decide whether a memory has been
reproduced correctly enough to be counted. Absolutely literal
reproduction is not expected. The rule is to count all memories whose
thought is reproduced with only minor changes in the wording. "It took
quite a while" instead of "it took some time" is satisfactory; likewise,
"got burnt" for "was burned"; "who was sleeping" for "who was asleep";
"are homeless" for "lost their homes"; "in the middle" for "near the
center"; "a big fire" for "a fire," etc.
Memories as badly mutilated as the following, however, are not counted:
"A lot of buildings" for "three houses;" "a man" for "a fireman"; "who
was sick" for "who was asleep"; etc. Occasionally we may give half
credit, as in the case of "was seventeen thousand dollars" for "was
fifty thousand dollars"; "and fifteen families" for "and seventeen
families," etc.
REMARKS. Are we warranted in using at all as a measure of intelligence a
test which depends as much on instruction as this one does? Many are
inclined to answer this question in the negative. The test has been
omitted from the revisions of Goddard, Kuhlmann, and Binet himself. As
regards Binet's earlier test of reading for two memories, in year VIII,
there could hardly be any difference of opinion. The ability to read at
that age depends so much on the accident of environment that the test is
meaningless unless we know all about the conditions which have
surrounded the child.
The use of the test in year X, however, is a very different matter.
There are comparatively few children of that age who will fail to pass
it for lack of the requisite school instruction. Children of 10 years
who have attended school with reasonable regularity for three years are
practically always able to read the selection in thirty-five seconds and
without over two mistakes unless they are retarded almost to the
border-line of mental deficiency. Of our 10-year-olds who failed to meet
the test, only a fourth did so because of inability to meet the reading
requirements as regards time or mistakes. The remaining failures were
caused by inadequate report, and most of these subjects were of the
distinctly retarded group.
We may conclude, therefore, that given anything approaching normal
educational advantages, the test is really a measure of intelligence.
Used with due caution, it is perhaps as valuable as any other test in
the scale. It is only necessary, in case of failure, to ascertain the
facts regarding the child's educational opportunities. Even this
precaution is superfluous in case the subject tests as low as 8 years by
the remainder of the scale. A safe rule is to omit the test from the
calculation of mental age if the subject has not attended school the
equivalent of two or three years.
It has been contended by some that tests in which success depends upon
language mastery cannot be real tests of intelligence. By such critics
language tests have been set over against intelligence tests as
contrasting opposites. It is easy to show, however, that this view is
superficial and psychologically unsound. Every one who has an
acquaintance with the facts of mental growth knows that language mastery
of some degree is the _sine qua non_ of conceptual thinking. Language
growth, in fact, mirrors the entire mental development. There are few
more reliable indications of a subject's stage of intellectual maturity
than his mastery of language.
The rate of reading, for example, is a measure of the rate of
association. Letters become associated together in certain combinations
making words, words into word groups and sentences. Recognition is for
the most part an associative process. Rapid and accurate association
will mean ready recognition of the printed form. Since language units
(whether letters, words, or word groups) have more or less preferred
associations according to their habitual arrangement into larger units,
it comes about that in the normal mind under normal conditions these
preferred sequences arouse the apperceptive complex necessary to make a
running recognition rapid and easy. It is reasonable to suppose that in
the subnormal mind the habitual common associations are less firmly
fixed, thus diminishing the effectiveness of the ever-changing
apperceptive expectancy. Reading is, therefore, largely dependent on
what James calls the "fringe of consciousness" and the "consciousness of
meaning." In reading connected matter, every unit is big with a mass of
tendencies. The smaller and more isolated the unit, the greater is the
number of possibilities. Every added unit acts as a modifier limiting
the number of tendencies, until we have finally, in case of a large
mental unit, a fairly manageable whole. When the most logical and
suitable of these associations arise easily from subconsciousness to
consciousness, recognition is made easy, and their doing so will depend
on whether the habitual relations of the elements have left permanent
traces in the mind.
The reading of the subnormal subject bears a close analogy to the
reading of nonsense matter by the normal person. It has been ascertained
by experiment that such reading requires about twice as much time as the
reading of connected matter. This is true for the reason that out of
thousands of associations possible with each word, no particular
association is favored. The apperceptive expectancy, practically _nil_
in the reading of nonsense material, must be decidedly deficient in all
poor reading.
Furthermore, in the case of the ordinary reader there is a feeling of
rightness or wrongness about the thought sequences. That less
intelligent subjects have this sense of fitness to a much less degree is
evidenced by their passing over words so mutilated in pronunciation as
to deprive them of all meaning. The transposition of letters and words,
and the failure to observe marks of punctuation, point to the same
thing. In other words, all the reading of the stupid subject is with
material which to him is more or less nonsensical.[66]
[66] See "Genius and Stupidity," by Lewis M. Terman, in _Pedagogical
Seminary_, September, 1906, p. 340 _ff._
A little observation will convince one that mentally retarded subjects,
even when they possess a reasonable degree of fluency in recognizing
printed words, do not sense shades of meaning. Their reading is by small
units. Words and phrases do not fuse into one mental content, but remain
relatively unconnected. The expression is monotonous and the voice has
more of the unnatural "schoolroom" pitch. They read more slowly, more
often misplace the emphasis, and miscall more words. In short, one who
has psychological insight and is acquainted with reading standards can
easily detect the symptoms of intellectual inferiority by hearing a dull
subject read a brief selection.
The giving of memories is also significant. Feeble-minded adults who
have been well schooled are sometimes able to read the words of the text
fairly fluently, but are usually unable to give more than a scanty
report of what has been read. The scope of attention has been exhausted
in the mere recognition and pronouncing of words. In general, the
greater the mechanical difficulties which a subject encounters, the less
adequate is his report of memories.
The test has, however, one real fault. School children have a certain
advantage in it over older persons _of the same mental age_ whose school
experience is less recent. Adult subjects tend to give their report in
less literal form. It is necessary, therefore, to give credit for the
reproduction of the ideas of the passage rather than for strictly
literal "memories."
The selection we have used is, with minor changes, the same as Binet's.
His selection was divided into nineteen memories. The one here given has
twenty-one memories. Binet used the test both in year VIII and year IX,
requiring two memories at year VIII and six memories at year IX. When we
require eight memories, as we have done, the test becomes difficult
enough for non-selected school children of 10 years. Location in year X
seems preferable, because it insures that the child will almost
certainly have had the schooling requisite for learning to read a
selection of this difficulty, even if he has started to school at a
later age than is customary. Naturally, placing the test higher in the
scale makes it more a test of report and less a test of ability to
recognize and pronounce printed words.
X, 5. COMPREHENSION, FOURTH DEGREE
The questions for this year are:--
(a) "_What ought you to say when some one asks your opinion
about a person you don't know very well?_"
(b) "_What ought you to do before undertaking (beginning)
something very important?_"
(c) "_Why should we judge a person more by his actions than by
his words?_"
The PROCEDURE is the same as for the previous comprehension tests. Each
question may be repeated, but its form must not be changed. It is not
permissible to make any explanation whatever as to the meaning of the
question, except to substitute _beginning_ for _undertaking_ when (b)
seems not to be comprehended.
SCORING. _Two out of the three_ questions must be answered
satisfactorily. Study of the following classified responses should make
scoring fairly easy in most cases:--
(a) _When some one asks your opinion_
_Satisfactory._ "I would say I don't know him very well"
(42 per cent of the correct answers). "Tell him what I know and
no more" (34 per cent of correct answers). "I would say that I'd
rather not express any opinion about him" (20 per cent of the
correct answers). "Tell him to ask some one else." "I would not
express any opinion."
_Unsatisfactory._ Unsatisfactory responses are due either to
failure to grasp the import of the question, or to inability to
suggest the appropriate action demanded by the situation.
The latter form of failure is the more common; e.g.: "I'd say
they are nice." "Say you like them." "Say what I think." "Say
it's none of their business." "Tell them I mind my own
business." "Say I would get acquainted with them." "Say that I
don't talk about people." "Say I didn't know how he looked."
"Tell them you ought not to say such things; you might get into
trouble." "I wouldn't say anything." "I would try to answer."
"Say I did not know his name," etc.
The following are samples of failure due to mistaking the import
of the question: "I'd say, 'How do you do?'" "Say,'I'm glad to
meet you.'"
(b) _Before undertaking something important_
_Satisfactory responses_ fall into the following classes:--
(1) Brief statement of preliminary consideration; as: "Think
about it." "Look it over." "Plan it all out." "Make your
plans." "Stop and think," etc.
(2) Special emphasis on preliminary preparation and correct
procedure; as: "Find out the best way to do it." "Find out
what it is." "Get everything ready." "Do every little thing
that would help you." "Get all the details you can." "Take
your time and figure it out," etc.
(3) Asking help; as: "Ask some one to help you who knows all
about it." "Pray, if you are a Christian." "Ask advice,"
etc.
(4) Preliminary testing of ability, self-analysis, etc.; as:
"Try something easier first." "Practice and make sure I
could do it." "Learn how to do it," etc.
(5) Consider the wisdom or propriety of doing it: "Think whether
it would be best to do it." "See whether it would be
possible."
About 65 per cent of the correct responses belong either to
group (1) or (2), about 20 per cent to group (3), and most of
the remainder to group (4).
_Unsatisfactory responses_ are of the following types:--
(1) Due to mistaking the import of the question; e.g.: "Ask for
it." "Ought to say please." "Ask whose it is." Replies of
this kind can be nearly all eliminated by repeating the
question, using _beginning_ instead of _undertaking_.
(2) Replies more or less absurd or irrelevant; as: "Promise to
do your best." "Wash your face and hands." "Get a lot of
insurance." "Dress up and take a walk." "Tell your name."
"Know whether it's correct." "Begin at the beginning." "Say
you will do it." "See if it's a fake." "Go to school a long
time." "Pass an examination." "Do what is right." "Add up
and see how much it will cost." "Say I would do it." "Just
start doing it." "Go away." "Consult a doctor." "See if you
have time," etc.
(c) _Why we should judge a person more by his actions than by his words_
_Satisfactory responses_ fall into the following classes:--
(1) Words and deeds both mentioned and contrasted in
reliability; as: "Actions speak louder than words" (this in
8 per cent of successes). "You can tell more by his actions
than by his words." "He might talk nice and do bad things."
"Sometimes people say things and don't do them." "It's not
what you say but what you do that counts." "Talk is cheap;
when he does a thing you can believe it." "People don't do
everything they say." "A man might steal but talk like a
nice man." Over 45 per cent of all correct responses belong
to group (1).
(2) Acts stressed without mention of words; as: "You can tell by
his actions whether he is good or not." "If he _acts_ nice
he _is_ nice." "Actions show for themselves." Group (2)
contains about 25 per cent of the correct responses.
(3) Emphasis on unreliability of words; as: "You can't tell by
his words, he might lie or boast." "Because you can't always
believe what people say." (Group (3) contains 15 per cent of
the correct responses.)
(4) Responses which state that a man's deeds are sometimes
better than his words; as: "He might talk ugly and still not
do bad things." "Some really kind-hearted people scold and
swear." "A man's words may be worse than his deeds," etc.
Group (4) contains over 10 per cent of the correct
responses.
_Unsatisfactory responses_ are usually due to inability to
comprehend the meaning of the question. If there is a complete
lack of comprehension the result is either silence or a totally
irrelevant response. If there is partial comprehension of the
question the response may be partially relevant, but fail to
make the expected distinction.
The following are sample failures: "You could tell by his words
that he was educated." "It shows he is polite if he acts nice."
"Sometimes people aren't polite." "Actions show who he might
be." "Acts may be foolish." "Words ain't right." "A man might be
dumb." "A fellow don't know what he says." "Some people can
talk, but don't have control of themselves." "You can tell by
his acts whether he goes with bad people." "If he doesn't act
right you know he won't talk right." "Actions show if he has
manners." "Might get embarrassed and not talk good." "He may not
know how to express his thoughts." "He might be a rich man but a
poor talker." "He might say the wrong thing and afterwards be
sorry for it," etc. (The last four are nearer correct than the
others, but they fall just short of expressing the essential
contrast.)
REMARKS. For discussion of the comprehension questions as a test of
intelligence, see page 158.
Binet used eight questions, three "easy" and five "difficult," and
required that five out of eight be answered correctly in year X. The
eight were as follows:--
(1) What to do when you have missed your train.
(2) When you have been struck by a playmate, etc.
(3) When you have broken something, etc.
(4) When about to be late for school.
(5) When about to undertake something important.
(6) Why excuse a bad act committed in anger more readily than a bad
act committed without anger.
(7) What to do if some one asks your opinion, etc.
(8) Why can you judge a person better by his actions, etc.
As we have shown, questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are much too easy for year X.
Question 6 is hard enough for year XII. We have omitted it because it
was not needed and is not entirely satisfactory.
X, 6. NAMING SIXTY WORDS
PROCEDURE. Say: "_Now, I want to see how many different words you can
name in three minutes. When I say ready, you must begin and name the
words as fast as you can, and I will count them. Do you understand? Be
sure to do your very best, and remember that just any words will do,
like 'clouds,' 'dog,' 'chair,' 'happy'--Ready; go ahead!_"
The instructions may be repeated if the subject does not understand what
is wanted. As a rule the task is comprehended instantly and entered into
with great zest.
Do not stare at the child, and do not say anything as the test proceeds
unless there is a pause of fifteen seconds. In this event say: "_Go
ahead, as fast as you can. Any words will do._" Repeat this urging after
every pause of fifteen seconds.
Some subjects, usually rather intelligent ones, hit upon the device of
counting or putting words together in sentences. We then break in with:
"_Counting_ (or _sentences_, as the case may be) _not allowed. You must
name separate words. Go ahead._"
Record the individual words if possible, and mark the end of each
half-minute. If the words are named so rapidly that they cannot be taken
down, it is easy to keep the count by making a pencil stroke for each
word. If the latter method is employed, repeated words may be indicated
by making a cross instead of a single stroke. Always make record of
repetitions.
SCORING. The test is passed if _sixty_ words, exclusive of repetitions,
are named in three minutes. It is not allowable to accept twenty words
in one minute or forty words in two minutes as an equivalent of the
expected score. Only real words are counted.
REMARKS. Scoring, as we have seen, takes account only of the number of
words. It is instructive, however, to note the kind of words given. Some
subjects, more often those of the 8- or 9-year intelligence level, give
mainly isolated, detached words. As well stated by Binet, "Little
children exhaust an idea in naming it. They say, for example, _hat_, and
then pass on to another word without noticing that hats differ in color,
in form, have various parts, different uses and accessories, and that in
enumerating all these they could find a large number of words."
Others quickly take advantage of such relationships and name many parts
of an object before leaving it, or name a number of other objects
belonging to the same class. _Hat_, for example, suggests _cap_, _hood_,
_coat_, _shirt_, _shoes_, _stockings_, etc. _Pencil_ suggests _book_,
_slate_, _paper_, _desk_, _ink_, _map_, _school-yard_, _teacher_, etc.
Responses of this type may be made up of ten or a dozen plainly distinct
word groups.
Another type of response consists in naming only objects present, or
words which present objects immediately suggest. It is unfortunate that
this occurs, since rooms in which testing is done vary so much with
respect to furnishings. The subject who chooses this method is obviously
handicapped if the room is relatively bare. One way to avoid this
influence is to have all subjects name the words with eyes closed, but
the distraction thus caused is sometimes rather disturbing. It is
perhaps best for the present to adhere to the original procedure, and to
follow the rule of making tests in a room containing few furnishings in
addition to the necessary table and chairs.
A fourth type of response is that including a large proportion of
unusual or abstract words. This is the best of all, and is hardly ever
found except with subjects who are above the 11-year intelligence level.
It goes without saying that a response need not belong entirely to any
one of the above types. Most responses, in fact, are characterized by a
mixture of two or three of the types, one of them perhaps being
dominant.
Though not without its shortcomings, the test is interesting and
valuable. Success in it does not, as one might suppose, depend solely
upon the size of the vocabulary. Even 8-year-olds ordinarily know the
meaning of more than 3000 words, and by 10 years the vocabulary usually
exceeds 5000 words, or eighty times as many as the child is expected to
name in three minutes. The main factors in success are two, (1) richness
and variety of previously made associations with common words; and (2)
the readiness of these associations to reinstate themselves. The young
or the retarded subject fishes in the ocean of his vocabulary with a
single hook, so to speak. He brings up each time only one word. The
subject endowed with superior intelligence employs a net (the idea of a
class, for example) and brings up a half-dozen words or more. The latter
accomplishes a greater amount and with less effort; but it requires
intelligence and will power to avoid wasting time with detached words.
One is again and again astonished at the poverty of associations which
this test discloses with retarded subjects. For twenty or thirty seconds
such children may be unable to think of a single word. It would be
interesting if at such periods we could get a glimpse into the subject's
consciousness. There must be some kind of mental content, but it seems
too vague to be crystallized in words. The ready association of thoughts
with definite words connotes a relatively high degree of intellectual
advancement. Language forms are the short-hand of thought; without
facile command of language, thinking is vague, clumsy, and ineffective.
Conversely, vague mental content entails language shortage.
Occasionally a child of 11- or 12-year intelligence will make a poor
showing in this test. When this happens it is usually due either to
excessive embarrassment or to a strange persistence in running down all
the words of a given class before launching out upon a new series.
Occasionally, too, an intelligent subject wastes time in thinking up a
beautiful list of big or unusual words. As stated by Bobertag, success
is favored by a certain amount of "intellectual nonchalance," a
willingness to ignore sense and a readiness to break away from a train
of associations as soon as the "point of diminishing returns" has been
reached. This doubtless explains why adults sometimes make such a
surprisingly poor showing in the test. They have less "intellectual
nonchalance" than children, are less willing to subordinate such
considerations as completeness and logical connection to the demands of
speed. Knollin's unemployed men of 12- to 13-year intelligence succeeded
no better than school children of the 10-year level.
We do not believe, however, that this fault is serious enough to warrant
the elimination of the test. The fact is that in a large majority of
cases the score which it yields agrees fairly closely with the result of
the scale as a whole. Subjects more than a year or two below the mental
age of 10 years seldom succeed. Those more than a year or two above the
10-year level seldom fail.
There is another reason why the test should be retained, it often has
significance beyond that which appears in the mere number of words
given. The naming of unusual and abstract words is an instance of this.
An unusually large number of repetitions has symptomatic significance
in the other direction. It indicates a tendency to mental stereotypy, so
frequently encountered in testing the feeble-minded. The proportion of
repetitions made by normal children of the 10- or 11-year intelligence
level rarely exceeds 2 or 3 per cent of the total number of words named;
those of older retarded children of the same level occasionally reach
6 or 8 per cent.
It is conceivable, of course, that a more satisfactory test of this
general nature could be devised; such, for example, as having the
subject name all the words he can of a given class (four-footed animals,
things to eat, articles of household furniture, trees, birds, etc.). The
main objection to this form of the test is that the performance would in
all probability be more influenced by environment and formal instruction
than is the case with the test of naming sixty words.
One other matter remains to be mentioned; namely, the relative number of
words named in the half-minute periods. As would be expected, the rate
of naming words decreases as the test proceeds. In the case of the
10-year-olds, we find the average number of words for the six successive
half-minutes to be as follows:--
18, 12½, 10½, 9, 8½, 7.
Some subjects maintain an almost constant rate throughout the test,
others rapidly exhaust themselves, while a very few make a bad beginning
and improve as they go. As a rule it is only the very intelligent who
improve after the first half-minute. On the other hand, mentally
retarded subjects and very young normals exhaust themselves so quickly
that only a few words are named in the last minute.
Binet first located this test in year XI, but shifted it to year XII in
1911. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it in year XI, though Goddard's
statistics suggest year X as the proper location, and Kuhlmann's even
suggest year IX. Kuhlmann, however, accepts fifty words as satisfactory
in case the response contains a considerable proportion of abstract or
unusual words. All the American statistics except Rowe's agree in
showing that the test is easy enough for year X.
X, ALTERNATIVE TEST 1: REPEATING SIX DIGITS
The digit series used are 3-7-4-8-5-9; and 5-2-1-7-4-6.
The PROCEDURE and SCORING are the same as in VII, 3, except that only
two trials are given, one of which must be correct. The test is somewhat
too easy for year 10 when three trials are given.
The test of repeating six digits did not appear in the Binet scale and
seems not to have been standardized until inserted in the Stanford
series.
X, ALTERNATIVE TEST 2: REPEATING TWENTY TO TWENTY-TWO SYLLABLES
The sentences for this year are:--
(a) "_The apple tree makes a cool, pleasant shade on the ground
where the children are playing._"
(b) "_It is nearly half-past one o'clock; the house is very
quiet and the cat has gone to sleep._"
(c) "_In summer the days are very warm and fine; in winter it
snows and I am cold._"
PROCEDURE and SCORING exactly as in VI, 6.
REMARKS. It is interesting to note that five years of mental growth are
required to pass from the ability to repeat sixteen or eighteen
syllables (year VI) to the ability to repeat twenty or twenty-two
syllables. Similarly in memory for digits. Five digits are almost as
easy at year VII as six at year X. Two explanations are available: (1)
The increased difficulty may be accounted for by a relatively slow
growth of memory power after the age of 6 or 7 years; or (2) the
increase in difficulty may be real, expressing an inner law as to the
behavior of the memory span in dealing with material of increasing
length. Both factors are probably involved.
This is another of the Stanford additions to the scale. Average children
of 10 years ordinarily pass it, but older, retarded children of 10-year
mental age make a poorer showing. In the case of mentally retarded
adults, especially, the verbal memory is less exact than that of school
children of the same mental age.
X, ALTERNATIVE TEST 3: CONSTRUCTION PUZZLE A (HEALY AND FERNALD)
MATERIAL. Use the form-board pictured on page 279. This may be
purchased of C. H. Stoelting & Co., Chicago, Illinois. A home-made one
will do as well if care is taken to get the dimensions exact.
Quarter-inch wood should be used. The inside of the frame should be
3 × 4 inches, and the dimensions of the blocks should be as follows:
1+3/16 × 3; 1 × 1½; 1 × 2¾; 1 × 1½; 1¼ × 2.
PROCEDURE. Place the frame on the table before the subject, the short
side nearest him. The blocks are placed in an irregular position on the
side of the frame away from the subject. Take care that the board with
the blocks in place is not exposed to view in advance of the experiment.
Say: "_I want you to put these blocks in this frame so that all the
space will be filled up. If you do it rightly they will all fit in and
there will be no space left over. Go ahead._"
Do not tell the subject to see how quickly he can do it. Say nothing
that would even suggest hurrying, for this tends to call forth the
trial-and-error procedure even with intelligent subjects.
[Illustration]
SCORING. The test is passed if the child succeeds in fitting the blocks
into place _three times in a total time of five minutes for the three
trials_.
The method of procedure is fully as important as the time, but is not so
easily scored in quantitative terms. Nevertheless, the examiner should
always take observations on the method employed, noting especially
any tendency to make and to repeat moves which lead to obvious
impossibilities; i.e., moves which leave a space obviously unfitted to
any of the remaining pieces. Some subjects repeat an absurd move many
times over; others make an absurd move, but promptly correct it; others,
and these are usually the bright ones, look far enough ahead to avoid
error altogether.
REMARKS. This test was devised by Professor Freeman, was adapted
slightly by Healy and Fernald, and was first standardized by
Dr. Kuhlmann. Miss Gertrude Hall has also standardized it, but on a
different procedure from that described above.[67]
[67] _Eugenics and Social Welfare Bulletin_, No. 5, The State Board of
Charities, Albany, New York.
The test has a lower correlation with intelligence than most of the
other tests of the scale. Many bright children of 10-year intelligence
adopt the trial-and-error method and have little success, while retarded
older children of only 8-year intelligence sometimes succeed. Age, apart
from intelligence, seems to play an important part in determining the
nature of the performance. A favorable feature of the test, however, is
the fact that it makes no demand on language ability and that it brings
into play an aspect of intelligence which is relatively neglected by the
remainder of the scale. For this reason it is at least worth keeping as
an alternative test.
CHAPTER XVII
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR XII
XII, 1. VOCABULARY (FORTY DEFINITIONS, 7200 WORDS)
PROCEDURE and SCORING as in previous vocabulary tests.[68] In this case
forty words must be defined.
[68] See VIII, 6.
XII, 2. DEFINING ABSTRACT WORDS
PROCEDURE. The words to be defined are _pity_, _revenge_, _charity_,
_envy_, and _justice_. The formula is, "_What is pity? What do we mean
by pity?_" and so on with the other words. If the meaning of the
response is not clear, ask the subject to explain what he means. If the
definition is in terms of the word itself, as "Pity means to pity
someone," "Revenge is to take revenge," etc., it is then necessary to
say: "_Yes, but what does it mean to pity some one?_" or, "_What does it
mean to take revenge?_" etc. Only supplementary questions of this kind
are permissible.
SCORING. The test is passed if _three of the five_ words are
satisfactorily defined. The definition need not be strictly logical nor
the language elegant. It is sufficient if the definition shows that the
meaning of the word is known. Definitions which define by means of an
illustration are acceptable. The following are samples of satisfactory
and unsatisfactory responses:--
(a) _Pity_
_Satisfactory._ "To be sorry for some one." "To feel
compassion." "To have sympathy for a person." "To feel bad for
some one." "It means you help a person out and don't like to
have him suffer." "To have a feeling for people when they are
treated wrong." "If anybody gets hurt real bad you pity them."
"It's when you feel sorry for a tramp and give him something to
eat." "If some one is in trouble and you know how it feels to be
in that condition, you pity him." "You see something that's
wrong and have your feeling aroused."
Of 130 correct responses, 85, or 65 per cent, defined _pity_ as
"to feel sorry for some one," or words to that effect. Less than
10 per cent defined by means of illustration.
_Unsatisfactory._ "To think of the poor." "To be good to
others." "To help." "It means sorrow." "Mercy." "To cheer people
up." "It means 'What a pity!'" "To be ashamed." "To be sick or
poor." "It's when you break something."
Apart from inability to reply, which accounts for nearly one
fourth of the failures, there is no predominant type of
unsatisfactory response.
(b) _Revenge_
_Satisfactory._ "To get even with some one." "To get back on
him." "To do something to the one who has done something to
you." "To hurt them back." "To pay it back," or "Do something
back." "To do something mean in return." "To square up with a
person." "When somebody slaps you, you slap back." "You kill a
person if he does something to you."
The expression "to get even" was found in 42 per cent of 120
correct answers; "to pay it back," or "To do something back," in
20 per cent; "To get back on him," in 17 per cent. About
8 per cent were illustrations.
_Unsatisfactory._ "To be mad." "You try to hurt them." "To
fight." "You hate a person." "To kill them." "It means hateful."
"To try again." "To think evil of some one." "To hate some one
who has done you wrong." "To let a person off." "To go away from
something."
Inability to reply accounts for a little over 40 per cent of the
failures.
(c) _Charity_
_Satisfactory._ "To give to the poor." "To help those who are
needy." "It is charity if you are poor and somebody helps you."
"To give to somebody without pay."
Of 110 correct replies, 72 per cent were worded substantially
like the first or second given above.
_Unsatisfactory._ "A person who helps the poor." "A place where
poor people get food and things." "It is a good life." "To be
happy." "To be poor." "Charity is being treated good." "It is to
be charitable." "Charity is selling something that is not worth
much." "It means to be good" or "to be kind."
When the last named response is given, we should say: "_Explain
what you mean._" If this brings an amplification of the response
to "It means to do things for the poor," or the equivalent, the
score is _plus_. "Charity means love" is also _minus_ if the
statement cannot be further explained and is merely rote memory
of the passage in the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthians. Simply
"To help" or "To give" is unsatisfactory. Half of the failures
are due to inability to reply.
(d) _Envy_
_Satisfactory._ "You envy some one who has something you want."
"It's the way you feel when you see some one with something
nicer than you have." "It's when a poor girl sees a rich girl
with nice dresses and things." "You hate some one because
they've got something you want." "Jealousy" (satisfactory if
subject can explain what _jealousy_ means; otherwise it is
_minus_). "It's when you see a person better off than you are."
Nearly three fourths of the correct responses say in substance,
"You envy a person who has something you want." Most of the
others are concrete illustrations.
_Unsatisfactory._ "To hate some one," or simply "To hate." "You
don't like 'em." "Bad feeling toward any one." "To be a great
man or woman." "Not to be nice to people." "What we do to our
enemies."
Inability to respond accounts for 55 per cent of the failures.
(e) _Justice_
_Satisfactory._ "To give people what they deserve." "It means
that everybody is treated the same way, whether he is rich or
poor." "It's what you get when you go to court." "If one does
something and gets punished, that's justice." "To do the square
thing." "To give everybody his dues." "Let every one have what's
coming to him." "To do the right thing by any one." "If two
people do the same thing and they let one go without punishing,
that is not justice."
Approximately 38 per cent of 102 correct responses referred to
treating everybody the same way; 25 per cent to "doing the
square thing", 12 per cent were concrete illustrations; and
4 per cent were definitions of what justice is not.
_Unsatisfactory._ "It means to have peace." "It is where they
have court." "It's the Courthouse." "To be honest." "Where one
is just" (_minus_, unless further explained). "To do right"
(_minus_, unless in explaining _right_ the subject gives a
definition of _justice_).
It is very necessary, in case of such answers as "Justice is to
do right," "To be just," etc., that the subject be urged to
explain further what he means. "To do right" includes nearly
12 per cent of all answers, and is given by the very brightest
children. Most of these are able, when urged, to complete the
definition in a satisfactory manner.
REMARKS. The reader may be surprised that the ability to define common
abstract words should develop so late. Most children who have had
anything like ordinary home or school environment have doubtless heard
all of these words countless times before the age of 12 years.
Nevertheless, the statistics from the test show unmistakably that before
this age such words have but limited and vague meaning. Other vocabulary
studies confirm this fact so completely that we may say there is hardly
any trait in which 12- to 14-year intelligence more uniformly excels
that of the 9- or 10-year level.
This is readily understandable when we consider the nature of abstract
meanings and the intellectual processes by which we arrive at them.
Unlike such words as _tree_, _house_, etc., the ideas they contain are
not the immediate result of perceptual processes, in which even childish
intelligence is adept, but are a refined and secondary product of
relationships between other ideas. They require the logical processes of
comparison, abstraction, and generalization. One cannot see justice, for
example, but one is often confronted with situations in which justice or
injustice is an element; and given a certain degree of abstraction and
generalization, out of such situations the idea of justice will
gradually be evolved.
The formation and use of abstract ideas, of one kind or another,
represent, _par excellence_, the "higher thought processes." It is not
without significance that delinquents who test near the border-line of
mental deficiency show such inferior ability in arriving at correct
generalizations regarding matters of social and moral relationships. We
cannot expect a mind of defective generalizing ability to form very
definite or correct notions about justice, law, fairness, ownership
rights, etc.; and if the ideas themselves are not fairly clear, the
rules of conduct based upon them cannot make a very powerful appeal.[69]
[69] See also p. 298 _ff._
Binet used the words _charity_, _justice_, and _kindness_, and required
two successes. In the 1911 revision he shifted the test from year XI to
year XII, where it more nearly belongs. Goddard also places it in
year XII and uses Binet's words, translating _bonté_, however, as
_goodness_ instead of _kindness_. Kuhlmann retains the test in year XI
and adds _bravery_ and _revenge_, requiring three correct definitions
out of five. Bobertag uses _pity_, _envy_, and _justice_, requires two
correct definitions, and finds the test just hard enough for year XII.
After using the words _goodness_ and _kindness_ in two series of tests,
we have discarded them as objectionable in that they give rise to so
many doubtful definitions. Even intelligent children often say:
"Goodness means to do something good," "Kindness means to be kind to
some one," etc. These definitions in a circle occur less than half as
often with _pity_, _revenge_, and _envy_, which are also superior to
_charity_ and _justice_ in this respect.
The relative difficulty of our five words is indicated by the order in
which we have listed them in the test (i.e., beginning with the easiest
and ending with the hardest). On the standard of three correct
definitions, these words fit very accurately in year XII.
XII, 3. THE BALL-AND-FIELD TEST (SUPERIOR PLAN)
PROCEDURE, as in year VIII, test 1.
SCORING. Score 3 (or superior plan) is required for passing in
year XII.[70]
[70] See scoring card.
XII, 4. DISSECTED SENTENCES
The following disarranged sentences are used:--
FOR THE STARTED AN WE COUNTRY EARLY AT HOUR
TO ASKED PAPER MY TEACHER CORRECT I MY
A DEFENDS DOG GOOD HIS BRAVELY MASTER
These should be printed in type like that used above. The Stanford
record booklet contains the sentences in convenient form.
It is not permissible to substitute written words or printed script, as
that would make the test harder. All the words should be printed in caps
in order that no clue shall be given as to the first word in a sentence.
For a similar reason the period is omitted.
PROCEDURE. Say: "_Here is a sentence that has the words all mixed up so
that they don't make any sense. If the words were changed around in the
right order they would make a good sentence. Look carefully and see if
you can tell me how the sentence ought to read._"
Give the sentences in the order in which they are listed in the record
booklet. Do not tell the subject to see how quickly he can do it,
because with this test any suggestion of hurrying is likely to produce a
kind of mental paralysis. If the subject has no success with the first
sentence in one minute, read it off correctly for him, somewhat slowly,
and pointing to each word as it is spoken. Then proceed to the second
and third, allowing one minute for each.
Give no further help. It is not permissible, in case an incorrect
response is given, to ask the subject to try again, or to say: "_Are you
sure that is right?_" "_Are you sure you have not left out any words?_"
etc. Instead, maintain absolute silence. However, the subject is
permitted to make as many changes in his response as he sees fit,
provided he makes them spontaneously and within the allotted time.
Record the entire response.
Once in a great while the subject misunderstands the task and thinks the
only requirement is to use all the words given, and that it is permitted
to add as many other words as he likes. It is then necessary to repeat
the instructions and to allow a new trial.
SCORING. _Two sentences out of three must be correctly given within the
minute allotted to each._ It is understood, of course, that if the first
sentence has to be read for the subject, both the other responses must
be given correctly.
A sentence is not counted correct if a single word is omitted, altered,
or inserted, or if the order given fails to make perfect sense.
Certain responses are not absolutely incorrect, but are objectionable as
regards sentence structure, or else fail to give the exact meaning
intended. These are given half credit. Full credit on one, and half
credit on each of the other two, is satisfactory. The following are
samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses:--
(a)
_Satisfactory._
"We started for the country at an early hour."
"At an early hour we started for the country."
"We started at an early hour for the country."
_Unsatisfactory._
"We started early at an hour for the country."
"Early at an hour we started for the country."
"We started early for the country."
_Half credit._
"For the country at an early hour we started."
"For the country we started at an early hour."
(b)
_Satisfactory._
"I asked my teacher to correct my paper."
_Unsatisfactory._
"My teacher asked to correct my paper."
"To correct my paper I asked my teacher."
_Half credit._
"My teacher I asked to correct my paper."
(c)
_Satisfactory._
"A good dog defends his master bravely."
"A good dog bravely defends his master."
_Unsatisfactory._
"A dog defends his master bravely."
"A bravely dog defends his master."
"A good dog defends his bravely master."
"A good brave dog defends his master."
_Half credit._
"A dog defends his good master bravely."
"A dog bravely defends his good master."
"A good master bravely defends his dog."
REMARKS. This is an excellent test. It involves no knowledge which may
not be presupposed at the age in which it is given, and success
therefore depends very little on experience. The worst that can be urged
against it is that it may possibly be influenced to a certain extent by
the amount of reading the subject has done. But this has not been
demonstrated. At any rate, the test satisfies the most important
requirement of a test of intelligence; namely, the percentage of
successes increases rapidly and steadily from the lower to the higher
levels of mental age.
This experiment can be regarded as a variation of the completion test.
Binet tells us, in fact, that it was directly suggested by the
experiment of Ebbinghaus. As will readily be observed, however, it
differs to a certain extent from the Ebbinghaus completion test.
Ebbinghaus omits parts of a sentence and requires the subject to supply
the omissions. In this test we give all the parts and require the
formation of a sentence by rearrangement. The two experiments are
psychologically similar in that they require the subject to relate given
fragments into a meaningful whole. Success depends upon the ability of
intelligence to utilize hints, or clues, and this in turn depends on the
logical integrity of the associative processes. All but the highest
grade of the feeble-minded fail with this test.
This test is found in year XI of Binet's 1908 series and in year XII of
his 1911 revision. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it in the original
location. That it is better placed in year XII is indicated by all the
available statistics with normal children, except those of Goddard. With
this exception, the results of various investigators for year XII are in
remarkably close agreement, as the following figures will show:--
_Per cent passing at year XII_
Binet 66
Kuhlmann 68
Bobertag 78
Dougherty 64
Strong 72
Léviste and Morlé 70
Stanford series (1911) 62
Stanford series (1913) 57
Stanford series (1914) 62
Princeton data 61
This agreement is noteworthy considering that no two experiments seem to
have used exactly the same arrangement of words, and that some have
presented the words of a sentence in a single line, others in two or
three lines. A single line would appear to be somewhat easier.
XII, 5. INTERPRETATION OF FABLES (SCORE 4)
The following fables are used:--
(a) _Hercules and the Wagoner_
_A man was driving along a country road, when the wheels
suddenly sank in a deep rut. The man did nothing but look at the
wagon and call loudly to Hercules to come and help him. Hercules
came up, looked at the man, and said: "Put your shoulder to the
wheel, my man, and whip up your oxen." Then he went away and
left the driver._
(b) _The Milkmaid and her Plans_
_A milkmaid was carrying her pail of milk on her head, and was
thinking to herself thus: "The money for this milk will buy
4 hens; the hens will lay at least 100 eggs; the eggs will
produce at least 75 chicks; and with the money which the chicks
will bring I can buy a new dress to wear instead of the ragged
one I have on." At this moment she looked down at herself,
trying to think how she would look in her new dress; but as she
did so the pail of milk slipped from her head and dashed upon
the ground. Thus all her imaginary schemes perished in a moment._
(c) _The Fox and the Crow_
_A crow, having stolen a bit of meat, perched in a tree and held
it in her beak. A fox, seeing her, wished to secure the meat,
and spoke to the crow thus: "How handsome you are! and I have
heard that the beauty of your voice is equal to that of your
form and feathers. Will you not sing for me, so that I may judge
whether this is true?" The crow was so pleased that she opened
her mouth to sing and dropped the meat, which the fox
immediately ate._
(d) _The Farmer and the Stork_
_A farmer set some traps to catch cranes which had been eating
his seed. With them he caught a stork. The stork, which had not
really been stealing, begged the farmer to spare his life,
saying that he was a bird of excellent character, that he was
not at all like the cranes, and that the farmer should have pity
on him. But the farmer said: "I have caught you with these
robbers, and you will have to die with them."_
(e) _The Miller, His Son, and the Donkey_
_A miller and his son were driving their donkey to a neighboring
town to sell him. They had not gone far when a child saw them
and cried out: "What fools those fellows are to be trudging
along on foot when one of them might be riding." The old man,
hearing this, made his son get on the donkey, while he himself
walked. Soon, they came upon some men. "Look," said one of them,
"see that lazy boy riding while his old father has to walk." On
hearing this, the miller made his son get off, and he climbed on
the donkey himself. Farther on they met a company of women, who
shouted out: "Why, you lazy old fellow, to ride along so
comfortably while your poor boy there can hardly keep pace by
the side of you!" And so the good-natured miller took his boy up
behind him and both of them rode. As they came to the town a
citizen said to them, "Why, you cruel fellows! You two are
better able to carry the poor little donkey than he is to carry
you." "Very well," said the miller, "we will try." So both of
them jumped to the ground, got some ropes, tied the donkey's
legs to a pole and tried to carry him. But as they crossed the
bridge the donkey became frightened, kicked loose and fell into
the stream._
PROCEDURE. Present the fables in the order in which they are given
above. The method is to say to the subject:
"_You know what a fable is? You have heard fables?_" Whatever the
answer, proceed to explain a fable as follows: "_A fable, you know, is a
little story, and is meant to teach us a lesson. Now, I am going to read
a fable to you. Listen carefully, and when I am through I will ask you
to tell me what lesson the fable teaches us. Ready; listen._" After
reading the fable, say: "_What lesson does that teach us?_" Record the
response _verbatim_ and proceed with the next as follows: "_Here is
another. Listen again and tell me what lesson this fable teaches us_,"
etc.
As far as possible, avoid comment or commendation until all the fables
have been given. If the first answer is of an inferior type and we
express too much satisfaction with it, we thereby encourage the
subject to continue in his error. On the other hand, never express
dissatisfaction with a response, however absurd or _malapropos_ it may
be. Many subjects are anxious to know how well they are doing and
continually ask, "Did I get that one right?" It is sufficient to say,
"You are getting along nicely," or something to that effect. Offer no
comments, suggestions, or questions which might put the subject on the
right track. This much self-control is necessary if we would make the
conditions of the test uniform for all subjects.
The only occasion when a supplementary question is permissible is in
case of a response whose meaning is not clear. Even then we must be
cautious and restrict ourselves to some such question as, "_What do you
mean?_" or, "_Explain; I don't quite understand what you mean_." The
scoring of fables is somewhat difficult at best, and this additional
question is often sufficient to place the response very definitely in
the right or wrong column.
SCORING. Give score 2, i.e., 2 points, for a correct answer, and 1 for
an answer which deserves half credit. The test is passed in year XII
_if 4 points are earned_; that is, if two responses are correct or if
one is correct and two deserve half credit.
Score 2 means that the fable has been correctly interpreted and that the
lesson it teaches has been stated in general terms.
There are two types of response which may be given half credit. They
include (1) the interpretations which are stated in general terms and
are fairly plausible, but are not exactly correct; and (2) those which
are perfectly correct as to substance, but are not generalized.
We overlook ordinary faults of expression and regard merely the
essential meaning of the response.
The only way to explain the method is by giving copious illustrations.
If the following sample responses are carefully studied, a reasonable
degree of expertness in scoring fables may be acquired with only a
limited amount of actual practice. The sampling may appear to the reader
needlessly prolix, but experience has taught us that in giving
directions for the scoring of tests error always lies on the side of
taking too much for granted.
(a) _Hercules and the Wagoner_
_Full credit; score 2._ "God helps those who help themselves."
"Do not depend on others." "Help yourself before calling for
help." "It teaches that we should rely upon ourselves."
The following are not quite so good, but are nevertheless
considered satisfactory. "We should always try, even if it looks
hard and we think we can't do it." "When in trouble try to get
out of it yourself." "We've got to do things without help." "Not
to be lazy."
_Half credit; score 1._ This is most often given for the
response which contains the correct idea, but states it in terms
of the concrete situation, e.g.: "The man ought to have tried
himself first." "Hercules wanted to teach the man to help
himself." "The driver was too much inclined to depend on
others." "The man was too lazy. He should not have called for
help until he had tried to get out by himself." "To get out and
try instead of watching."
_Unsatisfactory; score 0._ Failures are mainly of five
varieties: (1) generalized interpretations which entirely miss
the point; (2) crude interpretations which not only miss the
point, but are also stated in terms of the concrete situation;
(3) irrelevant or incoherent remarks; (4) efforts to repeat the
story; and (5) inability to respond.
Sample failures of type (1), entirely incorrect generalizations:
"Teaches us to look where we are going." "Not to ask for
anything when there is no one to help." "To help those who are
in trouble." "Teaches us to be polite." "How to help others."
"Not to be cruel to horses." "Always to do what people tell you"
(or "obey orders," etc.). "Not to be foolish" (or stupid, etc.).
"If you would have a thing well done, do it yourself."
Failures of type (2), crude interpretations stated in concrete
terms: "How to get out of the mud." "Not to get stuck in the
mud." "To carry a stick along to pry yourself out if you get
into a mud-hole." "To help any one who is stuck in the mud."
"Taught Hercules to help the horses along and not whip them too
hard." "Not to be mean like Hercules."
Failures of type (3), irrelevant responses: "It was foolish not
to thank him." "He should have helped the driver." "Hercules was
mean." "If any one helps himself the horses will try." "The
driver should have done what Hercules told him." "He wanted the
man to help the oxen."
Type (4): Efforts to repeat the story.
Type (5): Inability to respond.
(b) _The Maid and the Eggs_
_Full credit; score 2._ "Teaches us not to build air-castles."
"Don't count your chickens before they are hatched." "Not to
plan too far ahead." Slightly inferior, but still acceptable:
"Never make too many plans." "Don't count on the second thing
till you have done the first."
_Half credit; score 1._ "It teaches us not to have our minds on
the future when we carry milk on the head." "She was building
air-castles and so lost her milk." "She was planning too far
ahead."
The responses just given are examples of fairly correct
interpretations in non-generalized terms. The following are
examples of generalized interpretations which fall below the
accuracy required for full credit: "Never make plans." "Not to
be too proud." "To keep our mind on what we are doing." "Don't
cross a bridge till you come to it." "Don't count your _eggs_
before they are hatched." "Not to be wanting things; learn to
wait." "Not to imagine; go ahead and do it."
_Unsatisfactory; score 0._ Type (1), entirely incorrect
generalization: "That money does not buy everything." "Not to be
greedy." "Not to be selfish." "Not to waste things." "Not to
take risks like that." "Not to think about clothes." "Count your
chickens before they are hatched."
Type (2), very crude interpretations stated in concrete terms:
"Not to carry milk on the head." "Teaches her to watch and not
throw down her head." "To carry her head straight." "Not to
spill milk." "To keep your chickens and you will make more
money."
Type (3), irrelevant responses: "She wanted the money." "Teaches
us to read and write" (18-year-old of 8-year intelligence).
"About a girl who was selling some milk."
Type (4), effort to repeat the story.
Type (5), inability to respond.
(c) _The Fox and the Crow_
_Full credit; score 2._ "Teaches us not to listen to flattery."
"Don't let yourself be flattered." "It is not safe to believe
people who flatter us." "We had better look out for people who
brag on us."
_Half credit; score 1._ Correct idea in concrete terms: "The
crow was so proud of herself that she lost all she had." "The
crow listened to flattery and got left." "Not to be proud and
let people think you can sing when you can't." "If anybody
brags on you don't sing or do what he tells you."
Pertinent but somewhat inferior generalizations: "Not to be too
proud." "Pride goes before a fall." "To be on our guard against
people who are our enemies." "Not to do everything people tell
you." "Don't trust every slick fellow you meet."
_Unsatisfactory; score 0._ Type (1), incorrect generalization:
"Not to go with people you don't know." "Not to be selfish." "To
share your food." "Look before you leap." "Not to listen to
evil." "Not to steal." "Teaches honesty." "Not to covet." "Think
for yourself." "Teaches wisdom." "Never listen to advice."
"Never let any one get ahead of you." "To figure out what they
are going to do." "Never try to do two things at once." "How to
get what you want."
Type (2), very crude interpretation stated in terms of the
concrete situation: "Not to sing before you eat." "Not to hold a
thing in your mouth; eat it." "To eat a thing before you think
of your beauty." "To swallow it before you sing." "To be on your
watch when you have food in your mouth."
Type (3), irrelevant responses: "The fox was greedy." "The fox
was slicker than what the crow was." "The crow ought not to have
opened her mouth." "The crow should just have shaken her head."
"It served the crow right for stealing the meat." "The fox
wanted the meat and just told the crow that to get it."
"Foolishness." "Guess that's where the old fox got his
name--'Old Foxy'--Don't teach us anything."
Type (4), efforts to repeat the story.
Type (5), inability to respond.
(d) _The Farmer and the Stork_
_Full credit; score 2._ "You are judged by the company you
keep." "Teaches us to keep out of bad company." "Birds of a
feather flock together." "If you go with bad people you are
counted like them." "We should choose our friends carefully."
"Don't go with bad people." "Teaches us to avoid the appearance
of evil."
_Half credit; score 1._ "The stork should not have been with the
cranes." "Teaches him not to go with robbers." "Don't go with
people who are not of your nation." "Not to follow others."
_Unsatisfactory; score 0._ Type (1), incorrect generalization:
"Not to steal." "Not to tell lies." "Not to give excuses." "A
poor excuse is better than none." "Not to trust what people
say." "Not to listen to excuses." "Not to harm animals that do
no harm." "To have pity on others." "Not to be cruel." "To be
kind to birds." "Not to blame people for what they don't do."
"Teaches that those who do good often suffer for those who do
evil." "To tend to your own business." "Not to meddle with other
people's things." "Not to trespass on people's property." "Not
to think you are so nice." "To keep out of mischief."
Type (2), very crude interpretations in concrete terms: "Taught
the stork to look where it stepped and not walk into a trap."
"Taught the stork to keep out of the man's field." "Not to take
the seeds."
Type (3), irrelevant responses: "The farmer was right; storks do
eat grain." "Served the stork right, he was stealing too." "He
should try to help the stork out of the field."
Type (4), efforts to repeat the story.
Type (5), inability to reply.
(e) _The Miller, His Son, and the Donkey_
_Full credit; score 2._ "When you try to please everybody you
please nobody." "Don't listen to everybody; you can't please
them all." "Don't take every one's advice." "Don't try to do
what everybody tells you." "Use your own judgment." "Have a mind
of your own." "Make up your mind and stick to it." "Don't be
wishy-washy." "Have confidence in your own opinions."
_Half credit; score 1._ Interpretations which are generalized
but somewhat inferior: "Never take any one's advice" (too
sweeping a conclusion). "Don't take foolish advice." "Take your
own advice." "It teaches us that people don't always agree."
Correct idea but not generalized: "They were fools to listen to
everybody." "They should have walked or rode just as they
thought best, without listening to other people."
_Unsatisfactory; score 0._ Type (1), incorrect generalization:
"To do right." "To do what people tell you." "To be kind to old
people." "To be polite." "To serve others." "Not to be cruel to
animals." "To have sympathy for beasts of burden." "To be
good-natured." "Not to load things on animals that are small."
"That it is always better to leave things as they are." "That
men were not made for beasts of burden."
Type (2), very crude interpretations stated in concrete terms:
"Not to try to carry the donkey." "That walking is better than
riding." "The people should have been more polite to the old
man." "That the father should be allowed to ride."
Type (3), irrelevant responses: "The men were too heavy for the
donkey." "They ought to have stayed on and they would not have
fallen into the stream." "It teaches about a man and he lost his
donkey."
Type (4), efforts to repeat the story.
Type (5), inability to respond.
REMARKS. The fable test, or the "test of generalization," as it may
aptly be named, was used by the writer in a study of the intellectual
processes of bright and dull boys in 1905,[71] and was further
standardized by the writer and Mr. Childs in 1911.[72] It has proved its
worth in a number of investigations. It has been necessary, however, to
simplify the rather elaborate method of scoring which was proposed in
1911, not because of any logical fault of the method, but because of the
difficulty in teaching examiners to use the system correctly. The method
explained above is somewhat coarser, but it has the advantage of being
much easier to learn.
[71] "Genius and Stupidity," in _Pedagogical Seminary_, vol. xiii,
pp. 307-73.
[72] "A Tentative Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Measuring
Scale of Intelligence," _Journal of Educational Psychology_ (1912).
The generalization test presents for interpretation situations which are
closely paralleled in the everyday social experience of human beings. It
tests the subject's ability to understand motives underlying acts or
attitudes. It gives a clue to the status of the social consciousness.
This is highly important in the diagnosis of the upper range of mental
defectiveness. The criterion of the subnormal's fitness for life outside
an institution is his ability to understand social relations and to
adjust himself to them. Failure of a subnormal to meet this criterion
may lead him to break common conventions, and to appear disrespectful,
sulky, stubborn, or in some other way queer and exceptional. He is
likely to be misunderstood, because he so easily misunderstands others.
The skein of human motives is too complex for his limited intelligence
to untangle.
Ethnological studies have shown in an interesting way the social origin
of the moral judgment. The rectitude of the moral life, therefore,
depends on the accuracy of the social judgment. It would be interesting
to know what proportion of offenders have transgressed moral codes
because of continued failure to grasp the essential lessons presented
by human situations.
For the intelligent child even the common incidents of life carry an
endless succession of lessons in right conduct. On the average school
playground not an hour passes without some happening which is fraught
with a moral hint to those who have intelligence enough to generalize
the situation. A boy plays unfairly and is barred from the game. One
bullies his weaker companion and arouses the anger and scorn of all his
fellows. Another vents his braggadocio and feels at once the withering
scorn of those who listen. Laziness, selfishness, meanness, dishonesty,
ingratitude, inconstancy, inordinate pride, and the countless other
faults all have their social penalties. The child of normal intelligence
sees the point, draws the appropriate lesson and (provided emotions and
will are also normal) applies it more or less effectively as a guide to
his own conduct. To the feeble-minded child, all but lacking in the
power of abstraction and generalization, the situation conveys no such
lesson. It is but a muddle of concrete events without general
significance; or even if its meaning is vaguely apprehended, the powers
of inhibition are insufficient to guarantee that right action will
follow.
It is for this reason that the generalization test is so valuable in the
mental examinations of delinquents. It presents a moral situation,
imagined, to be sure, but none the less real to the individual of normal
comprehension. It tells us quickly whether the subject tested is able to
see beyond the incidents of the given situation and to grasp their wider
relations--whether he is able to generalize the concrete.
The following responses made by feeble-minded delinquents from
16 to 21 years of age demonstrate sufficiently their inability to
comprehend the moral situation:--
_Hercules and the Wagoner._ "Teaches you to look where you are
going." "Not to help any one who is stuck in the mud." "Not to
whip oxen." "Teaches that Hercules was mean." "Teaches us to
carry a stick along to pry the wheels out."
_The Fox and the Crow._ "Not to sing when eating." "To keep away
from strangers." "To swallow it before you sing." "Not to be
stingy." "Not to listen to evil." "The fox was wiser than the
crow." "Not to be selfish with food." "Not to do two things at
once." "To hang on to what you've got."
_The Farmer and the Stork._ "Teaches the stork to look where he
steps." "Not to be cruel like the farmer." "Not to tell lies."
"Not to butt into other people's things." "To be kind to birds."
"Teaches us how to get rid of troublesome people." "Never go
with anything else."
The following are the responses of an 18-year-old delinquent
(intelligence level 10 years) to the five fables:--
_Maid and Eggs._ "She was thinking about getting the dress and
spilled the milk. Teaches selfishness."
_Hercules and the Wagoner._ "He wanted to help the oxen out."
_Fox and Crow._ "Guess that's where the fox got his name--'Old
Foxy.' Don't teach us anything."
_Farmer and Stork._ "Try and help the stork out of the field."
_Miller, Son, and Donkey._ "They was all big fools and mean to
the donkey."
One does not require very profound psychological insight to see that a
person of this degree of comprehension is not promising material for
moral education. His weakness in the ability to generalize a moral
situation is not due to lack of instruction, but is inherent in the
nature of his mental processes, all of which have the infantile quality
of average 9- or 10-year intelligence. Well-instructed normal children
of 10 years ordinarily succeed no better. The ability to draw the
correct lesson from a social situation is little developed below the
mental level of 12 or 13 years.
The test is also valuable because it throws light on the subject's
ability to appreciate the finer shades of meaning. The mentally retarded
often show marked inferiority in this respect. They sense, perhaps, in a
general way the trend of the story, but they fail to comprehend much
that to us seems clearly expressed. They do not get what is left for the
reader to infer, because they are insensible to the thought fringes. It
is these which give meaning to the fable. The dull subject may be able
to image the objects and activities described, but taken in the rough
such imagery gets him nowhere.
Finally, the test is almost free from the danger of coaching. The
subject who has been given a number of fables along with twenty-five or
thirty other tests can as a rule give only hazy and inaccurate testimony
as to what he has been put through. Moreover, we have found that, even
if a subject has previously heard a fable, that fact does not materially
increase his chances of giving a correct interpretation. If the
situation depicted in the fable is beyond the subject's power of
comprehension even explicit instruction has little effect upon the
quality of the response.
Incidentally, this observation raises the question whether the use of
proverbs, mottoes, fables, poetry, etc., in the moral instruction of
children may not often be futile because the material is not fitted to
the child's power of comprehension. Much of the school's instruction in
history and literature has a moral purpose, but there is reason to
suspect that in this field schools often make precocious attempts in
"generalizing" exercises.
XII, 6. REPEATING FIVE DIGITS REVERSED
The series are 3-1-8-7-9; 6-9-4-8-2; 5-2-9-6-1.
PROCEDURE and SCORING. Exactly as in years VII and IX.[73]
[73] See discussion, p. 207 _ff._
XII, 7. INTERPRETATION OF PICTURES
PROCEDURE. Use the same pictures as in III, 1, and VII, 2, and the
additional picture _d_. Present in the same order. The formula to begin
with is identical with that in VII, 2: "_Tell me what this picture is
about. What is this a picture of?_" This formula is chosen because it
does not suggest specifically either description or interpretation, and
is therefore adapted to show the child's spontaneous or natural mode of
apperception. However, in case, this formula fails to bring spontaneous
interpretation for three of the four pictures, we then return to those
pictures on which the subject has failed and give a second trial with
the formula: "_Explain this picture_." A good many subjects who failed
to interpret the pictures spontaneously do so without difficulty when
the more specific formula is used.
If the response is so brief as to be difficult to classify, the subject
should be urged to amplify by some such injunction as "_Go ahead_," or
"_Explain what you mean_."
One more caution. It is necessary to refrain from voicing a single word
of commendation or approval until all the pictures have been responded
to. A moment's thought will reveal the absolute necessity of adhering to
this rule. Often a subject will begin by giving an inferior type of
response (description, say) to the first picture, but with the second
picture adjusts better to the task and responds satisfactorily. If in
such a case the first (unsatisfactory) response were greeted with an
approving "That's fine, you are doing splendidly," the likelihood of any
improvement taking place as the test proceeds would be greatly lessened.
SCORING. _Three pictures out of four_ must be satisfactorily
interpreted. "Satisfactorily" means that the interpretation given should
be reasonably plausible; not necessarily the exact one the artist had in
mind, yet not absurd. The following classified responses will serve as
a fairly secure guide for scoring:--
(a) _Dutch Home_
_Satisfactory._ "Child has spilled something and is getting a
scolding." "The baby has hurt herself and the mother is
comforting her." "The baby is crying because she is hungry and
the mother has nothing to give her." "The little girl has been
naughty and is about to be punished." "The baby is crying
because she does not like her dinner." "There's bread on the
table and the mother won't let the little girl have it and so
she is crying." "The baby is begging for something and is crying
because her mamma won't give it to her." "It's a poor family.
The father is dead and they don't have enough to eat."
_Unsatisfactory._ "The baby is crying and the mother is looking
at her" (description). "It's in Holland, and there's a little
girl crying, and a mamma, and there's a dish on the table"
(mainly description). "The mother is teaching the child to walk"
(absurd interpretation).
(b) _River Scene_
_Satisfactory._ "Man and lady eloping to get married and an
Indian to row for them." "I think it represents a honeymoon
trip." "In frontier days and a man and his wife have been
captured by the Indians." "It's a perilous journey and they have
engaged the Indian to row for them."
_Unsatisfactory._ "They are shooting the rapids." "An Indian
rowing a man and his wife down the river" (mainly description).
"A storm at sea" (absurd interpretation). "Indians have rescued
a couple from a shipwreck." "They have been up the river and
are riding down the rapids."
The following responses are somewhat doubtful, but should
probably be scored _minus_: "People going out hunting and have
Indian for a guide." "The man has rescued the woman from the
Indians." "It's a camping trip."
(c) _Post-Office_
_Satisfactory._ "It's a lot of old farmers. They have come to
the post-office to get the paper, which only comes once a week,
and they are all happy." "There's something funny in the paper
about one of the men and they are all laughing about it." "They
are reading about the price of eggs, and they look very happy so
I guess the price has gone up." "It's a bunch of country
politicians reading the election news."
_Unsatisfactory._ "A man has just come out of the post-office
and is reading to his friends." "It's a little country town and
they are looking at the paper." "A man is reading the paper and
the others are looking on and laughing." "Some men are reading a
paper and laughing, and the other man has brought some eggs to
market, and it's in a little country town." (All the above are
mainly description.)
Responses like the following are somewhat better, but hardly
satisfactory: "They are reading something funny in the paper."
"They are reading the ads." "They are laughing about something
in the newspaper," etc.
(d) _Colonial Home_
_Satisfactory._ "They are lovers and have quarreled." "The man
has to go away for a long time, maybe to war, and she is afraid
he won't return." "He has proposed and she has rejected him, and
she is crying because she hated to disappoint him." "The woman
is crying because her husband is angry and leaving her." "The
man is a messenger and has brought the woman bad news."
_Unsatisfactory._ "The husband is leaving and the dog is looking
at the lady." "It's a picture to show how people dressed in
colonial times." "The lady is crying and the man is trying to
comfort her." "The man is going away. The woman is angry because
he is going. The dog has a ball in its mouth and looks happy,
and the man looks sad."
Such responses as the following are doubtful, but rather _minus_
than _plus_: "A picture of George Washington's home." "They
have lost their money and they are sad" (gratuitous
interpretation). "The man has struck the woman."
Doubt sometimes arises as to the proper scoring of imaginative
or gratuitous interpretations. The following are samples of
such: (a) "The little girl is crying because she wants a new
dress and the mother is telling her she can have one when
Christmas comes if she will be good." (b) "The man and woman
have gone up the river to visit some friends and an Indian guide
is bringing them home." (c) "Some old Rubes are reading about
a circus that's going to come." (d) "Napoleon leaving his
wife."
Sometimes these imaginative responses are given by very bright subjects,
under the impression that they are asked to "make up" a story based on
the picture. We may score them _plus_, provided they are not too much
out of harmony with the situation and actions represented in the
picture. Interpretations so gratuitous as to have little or no bearing
upon the scene depicted should be scored _minus_.
REMARKS. The test of picture interpretation has been variously located
from 12 to 15 years. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that
everything depends on the nature of the pictures used, the form in which
the question is put, and the standard for scoring. The Jingleman-Jack
pictures used by Kuhlmann are as easy to interpret at 10 years as the
Stanford pictures at 12. Spontaneous interpretation ("What is this a
picture of?" or "What do you see in this picture?") comes no more
readily at 14 years than provoked interpretation ("Explain this
picture") at 12. The standard of scoring is no less important. If with
the Stanford pictures we require three satisfactory responses out of
four, the test belongs at the 12-year level, but the standard of two
correct out of four can be met a year or two earlier.
Even after we have agreed upon a given series of pictures, the formula
for giving the test, and upon the requisite number of passes, there
remains still the question as to the proper degree of liberality in
deciding what constitutes interpretation. There is no single point in
mental development where the "ability to interpret pictures" sweeps in
with a rush. Like the development of most other abilities, it comes by
slow degrees, beginning even as early as 6 years.
The question is, therefore, to decide whether a given response contains
as much and as good interpretation as we have a right to expect at the
age level where the test has been placed. It is imperative for any one
who would use the scale correctly to acquaint himself thoroughly with
the procedure and standards described above.
XII, 8. GIVING SIMILARITIES, THREE THINGS
PROCEDURE. The procedure is the same as in VIII, 4, but with the
following words:--
(a) _Snake_, _cow_, _sparrow_.
(b) _Book_, _teacher_, _newspaper_.
(c) _Wool_, _cotton_, _leather_.
(d) _Knife-blade_, _penny_, _piece of wire_.
(e) _Rose_, _potato_, _tree_.
As before, a little tactful urging is occasionally necessary in order to
secure a response.
SCORING. _Three satisfactory responses out of five_ are necessary for
success. Any real similarity is acceptable, whether fundamental or
superficial, although the giving of fundamental likenesses is especially
symptomatic of good intelligence.
Failures may be classified under four heads: (1) Leaving one of the
words out of consideration; (2) giving a difference instead of a
similarity; (3) giving a similarity that is not real or that is too
bizarre or far-fetched; and (4) inability to respond. Types (1), (3),
and (4) are almost equally numerous, while type (2) is not often
encountered at this level of intelligence.
This test provokes doubtful responses somewhat oftener than the earlier
test of giving similarities. Those giving greatest difficulty are the
indefinite statements like "All are useful," "All are made of the same
material," etc. Fortunately, in most of these cases an additional
question is sufficient to determine whether the subject has in mind a
real similarity. Questions suitable for this purpose are: "Explain what
you mean," "In what respect are they all useful?" "What material do
you mean?" etc. Of course it is only permissible to make use of
supplementary questions of this kind when they are necessary in order to
clarify a response which has already been made.
While the amateur examiner is likely to have more or less trouble in
deciding upon scores, this difficulty rapidly disappears with
experience. The following samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory
responses will serve as a fairly adequate guide in dealing with doubtful
cases:--
(a) _Snake_, _cow_, _sparrow_
_Satisfactory._ "All are animals" (or creatures, etc.). "All
live on the land." "All have blood" (or flesh, bones, eyes,
skin, etc.). "All move about." "All breathe air." "All are
useful" (_plus_ only if subject can give a use which they have
in common). "All have a little intelligence" (or sense,
instinct, etc.).
_Unsatisfactory._ "All have legs." "All are dangerous." "All
feed on grain" (or grass, etc.). "All are much afraid of man."
"All frighten you." "All are warm-blooded." "All get about the
same way." "All walk on the ground." "All can bite." "All
holler." "All drink water." "A snake crawls, a cow walks, and a
sparrow flies" (or some other difference). "They are not alike."
(b) _Book_, _teacher_, _newspaper_
_Satisfactory._ "All teach." "You learn from all." "All give you
information." "All help you get an education." "All are your
good friends" (_plus_ if subject can explain how). "All are
useful" (_plus_ if subject can explain how).
_Unsatisfactory._ "All tell you the news." "A teacher writes,
and a book and newspaper have writing." "They are not alike."
"All read." "All use the alphabet."
(c) _Wool_, _cotton_, _leather_
_Satisfactory._ "All used for clothing." "We wear them all."
"All grow" (_plus_ if subject can explain). "All have to be sent
to the factory to be made into things." "All are useful" (_plus_
if subject can give a use which all have in common). "All are
valuable" (_plus_ if explained).
_Unsatisfactory._ "All come from plants." "All grow on animals."
"All came off the top of something." "All are things." "They are
pretty." "All spell alike." "All are furry" (or soft, hard,
etc.).
(d) _Knife-blade_, _penny_, _piece of wire_
_Satisfactory_. "All are made from minerals" (or metals). "All
come from mines." "All are hard material."
_Unsatisfactory._ "All are made of steel" (or copper, iron,
etc.). "All are made of the same metal." "All cut." "All bend
easily." "All are used in building a house." "All are
worthless." "All are useful in fixing things." "All have an
end." "They are small." "All weigh the same." "Can get them all
at a hardware store." "You can buy things with all of them."
"You buy them with money." "One is sharp, one is round, and one
is long" (or some other difference).
Such answers as "All are found in a boy's pocket," or "Boys like
them," are not altogether bad, but hardly deserve to be called
satisfactory. "All are useful" is _minus_ unless the subject can
give a use which they have in common, which in this case he is
not likely to do. Bizarre uses are also _minus_; as, "All are
good for a watch fob," "Can use all for paper weights," etc.
(e) _Rose_, _potato_, _tree_
_Satisfactory._ "All are plants." "All grow from the ground."
"All have leaves" (or roots, etc.). "All have to be planted."
"All are parts of nature." "All have colors."
_Unsatisfactory._ "All are pretty." "All bear fruit." "All have
pretty flowers." "All grow on bushes." "All are valuable" (or
useful). "They grow close to a house." "All are ornamental."
"All are shrubbery."
REMARKS. The words of each series lend themselves readily to
classification into a next higher class. This is the best type of
response, but with most of the series it accounts for less than two
thirds of the successes among subjects of 12-year intelligence. The
proportion is less than one third for subjects of 10-year intelligence
and nearly three fourths at the 14-year level. It would be possible and
very desirable to devise and standardize an additional test of this
kind, but requiring the giving of an essential resemblance or
classificatory similarity.
For discussion of the psychological factors involved in the similarities
test, see VII, 5.
CHAPTER XVIII
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR XIV.
XIV, 1. VOCABULARY (FIFTY DEFINITIONS, 9000 WORDS)
PROCEDURE and SCORING, as in VIII, X, and XII. At year XIV fifty words
must be correctly defined.
XIV, 2. INDUCTION TEST: FINDING A RULE
PROCEDURE. Provide six sheets of thin blank paper, say 8½ × 11 inches.
Take the first sheet, and telling the subject to watch what you do, fold
it once, and in the middle of the folded edge tear out or cut out a
small notch; then ask the subject to tell you _how many holes there will
be in the paper when it is unfolded_. The correct answer, _one_, is
nearly always given without hesitation. But whatever the answer, unfold
the paper and hold it up broadside for the subject's inspection. Next,
take another sheet, fold it once as before and say: "_Now, when we
folded it this way and tore out a piece, you remember it made one hole
in the paper. This time we will give the paper another fold and see how
many holes we shall have._" Then proceed to fold the paper again, this
time in the other direction, and tear out a piece from the folded side
and ask how many holes there will be when the paper is unfolded. After
recording the answer, unfold the paper, hold it up before the subject so
as to let him see the result. The answer is often incorrect and the
unfolded sheet is greeted with an exclamation of surprise. The governing
principle is seldom made out at this stage of the experiment. But
regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the first and second
answers, proceed with the third sheet. Fold it once and say: "_When we
folded it this way there was one hole._" Then fold it again and say:
"_And when we folded it this way there were two holes._" At this point
fold the paper a third time and say: "_Now, I am folding it again. How
many holes will it have this time when I unfold it?_" Record the answer
and again unfold the paper while the subject looks on.
Continue in the same manner with sheets four, five, and six, adding one
fold each time. In folding each sheet recapitulate the results with the
previous sheets, saying (with the sixth, for example): "_When we folded
it this way there was one hole, when we folded it again there were two,
when we folded it again there were four, when we folded it again there
were eight, when we folded it again there were sixteen; now, tell me
how many holes there will be if we fold it once more._" In the
recapitulation avoid the expression "_When we folded it once, twice,
three times_," etc., as this often leads the subject to double the
numeral heard instead of doubling the number of holes in the previously
folded sheet. After the answer is given, do not fail to unfold the paper
and let the subject view the result.
SCORING. The test is passed _if the rule is grasped by the time the
sixth sheet is reached_; that is, the subject may pass after five
incorrect responses, provided the sixth is correct and the governing
rule can then be given. It is not permissible to ask for the rule until
all six parts of the experiment have been given. Nothing must be said
which could even suggest the operation of a rule. Often, however, the
subject grasps the principle after two or three steps and gives it
spontaneously. In this case it is unnecessary to proceed with the
remaining steps.
REMARKS. This test was first used by the writer in a comparative study
of the intellectual processes of bright and dull boys in 1905, but it
was not standardized until 1914. Rather extensive data indicate that it
is a genuine test of intelligence. Of 14-year-old school children
testing between 96 and 105 I Q, 59 per cent passed this test; of
14-year-olds testing below 96 I Q, 41 per cent passed; of those testing
above 105, 71 per cent passed. That is, the test agrees well with the
results obtained by the scale as a whole. Of "average adults" only
10 per cent fail; and of "superior adults," fewer than 5 per cent. As a
rule, the higher the grade of intelligence, the fewer the steps
necessary for grasping the rule. Of the superior adults, only
35 per cent fail to get the rule as early as the end of the fourth step.
The test is little affected by schooling, and apart from differences in
intelligence it is little influenced by age. Other advantages of the
test are the keen interest it always arouses and its independence of
language ability. It has been used successfully with immigrant subjects
who had been in this country but a few months.
We have named the experiment an "induction test." It might be supposed
that the solution would ordinarily be arrived at by deduction, or by an
_a-priori_ logical analysis of the principle involved. This, however, is
rarely the case. Not one average adult out of ten reasons out the
situation in this purely logical manner. It is ordinarily only after one
or more mistakes have been made and have been exposed by the examiner
holding up the unfolded paper to view that the correct principle is
grasped. In the absence of deductive reasoning the subject must note
that each unfolded sheet contains twice as many holes as the previous
one, and must infer that folding the paper again will again double the
number. The ability tested is the ability to generalize from
particulars where the common element of the particulars can be discerned
only by the selective action of attention, in this case attention to the
fact that each number is the double of its predecessor.
XIV, 3. GIVING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A PRESIDENT AND A KING
PROCEDURE. Say: "_There are three main differences between a president
and a king; what are they?_" If the subject stops after one difference
is given, we urge him on, if possible, until three are given.
SCORING. The three differences relate to power, tenure, and manner of
accession. Only these differences are considered correct, and the
successful response must include at least two of the three. We disregard
crudities of expression and note merely whether the subject has the
essential idea. As regards power, for example, any of the following
responses are satisfactory: "The king is absolute and the president is
not." "The king rules by himself, but the president rules with the help
of the people." "Kings can have things their own way more than
presidents can," etc.
It may be objected that the reverse of this is sometimes true, that the
king of to-day often has less power than the average president.
Sometimes subjects mention this fact, and when they do we credit them
with this part of the test. As a matter of fact, however, this answer is
seldom given.
Sometimes the subject does not stop until he has given a half-dozen or
more differences, and in such cases the first three differences may be
trivial and some of the later ones essential. The question then arises
whether we should disregard the errors and pass the subject on his later
correct responses. The rule in such cases is to ask the subject to pick
out the "three main differences."
Sometimes accession and tenure are given in the form of a single
contrast, as: "The president is elected, but the king inherits his
throne and rules for life." This answer entitles the subject to credit
for both accession and tenure, the contrast as regards tenure being
plainly implied.
Unsatisfactory contrasts are of many kinds and are often amusing. Some
of the most common are the following:--
"A king wears a crown." "A king has jewels." "A king sits on a
throne." ("A king sets on a thorn" as one feeble-minded boy put
it!) "A king lives in a palace." "A king has courtiers." "A king
is very dignified." "A king dresses up more." "A president has
less pomp and ceremony." "A president is more ready to receive
the people." "A king sits on a chair all the time and a
president does not." "No differences; it's just names." "A
president does not give titles." "A king has a larger salary."
"A king has royal blood." "A king is in more danger." "They have
a different title." "A king is more cruel." "Kings have people
beheaded." "A king rules in a monarchy and a president in a
republic." "A king rules in a foreign country." "A president is
elected and a king fights for his office." "A president appoints
governors and a king does not." "A president lets the lawyers
make the laws." "Everybody works for a king."
It is surprising to see how often trivial differences like the above are
given. About thirty "average adults" out of a hundred, including
high-school students, give at least one unsatisfactory contrast.
The test has been criticized as depending too much on schooling. The
criticism is to a certain extent valid when the test is used with young
subjects, say of 10 or 12 years. It is not valid, however, if the use of
the test is confined to older subjects. With the latter, it is not a
test of knowledge, but of the discriminative capacity to deal with
knowledge already in the possession of the subject. It would be
difficult to find an adult, not actually feeble-minded, who is ignorant
of the facts called for: That the king inherits his throne, while the
president is elected; that the tenure of the king is for life, and that
of the president for a term of years; that kings ordinarily have, or are
supposed to have, more power. Even the relatively stupid adult knows
this; but he also knows that kings are different from presidents in
having crowns, thrones, palaces, robes, courtiers, larger pay, etc., and
he makes no discrimination as regards the relative importance of these
differences.
The test is psychologically related to that of giving differences in
year VII and to the two tests of finding similarities; but it differs
from these in requiring a comparison based on fundamental rather than
accidental distinctions. The idea is good and should be worked out in
additional tests of the same type.
The test first appeared in the Binet revised scale of 1911. Kuhlmann
omits it, and besides our own there are few statistics bearing on it.
Our results show that if two essential differences are required, the
test belongs where we have placed it, but that if only one essential
difference is required, the test is easy enough for year XII.
XIV, 4. PROBLEM QUESTIONS
PROCEDURE. Say to the subject: "_Listen, and see if you can understand
what I read._" Then read the following three problems, rather slowly and
with expression, pausing after each long enough for the subject to find
an answer:--
(a) "_A man who was walking in the woods near a city stopped
suddenly, very much frightened, and then ran to the nearest
policeman, saying that he had just seen hanging from the limb
of a tree a ... a what?_"
(b) "_My neighbor has been having queer visitors. First a doctor
came to his house, then a lawyer, then a minister (preacher or
priest). What do you think happened there?_"
(c) "_An Indian who had come to town for the first time in his
life saw a white man riding along the street. As the white man
rode by, the Indian said--'The white man is lazy; he walks
sitting down.' What was the white man riding on that caused
the Indian to say, 'He walks sitting down'?_"
Do not ask questions calculated to draw out the correct response, but
wait in silence for the subject's spontaneous answer. It is permissible,
however, to re-read the passage if the subject requests it.
SCORING. _Two responses out of three must be satisfactory._ The
following explanations and examples will make clear the requirements of
the test:--
(a) _What the man saw hanging_
_Satisfactory._ The only correct answer for the first is "A man
who had hung himself" (or who had committed suicide, been
hanged, etc.). We may also pass the following answer: "Dead
branches that looked like a man hanging."
A good many subjects answer simply, "A man." This answer cannot
be scored because of the impossibility of knowing what is in the
subject's mind, and in such cases it is always necessary to say:
"_Explain what you mean._" The answer to this interrogation
always enables us to score the response.
_Unsatisfactory._ There is an endless variety of failures: "A
snake," "A monkey," "A robber," or "A tramp" being the most
common. Others include such answers as "A bear," "A tiger," "A
wild cat," "A cat," "A bird," "An eagle," "A bird's nest," "A
hornet's nest," "A leaf," "A swing," "A boy in a swing," "A
basket of flowers," "An egg," "A ghost," "A white sheet,"
"Clothes," "A purse," etc.
(b) _My neighbor_
_Satisfactory._ The expected answer is "A death," "Some one has
died," etc. We must always check up this response, however, by
asking what the lawyer came for, and this must also be answered
correctly.
While it is expected that the subject will understand that the
doctor came to attend a sick person, the lawyer to make his
will, and the minister to preach the funeral, there are a few
other ingenious interpretations which pass as satisfactory. For
example, "A man got hurt in an accident; the doctor came to make
him well, the lawyer to see about damages, and then he died and
the preacher came for the funeral." Or, "A man died, the lawyer
came to help the widow settle the estate and the preacher came
for the funeral." We can hardly expect the 14-year-old child to
know that it is not the custom to settle an estate until after
the funeral.
The following excellent response was given by an enlightened
young eugenist: "A marriage; the doctor came to examine them and
see if they were fit to marry, the lawyer to arrange the
marriage settlement, and the minister to marry them." The
following logical responses occurred once each: "A murder. The
doctor came to examine the body, the lawyer to get evidence, and
the preacher to preach the funeral." "An unmarried girl has
given birth to a child. The lawyer was employed to get the man
to marry her and then the preacher came to perform the wedding
ceremony." Perhaps some will consider this interpretation too
far-fetched to pass. But it is perfectly logical and,
unfortunately, represents an occurrence which is not so very
rare.
If an incorrect answer is first given and then corrected, the
correction is accepted.
_Unsatisfactory._ The failures again are quite varied, but are
most frequently due to failure to understand the lawyer's
mission. Of 66 tabulated failures, 26 are accounted for in this
way, while only 6 are due to inability to state the part played
by the minister. The most common incorrect responses are: "A
baby born" (accounting for 5 out of 66 failures); "A divorce"
(very common with the children tested by Dr. Ordahl, at Reno,
Nevada!); "A marriage"; "A divorce and a remarriage"; "A
dinner"; "An entertainment"; "Some friends came to chat," etc.
In 20 failures out of 66, marriage was incorrectly connected
with a will, a divorce, the death of a child, etc.
The following are not bad, but hardly deserve to pass: "Sickness
and trouble; the lawyer and minister came to help him out of
trouble." Or, "Somebody was sick; the lawyer wanted his money
and the minister came to see how he was." A few present a still
more logical interpretation, but so far-fetched that it is
doubtful whether they should count as passes; for example: "A
man and his wife had a fight. One got hurt and had to have the
doctor, then they had a lawyer to get them divorced, then the
minister came to marry one of them." Again, "Some one is dying
and is getting married and making his will before he dies."
(c) _What the man was riding on_
The only correct response is "Bicycle." The most common error is
_horse_ (or _donkey_), accounting for 48 out of 71 tabulated
failures. Vehicles, like _wagon_, _buggy_, _automobile_, or
_street car_, were mentioned in 14 out of 71 failures. Bizarre
replies are: "A cripple in a wheel chair"; "A person riding on
some one's back," etc.
REMARKS. The experiment is a form of the completion test. Elements of a
situation are given, out of which the entire situation is to be
constructed. This phase of intelligence has already been discussed.[74]
[74] See IX, 5, and XII, 4.
While it is generally admitted that the underlying idea of this test is
good, some have criticized Binet's selection of problems. Meumann thinks
the lawyer element of the second is so unfamiliar to children as to
render that part of the test unfair. Several "armchair" critics have
mentioned the danger of nervous shock from the first problem. Bobertag
throws out the test entirely and substitutes a completion test modeled
after that of Ebbinghaus. Our own results are altogether favorable to
the test. If it is used in year XIV, Meumann's objection hardly holds,
for American children of that age do ordinarily know something about
making wills. As for the danger of shock from the first problem, we have
never once found the slightest evidence of this much-feared result. The
subject always understands that the situation depicted is hypothetical,
and so answers either in a matter-of-fact manner or with a laugh.
The bicycle problem is our own invention. Binet used the other two and
required both to be answered correctly. The test was located in year XII
of the 1908 scale, and in year XV of the 1911 revision. Goddard and
Kuhlmann retain it in the original location. The Stanford results of
1911, 1912, 1914, and 1915 agree in showing the test too difficult for
year XII, even when only two out of three correct responses are
required. If the original form of the experiment is used, it is
exceedingly difficult for year XV. As here given it fits well at
year XIV.
XIV, 5. ARITHMETICAL REASONING
PROCEDURE. The following problems, printed in clear type, are shown one
at a time to the subject, who reads each problem aloud and (with the
printed problem still before him) finds the answer without the use of
pencil or paper.
(a) _If a man's salary is $20 a week and he spends $14 a week,
how long will it take him to save $300?_
(b) _If 2 pencils cost 5 cents, how many pencils can you buy for
50 cents?_
(c) _At 15 cents a yard, how much will 7 feet of cloth cost?_
Only one minute is allowed for each problem, but nothing is said about
hurrying. While one problem is being solved, the others should be hidden
from view. It is not permissible, if the subject gives an incorrect
answer, to ask him to solve the problem again. The following exception,
however, is made to this rule: If the answer given to the third problem
indicates that the word _yard_ has been read as _feet_, the subject is
asked to read the problem through again carefully (aloud) and to tell
how he solved it. No further help of any kind may be given.
SCORING. _Two of the three_ problems must be solved correctly within the
minute allotted to each. No credit is allowed for correct method if the
answer is wrong.
REMARKS. We have selected these problems from the list used by Bonser in
his _Study of the Reasoning Ability of Children in the Fourth, Fifth,
and Sixth School Grades_.[75]
[75] Columbia University Contributions to Education, no. 37, 1910.
Our tests of 279 "at age" children between 12 and 15 years reveal the
surprising fact that the test as here used and scored is not passed by
much over half of the children of any age in the grades below the
high-school age. Of the high-school pupils 19 per cent failed to pass,
21 per cent of ordinarily successful business men (!), and 27 per cent
of Knollin's unemployed men testing up to the "average adult" level. To
find average intelligence cutting such a sorry figure raises the
question whether the ancient definition of man as "the rational animal"
is justified by the facts. The truth is, _average_ intelligence does not
do a great deal of abstract, logical reasoning, and the little it does
is done usually under the whip of necessity.
At first thought these problems will doubtless appear to the reader to
be mere tests of schooling. It is true, of course, that in solving them
the subject makes use of knowledge which is ordinarily obtained in
school; but this knowledge (that is, knowledge of reading and of
addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) is possessed by
practically all adults who are not feeble-minded, and by many who are.
Success, therefore, depends upon the ability to apply this knowledge
readily and accurately to the problems given--precisely the kind of
ability in which a deficiency cannot be made good by school training. We
can teach even morons how to read problems and how to add, subtract,
multiply, and divide with a fair degree of accuracy; the trouble comes
when they try to decide which of these processes the problem calls for.
This may require intelligence of high or low order, according to the
difficulty of the problem. As for the present test, we have shown that
almost totally unschooled men of "average adult" intelligence pass this
test as frequently as high-school seniors of the same mental level.
XIV, 6. REVERSING HANDS OF CLOCK
PROCEDURE. Say to the subject: "_Suppose it is six twenty-two o'clock,
that is, twenty-two minutes after six; can you see in your mind where
the large hand would be, and where the small hand would be?_" Subjects
of 12- to 14-year intelligence practically always answer this in the
affirmative. Then continue: "_Now, suppose the two hands of the clock
were to trade places, so that the large hand takes the place where the
small hand was, and the small hand takes the place where the large hand
was. What time would it then be?_"
Repeat the test with the hands at 8.10 (10 minutes after 8), and again
with the hands at 2.46 (14 minutes before 3).
The subject is not allowed to look at a clock or watch, or to aid
himself by drawing, but must work out the problem mentally. As a rule
the answer is given within a few seconds or not at all. If an answer is
not forthcoming within two minutes the score is failure.
SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ problems are solved
within the following range of accuracy: the first solution is considered
correct if the answer falls between 4.30 and 4.35, inclusive; the second
if the answer falls between 1.40 and 1.45, and the third if the answer
falls between 9.10 and 9.15.
REMARKS. It appears that success in the test chiefly depends upon
voluntary control over constructive visual imagery. Weakness of visual
imagery may account for the failure of a considerable percentage of
adults to pass the test. Visual imagery, however, is not absolutely
necessary to success. One 8-year-old prodigy, who had 12-year
intelligence, arrived in forty seconds at a strictly mathematical
solution for the second problem, as follows: "If it is 2.46, and the
hands trade places, then the little hand has gone about one fourth of
the distance from 9 o'clock to 10 o'clock. One fourth of 60 minutes is
15 minutes, and so the time would be 15 minutes after 9 o'clock." Such a
solution is certainly possible by the use of verbal imagery of any type.
The test shows a high correlation with mental age, but more than most
others it is subject to the influence of cribbing. For this reason,
other positions of the clock hands should be tried out for the purpose
of finding substitute experiments of equal difficulty. Until such
experiments have been made, it will be necessary to confine the
experiment to the three positions here presented.
Schooling seems to have no influence whatever on the percentage of
passes.
This test was first used by Binet in 1905, but was not included in
either the 1908 or 1911 series. Goddard and Kuhlmann both include the
test in their revisions, placing it in year XV. They give only two
problems (our _a_ and _c_) and require that both be answered correctly.
Neither Goddard nor Kuhlmann, however, indicates the degree of error
permitted.
Something depends upon original position of the hands. Binet used 6.20
and 2.46. For some reason the 2.46 arrangement is much more difficult
than either 8.10 or 6.22, yielding almost twice as many failures as
either of the other positions.
XIV, ALTERNATIVE TESTS: REPEATING SEVEN DIGITS
This time, as in year X, only two series are given, one of which must be
repeated without error. The two series are: 2-1-8-3-4-3-9 and
9-7-2-8-4-7-5. Note that in none of the tests of repeating digits is it
permissible to warn the subject of the number to be given.
REMARKS. Binet originally placed this test in year XII, giving three
trials, but later moved it to year XV. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it in
year XII. Our data show that when three trials are given the test is too
easy for year XIV, but that it fits this age when only two trials are
allowed; that after the age of 12 or 14 years memory for relatively
meaningless material, like digits or nonsense syllables, improves but
little; and that above this level it does not correlate very closely
with intelligence.
CHAPTER XIX
INSTRUCTIONS FOR "AVERAGE ADULT"
AVERAGE ADULT, 1: VOCABULARY (SIXTY-FIVE DEFINITIONS, 11,700 WORDS)
PROCEDURE and SCORING, as in previous vocabulary tests.[76] At the
average adult level sixty-five words should be correctly defined.
[76] See VIII, 6.
AVERAGE ADULT, 2: INTERPRETATION OF FABLES (SCORE 8)
PROCEDURE. As in year XII, test 6. Use the same fables.
SCORING. The method of scoring is the same as for XII, but the total
score must be 8 points to satisfy the requirements at this level.
REMARKS. For discussion of test, see XII, 5.
AVERAGE ADULT, 3: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ABSTRACT TERMS
PROCEDURE. Say: _What is the difference between_:--
(a) _Laziness and idleness?_
(b) _Evolution and revolution?_
(c) _Poverty and misery?_
(d) _Character and reputation?_
SCORING. _Three correct contrasting definitions out of four_ are
necessary for a pass. It is not sufficient merely to give a correct
meaning for each word of a pair; the subject must point out a difference
between the two words so as to make a real contrast. For example, if the
subject defines _evolution_ as a "growth" or "gradual change," and
_revolution_ as the turning of a wheel on its axis, the experimenter
should say: "_Yes, but I want you to tell me the difference between
evolution and revolution._" If the contrast is not then forthcoming the
response is marked _minus_.
The following are sample definitions which may be considered
acceptable:--
(a) _Laziness and idleness._ "It is laziness if you won't
work, and idleness if you are willing to work but haven't any
job." "Lots of men are idle who are not lazy and would like to
work if they had something to do." "Laziness means you don't
want to work; idleness means you are not doing anything just
now." "Idle people may be lazy, or they may just happen to be
out of a job." "It is laziness when you don't like to work, and
idleness when you are not working." "An idle person might be
willing to work; a lazy man won't work." "Laziness comes from
within; idleness may be forced upon one." "Laziness is aversion
to activity; idleness is simply the state of inactivity."
"Laziness is idleness from choice or preference; idleness means
doing nothing."
The essential contrast, accordingly, is that _laziness refers to
unwillingness to work; idleness to the mere fact of inactivity_.
This contrast must be expressed, however clumsily.
(b) _Evolution and revolution._ "Evolution is a gradual
change; revolution is a sudden change." "Evolution is natural
development; revolution is sudden upheaval." "Evolution means an
unfolding or development; revolution means a complete upsetting
of everything." "Evolution is the gradual development of a
country or government; revolution is a quick change of
government." "Evolution takes place by natural force; a
revolution is caused by an outside force." "Evolution is growth;
revolution is a quick change from existing conditions."
"Evolution is a natural change; revolution is a violent
change." "Evolution is growth step by step; revolution is more
sudden and radical in its action." "Evolution is a change
brought about by peaceful development, while revolution is
brought about by an uprising."
The essential distinction, accordingly, is that _evolution means
a gradual, natural, or slow change, while revolution means a
sudden, forced, or violent change_. Non-contrasting definitions,
even when the individual terms are defined correctly, are not
satisfactory.
(c) _Poverty and misery._ "Poverty is when you are poor;
misery means suffering." "Only the poor are in poverty, but
everybody can be miserable." "Poverty is the lowest stage of
poorness; misery means pain." "The poor are not always
miserable, and the rich are miserable sometimes." "Poverty means
to be in want; misery comes from any kind of suffering or
anguish." "The poor are in poverty; the sick are in misery."
"Poverty is the condition of being very poor financially; misery
is a feeling which any class of people can have." "One who is
poor is in poverty; one who is wretched or doesn't enjoy life is
in misery." "Poverty comes from lack of money; misery, from lack
of happiness or comfort." "Misery means distress. It can come
from poverty or many other things."
(d) _Character and reputation._ "Character is what you are;
reputation is what people say about you." "You have character if
you are honest; but you might be honest and still have a bad
reputation among people who misjudge you." "Character is your
real self; reputation is the opinion people have about you."
"Your character depends upon yourself; reputation depends on
what others think of you." "Character means your real morals;
reputation is the way you are known in the world." "A man has a
good character if he would not do evil; but a man may have a
good reputation and still have a bad character."
A little practice and a good deal of discrimination are necessary for
the correct grading of responses to this test. Subjects are often so
clumsy in expression that their responses are anything but clear. It is
then necessary to ask them to explain what they mean. Further
questioning, however, is not permissible. For uniformity in scoring it
is necessary to bear in mind that the definitions given must, in order
to be satisfactory, express the essential distinction between the two
words.
REMARKS. What we have said regarding the psychological significance of
test 2, year XII, applies equally well here. The test on the whole is a
valuable one. Our statistics show that it is not, as some critics have
thought, mainly a test of schooling.
The main criticism to be made is that it imposes a somewhat difficult
task upon the power of language expression. For this reason it is
necessary in scoring to disregard clumsiness of expression and to look
only to the essential correctness or incorrectness of the thought.
This test first appeared in year XIII of Binet's 1908 scale. The terms
used were "happiness and honor"; "evolution and revolution"; "event and
advent"; "poverty and misery"; "pride and pretension." In the 1911
revision, "happiness and honor" and "pride and pretension" were dropped,
and the other three pairs were moved up to the adult group, two out of
three successes being required for a pass. Kuhlmann places it in
year XV, using "happiness and honor" instead of our "character and
reputation," and requires three successes out of five.
AVERAGE ADULT, 4: PROBLEM OF THE ENCLOSED BOXES
PROCEDURE. Show the subject a cardboard box about one inch on a side.
Say: "_You see this box; it has two smaller boxes inside of it, and each
one of the smaller boxes contains a little tiny box. How many boxes are
there altogether, counting the big one?_" To be sure that the subject
understands repeat the statement of the problem: "_First the large box,
then two smaller ones, and each of the smaller ones contains a little
tiny box._"
Record the response, and, showing another box, say: "_This box has two
smaller boxes inside, and each of the smaller boxes contains two tiny
boxes. How many altogether? Remember, first the large box, then two
smaller ones, and each smaller one contains two tiny boxes._"
The third problem, which is given in the same way, states that there are
_three_ smaller boxes, each of which contains _three_ tiny boxes.
In the fourth problem there are _four_ smaller boxes, each containing
_four_ tiny boxes.
The problem must be given orally, and the solution must be found without
the aid of pencil or paper. Only one half-minute is allowed for each
problem. Note that each problem is stated twice.
A correction is permitted, provided it is offered spontaneously and does
not seem to be the result of guessing. Guessing can be checked up by
asking the subject to explain the solution.
SCORING. _Three of the four_ problems must be solved correctly within
the half-minute allotted to each.
REMARKS. Success depends, in the first place, upon ability to comprehend
the statement of the problem and to hold its conditions in mind.
Subjects much below the 12-year level of intelligence are often unable
to do this.
Granting that the problem has been comprehended, success seems to depend
chiefly upon the facility with which the constructive imagination
manipulates concrete visual imagery. In this respect it resembles the
problem of reversing the hands of a clock. With some subjects, however,
verbal imagery alone is operative. Tactual imagery would, of course,
serve the purpose as well.
This is as good a place as any to emphasize the fact that the
introspective study of mental imagery has little to contribute to the
measurement of intelligence. Intelligence tests are concerned with the
total result of a thought process, rather than with the imagery supports
of that process. Thought may be carried on almost equally well by
various kinds of imagery. As Galton showed, a person can be taught to
carry on arithmetical processes by the use of smell imagery. The kind of
imagery employed is the product of slight, innate preferences
complicated by the more or less accidental effects of habit.
We may say that imagery is to thinking what scaffolding is to
architecture. The important thing is the completed building rather than
the nature of the scaffolding employed in erecting it. No one thinks of
blaming the ill construction of a building upon the kind of scaffolding
used, for if the architect and builder are competent satisfactory
scaffolding will be found. Just as little are deficiencies or
peculiarities of imagery the real cause of low-order intelligence. We
cannot increase intelligence by formal drill in the use of supposedly
important kinds of mental imagery, any more than we can transform a
plain carpenter into a Michael Angelo by instructing him in the use of
scaffolding materials such as were employed in the construction of St.
Peter's Cathedral.
This test is of our own invention and has been brought to its present
form only after a good deal of preliminary experimentation. It
correlates fairly well with mental age as determined by the scale as a
whole. It was passed by 55 per cent of high-school pupils and by
65 per cent of unschooled business men. Success in it is thus seen not
to depend upon schooling.
AVERAGE ADULT, 5: REPEATING SIX DIGITS REVERSED
The series used are: 4-7-1-9-5-2; 5-8-3-2-9-4; and 7-5-2-6-3-8.
PROCEDURE and SCORING, as in year VII, alternative 2.
REMARKS. The test is passed by approximately half of "average adults"
and by three fourths of "superior adults." It shows no effect of
schooling, the uneducated business men even surpassing our high-school
students.
For the higher levels of intelligence, especially, the test is superior
to that of repeating digits in the direct order. It is less mechanical
and makes heavier demands upon higher intelligence.
AVERAGE ADULT, 6: USING A CODE
PROCEDURE. Show the subject the code given on the accompanying form.
Say: "_See these diagrams here. Look and you will see that they contain
all the letters of the alphabet. Now, examine the arrangement of the
letters. They go_ (pointing) _a b c, d e f, g h i, j k l, m n o, p q r,
s t u v, w x y z. You see the letters in the first two diagrams are
arranged in the up-and-down order_ (pointing again), _and the letters in
the other two diagrams run in just the opposite way from the hands of a
clock_ (pointing). _Look again and you will see that the second diagram
is drawn just like the first, except that each letter has a dot with it,
and that the last diagram is like the third except that here, also, each
letter has a dot. Now, all of this represents a code; that is, a secret
language. It is a real code, one that was used in the Civil War for
sending secret messages. This is the way it works: we draw the lines
which hold a letter, but leave out the letter. Here, for example, is the
way we would write 'spy?'_" Then write the word _spy_, pointing out
carefully where each letter comes from, and emphasizing the fact that
the dot must be used in addition to the lines in writing any letter in
the second or the fourth diagram. Illustrate also with _war_.
Then add: "_I am going to have you write something for me; remember now,
how the letters go, first_ (pointing, as before) _a b c, d e f, g h i,
then j k l, m n o, p q r, then s t u v, then w x y z. And don't forget
the dots for the letters in this diagram and this one_" (pointing). At
this point, take away the diagrams and tell the subject to write the
words _come quickly_. Say nothing about hurrying.
The subject is given a pencil, but is allowed to draw only the symbols
for the words _come quickly_. He is not permitted to reproduce the
entire code and then to copy the code letters from his reproduction.
SCORING. The test is passed if the words are written in _six minutes and
without more than two errors_. Omission of a dot counts as only a half
error.
REMARKS. It is not easy to analyze the mental functions which contribute
to success in the code test. Contrary to what might be supposed, success
does not necessarily depend upon getting and retaining a visual picture
of the diagrams. Kinæsthetic imagery will answer the purpose just as
well, or the original visual impression may even be translated at once
into auditory-verbal imagery and remembered as such. The significance of
the test must be expressed in other terms than the kind of imagery it
may happen to bring into play.
Healy and Fernald describe the task of writing a code sentence without
copy as one which requires "close attention and steadiness of purpose."
They also emphasize the fact that the attention must be directed inward,
since there is no object of interest before the senses and since no
special stimulus to attention is offered by the experimenter.
Observations we have made on subjects during the test confirm this view
as to the factors involved.
That inability to remember the code as a whole is not a common cause of
failure is shown by the fact that subjects above 12-year intelligence
who have failed on the test are nearly always able to reproduce the
diagrams and insert the letters in their proper places. To give the code
form of a given letter without copy, however, makes a much heavier
demand on attention. Nearly all subjects find it necessary to trace the
code form, in imagination, from the beginning up to each letter whose
code form is sought. Subjects of superior intelligence, however,
sometimes hit upon the device of remembering the position of the
individual key letters e.g. (the first letter of each figure) from
which, as a base, any desired letter form may be quickly sought out.
The test correlates well with mental age, but for some reason not
apparent it is passed by a larger percentage of high-school pupils than
unschooled adults of the same mental level.
The code test was first described by Healy and Fernald in their "Tests
for Practical Mental Classification."[77] The authors gave no data,
however, which would indicate the mental level to which the test
belongs. Dr. Goddard incorporated it in year XV of his revision of the
Binet scale, but also fails to give statistics. The location given
the test in the Stanford revision is based on tests of nearly
500 individuals ranging from a mental level of 12 years to that of
"superior adult." It appears that the test is considerably more
difficult than most had thought it to be.
[77] _Psychological Review Monographs_ (1911), vol. XIII, no. 2, p. 51.
AVERAGE ADULT, ALTERNATIVE TEST 1: REPEATING TWENTY-EIGHT SYLLABLES
The sentences for this test are:--
(a) _Walter likes very much to go on visits to his grandmother,
because she always tells him many funny stories._
(b) _Yesterday I saw a pretty little dog in the street. It had
curly brown hair, short legs, and a long tail._
PROCEDURE. Exactly as in VI, 6. Emphasize that the sentence must be
repeated without a single change of any sort. Get attention before
giving each sentence.
SCORING. Passed _if one sentence is repeated without a single error_. In
VI and X we scored the response as satisfactory if one sentence was
repeated without error, or if two were repeated with not more than one
error each.
REMARKS. The test of repeating sentences is not as satisfactory in the
higher intelligence levels as in the lower. It is too mechanical to tax
very heavily the higher thought processes. It does, however, have a
certain correlation with intelligence. Contrary to what one would have
expected, uneducated adults of "average adult" intelligence surpassed
our high-school students of the same mental level.
Binet located this test in year XII of the 1908 series, but shifted it
to year XV in 1911. The American versions of the Binet scale have
usually retained it in year XII, though Goddard admits that the
sentences are somewhat too difficult for that year. Kuhlmann puts the
test in year XII, but reduces the sentences to twenty-four syllables and
permits one re-reading. We give only two trials and our sentences are
considerably more difficult. With the procedure and scoring we have
used, the test is rather easy for the "average adult" group, but a
little too hard for year XIV.
AVERAGE ADULT, ALTERNATIVE TEST 2: COMPREHENSION OF PHYSICAL RELATIONS
(a) _Problem regarding the path of a cannon ball_
PROCEDURE. Draw on a piece of paper a horizontal line six or eight
inches long. Above it, an inch or two, draw a short horizontal line
about an inch long and parallel to the first. Tell the subject that the
long line represents the perfectly level ground of a field, and that the
short line represents a cannon. Explain that the cannon is "_pointed
horizontally (on a level) and is fired across this perfectly level
field_." After it is clear that these conditions of the problem are
comprehended, we add: "_Now, suppose that this cannon is fired off and
that the ball comes to the ground at this point here_ (pointing to the
farther end of the line which represents the field). _Take this pencil
and draw a line which will show what path the cannon ball will take from
the time it leaves the mouth of the cannon till it strikes the ground._"
SCORING. There are four types of response: (1) A straight diagonal line
is drawn from the cannon's mouth to the point where the ball strikes.
(2) A straight line is drawn from the cannon's mouth running
horizontally until almost directly over the goal, at which point the
line drops almost or quite vertically. (3) The path from the cannon's
mouth first rises considerably from the horizontal, at an angle perhaps
of between ten to forty-five degrees, and finally describes a gradual
curve downward to the goal. (4) The line begins almost on a level and
drops more rapidly toward the end of its course.
Only the last is satisfactory. Of course, nothing like a mathematically
accurate solution of the problem is expected. It is sufficient if the
response belongs to the fourth type above instead of being absurd, as
the other types described are. Any one who has ever thrown stones should
have the data for such an approximate solution. Not a day of schooling
is necessary.
(b) _Problem as to the weight of a fish in water_
PROCEDURE. Say to the subject: "_You know, of course, that water holds
up a fish that is placed in it. Well, here is a problem. Suppose we have
a bucket which is partly full of water. We place the bucket on the
scales and find that with the water in it it weighs exactly 45 pounds.
Then we put a 5-pound fish into the bucket of water. Now, what will the
whole thing weigh?_"
SCORING. Many subjects even as low as 9- or 10-year intelligence will
answer promptly, "Why, 45 pounds and 5 pounds makes 50 pounds, of
course." But this is not sufficient. We proceed to ask, with serious
demeanor: "_How can this be correct, since the water itself holds up the
fish?_" The young subject who has answered so glibly now laughs
sheepishly and apologizes for his error, saying that he answered without
thinking, etc. This response is scored failure without further
questioning.
Other subjects, mostly above the 14-year level, adhere to the answer
"50 pounds," however strongly we urge the argument about the water
holding up the fish. In response to our question, "_How can that be the
case?_" it is sufficient if the subject replies that "The weight is
there just the same; the scales have to hold up the bucket and the
bucket has to hold up the water," or words to that effect. Only some
such response as this is satisfactory. If the subject keeps changing his
answer or says that he _thinks_ the weight would be 50 pounds, but is
not certain, the score is failure.
(c) _Difficulty of hitting a distant mark_
PROCEDURE. Say to the subject: "_You know, do you not, what it means
when they say a gun 'carries 100 yards'? It means that the bullet goes
that far before it drops to amount to anything._" All boys and most
girls more than a dozen years old understand this readily. If the
subject does not understand, we explain again what it means for a gun
"to carry" a given distance. When this part is clear, we proceed as
follows: "_Now, suppose a man is shooting at a mark about the size of a
quart can. His rifle carries perfectly more than 100 yards. With such a
gun is it any harder to hit the mark at 100 yards than it is at
50 yards?_" After the response is given, we ask the subject to explain.
SCORING. Simply to say that it would be easier at 50 yards is not
sufficient, nor can we pass the response which merely states that it is
"easier to aim" at 50 yards. The correct principle must be given, one
which shows the subject has appreciated the fact that a small deviation
from the "bull's-eye" at 50 yards, due to incorrect aim, becomes a
larger deviation at 100 yards. However, the subject is not required to
know that the deviation at 100 yards is exactly twice as great as at
50 yards. A certain amount of questioning is often necessary before we
can decide whether the subject has the correct principle in mind.
SCORING THE ENTIRE TEST. _Two of the three problems_ must be solved in
such a way as to satisfy the requirements above set forth.
REMARKS. These problems were devised by the writer. They yield
interesting results, when properly given, but are not without their
faults. Sometimes a very superior subject fails, while occasionally an
inferior subject unexpectedly succeeds. On the whole, however the test
correlates fairly well with mental age. At the 14-year level less than
50 per cent pass; of "average adults," from 60 to 75 per cent are
successful. Few "superior adults" fail.
The test as here given is little influenced by the formal instruction
given in the grades or the high school. In fact, 80 per cent of our
uneducated business men, as contrasted with 65 per cent of high-school
juniors and seniors, passed the test. Success probably depends in the
main upon previous interest in physical relationships and upon the
ability to understand phenomena of this kind which the subject has had
opportunity to observe.
It would be interesting to standardize a longer series of problems
designed to test a subject's comprehension of common physical
relationships. In the first few months of life a normal child learns
that objects unsupported fall to the ground. Later he learns that fire
burns; that birds fly in the air; that fish do not sink in the water;
that water does not run uphill; that it is easy to lift a leg or arm as
one lies prone in the water; that mud is thrown from a rotating wheel
(and always in the same direction); that a stone which is flying
through the air swiftly is more dangerous than one which is moving
slowly; that it is more dangerous to be run over by a train than by a
buggy; that it is hard to run against a strong wind; that cyclones blow
down trees and houses; that a rapidly moving train creates a stronger
wind than a slower train; that a feather falls through the air with less
speed than a stone; that a falling object gains momentum; that a heavy
moving object is harder to stop than a light object moving at the same
rate; that freezing water bursts pipes; that sounds sometimes give
echoes; that rainbows cannot be approached; that a lamp seems dim by
daylight; that by day the stars are not visible and the moon only barely
visible; that the headlights of an approaching automobile or train are
blinding; that if the room in which we are reading is badly lighted we
must hold the book nearer to the eyes; that running makes the heart beat
faster and increases the rate of breathing; that if we are cold we can
get warm by running; that whirling rapidly makes us dizzy; that heat or
exercise will cause perspiration, etc.
Although the causes of some of these phenomena are not understood even
by intelligent adults without some instruction, the facts themselves are
learned by the normal individual from his own experience. The higher the
mental level and the greater the curiosity, the more observant one is
about such matters and the more one learns. Many items of knowledge such
as we have mentioned could and should be standardized for various mental
levels. In devising tests of this kind we should, of course, have to
look out for the influences of formal instruction.
CHAPTER XX
INSTRUCTIONS FOR "SUPERIOR ADULT"
SUPERIOR ADULT, 1: VOCABULARY (SEVENTY-FIVE DEFINITIONS, 13,500 WORDS)
PROCEDURE and SCORING, as in previous vocabulary tests. At the "superior
adult" level seventy-five words should be known.
The test is passed by only one third of those at the "average adult"
level, but by about 90 per cent of "superior adults." Ability to pass
the test is relatively independent of the number of years the subject
has attended school, our business men showing even a higher percentage
of passes than high-school pupils.
SUPERIOR ADULT, 2: BINET'S PAPER-CUTTING TEST
PROCEDURE. Take a piece of paper about six inches square and say:
"_Watch carefully what I do. See, I fold the paper this way_ (folding it
once over in the middle), _then I fold it this way_ (folding it again in
the middle, but at right angles to the first fold). _Now, I will cut out
a notch right here_" (indicating). At this point take scissors and cut
out a small notch from the middle of the side which presents but one
edge. Throw the fragment which has been cut out into the waste-basket or
under the table. Leave the folded paper exposed to view, but pressed
flat against the table. Then give the subject a pencil and a second
sheet of paper like the one already used and say: "_Take this piece of
paper and make a drawing to show how the other sheet of paper would look
if it were unfolded. Draw lines to show the creases in the paper and
show what results from the cutting._"
The subject is not permitted to fold the second sheet, but must solve
the problem by the imagination unaided.
Note that we do not say, "_Draw the holes_," as this would inform the
subject that more than one hole is expected.
SCORING. The test is passed _if the creases in the paper are properly
represented, if the holes are drawn in the correct number, and if they
are located correctly_, that is, both on the same crease and each about
halfway between the center of the paper and the side. The shape of the
holes is disregarded.
Failure may be due to error as regards the creases or the number and
location of the holes, or it may involve any combination of the above
errors.
REMARKS. Success seems to depend upon constructive visual imagination.
The subject must first be able to construct in imagination the creases
which result from the folding, and secondly, to picture the effects of
the cutting as regards number of holes and their location. It appears
that a solution is seldom arrived at, even in the case of college
students, by logical mathematical thinking. Our unschooled subjects even
succeeded somewhat better than high-school and college students of the
same mental level.
Binet placed this test in year XIII of the 1908 scale, but shifted it to
the adult group in the 1911 revision. Goddard retains it in the adult
group, while Kuhlmann places it in year XV. There have also been certain
variations in the procedure employed. As given in the Stanford revision
the test is passed by hardly any subjects below the 14-year level, but
by about one third of "average adults" and by the large majority of
"superior adults."
SUPERIOR ADULT, 3: REPEATING EIGHT DIGITS
PROCEDURE and SCORING, the same as in previous tests with digits
reversed. The series used are: 7-2-5-3-4-8-9-6; 4-9-8-5-3-7-6-2; and
8-3-7-9-5-4-8-2.
Guard against rhythm and grouping in reading the digits and do not give
warning as to the number to be given.
The test is passed by about one third of "average adults" and by over
two thirds of "superior adults." The test shows no marked difference
between educated and uneducated subjects of the same mental level.
SUPERIOR ADULT, 4: REPEATING THOUGHT OF PASSAGE
PROCEDURE. Say: "_I am going to read a little selection of about six or
eight lines. When I am through I will ask you to repeat as much of it as
you can. It doesn't make any difference whether you remember the exact
words or not, but you must listen carefully so that you can tell me
everything it says._" Then read the following selections, pausing after
each for the subject's report, which should be recorded _verbatim_:--
(a) "_Tests such as we are now making are of value both for the
advancement of science and for the information of the person
who is tested. It is important for science to learn how people
differ and on what factors these differences depend. If we can
separate the influence of heredity from the influence of
environment, we may be able to apply our knowledge so as to
guide human development. We may thus in some cases correct
defects and develop abilities which we might otherwise
neglect._"
(b) "_Many opinions have been given on the value of life. Some
call it good, others call it bad. It would be nearer correct
to say that it is mediocre; for on the one hand, our
happiness is never as great as we should like, and on the
other hand, our misfortunes are never as great as our enemies
would wish for us. It is this mediocrity of life which
prevents it from being radically unjust._"
Sometimes the subject hesitates to begin, thinking, in spite of our
wording of the instructions, that a perfect reproduction is expected.
Others fall into the opposite misunderstanding and think that they are
prohibited from using the words of the text and must give the thought
entirely in their own language. In cases of hesitation we should urge
the subject a little and remind him that he is to express the thought of
the selection in whatever way he prefers; that the main thing is to tell
what the selection says.
SCORING. The test is passed if the subject is able to repeat in
reasonably consecutive order the main thoughts of at least one of the
selections. Neither elegance of expression nor _verbatim_ repetition is
expected. We merely want to know whether the leading thoughts in the
selection have been grasped and remembered.
All grades of accuracy are found, both in the comprehension of the
selection and in the recall, and it is not always easy to draw the line
between satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses. The following sample
performances will serve as a guide:--
_Selection (a)_
_Satisfactory._ "The tests which we are making are given for the
advancement of science and for the information of the person
tested. By scientific means we will be able to separate
characteristics derived from heredity and environment and to
treat each class separately. By doing so we can more accurately
correct defects."
"Tests like these are for two purposes. First to develop a
science, and second to apply it to the person to help him. The
tests are to find out how you differ from another and to measure
the difference between your heredity and environment."
"These tests are given to see if we can separate heredity and
environment and to see if we can find out how one person differs
from another. We can then correct these differences and teach
people more effectively."
"The tests that we are now making are valuable along both
scientific and personal lines. By using them it can be found out
where a person is weak and where he is strong. We can then
strengthen his weak points and remedy some things that would
otherwise be neglected. They are of great benefit to science and
to the person concerned."
"Tests such as we are now making are of great importance because
they aim to show in what respects we differ from others and why,
and if they do this they will be able to guide us into the right
channel and bring success instead of failure."
_Unsatisfactory._ "Tests such as we are now making are of value
both for the advancement of science and for the information of
the person interested. It is necessary to know this."
"Such tests as we are now making show about the human mind and
show in what channels we are fitted. It is the testing of each
individual between his effects of inheritancy and environment."
"It is very interesting for us to study science for two reasons;
first, to test our mental ability, and second for the further
development of science."
"Tests such as we are now making help in two ways; it helps the
scientists and it gives information to the people."
"Tests are being given to pupils to-day to better them and to
aid science for generations to come. If each person knows
exactly his own beliefs and ideas and faults he can find out
exactly what kind of work he is fitted for by heredity. The
tests show that environment doesn't count, for if you are all
right you will get along anyway." (Note invention.)
_Selection (b)_
_Satisfactory._ "There are different opinions about life. Some
call it good and some bad. It would be more correct to say that
it is middling, because we are never as happy as we would like
to be and we are never as sad as our enemies want us to be."
"One hears many judgments about life. Some say it is good, while
others say it is bad. But it is really neither of the extremes.
Life is mediocre. We do not have as much good as we desire, nor
do we have as much misfortune as others want us to have.
Nevertheless, we have enough good to keep life from being
unjust."
"Some people have different views of life from others. Some say
it is bad, others say it is good. It is better to class life as
mediocre, as it is never as good as we wish it, and on the other
hand, it might be worse."
"Some people think differently of life. Some think it good, some
bad, others mediocre, which is nearest correct. It brings
unhappiness to us, but not as much as our enemies want us to
have."
_Unsatisfactory._ "Some say life is good, some say it is
mediocre. Even though some say it is mediocre they say it is
right."
"There are two sides of life. Some say it is good while others
say it is bad. To some, life is happy and they get all they can
out of life. For others life is not happy and therefore they
fail to get all there is in life."
"One hears many different judgments of life. Some call it good,
some call it bad. It brings unhappiness and it does not have
enough pleasure. It should be better distributed."
"There are different opinions of the value of life. Some say it
is good and some say it is bad. Some say it is mediocrity. Some
think it brings happiness while others do not."
"Nowadays there is much said about the value of life. Some say
it is good, while others say it is bad. A person should not have
an ill feeling toward the value of life, and he should not be
unjust to any one. Honesty is the best policy. People who are
unjust are more likely to be injured by their enemies." (Note
invention.)
REMARKS. Contrary to what the subject is led to expect, the test is less
a test of memory than of ability to comprehend the drift of an abstract
passage. A subject who fully grasps the meaning of the selection as it
is read is not likely to fail because of poor memory. Mere verbal memory
improves but little after the age of 14 or 15 years, as is shown by the
fact that our adults do little better than eighth-grade children in
repeating sentences of twenty-eight syllables. On the other hand, adult
intelligence is vastly superior in the comprehension and retention of a
logically presented group of abstract ideas.
There is nothing in which stupid persons cut a poorer figure than in
grappling with the abstract. Their thinking clings tenaciously to the
concrete; their concepts are vague or inaccurate; the interrelations
among their concepts are scanty in the extreme; and such poor mental
stores as they have are little available for ready use.
A few critics have objected to the use of tests demanding abstract
thinking, on the ground that abstract thought is a very special aspect
of intelligence and that facility in it depends almost entirely on
occupational habits and the accidents of education. Some have even gone
so far as to say that we are not justified, on the basis of any number
of such tests, in pronouncing a subject backward or defective. It is
supposed that a subject who has no capacity in the use of abstract ideas
may nevertheless have excellent intelligence "along other lines." In
such cases, it is said, we should not penalize the subject for his
failures in handling abstractions, but substitute, instead, tests
requiring motor coördination and the manipulation of things, tests in
which the supposedly dull child often succeeds fairly well.
From the psychological point of view, such a proposal is naïvely
unpsychological. It is in the very essence of the higher thought
processes to be conceptual and abstract. What the above proposal amounts
to is, that if the subject is not capable of the more complex and
strictly human type of thinking, we should ignore this fact and estimate
his intelligence entirely on the ability he displays to carry on mental
operations of a more simple and primitive kind. This would be like
asking the physician to ignore the diseased parts of his patient's body
and to base his diagnosis on an examination of the organs which are
sound!
The present test throws light in an interesting way on the integrity of
the critical faculty. Some subjects are unwilling to extend the report
in the least beyond what they know to be approximately correct, while
others with defective powers of auto-criticism manufacture a report
which draws heavily on the imagination, perhaps continuing in garrulous
fashion as long as they can think of anything having the remotest
connection with any thought in the selection. We have included, for each
selection, one illustration of this type in the sample failures given
above.
The worst fault of the test is its susceptibility to the influence of
schooling. Our uneducated adults of even "superior adult" intelligence
often fail, while about two thirds of high-school pupils succeed. The
unschooled adults have a marked tendency either to give a summary which
is inadequate because of its extreme brevity, or else to give a
criticism of the thought which the passage contains.
This test first appeared in Binet's 1911 revision, in the adult group.
Binet used only selection (b), and in a slightly more difficult form
than we have given above. Goddard gives the test like Binet and retains
it in the adult group. Kuhlmann locates it in year XV, using only
selection (a). On the basis of over 300 tests of adults we find the
test too difficult for the "average adult" level, even on the basis of
only one success in two trials and when scored on the rather liberal
standard above set forth.
SUPERIOR ADULT, 5: REPEATING SEVEN DIGITS REVERSED
PROCEDURE and SCORING, the same as in previous tests of this kind. The
series are: 4-1-6-2-5-9-3; 3-8-2-6-4-7-5; and 9-4-5-2-8-3-7.
We have collected fewer data on this test than on any of the others, as
it was added later to the test series. As far as we have used it we have
found few "average adults" who pass, while about half the "superior
adults" do so.
SUPERIOR ADULT, 6: INGENUITY TEST
PROCEDURE. Problem _a_ is stated as follows:--
_A mother sent her boy to the river and told him to bring back
exactly 7 pints of water. She gave him a 3-pint vessel and a
5-pint vessel. Show me how the boy can measure out exactly
7 pints of water, using nothing but these two vessels and not
guessing at the amount. You should begin by filling the 5-pint
vessel first. Remember, you have a 3-pint vessel and a 5-pint
vessel and you must bring back exactly 7 pints._
The problem is given orally, but may be repeated if necessary.
The subject is not allowed pencil or paper and is requested to give his
solution orally as he works it out. It is then possible to make a
complete record of the method employed.
The subject is likely to resort to some such method as to "fill the
3-pint vessel two thirds full," or, "I would mark the inside of the
5-pint vessel so as to show where 4 pints come to," etc. We inform the
subject that such a method is not allowable; that this would be
guessing, since he could not be sure when the 3-pint vessel was two
thirds full (or whether he had marked off his 5-pint vessel accurately).
Tell him he must _measure_ out the water without any guesswork. Explain
also, that it is a fair problem, not a "catch."
Say nothing about pouring from one vessel to another, but if the subject
asks whether this is permissible the answer is "yes."
The time limit for each problem is 5 minutes. If the subject fails on
the first problem, we explain the solution in full and then proceed to
the next.
The second problem is like the first, except that a 5-pint vessel and a
7-pint vessel are given, to get 8 pints, the subject being told to begin
by filling the 5-pint vessel.
In the third problem 4 and 9 are given, to get 7, the instruction being
to "begin by filling the 4-pint vessel."
Note that in each problem we instruct the subject how to begin. This is
necessary in order to secure uniformity of conditions. It is possible to
solve all of the problems by beginning with either of the two vessels,
but the solution is made very much more difficult if we begin in the
direction opposite from that recommended.
Give no further aid. It is necessary to refrain from comment of every
kind.
SCORING. _Two of the three_ problems must be solved correctly within the
5 minutes allotted to each.
REMARKS. We have called this a test of ingenuity. The subject who is
given the problem finds himself involved in a difficulty from which he
must extricate himself. Means must be found to overcome an obstacle.
This requires practical judgement and a certain amount of inventive
ingenuity. Various possibilities must be explored and either accepted
for trial or rejected. If the amount of invention called for seems to
the reader inconsiderable, let it be remembered that the important
inventions of history have not as a rule had a Minerva birth, but
instead have developed by successive stages, each involving but a small
step in advance.
It is unnecessary to emphasize at length the function of invention in
the higher thought processes. In one form or another it is present in
all intellectual activity; in the creation and use of language, in art,
in social adjustments, in religion, and in philosophy, as truly as in
the domains of science and practical affairs. Certainly this is true if
we accept Mason's broad definition of invention as including "every
change in human activity made designedly and systematically."[78] From
the psychological point of view, perhaps, Mason is justified in looking
upon the great inventor as "an epitome of the genius of the world." To
develop a Krag-Joergensen from a bow and arrow, a "velvet-tipped"
lucifer match from the primitive fire-stick, or a modern piano from the
first crude, stringed, musical instrument has involved much the same
intellectual processes as have been operative in transforming fetishism
and magic into religion and philosophy, or scattered fragments of
knowledge into science.
[78] Otis T. Mason: _The Origins of Inventions_. (London, 1902.)
Psychologically, invention depends upon the constructive imagination;
that is, upon the ability to abstract from what is immediately present
to the senses and to picture new situations with their possibilities and
consequences. Images are united in order to form new combinations.
As we have several times emphasized, the decisive intellectual
differences among human beings are not greatly dependent upon mere sense
discrimination or native retentiveness. Far more important than the raw
mass of sense data is the correct shooting together of the sense
elements in memory and imagination. This is but another name for
invention. It is the synthetic, or apperceptive, activity of the mind
that gives the "seven-league boots" to genius. It is, however, a kind of
ability which is possessed by all minds to a greater or less degree. Any
test has its value which gives a clue, as this test does, to the
subject's ability in this direction.
The test was devised by the writer and used in 1905 in a study of the
intellectual processes of bright and dull boys, but it was not at that
time standardized. It has been found to belong at a much higher mental
level than was at first supposed. Only an insignificant number pass the
test below the mental age of 14 years, and about two thirds of "average
adults" fail. Of our "superior adults" somewhat more than 75 per cent
succeed. Formal education influences the test little or not at all, the
unschooled business men making a somewhat better showing than the
high-school students.
SELECTED REFERENCES
The following classified lists include only the most important
references under each topic. So many investigations have been made with
the Binet-Simon tests in the last few years, and so many articles have
been written in evaluation of the method, that a complete bibliography
of the subject would require thirty or forty pages. Those who desire to
make a more thorough study of the literature are referred to the
admirable annotated bibliography compiled by Samuel C. Kohs, and
published by Warwick & York, Baltimore. Kohs's Bibliography contains
254 references, and is complete to January 1, 1914.
BINET-SIMON TESTS OF NORMAL CHILDREN
1. Binet, A., _et_ Simon, Th. "Le développement de l'intelligence
chez les enfants"; in _Année psychologique_ (1908), vol. 14,
pp. 1-94.
Exposition of the original 1908 scale with results.
2. Binet, A. "Nouvelles recherches sur la mesure du niveau
intellectuel chez les enfants d'école"; in _Année
psychologique_ (1911), vol. 17, pp. 145-201.
Presents the 1911 revision.
3. Bobertag, O. "Ueber Intelligenzprüfungen (nach der Methode von
Binet und Simon)"; in _Zeitschrift für angewande Psychologie_
(1911), vol. 5, pp. 105-203; and (1912), vol. 6, pp. 495-537.
Analysis of 400 cases and criticism of method and results.
4. Dougherty, M. L. "Report on the Binet-Simon Tests given to Four
Hundred and Eighty-three Children in the Public Schools of
Kansas City, Kansas"; in _Journal of Educational Psychology_
(1913), vol. 4, pp. 338-52.
5. Goddard, H. H. "The Binet-Simon Measuring Scale for
Intelligence, Revised"; in _Training School Bulletin_ (1911),
vol. 8, pp. 56-62.
6. Hoffman, A. "Vergleichende Intelligenzprüfungen an Vorschülern
und Volksschülern"; in _Zeitschrift für angewande Psychologie_
(1913), vol. 8, pp. 102-20.
One hundred and fifty-six subjects. Ages seven, nine, and ten.
7. Johnston, Katherine L. "Binet's Method for the Measurement of
Intelligence; Some Results"; in _Journal of Experimental
Pedagogy_ (1911), vol. 1, pp. 24-31.
Results of 200 tests of school children.
8. Kuhlmann, F. "Some Results of Examining 1000 Public-School
Children with a Revision of the Binet-Simon Tests of
Intelligence by Untrained Teachers"; in _Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics_ (1914), vol. 18, pp. 150-79, and 233-69.
9. Phillips, Byron A. "The Binet Tests applied to Colored
Children"; in _Psychological Clinic_ (1914), pp. 190-96.
A comparison of 86 colored and 137 white children.
10. Rogers, Agnes L., _and_ McIntyre, J. L. "The Measurement of
Intelligence in Children by the Binet-Simon Scale"; in
_British Journal of Psychology_ (1914), vol. 7, pp. 265-300.
11. Rowe, E. C. "Five Hundred Forty-Seven White and Two Hundred
Sixty-Eight Indian Children tested by the Binet-Simon Tests";
in _Pedagogical Seminary_ (1914), vol. 21, pp. 454-69.
12. Strong, Alice C. "Three Hundred Fifty White and Colored
Children measured by the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of
Intelligence"; in _Pedagogical Seminary_ (1913), vol. 20,
pp. 485-515.
13. Terman, L. M., _and_ Childs, H. G. "A Tentative Revision and
Extension of the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence"; in
_Journal of Educational Psychology_ (1912), vol. 3, pp. 61-74,
133-43, 198-208, and 277-89.
Results of 396 tests of California school-children.
14. Terman, Lyman, Ordahl, Galbreath, _and_ Talbert. _The Stanford
Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of
Intelligence._ (1916.)
Detailed analysis of the results secured by testing 1000
unselected school-children within two months of a birthday.
15. Weintrob, J. _and_ R. "The Influence of Environment on Mental
Ability as shown by the Binet Tests"; in _Journal of
Educational Psychology_ (1912), pp. 577-86.
16. Winch, W. H. "Binet's Mental Tests: What They Are, and What We
Can Do with Them"; in _Child Study_ (London), 1913, 1914,
1915, and 1916.
An extended series of articles setting forth results of tests with
normal children, and giving valuable criticisms and suggestions.
BINET-SIMON TESTS OF THE FEEBLE-MINDED
17. Chotzen, F. "Die Intelligenzprüfungsmethode von Binet-Simon
bei schwachsinnigen Kindern"; in _Zeitschrift für angewande
Psychologie_ (1912), vol. 6, pp. 411-94.
A critical study of the results of 280 tests.
18. Goddard, H. H. "Four Hundred Feeble-Minded Children classified
by the Binet Method"; in _Pedagogical Seminary_ (1910),
vol. 17, pp. 387-97; also in _Journal of Psycho-Asthenics_
(1910), vol. 15, pp. 17-30.
Offers important evidence of the value of the Binet-Simon method.
19. Kuhlmann, F. "The Binet and Simon Tests of Intelligence in
Grading Feeble-Minded Children"; in _Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics_ (1912), vol. 16, pp. 173-93.
Analysis of results from 1300 cases.
BINET-SIMON TESTS OF DELINQUENTS
20. Bluemel, C. S. "Binet Tests on Two Hundred Juvenile
Delinquents"; in _Training School Bulletin_ (1915),
pp. 187-93.
21. Goddard, H. H. _The Criminal Imbecile._ The Macmillan Company.
(1915.) 157 pages.
An analysis of the mentality of three murderers of moron or
borderline intelligence.
22. Goddard, H. H. "The Responsibility of Children in the Juvenile
Court"; in _Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology_
(September, 1912).
Analysis of 100 tests of juvenile delinquents.
23. Healy, William. _The Individual Delinquent._ Little, Brown &
Co. (1915.) 830 pages.
A textbook on delinquents. Gives results of many Binet-Simon
tests.
24. Spaulding, Edith R. "The Results of Mental and Physical
Examination of Four Hundred Women Offenders"; in _Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology_ (1915), pp. 704-17.
25. Sullivan, W. C. "La mesure du développement intellectuel chez
les jeunes délinquantes"; in _Année psychologique_ (1912),
vol. 18, pp. 341-61.
26. Williams, J. Harold. _A Study of 150 Delinquent Boys._
Bulletin no. 1, Research Laboratory of the Buckel Foundation.
(1915.) 15 pages.
The Stanford revision used. Report of over 400 cases to follow.
BINET-SIMON TESTS OF SUPERIOR CHILDREN
27. Jeronutti, A. "Ricerche psicologiche sperimentali sugli alunni
molto intelligenti"; in _Lab. di Psicol. Sperim. della Reg.
Univ. Roma_. (1912)
Out of fifteen hundred school and kindergarten children, ages five
to twelve, fourteen were selected by the teachers as the
brightest. The Binet test showed them to be from one to three
years in advance of their chronological ages.
28. Terman, L. M. "The Mental Hygiene of Exceptional Children"; in
_Pedagogical Seminary_ (1915), vol. 22, pp. 529-37.
Data on 31 children testing above 120 I. Q.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR GIVING THE BINET-SIMON TESTS
29. Binet, A., _and_ Simon, Th. _A Method of Measuring the
Development of Intelligence in Young Children._ Chicago
Medical Book Company. (1915.) 82 pages.
Authorized translation of Binet's final instructions for giving
the tests.
30. Goddard, H. H. "A Measuring Scale of Intelligence"; in
_Training School Bulletin_ (1910), vol. 6, pp. 146-55.
Condensed translation of Binet's 1908 _Measuring Scale of
Intelligence_.
31. Goddard, H. H. "The Binet-Simon Measuring Scale for
Intelligence, Revised"; in _Training School Bulletin_ (1911),
vol. 8, pp. 56-62.
32. Goddard, H. H. "Standard Method for Giving the Binet Test"; in
_Training School Bulletin_ (1913), vol. 10, pp. 23-30.
33. Kuhlmann, F. "A Revision of the Binet-Simon System for
Measuring the Intelligence of Children"; Monograph Supplement
of _Journal of Psycho-Asthenics_ (September, 1912), 41 pages.
34. Wallin, J. E. W. "A Practical Guide for the Administration of
the Binet-Simon Scale for Measuring Intelligence"; in _The
Psychological Clinic_ (1911), vol. 5, pp. 217-38.
CRITICISMS AND EVALUATIONS OF THE BINET-SIMON METHOD
35. Berry, C. S. "A Comparison of the Binet Tests of 1908 and
1911"; in _Journal of Educational Psychology_ (1912), vol. 3,
pp. 444-51.
36. Bobertag, O. "Ueber Intelligenzprüfungen (nach der Methode von
Binet und Simon)"; in _Zeitschrift für angewande Psychologie_.
(A, 1911), vol. 5, pp. 105-203; (B, 1912), vol. 6,
pp. 495-537.
Accepts the method and gives valuable suggestions for improvement.
37. Brigham, Carl C. "An Experimental Critique of the Binet-Simon
Scale"; in _Journal of Educational Psychology_ (1914),
pp. 439-48.
Finds the scale 96% efficient.
38. Goddard, H. H. "The Reliability of the Binet-Simon Measuring
Scale of Intelligence"; in _Proceedings of the Fourth
International Congress of School Hygiene_ (1913), vol. 5,
pp. 693-99.
Application of the theory of probability to the results proves the
extremely small liability of error.
39. Kohs, Samuel C. "The Practicability of the Binet Scale and the
Question of the Borderline Case"; in _Training School
Bulletin_ (1916), pp. 211-23.
Analysis of cases showing the reliability of the scale.
40. Kuhlmann, F. "Binet and Simon's System for Measuring the
Intelligence of Children"; in _Journal of Psycho-Asthenics_
(1911), vol. 15, pp. 79-92.
Finds the method of the greatest value.
41. Kuhlmann, F. "A Reply to Dr. L. P. Ayres's Criticism of the
Binet and Simon System for Measuring the Intelligence of
Children"; in _Journal of Psycho-Asthenics_ (1911), vol. 16,
pp. 58-67.
Many of the Ayres criticisms are shown to be unfounded.
42. Meumann, E. _Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Experimentelle
Pädagogik_ (1913), vol. 2, pp. 130-300.
Summary of the literature on Binet tests up to 1913. Accepts the
method but gives suggestions for improvement. This summary and
other writings of Meumann on the psychology of endowment are
reviewed by Lewis M. Terman in a series of four articles in
the _Journal of Psycho-Asthenics_ for 1915.
43. Otis, A. S. "Some Logical and Mathematical Aspects of the
Measurement of Intelligence by the Binet-Simon Method"; in
_The Psychological Review_ (April and June, 1916).
Considers the Binet-Simon method imperfect from the mathematical
point of view.
44. Schmitt, Clara. _Standardization of Tests for Defective
Children._ Psychological Monographs (1915), no. 83, 181 pages.
Contains (pp. 52-67) a discussion of the "Fallacies and
Inadequacies of the Binet-Simon Series." Most of the
criticisms here given are either superficial or unfair, some
of them apparently being due to a lack of acquaintance with
Binet's writings.
45. Stern, W. _The Psychological Methods of Measuring
Intelligence._ Translated by G. M. Whipple. (1913.) 160 pages.
A splendid critical discussion of the Binet-Simon method. Should
be read by every one who would use the scale.
46. Terman, L. M. "Suggestions for Revising, Extending, and
Supplementing the Binet Intelligence Tests"; in _Journal of
Psycho-Asthenics_ (1913), vol. 18, pp. 20-33.
47. Terman, L. M. "Psychological Principles Underlying the
Binet-Simon Scale and Some Practical Considerations for its
Correct Use"; in _Journal of Psycho-Asthenics_ (1913),
vol. 18, pp. 93-104.
48. Terman, L. M. "A Report of the Buffalo Conference on the
Binet-Simon Tests of Intelligence"; in _Pedagogical Seminary_
(1913), vol. 20, pp. 549-54.
Abstracts of papers presented at the above conference.
49. Terman, Lyman, Ordahl, Galbreath, _and_ Talbert. _The Stanford
Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Scale for Measuring
Intelligence._ (1916.)
Contains a chapter on the validity of the individual tests and on
considerations relating to the formation of an intelligence
scale.
50. Terman _and_ Knollin. "The Detection of Borderline Deficiency
by the Binet-Simon Method"; in _Journal of Psycho-Asthenics_
(June, 1916).
A comparison of the accuracy of the Stanford and other revisions
with borderline cases.
51. Trèves _and_ Saffiotti. "L'échelle métrique de l'intelligence
modifiée selon la méthode Trèves-Saffiotti"; in _Année
Psychologique_ (1912), pp. 327-40.
Criticize the age-grade method of measuring intelligence and
propose a substitute.
52. Wallin, J. E. W. _Experimental Studies of Mental Defectives. A
Critique of the Binet-Simon Tests._ Warwick & York. (1912.)
Criticism based on the use of the scale with epileptics.
53. Yerkes _and_ Bridges. _A Point Scale for Measuring Mental
Ability._ Warwick & York.
Authors think the point scale preferable to the Binet-Simon
method.
BOOKS ON MENTAL DEFICIENCY
54. Binet, A., _and_ Simon, Th. _Mentally Defective Children._
Translated from the French by W. B. Drummond. Longmans, Green
& Co. (1914.) 171 pages.
Discusses the psychology, pedagogy, and medical examination of
defectives.
55. Goddard, H. H. _Feeble-Mindedness; Its Causes and
Consequences._ The Macmillan Company. (1913.) 599 pages.
The most important single volume on the subject. Extensive data on
the causes of feeble-mindedness and excellent clinical pictures
of all grades of mental defects.
56. Goddard, H. H. _The Kallikak Family._ The Macmillan Company.
(1914.) 121 pages.
An epoch-making study of the hereditary transmission of mental
deficiency in a degenerate family.
57. Holmes, Arthur. _The Conservation of the Child._ J. B.
Lippincott Company. (1912.) 345 pages.
Methods of examination and treatment of defective children.
58. Holmes, Arthur. _The Backward Child._ Bobbs-Merrill Company.
(1915.)
A popular treatment of the handling of backward children.
59. Huey, E. B. _Backward and Feeble-Minded Children._ Warwick &
York. (1912.) 221 pages.
Devoted mainly to clinical accounts of borderline cases.
60. Lapage, C. P. _Feeble-Mindedness in Children of School Age._
The University Press, Manchester, England. (1911.) 359 pages.
61. Sherlock, E. B. _The Feeble-Minded; A Guide to Study and
Practice._ The Macmillan Company. (1911.) 327 pages.
62. Tredgold, A. F. _Mental Deficiency (Amentia)._ Baillière,
Tindall, and Cox. London, England. (2d ed. 1914.) 491 pages.
The best medical treatment of the subject.
STUDIES OF THE PROGRESS OF CHILDREN THROUGH THE GRADES
63. Ayres, Leonard P. _Laggards in our Schools._ The Russell Sage
Foundation. (1909.) 236 pages.
Interesting and instructive discussion of school retardation and
its causes.
64. Blan, Louis B. _A Special Study of the Incidence of
Retardation._ Teachers College, Columbia University,
Contributions to Education, no. 40. (1911.) 111 pages.
Review of the literature and a statistical study of the progress
of 4579 children.
65. Keyes, C. H. _Progress Through the Grades of City Schools._
Teachers College, Columbia University, Contributions to
Education, no. 42. (1911.) 79 pages.
Important study of the progress of several thousand children.
66. Strayer, George D. _Age and Grade Census of Schools and
Colleges._ Bulletin no. 451, U.S. Bureau of Education. (1911.)
144 pages.
Statistics of the age-grade status of the children in 318 cities.
67. See also the _Reports_ of leading school surveys, such as
those of New York, Salt Lake City, Butte, Springfield (Mass.),
Denver, Cleveland, etc.
REFERENCES ON THE SPECIAL CLASS FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
68. Huey, E. B. "The Education of Defectives and the Training of
Teachers for Special Classes"; in _Journal of Educational
Psychology_ (1913), pp. 545-50.
69. Goddard, H. H. _School Training of Defective Children._ World
Book Company. (1914.) 97 pages.
Based on his survey of the treatment of backward children in the
schools of New York City.
70. Holmes, W. H. _School Organization and the Individual Child._
The Davis Press, Worcester, Massachusetts. (1912.) 211 pages.
A comprehensive account of the efforts which have been made to
adjust the school to the capacities of individual children.
71. Maennel, B. _Auxiliary Education._ Translated from the German
by Emma Sylvester. Doubleday, Page & Co. (1909.) 267 pages.
72. Van Sickle, J. H., Witmer, L., _and_ Ayres, L. P. _Provision
for Exceptional Children in Public Schools._ Bulletin no. 461,
U.S. Bureau of Education. (1911.) 92 pages.
73. Shaer, I. "Special Classes for Bright Children in an English
Elementary School"; in _Journal of Educational Psychology_
(1913), pp. 209-22.
74. Stern, W. "The Supernormal Child"; in _Journal of Educational
Psychology_ (1911), pp. 143-48 and 181-90.
A strong plea for special classes for superior children.
75. Vaney, V. _Les classes pour enfants arrières._ Bulletin de la
Société libre pour l'étude psychologique de l'enfant (1911),
pp. 53-152.
Report of the French National Commission appointed to investigate
methods of treatment and training.
76. Witmer, L. _The Special Class for Backward Children._ The
Psychological Clinic Press, Philadelphia. (1911.) 275 pages.
An account of the special class conducted in connection with the
University of Pennsylvania Summer School.
LIST OF BINET'S MOST IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE MEASUREMENT OF
INTELLIGENCE
77. Binet, A. _L'Étude experimentale de l'intelligence._ Paris:
Schleicher frères. (1903.)
78. Binet, A. "A Propos de la mesure de l'intelligence"; in _Année
psychologique_ (1905), vol. 11, pp. 69-82.
79. Binet, A. _Les enfants anormaux; guide pour l'admission des
enfants anormaux dans les classes de perfectionnement._ Paris:
Colin (1907.)
80. Binet, A. _Comment les instituteurs jugent-ils l'intelligence
d'un ecolier?_ Bulletin de la Société libre pour l'étude
psychologique de l'enfant (1910), no. 10, pp. 172-82.
81. Binet, A. "Nouvelles recherches sur la mesure du niveau
intellectuel chez les enfants d'école"; in _Année
psychologique_ (1911), vol. 17, pp. 145-201.
82. Binet, A., _et_ Simon, Th. "Sur la nécessité d'établir un
diagnostique scientifique des états inférieurs de
l'intelligence"; in _Année psychologique_ (1905), vol. 11,
pp. 163-90.
83. Binet, A., _et_ Simon, Th. "Méthodes nouvelles pour le
diagnostique du niveau intellectuel des anormaux"; in _Année
psychologique_ (1905), vol. 11, pp. 191-244.
84. Binet, A., _et_ Simon, Th. "Application des Méthodes nouvelles
au diagnostique du niveau intellectuel chez des enfants
normaux et anormaux d'hospice et d'école primaire"; in _Année
psychologique_ (1905), vol. 11, pp. 245-336.
85. Binet, A., _et_ Simon, Th. "Le développement de l'intelligence
chez les enfants"; in _Année psychologique_ (1908), vol. 14,
pp. 1-94.
86. Binet, A., _et_ Simon, Th. "Langage et pensée"; in _Année
psychologique_ (1908), vol. 14, pp. 284-339.
87. Binet, A., _et_ Simon, Th. "L'intelligence des imbeciles"; in
_Année psychologique_ (1909), vol. 15, pp. 1-147.
88. Binet, A., _et_ Simon, Th. "Nouvelle théorie psychologique et
clinique de la démence"; in _Année psychologique_ (1909),
vol. 15, pp. 168-272.
89. Binet, A., _et_ Simon, Th. _La mesure du développement de
l'intelligence chez les jeunes enfants._ Bulletin de la
Société libre pour l'étude psychologique de l'enfant (1911),
no. 11, pp. 187-256.
SUGGESTIONS FOR A TEACHER'S PRIVATE LIBRARY
ON EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
Ayres, L. P. _Laggards in our Schools._ The Russell Sage
Foundation. (1909.) 236 pages.
Treats the amount and causes of school retardation.
Binet, A., _and_ Simon, Th. _Mentally Defective Children._
Translated from the French by W. B. Drummond. Longmans, Green
& Co. (1914.) 171 pages.
Discusses the psychology, pedagogy and medical examination of
defectives.
Binet, A., _and_ Simon, Th. _A Method of Measuring the Development
of Intelligence in Young Children._ Chicago Medical Book
Company. (1915.) 82 pages.
Authorized translation of Binet's final instructions for giving
the tests.
Goddard, H. H. _Feeble-Mindedness; Its Causes and Consequences._
The Macmillan Company. (1913.) 599 pages.
The most important single volume on the subject.
Goddard, H. H. _The Kallikak Family._ The Macmillan Company.
(1914.) 121 pages.
A study of the hereditary transmission of mental deficiency in one
family.
Goddard, H. H. _School Training of Defective Children._ World Book
Company. (1914.) 97 pages.
Admirable treatment of the entire subject.
Goddard, H. H. _The Criminal Imbecile._ The Macmillan Company.
(1915.) 157 pages.
An analysis of three murderers of borderline intelligence.
Holmes, Arthur. _The Conservation of the Child._ J. B. Lippincott
Company. (1912.) 345 pages.
Methods of examination and treatment of defective children.
Holmes, Arthur. _The Backward Child._ The Bobbs-Merrill Co.
(1915.)
A popular treatment of the subject.
Holmes, W. H. _School Organization and the Individual Child._ The
Davis Press, Worcester, Massachusetts. (1912) 211 pages.
A comprehensive account of methods of adjusting school work to the
capacity of the individual child.
Huey, E. B. _Backward and Feeble-Minded Children._ Warwick & York.
(1912.) 221 pages.
Clinical studies of borderline cases.
Kelynack, T. N. (_Editor_). _Defective Children._ John Bale, Sons,
and Daniellson, London. (1915.) 447 pages.
Written by many authors and devoted to all kinds of physical and
mental defects.
Kuhlmann, F. "A Revision of the Binet-Simon System for Measuring
the Intelligence of Children." Monograph Supplement of
_Journal of Psycho-Asthenics_. (1912.) 41 pages.
Contains instructions for use of the Kuhlmann revision.
Stern, W. _The Psychological Method of Measuring Intelligence._
Translated from the German by G. M. Whipple. Warwick & York.
(1913.) 160 pages.
Terman, Lyman, Ordahl, Galbreath, _and_ Talbert. _The Stanford
Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Scale for Measuring
Intelligence._ (1916.)
Extended analysis of 1000 tests. Data on the relation of
intelligence to school success, social status, etc.
Terman, Lewis M. _The Hygiene of the School Child._ Houghton
Mifflin Company. (1914.) 417 pages.
Devoted to the physical defects of school children.
Tredgold, A. F. _Mental Deficiency (Amentia)._ Baillière, Tindall
& Cox, London. (1914.) 491 pages.
The best medical treatment of the subject.
Whipple, G. M. _Manual of Mental and Physical Tests._ Warwick &
York. Vol. I (1914), 365 pages; vol. II (1915), 336 pages.
The best treatment of mental tests other than those of the Binet
system.
Witmer, L. _The Special Class for Backward Children._ The
Psychological Clinic Press, Philadelphia. (1911.) 275 pages.
Problems encountered in connection with the special class.
MAGAZINES
_The Training School Bulletin._ Published monthly by the Training
School, Vineland, New Jersey. Edited by H. H. Goddard and
E. R. Johnstone.
_The Psychological Clinic._ Published monthly by the Psychological
Clinic Press, Philadelphia. Edited by Lightner Witmer.
_The Journal of Delinquency._ Published bi-monthly by the Whittier
State School, Whittier, California. Edited by Williams,
Goddard, Terman, and others.
_The Journal of Psycho-Asthenics._ Published quarterly at
Faribault, Minnesota. Organ of the American Association for
the Study of the Feeble-Minded. Edited by A. C. Rogers and F.
Kuhlmann.
_The Journal of Educational Psychology._ Published by Warwick &
York, Baltimore. Edited by J. Carleton Bell.
INDEX
Abstract thought, tests of, 344.
Absurdities, 255 _ff._
Adolescence, and variability in intelligence, 67.
Adult intelligence, 54.
Adults, how to find I Q of adults, 140.
Æsthetic comparison, 165 _ff._
Age, test of giving age, 173 _ff._
Age standards, 40.
Alternative tests, 136.
Amateur testing, 107 _ff._
Apperception, 169.
Arithmetical reasoning, 319 _ff._
Association processes, 274.
Attention, during the test, 121.
Attitude of the subject, 109.
Auto-criticism, 156, 171, 195.
Average intelligence, 94 _ff._
Ball and field test, 210 _ff._, 286.
Berry, C. S., 114.
Binet,
on how teachers judge intelligence, 28 _ff._;
Binet's conception of intelligence, 44 _ff._, 123, 149, 151, 154,
156, 159, 165, 171, 173, 180, 181, 183, 185, 186, 190, 196, 203,
205, 217, 231, 232, 234, 247, 251, 252, 254, 258, 260, 261, 264,
276, 285, 289, 315, 322, 327, 333, 339, 345.
Binet-Simon method,
nature and derivation of the scale, 36 _ff._, 47 _ff._;
limitations of, 48 _ff._
Bloch, 203.
Bluemel, C. S., 107.
Bobertag, Otto, 106, 113, 176, 178, 180, 181, 185, 188, 190, 203, 206,
232, 237, 240, 252, 275, 285, 318.
Borderline intelligence, 79, 87 _ff._
Bow-knot, test of tying, 196 _ff._
Brigham, 165, 166.
Change, test of making change, 240 _ff._
Childs, H. G., 231, 298.
Coaching, 110 _ff._
Code test, 330 _ff._
Color naming, 163 _ff._
Combination method, 171. _See also_ Completion test.
Commissions, 172 _ff._
Comparison of lines, 151 _ff._
Completion test, 179, 246, 289.
Comprehension questions, 157 _ff._, 181 _ff._, 215 _ff._, 268 _ff._
Conditions favorable to testing, 121 _ff._
Counting,
four pennies, 154;
thirteen pennies, 180;
counting backwards, 213.
Crime,
relation to feeble-mindedness, 8 _ff._;
cost of, 12.
Cuneo, Irene, 51.
Davenport, C. B., 10.
Definitions,
in terms of use, 167;
superior to use, 221;
of abstract words, 281 _ff._, and 324 _ff._
_See also_ Vocabulary tests.
"Degenerate" families, 9 _ff._
Delinquency, relation to feeble-mindedness, 7 _ff._
Diamond, test of copying diamond, 204.
Differences, test of finding, 199, 313 _ff._
Digits. _See_ Memory for digits.
Discrimination of forms, 152 _ff._
Dissected sentences, 286 _ff._
Distribution of intelligence, 65 _ff._, 78 _ff._
Dougherty, 165, 166, 203.
Drawing, 156, 204, 260.
Dull normals, 92 _ff._
Dumville, 165, 166.
Ebbinghaus, 289, 318.
Emotion, 49.
Enclosed boxes, 327 _ff._
Endowment, 4, 19 _ff._
Environment, influence on test, 114 _ff._
Eugenics, 9 _ff._
Examination, duration of, 127 _ff._
Examiner, qualifications of, 124 _ff._
Fables, interpretation of, 290 _ff._
Fatigue, influence of, on test, 126 _ff._
Feeble-minded, proportion of school-children feeble-minded, 6.
Feeble-mindedness,
value of tests for, 5 _ff._;
psychological analysis, 23;
definition, 80;
examples, 82 _ff._
Fernald, G. G., 8.
Fernald, Grace, 56, 278, 280, 332.
Fingers, test of giving number of, 189 _ff._
Freeman, Frank N., 280.
Functions, tested by Binet scale, 42 _ff._
Galbreath, Neva, 51.
Galton, 328.
General intelligence, 42 _ff._
Generalization, tests of, 298.
Genius. _See_ Superior intelligence.
Goddard, H. H., 8, 106, 112, 154, 156, 165, 173, 185, 190, 196, 203,
206, 213, 234, 245, 251, 252, 259, 264, 276, 285, 289, 319, 322,
323, 332, 333, 339, 345.
Grading, value of intelligence tests in, 16.
Hall, Gertrude, 280.
Healy-Fernald, 56, 278, 280, 332.
Heredity, use of tests in the study of, 19.
Hill folk, 10.
Hollingworth, Leta S., 71.
Huey, E. B., 197, 217, 234.
Imagery, 195, 209, 321, 339.
Induction test, 310 _ff._
Ingenuity test, 346.
Intelligence,
analysis of, _see_ remarks under instructions for each test;
superior, 12 _ff._, 95 _ff._,
teachers' estimates of, 13, 24, 26, 28, 75;
general, 42 _ff._;
definitions of, 44 _ff._
Intelligence quotient, 53, 55, 63, 65 _ff._;
validity of, 68;
classification and significance, 79 _ff._, 140 _ff._
Jukes family, 10.
Kallikak family, 9.
Knollin, H. E., 18, 51, 54, 63.
Kohs, S. C., 107 _ff._
Kuhlmann, F., 56, 105, 153, 154, 156, 165, 173, 185, 190, 193, 196,
206, 214, 217, 234, 247, 251, 252, 259, 264, 276, 280, 285, 289,
315, 319, 322, 323, 327, 333, 339, 345.
Language comprehension, 143, 144.
Limitations of the Binet scale, 48 _ff._
Lombroso, 7.
Lyman, Grace, 51.
Mason, Otis, 347.
Masselon, 245.
Material used in the tests, 141.
Memory,
for sentences, 149 _ff._, 160, 185, 332;
for passages, 340;
for designs, 260;
for digits, 150, 159, 193, 207, 242, 277, 301, 322, 329, 340, 345.
Mental age, 39 _ff._;
effect of Stanford revision on, 62;
how to calculate, 137 _ff._
Mental deficiency. _See_ Feeble-mindedness.
Meumann, Ernst, 46, 106, 245, 318.
Moral development, dependence of, on intelligence, 11 _ff._
Nam family, 10.
Name, test of giving name, 147 _ff._
Naming coins, 184 _ff._, 231.
Naming familiar objects, 143 _ff._
Normals, dull, 92 _ff._
Ordahl, Dr. George, 8.
Ordahl, Louise Ellison, 8.
Paper-cutting test, 338.
Physical defects, effects of, on intelligence, 19.
Physical relations, comprehension of, 333 _ff._
Physicians, as Binet testers, 34.
Pictures,
enumeration of objects in, 145;
description of, 190 _ff._;
interpretation of, 302;
finding omissions in, 178.
Pointing to parts of body, 142 _ff._
Practical judgment, 212.
President and king, giving differences between, 313.
Problem questions, 315 _ff._
Procedure, necessity of uniformity in, 32 _ff._, 131 _ff._
Promotions, on basis of intelligence tests, 16 _ff._
Race differences, 91.
Range of testing, 129.
Rapport, 124 _ff._
Reading, test of reading for memories, 262.
Record booklet, 128.
Recording responses, 133 _ff._
Reliability of the scale, 76 _ff._, 105 _ff._
Repeated tests, 112 _ff._
Retardation,
cost of, 1, 13 _ff._;
training of retarded children, 4 _ff._, 24 _ff._, 73 _ff._
Reversing hands of clock, 321 _ff._
Rhymes, test of finding, 248.
Right and left, 175 _ff._
Rowe, E. P., 165, 166, 277.
Rowland, Eleanor, 18.
Scattering of successes, 134 _ff._
School success and intelligence, 73 _ff._
Scoring, 132. _See also_ instructions for scoring each test.
Seclusion during test, 122.
Sex, test of giving, 146 _ff._
Sex differences in intelligence, 68 _ff._
Similarities, test of finding, 217 _ff._, 306 _ff._
Sixty words, 272 _ff._
Social class and intelligence, 72 _ff._, 114 _ff._
Spearman, C., definition of intelligence, 46.
Special classes, 5.
Square, test of copying, 155 _ff._
Stamps, test of counting value of, 252.
Standardization, value of, 30.
Stanford revision of the Binet scale, 51 _ff._
Stereotypy, 203.
Stern, W., 46, 106, 118.
Stigmata, 7.
Structural psychology, 43.
Superior intelligence, tests of superior children, 12 _ff._, 95 _ff._
Supplementary information, 135.
Teachers' estimates of intelligence, 13, 24, 26, 28, 75.
Terman, Lewis M., 63, 267, 298.
Three words, test of using, in a sentence, 242 _ff._
Time orientation,
forenoon and afternoon, 187 _ff._;
days of the week, 205 _ff._;
giving date, 234 _ff._;
naming months, 251 _ff._
Unemployment, relation of, to intelligence, 18.
Validity of the tests, 76 _ff._
Vocabulary tests, 224, 255, 281, 310, 324, 338.
Vocational guidance, use of intelligence tests in, 17, 49.
Volition, 49.
Waddle, Charles, 52.
Wallin, 237.
Weights, comparison of, 161, 236 _ff._
Williams, Dr. J. Harold, 9, 54.
Winch, W. H., 165, 166.
Writing from dictation, 231 _ff._
Yerkes, R. M., 70.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Measurement of Intelligence - An Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the Use of the - Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon - Intelligence Scale" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.