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 themost significant books, viewed from the standpoint of the future of oureducational theory and practice, that has been issued in years. Not onlydoes the volume set forth, in language so simple that the layman caneasily understand, the large importance for public education of acareful measurement of the intelligence of children, but it alsodescribes the tests which are to be given and the entire procedure ofgiving them. In a clear and easy style the author sets forth scientificfacts of far-reaching educational importance, facts which it has costhim, his students, and many other scientific workers, years ofpainstaking labor to accumulate. 

Only very recently, practically only within the past half-dozen years, have scientific workers begun to appreciate fully the importance ofintelligence tests as a guide to educational procedure, and up to thepresent we have been able to make but little use of such tests in ourschools. The conception in itself has been new, and the testingprocedure has been more or less unrefined and technical. The followingsomewhat popular presentation of the idea and of the methods involved, itself based on a scientific monograph which the author is publishingelsewhere, serves for the first time to set forth in simple language thetechnical details of giving such intelligence tests. 

The educational significance of the results to be obtained fromcareful measurements of the intelligence of children can hardly beoverestimated. Questions relating to the choice of studies, vocationalguidance, schoolroom procedure, the grading of pupils, promotionalschemes, the study of the retardation of children in the schools, juvenile delinquency, and the proper handling of subnormals on theone hand and gifted children on the other, --all alike acquire newmeaning and significance when viewed in the light of the measurementof intelligence as outlined in this volume. As a guide to theinterpretation of the results of other forms of investigation relatingto the work, progress, and needs of children, intelligence tests form avery valuable aid. More than all other forms of data combined, suchtests give the necessary information from which a pupil's possibilitiesof future mental growth can be foretold, and upon which his furthereducation can be most profitably directed. 

The publication of this revision and extension of the originalBinet-Simon scale for measuring intelligence, with the closer adaptationof it to American conditions and needs, should mark a distinct step inadvance in our educational procedure. It means the perfection of anotherand a very important measuring stick for evaluating educationalpractices, and in particular for diagnosing individual possibilities andneeds. Just now the method is new, and its use somewhat limited, but itis the confident prediction of many students of the subject that, beforelong, intelligence tests will become as much a matter of necessaryroutine in schoolroom procedure as a blood-count now is in physicaldiagnosis. That our schoolroom methods will in turn become much moreintelligent, and that all classes of children, but especially the giftedand the slow, will profit by such intellectual diagnosis, there can bebut little question. 

That any parent or teacher, without training, can give these tests, theauthor in no way contends. However, the observations of Dr.  Kohs, citedin Chapter VII, as well as the experience of the author and others whohave given courses in intelligence testing to teachers, alike indicatethat sufficient skill to enable teachers and school principals to givesuch tests intelligently is not especially difficult to acquire. Thisbeing the case it may be hoped that the requisite training to enablethem to handle these tests may be included, very soon, as a part of thenecessary pedagogical equipment of those who aspire to administrativepositions in our public and private schools. 

Besides being of special importance to school officers and to studentsof education in colleges and normal schools, this volume can confidentlybe recommended to physicians and social workers, and to teachers andparents interested in intelligence measurements, as at once the simplestand the best explanation of the newly-evolved intelligence tests, whichhas so far appeared in print. 

 ELLWOOD P. CUBBERLEY. 

PREFACE

The constant and growing use of the Binet-Simon intelligence scale inpublic schools, institutions for defectives, reform schools, juvenilecourts, and police courts is sufficient evidence of the intrinsicworth of the method. It is generally recognized, however, that theserviceableness of the scale has hitherto been seriously limited, bothby the lack of a sufficiently detailed guide and by a number ofrecognized imperfections in the scale itself. The Stanford revision andextension has been worked out for the purpose of correcting as many aspossible of these imperfections, and it is here presented with a ratherminute description of the method as a whole and of the individual tests. 

The aim has been to present the explanations and instructions so clearlyand in such an untechnical form as to make the book of use, not only tothe psychologist, but also to the rank and file of teachers, physicians, and social workers. More particularly, it is designed as a text for usein normal schools, colleges, and teachers' reading-circles. 

While the use of the intelligence scale for research purposes and foraccurate diagnosis will of necessity always be restricted to those whohave had extensive training in experimental psychology, the authorbelieves that the time has come when its wider use for more generalpurposes should be encouraged. 

However, it cannot be too strongly emphasized that no one, whatever hisprevious training may have been, can make proper use of the scale unlesshe is willing to learn the method of procedure and scoring down to theminutest detail. A general acquaintance with the nature of theindividual tests is by no means sufficient. 

Perhaps the best way to learn the method will be to begin by studyingthe book through, in order to gain a general acquaintance with thetests; then, if possible, to observe a few examinations; and finally totake up the procedure for detailed study in connection with practicetesting. Twenty or thirty tests, made with constant reference to theprocedure as described in Part II, should be sufficient to prepare theteacher or physician to make profitable use of the scale. 

The Stanford revision of the scale is the result of a number ofinvestigations, made possible by the coöperation of the author'sgraduate students. Grateful acknowledgment is especially due toProfessor H.  G. Childs, Miss Grace Lyman, Dr.  George Ordahl, Dr.  LouiseEllison Ordahl, Miss Neva Galbreath, Mr.  Wilford Talbert, Mr.  J. HaroldWilliams, and Mr.  Herbert E. Knollin. Without their assistance this bookcould 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 theage-grade progress of school children have afforded convincing evidenceof the magnitude and seriousness of the retardation problem. Statisticscollected in hundreds of cities in the United States show that between athird and a half of the school children fail to progress through thegrades at the expected rate; that from 10 to 15 per cent are retardedtwo years or more; and that from 5 to 8 per cent are retarded at leastthree years. More than 10 per cent of the $400, 000, 000 annually expendedin the United States for school instruction is devoted to re-teachingchildren what they have already been taught but have failed to learn. 

The first efforts at reform which resulted from these findings werebased on the supposition that the evils which had been discovered couldbe remedied by the individualizing of instruction, by improved methodsof promotion, by increased attention to children's health, and by otherreforms in school administration. Although reforms along these lineshave been productive of much good, they have nevertheless been in ameasure disappointing. The trouble was, they were too often based uponthe assumption that under the right conditions all children would beequally, or almost equally, capable of making satisfactory schoolprogress. Psychological studies of school children by means ofstandardized intelligence tests have shown that this supposition is notin accord with the facts. It has been found that children do not fallinto two well-defined groups, the "feeble-minded" and the "normal. "Instead, there are many grades of intelligence, ranging from idiocy onthe one hand to genius on the other. Among those classed as normal, vastindividual differences have been found to exist in original mentalendowment, differences which affect profoundly the capacity to profitfrom school instruction. 

We are beginning to realize that the school must take into account, moreseriously than it has yet done, the existence and significance of thesedifferences in endowment. Instead of wasting energy in the vain attemptto hold mentally slow and defective children up to a level of progresswhich is normal to the average child, it will be wiser to take account ofthe inequalities of children in original endowment and to differentiatethe course of study in such a way that each child will be allowed toprogress at the rate which is normal to him, whether that rate be rapidor slow. 

While we cannot hold all children to the same standard of schoolprogress, we can at least prevent the kind of retardation which involvesfailure and the repetition of a school grade. It is well enoughrecognized that children do not enter with very much zest upon schoolwork in which they have once failed. Failure crushes self-confidence anddestroys the spirit of work. It is a sad fact that a large proportion ofchildren in the schools are acquiring the habit of failure. The remedy, of course, is to measure out the work for each child in proportion tohis mental ability. 

Before an engineer constructs a railroad bridge or trestle, he studiesthe materials to be used, and learns by means of tests exactly theamount of strain per unit of size his materials will be able towithstand. He does not work empirically, and count upon patching up themistakes which may later appear under the stress of actual use. Theeducational engineer should emulate this example. Tests and forethoughtmust take the place of failure and patchwork. Our efforts have been toolong directed by "trial and error. " It is time to leave off guessing andto acquire a scientific knowledge of the material with which we have todeal. When instruction must be repeated, it means that the school, aswell as the pupil, has failed. 

Every child who fails in his school work or is in danger of failingshould be given a mental examination. The examination takes less thanone hour, and the result will contribute more to a real understanding ofthe case than anything else that could be done. It is necessary todetermine whether a given child is unsuccessful in school because ofpoor 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 theyare to be made the dumping-ground for all kinds of troublesomecases--the feeble-minded, the physically defective, the merely backward, the truants, the incorrigibles, etc. Without scientific diagnosis andclassification of these children the educational work of the specialclass must blunder along in the dark. In such diagnosis andclassification our main reliance must always be in mental tests, properly used and properly interpreted. 

INTELLIGENCE TESTS OF THE FEEBLE-MINDED. Thus far intelligence testshave found their chief application in the identification and grading ofthe feeble-minded. Their value for this purpose is twofold. In the firstplace, it is necessary to ascertain the degree of defect before it ispossible to decide intelligently upon either the content or the methodof instruction suited to the training of the backward child. In thesecond place, intelligence tests are rapidly extending our conception of"feeble-mindedness" to include milder degrees of defect than havegenerally been associated with this term. The earlier methods ofdiagnosis caused a majority of the higher grade defectives to beoverlooked. Previous to the development of psychological methods thelow-grade moron was about as high a type of defective as most physiciansor even psychologists were able to identify as feeble-minded. 

Wherever intelligence tests have been made in any considerable number inthe schools, they have shown that not far from 2 per cent of thechildren enrolled have a grade of intelligence which, however long theylive, will never develop beyond the level which is normal to the averagechild of 11 or 12 years. The large majority of these belong to the morongrade; that is, their mental development will stop somewhere between the7-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 theymust be looked upon as real defectives. They may be able to dragalong to the fourth, fifth, or sixth grades, but even by the age of16 or 18 years they are never able to cope successfully with the moreabstract and difficult parts of the common-school course of study. Theymay master a certain amount of rote learning, such as that involved inreading and in the manipulation of number combinations but they cannotbe taught to meet new conditions effectively or to think, reason, andjudge as normal persons do. 

It is safe to predict that in the near future intelligence tests willbring tens of thousands of these high-grade defectives under thesurveillance and protection of society. This will ultimately result incurtailing the reproduction of feeble-mindedness and in the eliminationof an enormous amount of crime, pauperism, and industrial inefficiency. It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the high-grade cases, of thetype now so frequently overlooked, are precisely the ones whoseguardianship it is most important for the State to assume. 

INTELLIGENCE TESTS OF DELINQUENTS. One of the most important factsbrought to light by the use of intelligence tests is the frequentassociation of delinquency and mental deficiency. Although it has longbeen recognized that the proportion of feeble-mindedness amongoffenders is rather large, the real amount has, until recently, beenunderestimated even by the most competent students of criminology. 

The criminologists have been accustomed to give more attention to thephysical than to the mental correlates of crime. Thus, Lombroso andhis followers subjected thousands of criminals to observation andmeasurement with regard to such physical traits as size and shape of theskull, bilateral asymmetries, anomalies of the ear, eye, nose, palate, teeth, hands, fingers, hair, dermal sensitivity, etc. The search was forphysical "stigmata" characteristic of the "criminal type. "

Although such studies performed an important service in creating ascientific interest in criminology, the theories of Lombroso have beenwholly discredited by the results of intelligence tests. Such tests havedemonstrated, beyond any possibility of doubt, that the most importanttrait of at least 25 per cent of our criminals is mental weakness. Thephysical abnormalities which have been found so common among prisonersare not the stigmata of criminality, but the physical accompaniments offeeble-mindedness. They have no diagnostic significance except in so faras they are indications of mental deficiency. Without exception, everystudy which has been made of the intelligence level of delinquents hasfurnished convincing testimony as to the close relation existing betweenmental weakness and moral abnormality. Some of these findings are asfollows:--

 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 whilethere are minor discrepancies in regard to the actual percentage who arefeeble-minded, there is no investigator who denies the fearful rôleplayed by mental deficiency in the production of vice, crime, anddelinquency. [1]

[1] See References at end of volume. 

Heredity studies of "degenerate" families have confirmed, in a strikingway, the testimony secured by intelligence tests. Among the best knownof 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? Theanswer may be stated in simple terms. Morality depends upon two things:(a) the ability to foresee and to weigh the possible consequences forself and others of different kinds of behavior; and (b) upon thewillingness and capacity to exercise self-restraint. That there are manyintelligent criminals is due to the fact that (a) may exist without(b). On the other hand, (b) presupposes (a). In other words, notall criminals are feeble-minded, but all feeble-minded are at leastpotential criminals. That every feeble-minded woman is a potentialprostitute would hardly be disputed by any one. Moral judgment, likebusiness judgment, social judgment, or any other kind of higher thoughtprocess, is a function of intelligence. Morality cannot flower and fruitif intelligence remains infantile. 

All of us in early childhood lacked moral responsibility. We were asrank egoists as any criminal. Respect for the feelings, the propertyrights, or any other kind of rights, of others had to be laboriouslyacquired under the whip of discipline. But by degrees we learned thatonly when instincts are curbed, and conduct is made to conform toprinciples established formally or accepted tacitly by our neighbors, does this become a livable world for any of us. Without the intelligenceto generalize the particular, to foresee distant consequences of presentacts, to weigh these foreseen consequences in the nice balance ofimagination, morality cannot be learned. When the adult body, with itsadult instincts, is coupled with the undeveloped intelligence and weakinhibitory powers of a 10-year-old child, the only possible outcome, except in those cases where constant guardianship is exercised byrelatives or friends, is some form of delinquency. 

Considering the tremendous cost of vice and crime, which in allprobability amounts to not less than $500, 000, 000 per year in the UnitedStates alone, it is evident that psychological testing has found hereone of its richest applications. Before offenders can be subjectedto rational treatment a mental diagnosis is necessary, and whileintelligence tests do not constitute a complete psychological diagnosis, they are, nevertheless, its most indispensable part. 

INTELLIGENCE TESTS OF SUPERIOR CHILDREN. The number of children withvery superior ability is approximately as great as the number offeeble-minded. The future welfare of the country hinges, in no smalldegree, upon the right education of these superior children. Whethercivilization moves on and up depends most on the advances made bycreative thinkers and leaders in science, politics, art, morality, andreligion. Moderate ability can follow, or imitate, but genius must showthe way. 

Through the leveling influences of the educational lockstep suchchildren at present are often lost in the masses. It is a rare child whois able to break this lockstep by extra promotions. Taking the countryover, the ratio of "accelerates" to "retardates" in the school isapproximately 1 to 10. Through the handicapping influences of poverty, social neglect, physical defects, or educational maladjustments, manypotential leaders in science, art, government, and industry are deniedthe opportunity of a normal development. The use we have made ofexceptional ability reminds one of the primitive methods of surfacemining. It is necessary to explore the nation's hidden resources ofintelligence. The common saying that "genius will out" is one of thosedangerous half-truths with which too many people rest content. 

Psychological tests show that children of superior ability are verylikely to be misunderstood in school. The writer has tested more than ahundred children who were as much above average intelligence as morondefectives are below. The large majority of these were found locatedbelow the school grade warranted by their intellectual level. One thirdhad failed to reap any advantage whatever, in terms of promotion, fromtheir very superior intelligence. Even genius languishes when keptover-long at tasks that are too easy. 

Our data show that teachers sometimes fail entirely to recognizeexceptional superiority in a pupil, and that the degree of suchsuperiority is rarely estimated with anything like the accuracy which ispossible to the psychologist after a one-hour examination. _B.  F. _, forexample, was a little over 7½ years old when tested. He was in thethird grade, and was therefore thought by his teacher to be acceleratedin school. This boy's intelligence, however, was found to be above the12-year level. There is no doubt that his mental ability would haveenabled him, with a few months of individual instruction, to carry fifthor even sixth-grade work as easily as third, and without injury to bodyor mind. Nevertheless, the teacher and both the parents of this childhad found nothing remarkable about him. In reality he belongs to a gradeof 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 mostchildren are reading fairy stories, had a passion for standard medicalliterature and textbooks in physical science. Yet, after more than ayear of daily contact with this young genius (who is a relative ofMeyerbeer, the composer), the teacher had discovered no symptoms ofunusual ability. [6]

[6] See p.  26 _ff. _ for further illustrations of this kind. 

Teachers should be better trained in detecting the signs of superiorability. Every child who consistently gets high marks in his school workwith apparent ease should be given a mental examination, and if hisintelligence level warrants it he should either be given extrapromotions, or placed in a special class for superior children wherefaster progress can be made. The latter is the better plan, because itobviates the necessity of skipping grades; it permits rapid butcontinuous progress. 

The usual reluctance of teachers to give extra promotions probably restsupon three factors: (1) mere inertia; (2) a natural unwillingness topart with exceptionally satisfactory pupils; and (3) the traditionalbelief that precocious children should be held back for fear of direphysical or mental consequences. 

In order to throw light on the question whether exceptionally brightchildren are specially likely to be one-sided, nervous, delicate, morally abnormal, socially unadaptable, or otherwise peculiar, thewriter has secured rather extensive information regarding 31 childrenwhose mental age was found by intelligence tests to be 25 per cent abovethe actual age. This degree of intelligence is possessed by about2 children out of 100, and is nearly as far above average intelligenceas high-grade feeble-mindedness is below. The supplementary information, which was furnished in most cases by the teachers, may be summarized asfollows:--

 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 arefully as likely to be healthy as ordinary children; their ability is farmore often general than special, they are studious above the average, really serious faults are not common among them, they are nearly alwayssocially adaptable, are sought after as playmates and companions, theirplay life is usually normal, they are leaders far oftener than otherchildren, and notwithstanding their many really superior qualities theyare seldom vain or spoiled. 

It would be greatly to the advantage of such children if their superiorability were more promptly and fully recognized, and if (under propermedical supervision, of course) they were promoted as rapidly as theirmental development would warrant. Unless they are given the grade ofwork which calls forth their best efforts, they run the risk of fallinginto lifelong habits of submaximum efficiency. The danger in the case ofsuch children is not over-pressure, but under-pressure. 

INTELLIGENCE TESTS AS A BASIS FOR GRADING. Not only in the case ofretarded 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 indefensiblecustom is to grade the newcomer down a little, because, forsooth, thetextbooks he has studied may have differed somewhat from those he isabout to take up, or because the school system from which he comes maybe looked upon as inferior. Teachers are too often suspicious of allother educational methods besides their own. The present treatmentaccorded such children, which so often does them injustice and injury, should be replaced by an intelligence test. The hour of time requiredfor the test is a small matter in comparison with the loss of a schoolterm by the pupils. 

Indeed, it would be desirable to make all promotions on the basischiefly of intellectual ability. Hitherto the school has had to rely ontests of information because reliable tests of intelligence have notuntil recently been available. As trained Binet examiners become moreplentiful, the information standard will have to give way to thecriterion which asks merely that the child shall be able to do the workof the next higher grade. The brief intelligence test is not only moreenlightening than the examination; it is also more hygienic. The schoolexamination is often for the child a source of worry and anxiety; themental test is an interesting and pleasant experience. 

INTELLIGENCE TESTS FOR VOCATIONAL FITNESS. The time is probably not fardistant when intelligence tests will become a recognized and widely usedinstrument for determining vocational fitness. Of course, it is notclaimed that tests are available which will tell us unerringly exactlywhat one of a thousand or more occupations a given individual is bestfitted to pursue. But when thousands of children who have been tested bythe Binet scale have been followed out into the industrial world, andtheir success in various occupations noted, we shall know fairlydefinitely the vocational significance of any given degree of mentalinferiority or superiority. Researches of this kind will ultimatelydetermine the minimum "intelligence quotient" necessary for success ineach leading occupation. 

Industrial concerns doubtless suffer enormous losses from the employmentof persons whose mental ability is not equal to the tasks they areexpected to perform. The present methods of trying out new employees, transferring them to simpler and simpler jobs as their inefficiencybecomes apparent, is wasteful and to a great extent unnecessary. Acheaper and more satisfactory method would be to employ a psychologistto examine applicants for positions and to weed out the unfit. Anybusiness employing as many as five hundred or a thousand workers, as, for example, a large department store, could save in this way severaltimes the salary of a well-trained psychologist. 

That the industrially inefficient are often of subnormal intelligencehas already been demonstrated in a number of psychologicalinvestigations. Of 150 "hoboes" tested under the direction of the writerby Mr.  Knollin, at least 15 per cent belonged to the moron grade ofmental deficiency, and almost as many more were border-line cases. To besure, a large proportion were found perfectly normal, and a few evendecidedly superior in mental ability, but the ratio of mental deficiencywas ten or fifteen times as high as that holding for the generalpopulation. Several had as low as 9- or 10-year intelligence, and onehad a mental level of 7 years. The industrial history of such subjects, as given by themselves, was always about what the mental level wouldlead 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 andProfessor Eleanor Rowland, of Reed College, who tested 108 unemployedcharity cases in Portland, Oregon. Both of these investigators made useof the Stanford revision of the Binet scale, which is especiallyserviceable in distinguishing the upper-grade defectives from normals. 

It hardly needs to be emphasized that when charity organizations helpthe feeble-minded to float along in the social and industrial world, andto produce and rear children after their kind, a doubtful service isrendered. A little psychological research would aid the united charitiesof any city to direct their expenditures into more profitable channelsthan would otherwise be possible. 

OTHER USES OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS. Another important use of intelligencetests is in the study of the factors which influence mental development. It is desirable that we should be able to guard the child againstinfluences which affect mental development unfavorably; but as long asthese influences have not been sifted, weighed, and measured, we havenothing but conjecture on which to base our efforts in this direction. 

When we search the literature of child hygiene for reliable evidence asto the injurious effects upon mental ability of malnutrition, decayedteeth, obstructed breathing, reduced sleep, bad ventilation, insufficient exercise, etc. , we are met by endless assertion painfullyunsupported by demonstrated fact. We have, indeed, very little exactknowledge regarding the mental effects of any of the factors justmentioned. When standardized mental tests have come into more generaluse, such influences will be easy to detect wherever they are reallypresent. 

Again, the most important question of heredity is that regarding theinheritance of intelligence; but this is a problem which cannot beattacked at all without some accurate means of identifying the thingwhich is the object of study. Without the use of scales for measuringintelligence we can give no better answer as to the essential differencebetween 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 wecannot know to what extent a child's mental performances are determinedby environment and to what extent by heredity. Is the place of theso-called lower classes in the social and industrial scale the result oftheir inferior native endowment, or is their apparent inferiority merelya result of their inferior home and school training? Is genius morecommon among children of the educated classes than among the children ofthe ignorant and poor? Are the inferior races really inferior, or arethey merely unfortunate in their lack of opportunity to learn?

Only intelligence tests can answer these questions and grade the rawmaterial with which education works. Without them we can neverdistinguish the results of our educational efforts with a given childfrom the influence of the child's original endowment. Such tests wouldhave told us, for example, whether the much-discussed "wonder children, "such as the Sidis and Wiener boys and the Stoner girl, owe theirprecocious intellectual prowess to superior training (as their parentsbelieve) or to superior native ability. The supposed effects upon mentaldevelopment of new methods of mind training, which are exploited soconfidently from time to time (e. G. , the Montessori method and thevarious 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 anever-increasing rôle. With the exception of moral character thereis nothing as significant for a child's future as his grade ofintelligence. Even health itself is likely to have less influence indetermining success in life. Although strength and swiftness have alwayshad great survival value among the lower animals, these characteristicshave long since lost their supremacy in man's struggle for existence. For us the rule of brawn has been broken, and intelligence has becomethe decisive factor in success. Schools, railroads, factories, and thelargest commercial concerns may be successfully managed by persons whoare physically weak or even sickly. One who has intelligence constantlymeasures opportunities against his own strength or weakness and adjustshimself to conditions by following those leads which promise most towardthe realization of his individual possibilities. 

All classes of intellects, the weakest as well as the strongest, willprofit by the application of their talents to tasks which are consonantwith their ability. When we have learned the lessons which intelligencetests have to teach, we shall no longer blame mentally defective workmenfor their industrial inefficiency, punish weak-minded children becauseof their inability to learn, or imprison and hang mentally defectivecriminals because they lacked the intelligence to appreciate theordinary codes of social conduct. 

CHAPTER II

SOURCES OF ERROR IN JUDGING INTELLIGENCE

ARE INTELLIGENCE TESTS SUPERFLUOUS? Binet tells us that he oftenencountered the criticism that intelligence tests are superfluous, andthat in going to so much trouble to devise his measuring scale he wasforcing an open door. Those who made this criticism believed that theobservant teacher or parent is able to make an offhand estimate of achild's intelligence which is accurate enough. "It is a stupid teacher, "said one, "who needs a psychologist to tell her which pupils are notintelligent. " Every one who uses intelligence tests meets this attitudefrom time to time. 

This should not be surprising or discouraging. It is only natural thatthose who are unfamiliar with the methods of psychology shouldoccasionally question their validity or worth, just as there are manyexcellent people who do not "believe in" vaccination against typhoid andsmall pox, operations for appendicitis, etc. 

There is an additional reason why the applications of psychology have toovercome a good deal of conservatism and skepticism; namely, the factthat every one, whether psychologically trained or not, acquires in theordinary experiences of life a certain degree of expertness in theobservation and interpretation of mental traits. The possession of thislittle fund of practical working knowledge makes most people slow toadmit any one's claim to greater expertness. When the astronomer tellsus the distance to Jupiter, we accept his statement, because werecognize that our ordinary experience affords no basis for judgmentabout such matters. But every one acquires more or less facility indistinguishing the coarser differences among people in intelligence, and this half-knowledge naturally generates a certain amount ofresistance to the more refined method of tests. 

It should be evident, however, that we need more than the ability merelyto distinguish a genius from a simpleton, just as a physician needssomething more than the ability to distinguish an athlete from a mandying of consumption. It is necessary to have a definite and accuratediagnosis, one which will differentiate more finely the many degrees andqualities of intelligence. Just as in the case of physical illness, weneed to know not merely that the patient is sick, but also why he issick, what organs are involved, what course the illness will run, andwhat physical work the patient can safely undertake, so in the case of aretarded child, we need to know the exact degree of intellectualdeficiency, 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 childwill be able to pursue with reasonable hope of success. In the diagnosisof a case of malnutrition, the up-to-date physician does not depend upongeneral symptoms, but instead makes a blood test to determine the exactnumber of red corpuscles per cubic millimeter of blood and the exactpercentage of hæmoglobin. He has learned that external appearances areoften misleading. Similarly, every psychologist who is experienced inthe mental examination of school children knows that his own or theteacher's estimate of a child's intelligence is subject to grave andfrequent error. 

THE NECESSITY OF STANDARDS. In the first place, in order to judge anindividual's intelligence it is necessary to have in mind some standardas to what constitutes normal intelligence. This the ordinary parent orteacher does not have. In the case of school children, for example, eachpupil is judged with reference to the average intelligence of theclass. But the teacher has no means of knowing whether the average forher class is above, equal to, or below that for children in general. Herstandard may be too high, too low, vague, mechanical, or fragmentary. The same, of course, holds in the case of parents or any one elseattempting to estimate intelligence on the basis of common observation. 

THE INTELLIGENCE OF RETARDED CHILDREN USUALLY OVERESTIMATED. One of themost common errors made by the teacher is to overestimate theintelligence of the over-age pupil. This is because she fails to takeaccount of age differences and estimates intelligence on the basis ofthe child's school performance in the grade where he happens to belocated. She tends to overlook the fact that quality of school work isno index of intelligence unless age is taken into account. The questionshould 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 dosatisfactory work?" A high-grade imbecile may do average work in thefirst grade, and a high-grade moron average work in the third or fourthgrade, provided only they are sufficiently over-age for the grade inquestion. 

Our experience in testing children for segregation in special classeshas time and again brought this fallacy of teachers to our attention. Wehave often found one or more feeble-minded children in a class afterthe teacher had confidently asserted that there was not a singleexceptionally dull child present. In every case where there has beenopportunity to follow the later school progress of such a child thevalidity of the intelligence test has been fully confirmed. 

The following are typical examples of the neglect of teachers to takethe age factor into account when estimating the intelligence of theover-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 havealready mentioned the frequent failure of teachers and parents torecognize superior ability. [7] The fallacy here is again largely due tothe neglect of the age factor, but the resulting error is in theopposite direction from that set forth above. The superior child islikely 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 followingare 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 sourceof error in the teacher's judgment comes from the difficulty indistinguishing genuine dullness from the mental condition which resultssometimes 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 observationis the tendency to overestimate the intelligence of the sprightly, talkative, sanguine child, and to underestimate the intelligence of thechild who is less emotional, reacts slowly, and talks little. Oneoccasionally finds a feeble-minded adult, perhaps of only 9- or 10-yearintelligence, whose verbal fluency, mental liveliness, andself-confidence would mislead the offhand judgment of even thepsychologist. 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 fewyears ago organized and started to march from San Francisco toWashington. 

BINET'S QUESTIONNAIRE ON TEACHERS' METHODS OF JUDGING INTELLIGENCE. [8]Aroused by the skepticism so often shown toward his test method, Binetdecided to make a little study of the methods by which teachers areaccustomed to arrive at a judgment as to a child's intelligence. Accordingly, through the coöperation of the director of elementaryeducation in Paris, he secured answers from a number of teachers to thefollowing 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 firstquestion were vague, one-sided, "verbal, " or bookish. Only a few showedmuch psychological discrimination as to what intelligence is andwhat its symptoms are. There was a very general tendency to judgeintelligence by success in one or more of the school studies. Somethought that ability to master arithmetic was a sure criterion. Otherswere influenced almost entirely by the pupil's ability to read. Oneteacher said that the child who can "read so expressively as to make youfeel the punctuation" is certainly intelligent, an observation which israther good, as far as it goes. A few judged intelligence by the pupil'sknowledge of such subjects as history and geography, which, as Binetpoints out, is to confound intelligence with the ability to memorize. "Memory, " says Binet, is a "great simulator of intelligence. " It is awise teacher who is not deceived by it. Only a small minority mentionedresourcefulness in play, capacity to adjust to practical situations, orany 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 ofthe face and eyes. An "active" or "passive" expression of the eyes waslooked 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 childmust be intelligent; if they are heavy and expressionless, he must bedull. The mobility of countenance came in for frequent mention, also theshape of the head. 

No one will deny that intelligence displays itself to a greater orless extent in the features; but how, asks Binet, are we going to_standardize_ a "glance of the eye" or an "expression of curiosity" sothat it will serve as an exact measure of intelligence?

The fact is, the more one sees of feeble-minded children, the lessreliance one comes to place upon facial expression as a sign ofintelligence. Some children who are only slightly backward have thegeneral appearance of low-grade imbeciles. On the other hand, not a fewwho are distinctly feeble-minded are pretty and attractive. With manysuch children a ready smile takes the place of comprehension. If thesmile is rather sweet and sympathetic, as is often the case, theobserver is almost sure to be deceived. 

As regards the shape of the head, peculiar conformation of the ears, andother "stigmata, " science long ago demonstrated that these areordinarily of little or no significance. 

In reply to the second question, some teachers stated that they nevermade a mistake, while others admitted failure in one case out of three. Still others said, "Once in ten years, " "once in twenty years, " "once ina 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 whenhe has passed from her care, and seldom has opportunity of finding outwhether his later success belies her judgment or confirms it. Errors goundiscovered for the simple reason that there is no opportunity to checkthem up. In the second place, her estimate is so rough that an errormust be very great in order to have any meaning. If I say that a man issix feet and two inches tall, it is easy enough to apply a measuringstick and prove the correctness or incorrectness of my assertion. But ifI say simply that the man is "rather tall, " or "very tall, " the errormust be very extreme before we can expose it, particularly since theestimate can itself be checked up only by observation and not bycontrolled experiment. 

The teachers' answers seem to justify three conclusions:--

1. Teachers do not have a very definite idea of what constitutesintelligence. They tend to confuse it variously with capacity formemorizing, facility in reading, ability to master arithmetic, etc. Onthe whole, their standard is too academic. They fail to appreciate theone-sidedness of the school's demands upon intelligence. 

In a quaintly humorous passage discussing this tendency, Binetcharacterizes the child in a class as _dénaturé_, a French word which wemay translate (though rather too literally) as "denatured. " Too oftenthis "denatured" child of the classroom is the only child the teacherknows. 

2. In judging intelligence teachers are too easily deceived by asprightly attitude, a sympathetic expression, a glance of the eye, or achance "bump" on the head. 

3. Although a few teachers seem to realize the many possibilities oferror, the majority show rather undue confidence in the accuracy oftheir judgment. 

BINET'S EXPERIMENT ON HOW TEACHERS TEST INTELLIGENCE. [9] Finally, Binethad three teachers come to his laboratory to judge the intelligence ofchildren whom they had never seen before. Each spent an afternoon in thelaboratory and examined five pupils. In each case the teacher was leftfree to arrive at a conclusion in her own way. Binet, who remained inthe room and took notes, recounts with playful humor how the teacherswere unavoidably compelled to resort to the much-abused test method, although their attempts at using it were sometimes, from thepsychologist'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 andsluices which were in the vicinity, asking what their purpose was andhow they worked. Another showed the children some pretty pictures, which she had brought with her for the purpose, and asked questionsabout them. Showing the picture of a garret, she asked how a garretdiffers from an ordinary room. One teacher asked whether in building afactory it was best to have the walls thick or thin. As King Edward hadjust died, another teacher questioned the children about the details ofthis event, in order to find out whether they were in the habit ofreading 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 onlyapplicable with the children of this particular school. 

The method of proposing the questions and judging the responses was alsoat fault. The teachers did not adhere consistently to any definiteformula in giving a particular test to the different children. Instead, the questions were materially altered from time to time. One teacherscored the identical response differently for two children, giving onechild more credit than the other because she had already judged hisintelligence to be superior. In several cases the examination wasneedlessly delayed in order to instruct the child in what he did notknow. 

The examination ended, quite properly for a teacher's examination, withquestions about history, literature, the metric system, etc. , and withthe recitation of a fable. 

A comparison of the results showed hardly any agreement among theestimates of the three teachers. When questioned about the standard thathad been taken in arriving at their conclusions, one teacher said shehad taken the answers of the first pupil as a point of departure, andthat she had judged the other pupils by this one. Another judged all thechildren 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 thechild taken as an ideal would have responded to the tests used with thefive children. 

In summarizing the result of his little experiment, Binet points outthat the teachers employed, as if by instinct, the very method which hehimself recommends. In using it, however, they made numerous errors. Their questions were often needlessly long. Several were "dilemmaquestions, " that is, answerable by _yes_ or _no_. In such cases chancealone will cause fifty per cent of the answers to be correct. Some ofthe questions were merely tests of school knowledge. Others wereentirely special, usable only with the children of this particularschool on this particular day. Not all of the questions were put in thesame terms, and a given response did not always receive the same score. When the children responded incorrectly or incompletely, they were oftengiven help, but not always to the same extent. In other words, saysBinet, it was evident that "the teachers employed very awkwardly a veryexcellent method. "

The above remark is as pertinent as it is expressive. As the statementimplies, the test method is but a refinement and standardization of thecommon-sense approach. Binet remarks that most people who inquire intohis method of measuring intelligence do so expecting to find somethingvery surprising and mysterious; and on seeing how much it resembles themethods which common sense employs in ordinary life, they heave a sighof disappointment and say, "Is that all?" Binet reminds us that thedifference between the scientific and unscientific way of doing a thingis not necessarily a difference in the _nature_ of the method; it isoften 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 goodsense and judgment of teachers. The teachers who took part in the littleexperiment described above were Binet's personal friends. The errors hepoints out in his entertaining and good-humored account of theexperiment are inherent in the situation. They are the kind of errorswhich any person, however discriminating and observant, is likely tomake in estimating the intelligence of a subject without the use ofstandardized tests. 

It is the writer's experience that the teacher's estimate of a child'sintelligence is much more reliable than that of the average parent; moreaccurate even than that of the physician who has not had psychologicaltraining. 

Indeed, it is an exceptional school physician who is able to give anyvery valuable assistance to teachers in the classification of mentallyexceptional children for special pedagogical treatment. 

This is only to be expected, for the physician has ordinarily had muchless instruction in psychology than the teacher, and of courseinfinitely less experience in judging the mental performances ofchildren. Even if graduated from a first-rank medical school, theinstruction he has received in the important subject of mentaldeficiency has probably been less adequate than that given to thestudents of a standard normal school. As a rule, the doctor has noequipment or special fitness which gives him any advantage over theteacher in acquiring facility in the use of intelligence tests. 

As for parents, it would of course be unreasonable to expect from them avery accurate judgment regarding the mental peculiarities of theirchildren. The difficulty is not simply that which comes from lack ofspecial training. The presence of parental affection renders impartialjudgment impossible. Still more serious are the effects of habituationto the child's mental traits. As a result of such habituation the mostintelligent parent tends to develop an unfortunate blindness to allsorts of abnormalities which exist in his own children. 

The only way of escape from the fallacies we have mentioned lies in theuse of some kind of refined psychological procedure. Binet testing isdestined to become universally known and practiced in schools, prisons, reformatories, charity stations, orphan asylums, and even ordinaryhomes, for the same reason that Babcock testing has become universal indairying. 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 extendedseries of tests in the nature of "stunts, " or problems, success in whichdemands the exercise of intelligence. As left by Binet, the scaleconsists of 54 tests, so graded in difficulty that the easiest lie wellwithin the range of normal 3-year-old children, while the hardest taxthe intelligence of the average adult. The problems are designedprimarily to test native intelligence, not school knowledge or hometraining. They try to answer the question "How intelligent is thischild?" How much the child has learned is of significance only in so faras 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 itadequately. He therefore assembled for his intelligence scale tests ofmany different types, some of them designed to display differences ofmemory, others differences in power to reason, ability to compare, powerof comprehension, time orientation, facility in the use of numberconcepts, power to combine ideas into a meaningful whole, the maturityof apperception, wealth of ideas, knowledge of common objects, etc. 

HOW THE SCALE WAS DERIVED. The tests were arranged in order ofdifficulty, as found by trying them upon some 200 normal children ofdifferent ages from 3 to 15 years. It was found, for illustration, thata certain test was passed by only a very small proportion of the youngerchildren, say the 5-year-olds, and that the number passing this testincreased rapidly in the succeeding years until by the age of 7 or8 years, let us say, practically all the children were successful. If, in our supposed case, the test was passed by about two thirds tothree fourths of the normal children aged 7 years, it was considered byBinet a test of 7-year intelligence. In like manner, a test passed by65 to 75 per cent of the normal 9-year-olds was considered a test of9-year intelligence, and so on. By trying out many different tests inthis way it was possible to secure five tests to represent each age from3 to 10 years (excepting age 4, which has only four tests), five forage 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 Binetin 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 giveslittle idea of their nature and meaning, and tells nothing about Binet'smethod of conducting the 54 experiments. In order to use the testsintelligently it is necessary to acquaint one's self thoroughly with thepurpose of each test, its correct procedure, and the psychologicalinterpretation of different types of response. [10]

[10] See Part II of this volume, and References 1 and 29, for discussionand interpretation of the individual tests. 

In fairness to Binet, it should also be borne in mind that the scale oftests was only a rough approximation to the ideal which the author hadset himself to realize. Had his life been spared a few years longer, hewould doubtless have carried the method much nearer perfection. 

HOW THE SCALE IS USED. By means of the Binet tests we can judge theintelligence of a given individual by comparison with standards ofintellectual performance for normal children of different ages. In orderto make the comparison it is only necessary to begin the examination ofthe subject at a point in the scale where all the tests are passedsuccessfully, and to continue up the scale until no more successes arepossible. Then we compare our subject's performances with the standardfor normal children of the same age, and note the amount of accelerationor retardation. 

Let us suppose the subject being tested is 9 years of age. If he goes asfar in the tests as normal 9-year-old children ordinarily go, we can saythat the child has a "mental age" of 9 years, which in this case isnormal (our child being 9 years of age). If he goes only as far asnormal 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 mayhave a "mental age" of only 4 years, or a young genius of 9 years mayhave a mental age of 12 or 13 years. 

SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BINET-SIMON METHOD. Psychologists hadexperimented with intelligence tests for at least twenty years beforethe Binet scale made its appearance. The question naturally suggestsitself why Binet should have been successful in a field where previousefforts had been for the most part futile. The answer to this questionis found in three essential differences between Binet's method and thoseformerly employed. 

1. _The use of age standards. _ Binet was the first to utilize the ideaof age standards, or norms, in the measurement of intelligence. It willbe understood, of course, that Binet did not set out to invent tests of10-year intelligence, 6-year intelligence, etc. Instead, as alreadyexplained, he began with a series of tests ranging from very easy tovery difficult, and by trying these tests on children of different agesand noting the percentages of successes in the various years, he wasable to locate them (approximately) in the years where they belonged. 

This plan has the great advantage of giving us standards which areeasily grasped. To say, for illustration, that a given subject has agrade of intelligence equal to that of the average child of 8 years is astatement whose general import does not need to be explained. Previousinvestigators had worked with subjects the degree of whose intelligencewas unknown, and with tests the difficulty of which was equally unknown. An immense amount of ingenuity was spent in devising tests which wereused in such a way as to preclude any very meaningful interpretation ofthe responses. 

The Binet method enables us to characterize the intelligence of a childin a far more definite way than had hitherto been possible. Currentdescriptive terms like "bright, " "moderately bright, " "dull, " "verydull, " "feeble-minded, " etc. , have had no universally accepted meaning. A child who is designated by one person as "moderately bright" may becalled "very bright" by another person. The degree of intelligence whichone calls "moderate dullness, " another may call "extreme dullness, " etc. But every one knows what is meant by the term 8-year mentality, 4-yearmentality, etc. , even if he is not able to define these grades ofintelligence in psychological terms; and by ascertaining experimentallywhat 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? Wedo not know. It is of a class with many other unaccountable mysteries inthe development of scientific method. Apparently the idea of anage-grade method, as this is called, did not come to Binet himself untilhe had experimented with intelligence tests for some fifteen years. Atleast his first provisional scale, published in 1905, was not made upaccording to the age-grade plan. It consisted merely of 30 tests, arranged roughly in order of difficulty. Although Binet nowhere givesany account of the steps by which this crude and ungraded scale wastransformed into the relatively complete age-grade scale of 1908, we caninfer that the original and ingenious idea of utilizing age norms wassuggested by the data collected with the 1905 scale. However thediscovery 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 secondplace, the Binet tests differ from most of the earlier attempts in thatthey are designed to test the higher and more complex mental processes, instead of the simpler and more elementary ones. Hence they setproblems for the reasoning powers and ingenuity, provoke judgments aboutabstract matters, etc. , instead of attempting to measure sensorydiscrimination, mere retentiveness, rapidity of reaction, and the like. Psychologists had generally considered the higher processes too complexto be measured directly, and accordingly sought to get at themindirectly by correlating supposed intelligence with simpler processeswhich could readily be measured, such as reaction time, rapidity oftapping, discrimination of tones and colors, etc. While they weredisputing 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 intelligenceis little concerned in such elementary processes as those mentionedabove. Many of the animals have keen sensory discrimination. Feeble-minded children, unless of very low grade, do not differ verymarkedly from normal children in sensitivity of the skin, visualacuity, simple reaction time, type of imagery, etc. But in power ofcomprehension, abstraction, and ability to direct thought, in the natureof the associative processes, in amount of information possessed, and inspontaneity of attention, they differ enormously. 

3. _Binet would test "general intelligence. "_ Finally, Binet's successwas largely due to his abandonment of the older "faculty psychology"which, far from being defunct, had really given direction to most of theearlier work with mental tests. Where others had attempted to measurememory attention, sense discrimination, etc. , as separate faculties orfunctions, Binet undertook to ascertain the _general level_ ofintelligence. Others had thought the task easier of accomplishment bymeasuring each division or aspect of intelligence separately, andsummating the results. Binet, too, began in this way, and it was onlyafter years of experimentation by the usual methods that he finallybroke away from them and undertook, so to speak, to triangulate theheight of his tower without first getting the dimensions of theindividual stones which made it up. 

The assumption that it is easier to measure a part, or one aspect, ofintelligence than all of it, is fallacious in that the parts are notseparate parts and cannot be separated by any refinement of experiment. They are interwoven and intertwined. Each ramifies everywhere andappears in all other functions. The analogy of the stones of the towerdoes not really apply. Memory, for example, cannot be tested separatelyfrom attention, or sense-discrimination separately from the associativeprocesses. After many vain attempts to disentangle the variousintellective functions, Binet decided to test their combined functionalcapacity without any pretense of measuring the exact contributionof each to the total product. It is hardly too much to say thatintelligence tests have been successful just to the extent to which theyhave been guided by this aim. 

Memory, attention, imagination, etc. , are terms of "structuralpsychology. " Binet's psychology is dynamic. He conceives intelligence asthe sum total of those thought processes which consist in mentaladaptation. This adaptation is not explicable in terms of the old mental"faculties. " No one of these can explain a single thought process, forsuch process always involves the participation of many functions whoseseparate rôles are impossible to distinguish accurately. Instead ofmeasuring the intensity of various mental states (psycho-physics), it ismore enlightening to measure their combined effect on adaptation. Usinga biological comparison, Binet says the old "faculties" correspond tothe separate tissues of an animal or plant, while his own "scheme ofthought" corresponds to the functioning organ itself. For Binet, psychology is the science of behavior. 

BINET'S CONCEPTION OF GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. In devising tests ofintelligence it is, of course, necessary to be guided by someassumption, or assumptions, regarding the nature of intelligence. Toadopt any other course is to depend for success upon happy chance. 

However, it is impossible to arrive at a final definition ofintelligence on the basis of _a-priori_ considerations alone. To demand, as critics of the Binet method have sometimes done, that one who wouldmeasure intelligence should first present a complete definition of it, is quite unreasonable. As Stern points out, electrical currents weremeasured long before their nature was well understood. Similarillustrations could be drawn from the processes involved in chemistryphysiology, and other sciences. In the case of intelligence it may betruthfully said that no adequate definition can possibly be framed whichis not based primarily on the symptoms empirically brought to light bythe test method. The best that can be done in advance of such data is tomake tentative assumptions as to the probable nature of intelligence, and then to subject these assumptions to tests which will show theircorrectness or incorrectness. New hypotheses can then be framed forfurther trial, and thus gradually we shall be led to a conception ofintelligence which will be meaningful and in harmony with all theascertainable facts. 

Such was the method of Binet. Only those unacquainted with Binet'smore than fifteen years of labor preceding the publication of hisintelligence scale would think of accusing him of making no effort toanalyze the mental processes which his tests bring into play. It is truethat many of Binet's earlier assumptions proved untenable, and in thisevent he was always ready, with exceptional candor and intellectualplasticity, to acknowledge his error and to plan a new line of attack. 

Binet's conception of intelligence emphasizes three characteristics ofthe thought process: (1) Its tendency to take and maintain a definitedirection; (2) the capacity to make adaptations for the purpose ofattaining a desired end; and (3) the power of auto-criticism. [11]

[11] See Binet and Simon: "L'intelligence des imbeciles, " in _L'AnnéePsychologique_ (1909), pp.  1-147. The last division of this article isdevoted to a discussion of the essential nature of the higher thoughtprocesses, and is a wonderful example of that keen psychologicalanalysis in which Binet was so gifted. 

How these three aspects of intelligence enter into the performances withvarious tests of the scale is set forth from time to time in ourdirections for giving and interpreting the individual tests. [12] Anillustration which may be given here is that of the "patience test, " oruniting the disarranged parts of a divided rectangle. As described byBinet, this operation has the following elements: "(1) to keep in mindthe end to be attained, that is to say, the figure to be formed; (2) totry different combinations under the influence of this directing idea, which guides the efforts of the subject even though he may not beconscious of the fact; and (3) to judge the combination which has beenmade, to compare it with the model, and to decide whether it is thecorrect 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 dissectedsentences, drawing a diamond or square from copy, finding a sentencecontaining three given words, counting backwards, etc. 

However, an examination of the scale will show that the choice of testswas not guided entirely by any single formula as to the nature ofintelligence. Binet's approach was a many-sided one. The scale includestests of time orientation, of three or four kinds of memory, ofapperception, of language comprehension, of knowledge about commonobjects, of free association, of number mastery, of constructiveimagination, 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'sconception of intelligence with the definitions which have been offeredby other psychologists. According to Ebbinghaus, for example, theessence of intelligence lies in comprehending together in a unitary, meaningful whole, impressions and associations which are more or lessindependent, heterogeneous, or even partly contradictory. "Intellectualability consists in the elaboration of a whole into its worth andmeaning by means of many-sided combination, correction, and completionof numerous kindred associations.... It is a _combination activity_. "

Meumann offers a twofold definition. From the psychological point ofview, intelligence is the power of independent and creative elaborationof new products out of the material given by memory and the senses. Fromthe practical point of view, it involves the ability to avoid errors, tosurmount difficulties, and to adjust to environment. 

Stern defines intelligence as "the general capacity of an individualconsciously to adjust his thinking to new requirements: it is generaladaptability to new problems and conditions of life. "

Spearman, Hart, and others of the English school define intelligence asa "common central factor" which participates in all sorts ofspecial mental activities. This factor is explained in terms of apsycho-physiological hypothesis of "cortex energy, " "cerebralplasticity, " etc. 

The above definitions are only to a slight extent contradictory orinharmonious. They differ mainly in point of view or in the location ofthe emphasis. Each expresses a part of the truth, and none all of it. Itwill be evident that the conception of Binet is broad enough to includethe most important elements in each of the other definitions quoted. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN CHOICE AND ARRANGEMENT OF TESTS. In choosing histests Binet was guided by the conception of intelligence which we haveset forth above. Tests were devised which would presumably bringinto play the various mental processes thought to be concerned inintelligence, and then these tests were tried out on normal children ofdifferent ages. If the percentage of passes for a given test increasedbut little or not at all in going from younger to older children thistest was discarded. On the other hand, if the proportion of passesincreased rapidly with age, and if children of a given age, who on othergrounds were known to be bright, passed more frequently than children ofthe same age who were known to be dull, then the test was judged asatisfactory test of intelligence. As we have shown elsewhere, [13]practically all of Binet's tests fulfill these requirements reasonablywell, a fact which bears eloquent testimony to the keen psychologicalinsight of their author. 

[13] See p.  55. 

In arranging the tests into a system Binet's guiding principle was tofind an arrangement of the tests which would cause an average child ofany given age to test "at age"; that is, the average 5-year-old mustshow a mental age of 5 years, the average 8-year-old a mental age of8 years, etc. In order to secure this result Binet found that his dataseemed to require the location of an individual test in that year whereit was passed by about two thirds to three fourths of unselectedchildren. 

It was in the assembling of the tests that the most serious faults ofthe scale had their origin. Further investigation has shown that a greatmany of the tests were misplaced as much as one year, and several ofthem two years. On the whole, the scale as Binet left it was decidedlytoo easy in the lower ranges, and too difficult in the upper. As aresult, the average child of 5 years was caused to test at not far from6 years, the average child of 12 years not far from 11. In the Stanfordrevision an effort has been made to correct this fault, along withcertain other generally recognized imperfections. 

SOME AVOWED LIMITATIONS OF THE BINET TESTS. The Binet tests have oftenbeen criticized for their unfitness to perform certain services which inreality they were never meant to render. This is unfair. We cannot makea just evaluation of the scale without bearing in mind its avowedlimitations. 

For example, the scale does not pretend to measure the entire mentalityof the subject, but only _general intelligence_. There is no pretense oftesting the emotions or the will beyond the extent to which thesenaturally display themselves in the tests of intelligence. The scale wasnot designed as a tool for the analysis of those emotional or volitionalaberrations which are concerned in such mental disorders as hysteria, insanity, etc. These conditions do not present a progressive reductionof intelligence to the infantile level, and in most of them otherfactors besides intelligence play an important rôle. Moreover, even inthe normal individual the fruitfulness of intelligence, the direction inwhich it shall be applied, and its methods of work are to a certainextent determined by the extraneous factors of emotion and volition. 

It should, nevertheless, be pointed out that defects of intelligence, ina large majority of cases, also involve disturbances of the emotionaland volitional functions. We do not expect to find perfectly normalemotions or will power of average strength coupled with markedintellectual deficiency, and as a matter of fact such a combination israre indeed. In the course of an examination with the Binet tests, theexperienced clinical psychologist is able to gain considerable insightinto the subject's emotional and volitional equipment, even though themethod was designed primarily for another purpose. 

A second misunderstanding can be avoided by remembering that the Binetscale does not pretend to bring to light the idiosyncrasies of specialtalent, but only to measure the general level of intelligence. It cannotbe used for the discovery of exceptional ability in drawing, painting, music, mathematics, oratory, salesmanship, etc. , because no effort ismade to explore the processes underlying these abilities. It can, therefore, never serve as a _detailed chart_ for the vocational guidanceof 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 sametime, as we have already pointed out, _it is capable of bounding roughlythe vocational territory in which an individual's intelligence willprobably permit success, nothing else preventing_. [14]

[14] See p.  17. 

In the third place, it must not be supposed that the scale can be usedas a complete pedagogical guide. Although intelligence tests furnishdata of the greatest significance for pedagogical procedure, they do notsuggest the appropriate educational methods in detail. These willhave to be worked out in a practical way for the various grades ofintelligence, and at great cost of labor and patience. 

Finally, in arriving at an estimate of a subject's grade of intelligenceand his susceptibility to training, it would be a mistake to ignore thedata obtainable from other sources. No competent psychologist, howeverardent a supporter of the Binet method he might be, would recommend sucha policy. Those who accept the method as all-sufficient are as much inerror as those who consider it as no more important than any one of adozen other approaches. Standardized tests have already become and willremain by far the most reliable single method for grading intelligence, but the results they furnish will always need to be interpreted in thelight of supplementary information regarding the subject's personalhistory, including medical record, accidents, play habits, industrialefficiency, social and moral traits, school success, home environment, etc. Without question, however, the improved Binet tests will contributemore than all other data combined to the end of enabling us to forecasta child's possibilities of future improvement, and this is theinformation which will aid most in the proper direction of hiseducation. 

CHAPTER IV

NATURE OF THE STANFORD REVISION AND EXTENSION

Although the Binet scale quickly demonstrated its value as an instrumentfor the classification of mentally-retarded and otherwise exceptionalchildren, it had, nevertheless, several imperfections which greatlylimited its usefulness. There was a dearth of tests at the higher mentallevels, the procedure was so inadequately defined that needlessdisagreement came about in the interpretation of data, and so many ofthe tests were misplaced as to make the results of an examination moreor less misleading, particularly in the case of very young subjects andthose near the adult level. It was for the purpose of correctingthese and certain other faults that the Stanford investigation wasplanned. [15]

[15] The writer wishes to acknowledge his very great indebtedness toMiss Grace Lyman, Dr. George Ordahl, Dr. Louise Ellison Ordahl, MissNeva Galbreath, Mr. Wilford Talbert, Dr. J. Harold Williams, Mr. HerbertE. Knollin, and Miss Irene Cuneo for their coöperation in making thetests on which the Stanford revision is chiefly based. Without theirloyal assistance the investigation could not have been carried through. 

Grateful acknowledgment is also made to the many public school teachersand principals for their generous and invaluable coöperation infurnishing subjects for the tests, and in supplying, sometimes atconsiderable cost of labor, the supplementary information which wascalled for regarding the pupils tested. Their contribution was made inthe interest of educational science, and without expectation of personalbenefits of any kind. Their professional spirit cannot be too highlycommended. 

SOURCES OF DATA. Our revision is the result of several years of work, and involved the examination of approximately 2300 subjects, including1700 normal children, 200 defective and superior children, and more than400 adults. 

Tests of 400 of the 1700 normal children had been made by Childs andTerman in 1910-11, and of 300 children by Trost, Waddle, and Terman in1911-12. For various reasons, however, the results of these tests didnot furnish satisfactory data for a thoroughgoing revision of the scale. Accordingly a new investigation was undertaken, somewhat more extensivethan the others, and more carefully planned. Its main features may bedescribed as follows:--

1. The first step was to assemble as nearly as possible all the resultswhich had been secured for each test of the scale by all the workers ofall countries. The result was a large sheet of tabulated data for eachindividual 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 ofresults we had ourselves secured, a provisional arrangement of the testswas prepared for try-out. 

2. In addition to the tests of the original Binet scale, 40 additionaltests were included for try-out. This, it was expected, would makepossible the elimination of some of the least satisfactory tests, and atthe same time permit the addition of enough new ones to give at leastsix tests, instead of five, for each age group. 

3. A plan was then devised for securing subjects who should be as nearlyas possible representative of the several ages. The method was to selecta school in a community of average social status, a school attended byall or practically all the children in the district where it waslocated. In order to get clear pictures of age differences the testswere confined to children who were within two months of a birthday. Toavoid accidental selection, _all_ the children within two months of abirthday were tested, in whatever grade enrolled. Tests of foreign-bornchildren, however, were eliminated in the treatment of results. Thereremained tests of approximately 1000 children, of whom 905 were between5 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 accordingto any desired standard, and thus to fit a test more perfectly to theage level assigned it. 

5. Much attention was given to securing uniformity of procedure. Ahalf-year was devoted to training the examiners and another half-year tothe supervision of the testing. In the further interests of uniformityall the records were scored by one person (the writer). 

METHOD OF ARRIVING AT A REVISION. The revision of the scale belowthe 14-year level was based almost entirely on the tests of theabove-mentioned 1, 000 unselected children. The guiding principle was tosecure an arrangement of the tests and a standard of scoring which wouldcause the median mental age of the unselected children of each age groupto coincide with the median chronological age. That is, a correct scalemust 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 samefact in terms of intelligence quotient, [16] a correct scale must give amedian intelligence quotient of unity, or 100 per cent, for unselectedchildren of each age. 

[16] The intelligence quotient (often designated as I Q) is the ratio ofmental age to chronological age. (See pp. 65 _ff. _ and 78 _ff. _)

If the median mental age resulting at any point from the provisionalarrangement of tests was too high or too low, it was only necessary tochange the location of certain of the tests, or to change the standardof scoring, until an order of arrangement and a standard of passing werefound which would throw the median mental age where it belonged. We hadalready become convinced, for reasons too involved for presentationhere, that no satisfactory revision of the Binet scale was possible onany theoretical considerations as to the percentage of passes which anindividual test ought to show in a given year in order to be consideredstandard for that year. 

As was to be expected, the first draft of the revision did not provesatisfactory. The scale was still too hard at some points, and too easyat others. In fact, three successive revisions were necessary, involvingthree separate scorings of the data and as many tabulations of themental ages, before the desired degree of accuracy was secured. Asfinally revised, the scale gives a median intelligence quotient closelyapproximating 100 for the unselected children of each age from 4 to 14. 

Since our school children who were above 14 years and still in thegrades were retarded left-overs, it was necessary to base the revisionabove this level on the tests of adults. These included 30 business menand 150 "migrating" unemployed men tested by Mr. H.  E. Knollin, 150adolescent delinquents tested by Mr. J. Harold Williams, and 50high-school students tested by the writer. 

The extension of the scale in the upper range is such that ordinarilyintelligent adults, little educated, test up to what is called the"average adult" level. Adults whose intelligence is known from othersources to be superior are found to test well up toward the "superioradult" level, and this holds whether the subjects in question are welleducated or practically unschooled. The almost entirely unschooledbusiness men, in fact, tested fully as well as high-school juniors andseniors. 

Figure 1 shows the distribution of mental ages for 62 adults, includingthe 30 business men and the 32 high-school pupils who were over 16 yearsof age. It will be noted that the middle section of the graph representsthe "mental ages" falling between 15 and 17. This is the range which wehave designated as the "average adult" level. Those above 17 are called"superior adults, " those between 13 and 15, "inferior adults. " Subjectsmuch over 15 years of age who test in the neighborhood of 12 years mayordinarily 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 atest. The children of each age level were divided into three groupsaccording to intelligence quotient, those testing below 90, thosebetween 90 and 109, and those with an intelligence quotient of 110 orabove. The percentages of passes on each individual test at or near thatage level were then ascertained separately for these three groups. If atest fails to show a decidedly higher proportion of passes in thesuperior I Q group than in the inferior I Q group, it cannot be regardedas a satisfactory test of intelligence. On the other hand, a test whichsatisfies this criterion must be accepted as valid or the entire scalemust be rejected. Henceforth it stands or falls with the scale as awhole. 

When tried out by this method, some of the tests which have been mostcriticized showed a high degree of reliability; certain others whichhave been considered excellent proved to be so little correlated withintelligence that they had to be discarded. 

After making a few necessary eliminations, 90 tests remained, or 36 morethan the number included in the Binet 1911 scale. There are 6 at eachage 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, whichare distributed among the different groups, are intended to be used onlyas 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 ofmental age and the use of alternative tests. 

Of the 36 new tests, 27 were added and standardized in the variousStanford investigations. Two tests were borrowed from the Healy-Fernaldseries, one from Kuhlmann, one was adapted from Bonser, and theremaining five were amplifications or adaptations of some of the earlierBinet tests. 

Following is a complete list of the tests of the Stanford revision. Those designated _al. _ are alternative tests. The guide for giving andscoring 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 Binet1908 or 1911 series will reveal many changes. On the whole, it differssomewhat more from the Binet 1911 scale than from that of 1908. Thus, ofthe 49 tests below the "adult" group in the 1911 scale, 2 are eliminatedand 29 are relocated. Of these, 25 are moved downward and 4 upward. Theshifts 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 movedup to "superior adult, " and 1 is moved up to 14. Accordingly, of Binet'sentire 54 tests, we have eliminated 3 and relocated 32, leaving only 19in the positions assigned them by Binet. The 3 eliminated are: repeating2 digits, resisting suggestion, and "reversed triangle. "

The revision is really more extensive than the above figures wouldsuggest, since minor changes have been made in the scoring of a greatmany tests in order to make them fit better the locations assigned them. Throughout the scale the procedure and scoring have been worked over andmade more definite with the idea of promoting uniformity. This phase ofthe revision is perhaps more important than the mere relocation oftests. Also, the addition of numerous tests in the upper ranges of thescale affects very considerably the mental ages above the level of10 or 11 years. 

EFFECTS OF THE REVISION ON THE MENTAL AGES SECURED. The most importanteffect of the revision is to reduce the mental ages secured in the lowerranges of the scale, and to raise considerably the mental ages above10 or 11 years. This difference also obtains, though to a somewhatsmaller extent, between the Stanford revision and those of Goddard andKuhlmann. 

For example, of 104 adult individuals testing by the Stanford revisionbetween 12 and 14 years, and who were therefore somewhat above the levelof feeble-mindedness as that term is usually defined, 50 per cent testedbelow 12 years by the Goddard revision. That the dull and border-lineadults are so much more readily distinguished from the feeble-minded bythe Stanford revision than by other Binet series is due as much to theaddition of tests in the upper groups as to the relocation of existingtests. 

On the other hand, the Stanford revision causes young subjects to testlower than any other version of the Binet scale. At 5 or 6 years themental ages secured by the Stanford revision average from 6 to 10 monthslower 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 asan error of 20 months in the case of a 10-year-old. Stating the error interms of the intelligence quotient makes it more evident. Thus, an errorof 10 months in the mental age of a 5-year-old means an error of almost15 per cent in the intelligence quotient. A scale which tests this muchtoo 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 originalBinet scale at the lower end, and its too great difficulty at the upperend:--

1. In young subjects the higher grades of mental deficiency wereoverlooked, because the scale caused such subjects to test only a littlebelow normal. 

2. The proportion of feeble-mindedness among adult subjects was greatlyoverestimated, because subjects who were really of the 12- or 13-yearmental level could only earn a mental age of about 11 years. 

3. Confusion resulted in efforts to trace the mental growth of eitherfeeble-minded or normal children. For example, by other versions of theBinet scale an average 5-year-old will show an intelligence quotientprobably not far from 110 or 115; at 9, an intelligence quotient ofabout 100; and at 14, an intelligence quotient of about 85 or 90. 

By such a scale the true border-line case would test approximately asfollows:--

 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 havebeen found to yield intelligence quotients almost identical with thosesecured from two to four years earlier by the same tests. Those whograded feeble-minded in the first test graded feeble-minded in thesecond test: the dull remained dull, the average remained average, thesuperior remained superior, and always in approximately the samedegree. [18]

[18] See "Some Problems relating to the Detection of Border-line Casesof Mental Deficiency, " by Lewis M. Terman and H.  E. Knollin, in _Journalof Psycho-Asthemes_, June, 1916. 

It is unnecessary to emphasize further the importance of having anintelligence scale which is equally accurate at all points. Absoluteperfection in this respect is not claimed for the Stanford revision, butit is believed to be at least free from the more serious errors of otherBinet arrangements. 

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF 1000 INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS

An extended account of the 1000 tests on which the Stanford revision ischiefly based has been presented in a separate monograph. This chapterwill include only the briefest summary of some of those results of theinvestigation which contribute to the intelligent use of the revision. 

THE DISTRIBUTION OF INTELLIGENCE. The question as to the manner in whichintelligence is distributed is one of great practical as well astheoretical importance. One of the most vital questions which can beasked by any nation of any age is the following: "How high is theaverage level of intelligence among our people, and how frequent are thevarious grades of ability above and below the average?" With thedevelopment of standardized tests we are approaching, for the first timein history, a possible answer to this question. 

Most of the earlier Binet studies, however, have thrown little light onthe distribution of intelligence because of their failure to avoid theinfluence of accidental selection in choosing subjects for testing. Themethod of securing subjects for the Stanford revision makes our resultson this point especially interesting. [19] It is believed that thesubjects used for this investigation were as nearly representative ofaverage American-born children as it is possible to secure. 

[19] See p.  52 _ff. _ for method used to avoid accidental selection ofsubjects for the Stanford investigation. 

The intelligence quotients for these 1000 unselected children werecalculated, 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 eitherside of 80 as a median. That the 15- and 16-year-olds test low is due tothe fact that these children are left-over retardates and are belowaverage in intelligence. 

[Illustration: FIG.  2. DISTRIBUTION OF I Q'S OF 905 UNSELECTEDCHILDREN. 5-14 YEARS OF AGE]

The I Q's were then grouped in ranges of ten. In the middle group werethrown those from 96 to 105; the ascending groups including in order theI Q's from 106 to 115, 116 to 125, etc. ; correspondingly with thedescending groups. Figure 2 shows the distribution found by thisgrouping for the 905 children of ages 5 to 14 combined. The subjectsabove 14 are not included in this curve because they are left-overs andnot representative of their ages. 

The distribution for the ages combined is seen to be remarkablysymmetrical. The symmetry for the separate ages was hardly less marked, considering that only 80 to 120 children were tested at each age. Infact, the range, including the middle 50 per cent of I Q's, was foundpractically constant from 5 to 14 years. The tendency is for the middle50 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 isevident that there is no definite dividing line between normality andfeeble-mindedness, or between normality and genius. Psychologically, thementally defective child does not belong to a distinct type, nor doesthe genius. There is no line of demarcation between either of theseextremes and the so-called "normal" child. The number of mentallydefective individuals in a population will depend upon the standardarbitrarily set up as to what constitutes mental deficiency. Similarlyfor genius. It is exactly as we should undertake to classify all peopleinto the three groups: abnormally tall, normally tall, and abnormallyshort. [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 morefrequent than extreme deviations above the median seems to have nofoundation in fact. Among unselected school children, at least, forevery child of any given degree of deficiency there is another child asfar above the average I Q as the former is below. We have shownelsewhere the serious consequences of neglect of this fact. [21]

[21] See p.  12 _ff. _

3. The traditional view that variability in mental traits becomes moremarked during adolescence is here contradicted, as far as intelligenceis concerned, for the distribution of I Q's is practically the same ateach age from 5 to 14. For example, 6-year-olds differ from one anotherfully as much as do 14-year-olds. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT. The facts presented aboveargue strongly for the validity of the I Q as an expression of a child'sintelligence status. This follows necessarily from the similar nature ofthe distributions at the various ages. The inference is that a child'sI Q, as measured by this scale, remains relatively constant. Re-tests ofthe same children at intervals of two to five years support theinference. Children of superior intelligence do not seem to deteriorateas 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 thecourse of his later development. 

The mental age of a subject is meaningless if considered apart fromchronological age. It is only the ratio of retardation or accelerationto 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" becomestransformed automatically into a "point-scale method, " if one wants touse it that way. As such it is superior to any other point scale thathas been proposed, because it includes a larger number of tests and itspoints have definite meaning. [22]

[22] For discussion of the supposed advantages of the "point-scalemethod, " see Yerkes and Bridges: _A New Point Scale for Measuring MentalAbility_. (Warwick and York, 1915. )

SEX DIFFERENCES. The question as to the relative intelligence of thesexes is one of perennial interest and great social importance. Theancient hypothesis, the one which dates from the time when only menconcerned themselves with scientific hypotheses, took for granted thesuperiority of the male. With the development of individual psychology, however, it was soon found that as far as the evidence of mental testscan be trusted the _average_ intelligence of women and girls is as highas that of men and boys. 

If we accept this result we are then confronted with the difficultproblem of finding an explanation for the fact that so few of those whohave acquired eminence in the various intellectual fields have beenwomen. Two explanations have been proposed: (1) That women becomeeminent 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 thatnot only are there more eminent men than eminent women, but thatstatistics also show a preponderance of males in institutions for thementally defective. Accordingly it is often said that women are groupedclosely about the average, while men show a wider range of distribution. 

[Illustration: FIG.  3. MEDIAN I Q OF 457 BOYS (UNBROKEN LINE) AND448 GIRLS (DOTTED LINE) FOR THE AGES 5-14 YEARS]

Many hundreds of articles and books of popular or quasi-scientificnature have been written on one aspect or another of this question ofsex difference in intelligence; but all such theoretical discussionstaken 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 theproblem. 

1. When the I Q's of the boys and girls were treated separately therewas found a small but fairly constant superiority of the girls up to theage of 13 years. At 14, however, the curve for the girls dropped belowthat for boys. This is shown in Figure 3. 

The supplementary data, including the teachers' estimates ofintelligence on a scale of five, the teachers' judgments in regard tothe quality of the school work, and records showing the age-gradedistribution of the sexes, were all sifted for evidence as to thegenuineness of the apparent superiority of the girls age for age. Theresults of all these lines of inquiry support the tests in suggestingthat the superiority of the girls is probably real even up to andincluding age 14, the apparent superiority of the boys at this age beingfully accounted for by the more frequent elimination of 14-year-oldgirls from the grades by promotion to the high school. [23]

[23] It will be remembered that this series of tests did not follow upand test those who had been promoted to high school. 

2. However, the superiority of girls over boys is so slight (amountingat most ages to only 2 to 3 points in terms of I Q) that for practicalpurposes it would seem negligible. This offers no support to the opinionexpressed by Yerkes and Bridges that "at certain ages serious injusticewill be done individuals by evaluating their scores in the light ofnorms which do not take account of sex differences. "

3. Apart from the small superiority of girls, the distribution ofintelligence in the two sexes is not different. The supposed widervariation of boys is not found. Girls do not group themselves about themedian more closely than do boys. The range of I Q including the middlefifty per cent is approximately the same for the two sexes. [24]

[24] For an extensive summary of other data on the variability of thesexes see the article by Leta S. Hollingworth, in _The American Journalof Sociology_ (January, 1914), pp.  510-30. It is shown that the findingsof others support the conclusions set forth above. 

4. When the results for the individual tests were examined, it was foundthat not many showed very extreme differences as to the per cent of boysand girls passing. In a few cases, however, the difference was rathermarked. 

The boys were decidedly better in arithmetical reasoning, givingdifferences between a president and a king, solving the form board, making change, reversing hands of clock, finding similarities, andsolving the "induction test. " The girls were superior in drawing designsfrom 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 ofothers, justify the conclusion that the intelligence of girls, at leastup to 14 years, does not differ materially from that of boys either asregards the average level or the range of distribution. It may still beargued that the mental development of boys beyond the age of 14 yearslasts longer and extends farther than in the case of girls, but as amatter of fact this opinion receives little support from such tests ashave been made on men and women college students. 

The fact that so few women have attained eminence may be due to whollyextraneous factors, the most important of which are the following: (1)The occupations in which it is possible to achieve eminence are for themost part only now beginning to open their doors to women. Women'scareer has been largely that of home-making, an occupation in whicheminence, in the strict sense of the word, is impossible. (2) Even ofthe small number of women who embark upon a professional career, amajority marry and thereafter devote a fairly large proportion of theirenergy to bearing and rearing children. (3) Both the training given togirls and the general atmosphere in which they grow up are unfavorableto the inculcation of the professional point of view, and as a resultwomen are not spurred on by deep-seated motives to constant andstrenuous intellectual endeavor as men are. (4) It is also possible thatthe emotional traits of women are such as to favor the development ofthe sentiments at the expense of innate intellectual endowment. 

INTELLIGENCE OF THE DIFFERENT SOCIAL CLASSES. Of the 1000 children, 492were classified by their teachers according to social class into thefollowing five groups: _very inferior_, _inferior_, _average_, _superior_, and _very superior_. A comparative study was then made ofthe distribution of I Q's for these different groups. [25]

[25] The results of this comparison have been set forth in detail in themonograph of source material and some of the conclusions have been setforth 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. Theschool work of 504 children was graded by the teachers on a scale offive grades: _very inferior_, _inferior_, _average_, _superior_, and_very superior_. When this grouping was compared with that made on thebasis of I Q, fairly close agreement was found. However, in about onecase out of ten there was rather serious disagreement; a child, forexample, would be rated as doing _average_ school work when his I Qwould place him in the _very inferior_ intelligence group. 

When the data were searched for explanations of such disagreements itwas found that most of them were plainly due to the failure of teachersto take into account the age of the child when grading the quality ofhis school work. [26] When allowance was made for this tendency therewere no disagreements which justified any serious suspicion as to theaccuracy of the intelligence scale. Minor disagreements may, of course, be disregarded, since the quality of school work depends in part onother factors than intelligence, such as industry, health, regularity ofattendance, quality of instruction, etc. 

[26] See p.  24 _ff. _

THE RELATION BETWEEN I Q AND GRADE PROGRESS. This comparison, which wasmade for the entire 1000 children, showed a fairly high correlation, butalso some astonishing disagreements. Nine-year intelligence was foundall the way from grade 1 to grade 7, inclusive; 10-year intelligence allthe way from grade 2 to grade 7; and 12-year intelligence all the wayfrom grade 3 to grade 8. Plainly the school's efforts at grading fail togive homogeneous groups of children as regards mental ability. On thewhole, the grade location of the children did not fit their mental agesmuch better than it did their chronological ages. 

When the data were examined, it was found that practically every childwhose grade failed to correspond fairly closely with his mental age waseither exceptionally bright or exceptionally dull. Those who testedbetween 96 and 105 I Q were never seriously misplaced in school. Thevery dull children, however, were usually located from one to threegrades above where they belonged by mental age, and the duller thechild the more serious, as a rule, was the misplacement. On the otherhand, the very bright children were nearly always located from one tothree grades below where they belonged by mental age, and the brighterthe child the more serious the school's mistake. The child of 10-yearmental age in the second grade, for example, is almost certain to beabout 7 or 8 years old; the child of 10-year intelligence in the sixthgrade 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 promotechildren by age rather than ability_. The bright children are held back, while the dull children are promoted beyond their mental ability. Theretardation problem is exactly the reverse of what we have thought it tobe. It is the bright children who are retarded, and the dull childrenwho are accelerated. 

The remedy is to be sought in differentiated courses (special classes)for both kinds of mentally exceptional children. Just as many specialclasses are needed for superior children as for the inferior. The socialconsequences of suitable educational advantages for children of superiorability would no doubt greatly exceed anything that could possiblyresult from the special instruction of dullards and border-linecases. [27]

[27] See Chapter VI for further discussion of the school progresspossible to children of various I Q's. 

Special study of the I Q's between 70 and 79 revealed the fact that achild of this grade of intelligence _never_ does satisfactory work inthe grade where he belongs by chronological age. By the time he hasattended school four or five years, such a child is usually found doing"very inferior" to "average" work in a grade from two to four yearsbelow his age. 

On the other hand, the child with an I Q of 120 or above is almost neverfound below the grade for his chronological age, and occasionally he isone or two grades above. Wherever located, his work is always "superior"or "very superior, " and the evidence suggests strongly that it wouldprobably remain so even if extra promotions were granted. 

CORRELATION BETWEEN I Q AND THE TEACHERS' ESTIMATES OF THE CHILDREN'SINTELLIGENCE. By the Pearson formula the correlation found between theI Q's and the teachers' rankings on a scale of five was . 48. This isabout what others have found, and is both high enough and low enough tobe significant. That it is moderately high in so far corroborates thetests. That it is not higher means that either the teachers or the testshave made a good many mistakes. 

When the data were searched for evidence on this point, it was found, aswe have shown in Chapter II, that the fault was plainly on the part ofthe teachers. The serious mistakes were nearly all made with childrenwho were either over age or under age for their grade, mostly theformer. In estimating children's intelligence, just as in grading theirschool success, the teachers often failed to take account of the agefactor. For example, the child whose mental age was, say, two yearsbelow normal, and who was enrolled in a class with children about twoyears younger than himself, was often graded "average" in intelligence. 

The tendency of teachers is to estimate a child's intelligence accordingto the quality of his school work _in the grade where he happens to belocated_. 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 thetest method rather than to bring it under suspicion. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL TESTS. The validity of each test waschecked up by measuring it against the scale as a whole in the mannerdescribed on p.  55. For example, if 10-year-old children having 11-yearintelligence succeed with a given test decidedly better than 10-year-oldchildren who have 9-year intelligence, then either this test must beaccepted as valid or the scale as a whole must be rejected. Since weknow, however, that the scale as a whole has at least a reasonably highdegree of reliability, this method becomes a sure and ready means ofjudging the worth of a test. 

When the tests were tried out in this way it was found that some ofthose which have been most criticized have in reality a high correlationwith intelligence. Among these are naming the days of the week, givingthe value of stamps, counting thirteen pennies, giving differencesbetween president and king, finding rhymes, giving age, distinguishingright and left, and interpretation of pictures. Others having a highreliability are the vocabulary tests, arithmetical reasoning, givingdifferences, copying a diamond, giving date, repeating digits in reverseorder, interpretation of fables, the dissected sentence test, namingsixty words, finding omissions in pictures, and recognizing absurdities. 

Among the somewhat less satisfactory tests are the following: repeatingdigits (direct order), naming coins, distinguishing forenoon andafternoon, defining in terms of use, drawing designs from memory, andæsthetic comparison. Binet's "line suggestion" test correlated so littlewith intelligence that it had to be thrown out. The same was also trueof 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 includearranging weights, executing three commissions, naming colors, givingnumber of fingers, describing pictures, naming the months, makingchange, giving superior definitions, finding similarities, reading formemories, reversing hands of clock, defining abstract words, problems offact, bow-knot, induction test, and comprehension questions. 

A test which makes a good showing on this criterion of agreement withthe scale as a whole becomes immune to theoretical criticisms. Whateverit appears to be from mere inspection, it is a real measure ofintelligence. Henceforth it stands or falls with the scale as a whole. 

The reader will understand, of course, that no single test used alonewill determine accurately the general level of intelligence. A greatmany tests are required; and for two reasons: (1) because intelligencehas many aspects; and (2) in order to overcome the accidental influencesof training or environment. If many tests are used no one of them needshow 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 ofthem. "

CHAPTER VI

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VARIOUS INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS

FREQUENCY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES OF INTELLIGENCE. Before we can interpretthe results of an examination it is necessary to know how frequently anI Q of the size found occurs among unselected children. Our tests of1000 unselected children enable us to answer this question with somedegree of definiteness. A study of these 1000 I Q's shows the followingsignificant 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 implyin such terms as feeble-mindedness, border-line intelligence, dullness, normality, superior intelligence genius, etc. ? When we use these termstwo facts must be borne in mind: (1) That the boundary lines betweensuch groups are absolutely arbitrary, a matter of definition only; and(2) that the individuals comprising one of the groups do not make up ahomogeneous type. 

Nevertheless, since terms like the above are convenient and willprobably continue to be used, it is desirable to give them as muchdefiniteness as possible. On the basis of the tests we have made, including many cases of all grades of intelligence, the followingsuggestions are offered for the classification of intelligencequotients:--

 _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 themorons (high, middle, and low), those between 20 or 25 and 50 areordinarily to be classed as imbeciles, and those below 20 or 25 asidiots. According to this classification the adult idiot would range upto about 3-year intelligence as the limit, the adult imbecile would havea mental level between 3 and 7 years, and the adult moron would rangefrom about 7-year to 11-year intelligence. 

It should be added, however, that the classification of I Q's for thevarious sub-grades of feeble-mindedness is not very secure, for thereason that the exact curves of mental growth have not been worked outfor such grades. As far as the public schools are concerned this doesnot greatly matter, as they never enroll idiots and very rarely even thehigh-grade imbecile. School defectives are practically all of the moronand border-line grades, and these it is important teachers should beable to recognize. The following discussions and illustrative cases willperhaps give a fairly definite idea of the significance of variousgrades of intelligence. [28]

[28] The clinical descriptions to be given are not complete and aredesigned merely to aid the examiner in understanding the significance ofintelligence quotients found. 

FEEBLE-MINDEDNESS (RARELY ABOVE 75 I Q. ) There are innumerable grades ofmental deficiency ranging from somewhat below average intelligence toprofound idiocy. In the literal sense every individual below the averageis more or less mentally weak or feeble. Only a relatively smallproportion of these, however, are technically known as feeble-minded. Itis therefore necessary to set forth the criterion as to what constitutesfeeble-mindedness in the commonly accepted sense of that word. 

The definition in most general use is the one framed by the RoyalCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of London, and adopted by the EnglishRoyal Commission on Mental Deficiency. It is substantially as follows:--

_A feeble-minded person is one who is incapable, because of mentaldefect existing from birth or from an early age, (a) of competing onequal terms with his normal fellows; or (b) of managing himself or hisaffairs with ordinary prudence. _

Two things are to be noted in regard to this definition: In the firstplace, it is stated in terms of social and industrial efficiency. Suchefficiency, however, depends not merely on the degree of intelligence, but also on emotional, moral, physical, and social traits as well. Thisexplains why some individuals with I Q somewhat below 75 can hardly beclassed as feeble-minded in the ordinary sense of the term, while otherswith I Q a little above 75 could hardly be classified in any othergroup. 

In the second place, the criterion set up by the definition is not verydefinite because of the vague meaning of the expression "ordinaryprudence. " Even the expression "competing on equal terms" cannot betaken literally, else it would include also those who are merely dull. It is the second part of the definition that more nearly expresses thepopular criterion, for as long as an individual manages his affairs insuch a way as to be self-supporting, and in such a way as to avoidbecoming a nuisance or burden to his fellowmen, he escapes theinstitutions for defectives and may pass for normal. 

The most serious defect of the definition comes from the laxinterpretation of the term "ordinary prudence, " etc. The popularstandard is so low that hundreds of thousands of high grade defectivesescape identification as such. Moreover, there are many grades ofseverity in social and industrial competition. For example, most of themembers of such families as the Jukes, the Nams, the Hill Folk, and theKallikaks are able to pass as normal in their own crude environment, butwhen compelled to compete with average American stock their deficiencybecomes evident. It is therefore necessary to supplement the socialcriterion with a more strictly psychological one. 

For this purpose there is nothing else as significant as the I Q. Allwho test below 70 I Q by the Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon scaleshould be considered feeble-minded, and it is an open question whetherit would not be justifiable to consider 75 I Q as the lower limit of"normal" intelligence. Certainly a large proportion falling between70 and 75 can hardly be classed as other than feeble-minded, evenaccording 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 nodisagreement among competent judges in classifying them in the group of"feeble-minded. " All are definitely institutional cases. It is a matterof record, however, that one of the cases, H.  S. , was diagnosed by aphysician (without test) as "backward but not a defective. " and with theadded encouragement that "the backwardness will be outgrown. " Of coursethe reverse is the case; the deficiency is becoming more and moreapparent 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. ) theteachers had not identified the backwardness as feeble-mindedness. Notfar from 2 children out of 100, or 2 out of 1000, in the average publicschool are as defective as some of those just described. Teachers get soaccustomed to seeing a few of them in every group of 200 or 300 pupilsthat 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, shouldbe kept out of the regular classes. They will rarely be equal to thework of the fifth grade, however long they attend school. They willmake a little progress in a well-managed special class, but with theapproach of adolescence, at latest, the State should take them intocustodial care for its own protection. 

BORDER-LINE CASES (USUALLY BETWEEN 70 AND 80 I Q). The border-line casesare those which fall near the boundary generally recognized as such andthe higher group usually classed as normal but dull. They are thedoubtful cases, the ones we are always trying (rarely with success) torestore to normality. 

It must be emphasized, however, that this doubtful group is not markedoff by definite I Q limits. Some children with I Q as high as 75 or even80 will have to be classified as feeble-minded; some as low as 70 I Qmay be so well endowed in other mental traits that they may manage asadults to get along fairly well in a simple environment. The ability tocompete with one's fellows in the social and industrial world does notdepend upon intelligence alone. Such factors as moral traits, industry, environment to be encountered, personal appearance, and influentialrelatives are also involved. Two children classified above asfeeble-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 normalsocial life out of the question. This is occasionally true even with anI Q as high as 80. Some of the border-line cases, with even lessintelligence, may be so well endowed in other mental traits that theyare capable of becoming dependable unskilled laborers, and of supportinga 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-grademoronity or at border-line, but are well enough endowed in moraland personal traits to pass as normal in an uncomplicated socialenvironment? According to the classical definition of feeble-mindednesssuch individuals cannot be considered defectives. Hardly any one wouldthink of them as institutional cases. Among laboring men and servantgirls there are thousands like them. They are the world's "hewers ofwood and drawers of water. " And yet, as far as intelligence isconcerned, the tests have told the truth. These boys are uneducablebeyond the merest rudiments of training. No amount of school instructionwill ever make them intelligent voters or capable citizens in the truesense of the word. Judged psychologically they cannot be considerednormal. 

It is interesting to note that M.  P. And C.  P. Represent the level ofintelligence which is very, very common among Spanish-Indian and Mexicanfamilies of the Southwest and also among negroes. Their dullness seemsto be racial, or at least inherent in the family stocks from which theycome. The fact that one meets this type with such extraordinaryfrequency among Indians, Mexicans, and negroes suggests quite forciblythat the whole question of racial differences in mental traits will haveto be taken up anew and by experimental methods. The writer predictsthat when this is done there will be discovered enormously significantracial differences in general intelligence, differences which cannot bewiped out by any scheme of mental culture. 

Children of this group should be segregated in special classes and begiven instruction which is concrete and practical. They cannot masterabstractions, but they can often be made efficient workers, able to lookout for themselves. There is no possibility at present of convincingsociety that they should not be allowed to reproduce, although from aeugenic point of view they constitute a grave problem because of theirunusually prolific breeding. 

DULL NORMALS (I Q USUALLY 80 TO 90). In this group are included thosechildren who would not, according to any of the commonly accepted socialstandards, be considered feeble-minded, but who are nevertheless farenough below the actual average of intelligence among races of westernEuropean descent that they cannot make ordinary school progress ormaster other intellectual difficulties which average children are equalto. A few of this class test as low as 75 to 80 I Q, but the majorityare not far from 85. The unmistakably normal children who go much belowthis (in California, at least) are usually Mexicans, Indians, ornegroes. 

 _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 areso very numerous (about 15 per cent of the school enrollment) that it isdoubtful whether we can expect soon to have special classes enough toaccommodate all. The most feasible solution is a differentiated courseof study with parallel classes in which every child will be allowed tomake the best progress of which he is capable, without incurring therisk of failure and non-promotion. The so-called Mannheim system, orsomething similar to it, is what we need. 

AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE (I Q 90 TO 110). It is often said that the schoolsare made for the average child, but that "the average child does notexist. " He does exist, and in very large numbers. About 60 per cent ofall school children test between 90 and 110 I Q, and about 40 per centbetween 95 and 105. That these children are average is attested by theirschool records as well as by their I Q's. Our records show that, of morethan 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 latestart, illness, or irregular attendance. Children who test close to 90, however, often fail to get along satisfactorily, while those testingnear 110 are occasionally able to win an extra promotion. 

The children of this average group are seldom school problems, as far asability to learn is concerned. Nor are they as likely to cause troublein discipline as the dull and border-line cases. It is therefore hardlynecessary to give illustrative cases here. 

The high school, however, does not fit their grade of intelligence aswell as the elementary and grammar schools. High schools probably enrolla disproportionate number of pupils in the I Q range above 100. That is, the average intelligence among high-school pupils is above the averagefor the population in general. It is probably not far from 110. Collegestudents are, of course, a still more selected group, perhaps comingchiefly from the range above 115. The child whose school marks arebarely average in the elementary grades, when measured against childrenin general, will ordinarily earn something less than average marks inhigh school, and perhaps excessively poor marks in college. 

SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE (I Q 110 TO 120). Children of this groupordinarily make higher marks and are capable of making somewhat morerapid progress than the strictly average child. Perhaps most of themcould complete the eight grades in seven years as easily as the averagechild does in eight years. They are not usually the best scholars, buton a scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, and failure they will usuallyrank as good, though of course the degree of application is a factor. Itis rare, however, to find a child of this level who is positivelyindolent in his school work or who dislikes school. In high school theyare likely to win about the average mark. 

Intelligence of 110 to 120 I Q is approximately five times as commonamong children of superior social status as among children of inferiorsocial status; the proportion among the former being about 24 per centof all, and among the latter only 5 per cent of all. The group ismade up largely of children of the fairly successful mercantile orprofessional classes. 

The total number of children between 110 and 120 is almost exactly thesame as the number between 80 and 90; namely, about 15 per cent. Thedistance between these two groups (say between 85 and 115) is as greatas the distance between average intelligence and border-line deficiency, and it would be absurd to suppose that they could be taught to bestadvantage in the same classes. As a matter of fact, pupils between110 and 120 are usually held back to the rate of progress which theaverage child can make. They are little encouraged to do their best. 

VERY SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE (I Q 120 TO 140). Children of this group arebetter than somewhat above average. They are unusually superior. Notmore than 3 out of 100 go as high as 125 I Q, and only about 1 out of100 as high as 130. In the schools of a city of average population onlyabout 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 onereaching 120 whose social class was described as "below average. "[29] Ofthe children of superior social status, about 10 per cent reached 120 orbetter. The 120-140 group is made up almost entirely of children whoseparents belong to the professional or very successful business classes. The child of a skilled laborer belongs here occasionally, the child of acommon laborer very rarely indeed. At least this is true in the smallercities of California among populations made up of native-born Americans. In all probability it would not have been true in the earlier history ofthe country when ordinary labor was more often than now performed by menof average intelligence, and it would probably not hold true now amongcertain immigrant populations of good stock, but limited social andeducational advantages. 

[29] In other investigations, however, we have found even brighterchildren from very inferior homes. See p.  117 for an example. 

What can children of this grade of ability do in school? The questioncannot be answered as satisfactorily as one could wish, for the simplereason that such children are rarely permitted to do what they can. Whatthey do accomplish is as follows: Of 54 children (of the 1000 unselectedcases) falling in this group, 12½ per cent were advanced in thegrades 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 highestmarks, and the evidence goes to show that most of them could easily beprepared for high school by the age of 12 years. Serious injury is donethem 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 hasdiscovered several children of this grade as a result of lectures beforeteachers' institutes. It is his custom, in such lectures, to ask theteachers to bring in for a demonstration test the "brightest child inthe city" (or county, etc. ). The I Q resulting from such a test isusually 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 thosewe have tested who belong to this grade of intelligence. Every child inthe list is so interesting that it is hard to omit any. We have foundall such children (with one or two exceptions not included here) sosuperior to average children in all sorts of mental and moral traitsthat one is at a loss to understand how the popular superstitions aboutthe "queerness" of bright children could have originated or survived. Nearly every child we have found with I Q above 140 is the kind onefeels, before the test is over, one would like to adopt. If the crime ofkidnaping could ever be forgiven it would be in the case of a child likeone of these. 

GENIUS AND "NEAR" GENIUS. Intelligence tests have not been in use longenough to enable us to define genius definitely in terms of I Q. Thefollowing two cases are offered as among the highest test records ofwhich the writer has personal knowledge. It is doubtful whether morethan one child in 10, 000 goes as high as either. One case has beenreported, however, in which the I Q was not far from 200. Such arecord, 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 havedescribed with I Q above 130 has ever had any unusual amount or kind ofhome instruction. In most cases the parents were not aware of their verygreat superiority. Nor can we give the credit to the school or itsmethods. The school has in most cases been a deterrent to theirprogress, rather than a help. These children have been taught in classeswith average and inferior children, like those described in the firstpart of this chapter. Their high I Q is only an index of theirextraordinary cerebral endowment. This endowment is for life. There isnot the remotest probability that any of these children will deteriorateto the average level of intelligence with the onset of maturity. Such anevent would be no less a miracle (barring insanity) than the developmentof an imbecile into a successful lawyer or physician. 

IS THE I Q OFTEN MISLEADING? Do the cases described in this chapter givea 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'sgeneral educational possibilities and of his social worth? Are there not"feeble-minded geniuses, " and are there not children of exceptionallyhigh I Q who are nevertheless fools?

We have no hesitation in saying that there is not one case in fifty inwhich there is any serious contradiction between the I Q and the child'sperformances in and out of school. We cannot deny the existence of"feeble-minded geniuses, " but after a good deal of search we have notfound one. Occasionally, of course, one finds a feeble-minded personwho is an expert penman, who draws skillfully, who plays a musicalinstrument tolerably well, or who handles number combinations withunusual rapidity; but these are not geniuses; they are not authors, artists, musicians, or mathematicians. 

As for exceptionally intelligent children who appear feeble-minded, wehave 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 wehave followed for five years, was once diagnosed by a physician asfeeble-minded. His behavior among other persons than his familiarassociates is such as to give this impression. Nothing less than anentire chapter would be adequate for a description of this case, whichis in reality one of disturbed emotional and social development withsuperior intelligence. 

It should be emphasized, however, that what we have said about thesignificance of various I Q's holds only for the I Q's secured by theuse 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 soinaccurate as to be misleading. 

We have not found a single child who tested between 70 and 80 I Q by theStanford revision who was able to do satisfactory school work in thegrade where he belonged by chronological age. Such children are usuallyfrom two to three grades retarded by the age of 12 years. On the otherhand, the child with an I Q of 120 or above is almost never found belowthe grade for his chronological age, and occasionally he is one or twogrades above. Wherever located, his school work is so superior as tosuggest strongly the desirability of extra promotions. Those who testbetween 96 and 105 are almost never more than one grade above or belowwhere they belong by chronological age, and even the small displacementof 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 certainimperfections of the scale devised by Binet and Simon; namely, that manyof the tests were not correctly located, that the choice of tests was ina few cases unsatisfactory, that the directions for giving and scoringthe tests were sometimes too indefinite, and that the upper and lowerranges of the scale especially stood in need of extensions andcorrections. All of these faults have been quite generally admitted. Themethod itself, however, after being put to the test by psychologists ofall countries and of all faiths, by the skeptical as well as thefriendly, has amply demonstrated its value. The agreement on this pointis as complete as it is regarding the scale's imperfections. 

The following quotations from prominent psychologists who have studiedthe method will serve to show how it is regarded by those most entitledto 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 withwhich it works. One who knows how to apply the tests correctly and whois experienced in the psychological interpretation of responses can inforty minutes arrive at a more accurate judgment as to a subject'sintelligence than would be possible without the tests after months oreven years of close observation. The reasons for this have already beenset forth. [35] The difference is something like that between measuring aperson's height with a yardstick and estimating it by guess. That thisis not an unfair statement of the case is well shown by the followingcandid confession by a psychologist who tested 200 juvenile delinquentsbrought 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, butchiefly by persons who have had little experience with it or by thosewhose scientific training hardly justifies an opinion. It cannot be toostrongly emphasized that eminence in law, medicine, education, or anyother profession does not of itself enable any one to pass judgment onthe 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 theone hand, some have insisted that the results of a test made by otherthan a thoroughly trained psychologist are absolutely worthless. At theopposite extreme are a few who seem to think that any teacher orphysician 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 madeas to the frequency and extent of errors made by untrained or partiallytrained examiners. The only study of this kind which has so far beenreported 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 teacherswho were taking a summer course in the Training School at Vineland. Theclass met three times a week for instruction in the use of the Binetscale. During the first week the students listened to three lectures byDr.  Goddard. The second week was given over to demonstration testing. Each student saw four children tested, and attended two discussionperiods of an hour each. During the third, fourth, and fifth weeks eachstudent tested one child per week, and observed the testing of twoothers. The student was allowed to carry the test through in his ownway, but received criticism after it was finished. Twice a weekDr.  Goddard spent an hour with the class, discussing experimentalprocedure. The subjects tested were feeble-minded children whose exactmental ages were already known, and for this reason it was possible tocheck up the accuracy of each student's work. 

Kohs's table of results for the trial testing of the 174 childrenshowed:--

 (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 withthe Binet tests, Dr.  Kohs seems to be entirely justified in hisconclusion that it is possible, in the brief period of six weeks, toteach 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 evenhad this amount of instruction? The writer's experience forces him toagree with Binet and with Dr.  Goddard, that any one with intelligenceenough to be a teacher, and who is willing to devote conscientious studyto the mastery of the technique, can use the scale accurately enough toget a better idea of a child's mental endowment than he could possiblyget in any other way. It is necessary, however, for the untrained personto recognize his own lack of experience, and in no case would it bejustifiable to base important action or scientific conclusions upon theresults of the inexpert examiner. As Binet himself repeatedly insisted, the method is not absolutely mechanical, and cannot be made so byelaboration of instructions. 

It is sometimes held that the examination and classification of backwardchildren for special instruction should be carried out by the schoolphysicians. The fact is, however, that there is nothing in thephysician's training to give him any advantage over the ordinary teacherin the use of the Binet tests. Because of her more intimate knowledge ofchildren and because of her superior tact and adaptability, the averageteacher is perhaps better equipped than the average physician to giveintelligence tests. 

Finally, it should be emphasized that whatever the previous training orexperience of the examiner may have been, his ability to adjust to thechild's personality and his willingness to follow conscientiously thedirections for giving the tests are important factors in his equipment. 

INFLUENCE OF THE SUBJECT'S ATTITUDE. One continually meets such queriesas, "How do you know the subject did his best?" "Possibly the child wasnervous or frightened, " or, "Perhaps incorrect answers were purposelygiven. " All such objections may be disposed of by saying that thecompetent examiner can easily control the experiment in such a way thatembarrassment is soon replaced by self-confidence, and in such a waythat effort is kept at its maximum. As for mischievous deception, itwould be a poor clinicist who could not recognize and deal with thelittle that is likely to arise. 

Cautions regarding embarrassment, fatigue, fright, illness, etc. Aregiven in Chapter IX. Most of the errors which have been reported alongthis line are such as can nearly always be avoided by ordinary prudence, coupled with a little power of observation. [38] We must not charge themistakes of untrained and indiscreet examiners against the validity ofthe method itself. 

[38] See, for example, the rather ludicrous "errors" of the Binet methodreported in _The Psychological Clinic_ for 1915, pp.  140 _ff. _ and167 _ff. _

It is possibly true that even if the examiner is tactful and prudent anunfavorable attitude on the part of the subject may occasionally affectthe results of a test to some extent, but it ought not seriously toinvalidate one examination out of five hundred. The greatest danger isin the case of a young subject who has been recently arrested andbrought before a court. Even here a little common sense and scientificinsight should enable one to guard against a mistaken diagnosis. 

THE INFLUENCE OF COACHING. It might be supposed that after theintelligence scale had been used with a few pupils in a given school allof their fellows would soon be apprised of the nature of the tests, andso learn the correct responses. Experience shows, however, that there islittle likelihood of such influence except in the case of a smallminority of the tests. Experiments in the psychology of testimony havedemonstrated that children's ability to report upon a complex set ofexperiences is astonishingly weak. In testing with the Stanford revisiona 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 tofifty items the child is ordinarily able to report but few, and thesenot always correctly. 

Such tests as memory for sentences and digits, drawing the square anddiamond, reproducing the designs from memory, comparing weights andlines, describing and interpreting pictures, æsthetic comparison, vocabulary, dissected sentences, fables, reading for memories, findingdifferences and similarities, arithmetical reasoning, and the form-boardtest, are hardly subject to report at all. While almost any of the othertests might, theoretically, be communicated, there is little danger thatmany of them will be. It is assumed, of course, that the examiner willtake proper precautions to prevent any of his blanks or other materialsfrom falling into the hands of those who are to be examined. 

The following tests are the ones most subject to the influence ofcoaching: Ball and field, giving date, naming sixty words, findingrhymes, changing hands of clock, comprehension of physical relations, "induction test, " and "ingenuity test. "

In several instances we have interviewed children an hour or two afterthey had taken the examination, in order to find out how many of thetests 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 nothingwhatever that was intelligible. 

An 8-year-old boy said: "He made me tie a knot. He asked me about a shipand an auto. He wanted me to count backwards. He made me say over somethings, numbers and things. "

A boy of 12 years said: "He told me to say all the words I could thinkof. He said some foolish things and asked what was foolish [he could notrepeat a single absurdity]. I had to put some blocks together. I had todo 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 recallonly part of one, that of the fox and the crow. ] He showed me thepicture of a field and wanted to know how to find a ball. "

It is evident from the above samples of report that the danger ofcoaching increases considerably with the age of the children concerned. With young subjects the danger is hardly present at all; with childrenof the upper-grammar grades, in the high school, and most of all inprisons and reformatories, it must be taken into account. Alternativetests may sometimes be used to advantage when there is evidence ofcoaching on any of the regular tests. It would be desirable to have twoor three additional scales which could be used interchangeably with theBinet-Simon. 

RELIABILITY OF REPEATED TESTS. Will the same tests give consistentresults when used repeatedly with the same subject? In general wemay say that they do. Something depends, however, on the age andintelligence of the subject and on the time interval between theexaminations. 

Goddard proves that feeble-minded individuals whose intelligence hasreached its full development continue to test at exactly the same mentalage by the Binet scale, year after year. In their case, familiarity withthe tests does not in the least improve the responses. At each retestingthe responses given at previous examinations are repeated with only themost trivial variations. Of 352 feeble-minded children tested atVineland, three years in succession, 109 gave absolutely no variation, 232 showed a variation of not more than two fifths of a year, while 22gained 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 successiveyears. Approximately half of these showed normal progress or more inmental age, while most of the remainder showed somewhat less than normalprogress. 

Bobertag's retesting of 83 normal children after an interval ofa year gave results entirely in harmony with those of Goddard. The reapplication of the tests showed absolutely no influence offamiliarity, the correlation of the two tests being almost perfect(. 95). Those who tested "at age" in the first test had advanced, onthe average, exactly one year. Those who tested _plus_ in the firsttest advanced in the twelve months about a year and a quarter, as weshould expect those to do whose mental development is accelerated. Correspondingly, those who tested _minus_ at the first test advancedonly about three fourths of a year in mental age during theinterval. [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 andfeeble-minded children agree fully with the above findings. In this casethe two tests were separated by an interval of two to four years, andthe correlation between their results was practically perfect. Theaverage difference between the I Q obtained in the second test and thatobtained in the first was only 4 per cent, and the greatest differencefound was only 8 per cent. [40]

[40] See _The Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Scalefor Measuring Intelligence_. (Warwick and York, 1916. )

The repetition of the test at shorter intervals will perhaps affect theresult somewhat more, but the influence is much less than one mightexpect. The writer has tested, at intervals of only a few days to a fewweeks, 14 backward children of 12 to 18 years, and 8 normal children of5 to 13 years. The backward children showed an average improvement inthe second test of about two months in mental age, the normal childrenan average improvement of little more than three months. No child variedin the second test more than half a year from the mental age firstsecured. On the whole, normal children profit more from the experienceof a previous test than do the backward and feeble-minded. 

Berry tested 45 normal children and 50 defectives with the Binet 1908and 1911 scales at brief intervals. The author does not state whichscale was applied first, but the mental ages secured by the two scaleswere practically the same when allowance was made for the slightlygreater difficulty of the 1911 series of tests. [41]

[41] Charles Scott Berry: "A Comparison of the Binet Tests of 1908 and1911, " in _Journal of Educational Psychology_ (1912), pp.  444-51. 

We may conclude, therefore, that while it would probably be desirableto have one or more additional scales for alternative use in testing thesame children at very brief intervals, the same scale may be used forrepeated tests at intervals of a year or more with little danger ofserious inaccuracy. Moreover, results like those set forth above areimportant evidence as to the validity of the test method. 

INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL ADVANTAGES. The criticism has oftenbeen made that the responses to many of the tests are so much subject tothe influence of school and home environment as seriously to invalidatethe scale as a whole. Some of the tests most often named in thisconnection are the following: Giving age and sex; naming common objects, colors, and coins; giving the value of stamps; giving date; naming themonths of the year and the days of the week; distinguishing forenoon andafternoon; counting; making change; reading for memories; naming sixtywords; giving definitions; finding rhymes; and constructing a sentencecontaining three given words. 

It has in fact been found wherever comparisons have been made thatchildren of superior social status yield a higher average mental agethan children of the laboring classes. The results of Decroly and Degandand of Meumann, Stern, and Binet himself may be referred to in thisconnection. In the case of the Stanford investigation, also, it wasfound that when the unselected school children were grouped in threeclasses according to social status (superior, average, and inferior), the average I Q for the superior social group was 107, and that of theinferior social group 93. This is equivalent to a difference of one yearin mental age with 7-year-olds, and to a difference of two years with14-year-olds. 

However, the common opinion that the child from a cultured home doesbetter in tests solely by reason of his superior home advantages is anentirely gratuitous assumption. Practically all of the investigationswhich have been made of the influence of nature and nurture on mentalperformance agree in attributing far more to original endowment than toenvironments. Common observation would itself suggest that the socialclass to which the family belongs depends less on chance than on theparents' native qualities of intellect and character. 

The results of five separate and distinct lines of inquiry based on theStanford data agree in supporting the conclusion that the children ofsuccessful and cultured parents test higher than children from wretchedand 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-SimonMeasuring Scale of Intelligence_. (Warwick and York, 1916)

It would, of course, be going too far to deny all possibility ofenvironmental conditions affecting the result of an intelligence test. Certainly no one would expect that a child reared in a cage and deniedall intercourse with other human beings could by any system of mentalmeasurement 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 amongunselected children attending approximately the same general type ofschool in a civilized community, affects to any great extent thevalidity of the scale. 

A crucial experiment would be to take a large number of very youngchildren of the lower classes and, after placing them in the mostfavorable environment obtainable, to compare their later mentaldevelopment with that of children born into the best homes. No extensivestudy of this kind has been made, but the writer has tested twentyorphanage children who, for the most part, had come from very inferiorhomes. They had been in a well-conducted orphanage for from two toseveral years, and had enjoyed during that time the advantages of anexcellent village school. Nevertheless, all but three tested belowaverage, ranging from 75 to 90 I Q. 

The impotence of school instruction to neutralize individual differencesin native endowment will be evident to any one who follows the schoolcareer of backward children. The children who are seriously retarded inschool are not normal, and cannot be made normal by any refinement ofeducational method. As a rule, the longer the inferior child attendsschool, the more evident his inferiority becomes. It would hardly bereasonable, therefore, to expect that a little incidental instruction inthe home would weigh very heavily against these same native differencesin endowment. Cases like the following show conclusively that it doesnot:--

 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 whichwe have found, will serve to illustrate the fact that exceptionallysuperior endowment is discoverable by the tests, however unfavorable thehome from which it comes, and that inferior endowment cannot benormalized by all the advantages of the most cultured home. Quotingagain from Stern, "The tests actually reach and discover the generaldevelopmental conditions of intelligence, and not mere fragments ofknowledge 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 isto be judged by his success in the performance of certain tasks. Thesetasks may appear to the examiner to be very easy, indeed; but we mustbear in mind that they are often anything but easy for the child. Realeffort and attention are necessary for his success, and occasionallyeven his best efforts fall short of the desired result. If the tests areto display the child's real intellectual ability it will be necessary, therefore, to avoid as nearly as possible every disturbing factor whichwould divide his attention or in any other way injure the quality ofhis responses. To insure this it will be necessary to consider somewhatin detail a number of factors which influence effort, such as degree ofquiet, the nature of surroundings, presence or absence of others, meansof gaining the child's confidence, the avoidance of embarrassment, fatigue, etc. 

One should not expect, however, to secure an absolutely equal degree ofattention from all subjects. The power to give sustained attention to adifficult task is characteristically weak in dull and feeble-mindedchildren. What we should labor to secure is the maximum attention ofwhich the child is capable, and if this is unsatisfactory withoutexternal cause, we are to regard the fact as symptomatic of inferiormental ability, not as an extenuating factor or an excuse for lack ofsuccess in the tests. 

Attention, of course, cannot be normal if any acute physical or mentaldisturbance is present. Toothache, headache, earache, nausea, fever, cold, etc. , all render the test inadvisable. The same is true of mentalanxiety or fear, as in the case of the child who has just been arrestedand 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 distractionscannot enter. A reasonably small room is better than a very large one, because it is more homelike. The furnishings of the room should besimple. A table and two chairs are sufficient. If the room contains anumber of unfamiliar objects, such as psychological apparatus, pictureson the walls, etc. , the attention of the child is likely to be drawnaway from the tasks which he is given to do. The halls and corridorswhich it is sometimes necessary to use in testing school children areusually noisy, cold, or otherwise objectionable. 

PRESENCE OF OTHERS. A still more disturbing influence is the presence ofother persons. Generally speaking, if accurate results are to be securedit is not permissible to have any auditor, besides possibly anassistant to record the responses. Even the assistant, however quiet andunobtrusive, is sometimes a disturbing element. Though something of aconvenience, the assistant is by no means necessary, after the examinerhas thoroughly mastered the procedure of the tests and has acquired someskill in the use of abbreviations in recording the answers. If anassistant or any other person is present, he should be seated somewhatbehind the child, not too close, and should take no notice of the childeither when he enters the room or at any time during the examination. 

At all events, the presence of parent, teacher, school principal, orgoverness is to be avoided. Contrary to what one might expect, thesedistract the child much more than a strange personality would do. Theircritical attitude toward the child's performance is very likely to causeembarrassment. If the child is alone with the examiner, he is more atease from the mere fact that he does not feel that there is a reputationto sustain. The praise so lavishly bestowed upon him by the friendly andsympathetic examiner lends to the same effect. 

As Binet emphasizes, if the presence of others cannot be avoided, itis at least necessary to require of them absolute silence. Parents, and sometimes teachers, have an almost irrepressible tendency tointerrupt the examination with excuses for the child's failures andwith disturbing explanations which are likely to aid the child incomprehending the required task. Without the least intention of doingso, they sometimes practically tell the child how to respond. Parents, especially, cannot refrain from scolding the child or showing impatiencewhen 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 foolishto expect average parents, even apart from their bias in the particularcase at hand, to adopt the scientific attitude of the trained examiner. Since we cannot in a few moments at our disposal make them over intopsychologists, our only recourse is to deal with them by exclusion. 

This is not to say that it is impossible to test a child satisfactorilyin the presence of others. If the examiner is experienced, and if thechild is not timid, it is sometimes possible to make a successful testin the presence of quite a number of auditors, provided they remainsilent, refrain from staring, and otherwise conduct themselves withdiscretion. But not even the veteran examiner can always be sure of theoutcome in demonstration testing. 

GETTING INTO "RAPPORT. " The examiner's first task is to win theconfidence of the child and overcome his timidity. Unless _rapport_ hasfirst been established, the results of the first tests given are likelyto be misleading. The time and effort necessary for accomplishing thisare variable factors, depending upon the personality of both theexaminer and the subject. In a majority of cases from three to fiveminutes should be sufficient, but in a few cases somewhat more time isnecessary. 

The writer has found that when a strange child is brought to the clinicfor examination, it is advantageous to go out of doors with him for alittle walk around the university buildings. It is usually possible toreturn from such a stroll in a few minutes, with the child chatteringaway as though to an old friend. Another approach is to begin by showingthe child some interesting object, such as a toy, or a form-board, orpictures not used in the test. The only danger in this method is thatthe child is likely to find the object so interesting that he may not bewilling to abandon it for the tests, or that his mind will keepreverting to it during the examination. 

Still another method is to give the child his seat as soon as he isushered into the room, and, after a word of greeting, which must bespoken in a kindly tone but without gushiness, to open up a conversationabout matters likely to be of interest. The weather, place of residence, pets, sports, games, toys, travels, current events, etc. , are suitabletopics if rightly employed. When the child has begun to express himselfwithout timidity and it is clear that his confidence has been gained, one may proceed, as though in continuance of the conversation, toinquire the name, age, and school grade. The examiner notes these downin the appropriate blanks, rather unconcernedly, at the same timecomplimenting the child (unless it is clearly a case of seriousretardation) 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 circumstancesshould the examiner permit himself to show displeasure at a response, however absurd it may be. In general, the poorer the response, thebetter satisfied one should appear to be with it. An error is always tobe passed by without comment, unless it is painfully evident to thechild himself, in which case the examiner will do well to make someexcuse for it; e. G. , "You are not quite old enough to answer questionslike 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 childinterested, confident, and at his best level of effort. The examinationshould begin with tests that are fairly easy, in order to give the childa little experience with success before the more difficult tests arereached. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF TACT. It goes without saying that children'spersonalities are not so uniform and simple that we can adhere always toa single stereotyped procedure in working our way into their goodgraces. Suggestions like the above have their value, but, like rules ofetiquette, they must be supported by the tact which comes of intuitionand cannot be taught. The address which flatters and pleases one childmay excite disgust in another. The examiner must scent the situation andadapt his method to it. One child is timid and embarrassed; another maythink his mental powers are under suspicion and so react with sullenobstinacy; a third may be in an angry mood as a result of a recentplayground 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 inpersonal adaptability that success in this kind of work would be forthem impossible. The wooden, mechanical, matter-of-fact and unresponsivepersonality is as much out of place in the psychological clinic as thetraditional bull in the china shop. It would make an interesting studyfor some one to investigate, by exact methods, the influence on testresults of the personality of different examiners who have been equallytrained in the methods to be employed and who are equally conscientiousin applying them according to rules. 

On the whole, differences of this kind are probably not very great amongexperienced and reasonably competent examiners. Adaptability grows withexperience and with increase of self-confidence. After a few score teststhere should be no serious failure from inability to get into _rapport_with the child. Even in those rare cases where the child breaks down andcries from timidity, or perhaps refuses to answer out of embarrassment, the difficulty can be overcome by sufficient tact so that theexamination may proceed as though nothing had happened. 

If the examiner has the proper psychological and personal equipment, thetesting of twenty or thirty children forms a fairly satisfactoryapprenticeship. Without psychological training, no amount of experiencewill guarantee absolute accuracy of the results. 

THE AVOIDANCE OF FATIGUE. Against the validity of intelligence tests itis often argued that the result of an examination depends a great dealon the time of day when it is made, whether in the morning hours whenthe mind is at its best, or in the afternoon when it is supposedlyfatigued. Although no very extensive investigation has been made of thisinfluence, there is no evidence that the ordinary fatigue incident toschool work injures the child's performance appreciably. Our tests of1000 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 causesfatigue, in the sense that a part of the child's available supply ofmental energy is used up, there is always a reserve of energy sufficientto carry the child through a thirty-to fifty-minute test. The fact thatthe required tasks are novel and interesting to a high degree insuresthat the reserve energy will really be brought into play. Thisprinciple, of course, has its natural limits. The examiner would avoidtesting a child who was exhausted either from work or play, or a childwho was noticeably sleepy. 

DURATION OF THE EXAMINATION. About the only danger of fatigue lies inmaking the examination too long. Young children show symptoms ofweariness much more quickly than older children, and it is thereforefortunate that not so much time is needed for testing them. Thefollowing 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 thetests. But the examiner need not expect to hold fast to any schedule. Some subjects respond in a lively manner, others are exasperatinglyslow. It is more often the mentally retarded child who answers slowly, but exceptions to this rule are not uncommon. One 8-year-old boyexamined by the writer answered so hesitatingly that it required twosittings 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 thechild's mental process may be blocked. The appearance of nagging must becarefully avoided. If the test goes so slowly that it cannot becompleted in the above limits of time, it is usually best to stop andcomplete the examination at another time. When this is not possible, itis advisable to take a ten-minute intermission and a little walk out ofdoors. 

Time can be saved by having all the necessary materials close at handand conveniently arranged. The coins should be kept in a separate purse, and the pictures, colors, stamps, and designs for drawing should bemounted on stiff cardboard which may be punched and kept in a notebookcover. The series of sentences, digits, comprehension questions, fables, etc. , should either be mounted in similar fashion, or else printed infull on the record sheets used in the tests. The latter is moreconvenient. [43] All other materials should be kept where they will nothave to be hunted for. 

[43] Examiners will find it a great convenience to use the recordbooklet which has been specially devised for testing with the Stanfordrevision. It contains all the necessary printed material, includingdigits, sentences, absurdities, fables, the vocabulary list, the readingselection, the square and diamond for copying, etc. , and in additiongives with each test the standard for scoring. It is so arranged as toafford ample room for a _verbatim_ record of all the child's responses, and contains other features calculated to make testing easy andaccurate. Regarding purchasing of supplies see p.  141. 

Besides saving valuable time, a little methodical foresight of this kindadds to the success of the test. If the child is kept waiting, the testloses its interest and attention strays. See to it, if possible, that nolull occurs in the performance. 

Inexperienced examiners sometimes waste time foolishly by stopping toinstruct the child on his failures. This is doubly bad, for besideslosing time it makes the child conscious of the imperfection of hisresponses and creates embarrassment. Adhere to the purpose of the test, which is to ascertain the child's intellectual level, not to instructhim. 

DESIRABLE RANGE OF TESTING. There are two considerations here of equalimportance. It is necessary to make the examination thorough, but in thepursuit of thoroughness we must be careful not to produce fatigue orennui. Unless there is reason to suspect mental retardation, it isusually best to begin with the group of tests just below the child'sage. However, if there is a failure in the tests of that group, it isnecessary to go back and try all the tests of the previous group. Inlike manner the examination should be carried up the scale, until a testgroup has been found in which all the tests are failed. 

It must be admitted, however, that because of time limitations andfatigue, it is not always practicable to adhere to this ideal ofthoroughness. In testing normal children, little error will result if wego back no farther than the year which yielded only one failure, and ifwe stop with the year in which there was only one success. _This is thelowest permissible limit of thoroughness. _ Defectives are more unevenmentally than normal children, and therefore scatter their successes andfailures over a wider range. With such subjects it is absolutelyimperative that the test be thorough. 

In the case of defectives it is sometimes necessary to begin with randomtesting, until a rough idea is gained of the mental level. But theskilled observer soon becomes able to utilize symptoms in the child'sconversation and conduct and to dispense with most of this preliminaryexploration. 

ORDER OF GIVING THE TESTS. The child's efforts in the tests aresometimes markedly influenced by the order in which they are given. Iflanguage tests or memory tests are given first, the child is likely tobe embarrassed. More suitable to begin with are those which testknowledge or judgment about objective things, such as the pictures, weights, stamps, bow-knot, colors, coins, counting pennies, numberof 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, repeatingsentences, and drawing are especially unsuitable because they tend toprovoke self-consciousness. 

The tests as arranged in this revision are in the order which it isusually best to follow, but one should not hesitate to depart from theorder given when it seems best in a given case to do so. It is necessaryto be constantly alert so that when the child shows a tendency to balkat a given type of test, such as those of memory, language, numbers, drawing, "comprehension, " etc. , the work can be shifted to moreagreeable tasks. When the child is at his ease again, it is usuallypossible to return to the troublesome tests with better success. In thecase of 8-year-old D.  C. , who is a speech defective but otherwise abovenormal, it was quite impossible at the first sitting to give such testsas sentence-making, naming sixty words, reading, repeating sentences, giving definitions, etc. ; at each test of this type the child's voicebroke and he was ready to cry, due, no doubt, to sensitiveness regardinghis speech defect. Others do everything willingly except the drawing andcopying. The younger children sometimes refuse to repeat the sentencesor 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 tobelieve that he can answer correctly, if he will only try, we must avoidthe common practice of dragging out responses by too much urging andcoaxing. The sympathies of the examiner tend to lead him into the habitof repeating and explaining the question if the child does not answerpromptly. This is nearly always a mistake, for the question is one whichshould be understood. Besides, explanations and coaxing are too oftenequivalent to answering the question for the child. It is almostimpossible to impress this danger sufficiently upon the untrainedexaminer. One who is not familiar with the psychology of suggestion mayput the answer in the child's mouth without suspecting what he is doing. 

ADHERING TO FORMULA. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that unless wefollow a standardized procedure the tests lose their significance. Thedanger is chiefly that of unintentionally and unconsciously introducingvariations which will affect the meaning of the test. One who has nothad a thorough training in the methods of mental testing cannotappreciate how numerous are the opportunities for the unconscioustransformation of a test. Many of these are pointed out in thedescription of the individual tests, but it would be folly to undertaketo warn the experimenter against every possible error of this kind. Sometimes the omission or the addition of a single phrase in givingthe test will alter materially the significance of the response. Only the trained psychologist can vary the formula without risk ofinvalidating the result, and even he must be on his guard. All sorts ofmisunderstandings regarding the correct placing of tests and regardingtheir accuracy or inaccuracy have come about through the failure ofdifferent 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 itthoroughly. After that a considerable amount of practice is necessarybefore one learns to avoid slips. During the early stages of practice itis necessary to refer to the printed instructions frequently in order tocheck up errors before they have become habitual. 

The instructions hitherto available are at fault in not defining theprocedure with sufficient definiteness, and it is the purpose of thisvolume 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 formallyprepared for. There is no limit to the multitude of misunderstandingspossible. After testing hundreds of children one still finds newexamples of misapprehension. In a few such cases the instruction may berepeated, if there is reason to think the child's hearing was at faultor if some extraordinary distraction has occurred. But unless otherwisestated in the directions, the repetition of a question is ordinarily tobe avoided. Supplementary explanations are hardly ever permissible. 

In short, numberless situations may arise in the use of a test which mayinjure the validity of the response, events which cannot always bedealt with by preconceived rule. Accordingly, although we must urgeunceasingly the importance of following the standard procedure, it isnot to be supposed that formulas are an adequate substitute either forscientific judgment or for common sense. 

SCORING. The exact method of scoring the individual tests is set forthin the following chapters. Reference to the record booklet for use intesting will show that the records are to be kept in detail. Eachsubdivision of a test should be scored separately, in order that theclinical picture may be as complete as possible. This helps in the finalevaluation of the results. It makes much difference, for example, whether success in repeating six digits is earned by repeating all threecorrectly or only one; or whether the child's lack of success with theabsurdities is due to failure on two, three, four, or all of them. Timeshould be recorded whenever called for in the record blanks. 

RECORDING RESPONSES. Plus and minus signs alone are not usuallysufficient. Whenever possible the entire response should be recorded. Ifthe test results are to be used by any other person than the examiner, this is absolutely essential. Any other standard of completeness opensthe door to carelessness and inaccuracy. In nearly all the tests, exceptthat of naming sixty words, the examiner will find it possible by theliberal use of abbreviations to record practically the entire response_verbatim_. In doing so, however, one must be careful to avoid keepingthe child waiting. Occasionally it is necessary to leave off recordingaltogether because of the embarrassment sometimes aroused in the childby seeing his answer written down. The writer has met the latterdifficulty several times. When for any reason it is not feasible torecord anything more than score marks, success may be indicated by thesign +, failure by -, and half credit by ½. An exceptionally goodresponse may be indicated by ++ and an exceptionally poor response by --. If there is a slight doubt about a success or failure the sign? maybe 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 atleast the score mark for each test _when the test is given_. It must beborne in mind that the scoring is not a purely mechanical affair. Instead, the judgment of the examiner must come into play with everyrecord made. If the scoring is delayed, there is not only the danger offorgetting a response, but the judgment is likely to be influenced bythe subject's responses to succeeding questions. Our special recordbooklet contains wide margins, so that extended notes and observationsregarding the child's responses and behavior can be recorded as the testproceeds. 

SCATTERING OF SUCCESSES. It is sometimes a source of concern to theuntrained examiner that the successes and failures should be scatteredover quite an extensive range of years. Why, it may be asked, should nota child who has 10-year intelligence answer correctly all the tests upto and including group X, and fail on all the tests beyond? There aretwo reasons why such is almost never the case. In the first place, theintelligence of an individual is ordinarily not even. There are manydifferent kinds of intelligence, and in some of these the subject isbetter endowed than in others. A second reason lies in the fact that notest can be purely and simply a test of native intelligence. Given acertain degree of intelligence, accidents of experience and trainingbring it about that this intelligence will work more successfully withsome kinds of material than with others. For both of these reasons thereresults 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 orthree tests of the following group, the number of failures increasinguntil there are no successes at all. Success "tapers off" from100 per cent to 0. Once in a great while a child fails on several of thetests of a given year and succeeds with a majority of those in the nexthigher year. This is only an extreme instance of uneven intelligence orof specialized experience, and does not necessarily reflect upon thereliability of the tests for children in general. The method ofcalculation given above strikes a kind of average and gives the generallevel of intelligence, which is essentially the thing we want to know. 

SUPPLEMENTARY CONSIDERATIONS. It would be a mistake to suppose that anyset of mental tests could be devised which would give us completeinformation about a child's native intelligence. There are no testswhich are absolutely pure tests of intelligence. All are influenced to agreater or less degree also by training and by social environment. Forthis reason, all the ascertainable facts bearing on such influencesshould be added to the record of the mental examination, and should begiven due weight in reaching a final conclusion as to the level ofintelligence. 

The following supplementary information should be gathered, whenpossible:--

 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 generalattitude of the child during the examination. This is provided for inthe record blanks under the heading "comments. " The comments shoulddescribe as fully as possible the conduct and attitude of the childduring the examination, with emphasis upon such disturbing factors asfear, timidity, unwillingness to answer, overconfidence, carelessness, lack of attention, etc. Sometimes, also, it is desirable to verify thechild's age and to make record of the verification. 

Once more let it be urged that no degree of mechanical perfection of thetests can ever take the place of good judgment and psychologicalinsight. Intelligence is too complicated to be weighed, like a bag ofgrain, by any one who can read figures. 

ALTERNATIVE TESTS. The tests designated as "alternative tests" are notintended for regular use. Inasmuch as they have been standardized andbelong in the year group where they are placed, they may be used assubstitute tests on certain occasions. Sometimes one of the regulartests is spoiled in giving it, or the requisite material for it may notbe at hand. Sometimes there may be reason to suspect that the subjecthas become acquainted with some of the tests. In such cases it is agreat convenience to have a few substitutes available. 

It is necessary, however, to warn against a possible misuse ofalternative tests. _It is not permissible to count success in analternative test as offsetting failure in a regular test. _ This wouldgive the subject too much leeway of failure. There are very exceptionalcases, however, when it is legitimate to break this rule; namely, whenone of the regular tests would be obviously unfair to the subject beingtested. In year X, for example, one of the three alternative testsshould be substituted for the reading test (X,  4) in case we are testinga subject who has not had the equivalent of at least two years ofschool work. In year VIII, it would be permissible to substitute thealternative test of naming six coins, instead of the vocabulary test, inthe 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 alternativetest, in place of the test of copying a diamond, in the case of asubject who, because of timidity or embarrassment, refused to attemptthe diamond. But it would be going entirely too far to substitute analternative test in the place of every regular test which the subjectresponded to by silence. In the large majority of cases persistentsilence deserves to be scored failure. 

Certain tests have been made alternatives because of their inferiorvalue, some because the presence of other tests of similar nature in thesame year rendered them less necessary. 

FINDING MENTAL AGE. As there are six tests in each age group from III toX, each test in this part of the scale counts 2 months toward mentalage. There are eight tests in group XII, which, because of the omissionof the 11-year group, have a combined value of 24 months, or 3 monthseach. 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 valueof 5 months each, and those of the "superior adult" group a value of6 months each. These values are in a sense arbitrary, but they arejustified in the fact that they are such as to cause ordinary adults totest at the "average adult" level. 

The calculation of mental age is therefore simplicity itself. The ruleis: (1) Credit the subject with all the tests below the point where theexamination begins (remembering that the examination goes back until ayear 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 upto and including year X, 3 months for each test passed in XII, 4 monthsfor each test passed in XIV, 5 months for each success in "averageadult, " 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 testsare 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 questionarises how the tests which were given in such a year group should beevaluated. Suppose, for example, a subject has been given only four ofthe six tests in a given year, and that he passes two, or half of thosegiven. In such a case the probability would be that had all six testsbeen given, three would have been passed; that is, one half of all. It is evident, therefore, that when a test has been omitted, aproportionately 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 valueof 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 of2. 4 months (12 ÷ 5 = 2. 4). If in year group XII only six of the eighttests 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 avalue of 6 months instead of the usual 5 months. In this connection itwill need to be remembered that the six "average adult" tests have acombined value of 30 months (6 tests, 5 months each); also that thecombined 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 theeight in XII were given and five were passed; five of the six in XIVwere given and three were passed; five of the six in "average adult"were given and one was passed; five were given in "superior adult" andno 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 verbalillustrations make it appear. After the operation has been performedtwenty or thirty times, it can be done in less than a half-minutewithout danger of error. 

THE USE OF THE INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT. As elsewhere explained, the mentalage alone does not tell us what we want to know about a child'sintelligence status. The significance of a given number of years ofretardation or acceleration depends upon the age of the child. A3-year-old child who is retarded one year is ordinarily feeble-minded; a10-year-old retarded one year is only a little below normal. The childwho at 3 years of age is retarded one year will probably be retarded twoyears at the age of 6, three years at the age of 9, and four years atthe age of 12. 

What we want to know, therefore, is the ratio existing between mentalage and real age. This is the intelligence quotient, or I Q. To find itwe simply divide mental age (expressed in years and months) by real age(also expressed in years and months). The process is easier if weexpress each age in terms of months alone before dividing. The divisioncan, of course, be performed almost instantaneously and with much lessdanger of error by the use of a slide rule or a division table. One whohas to calculate many intelligence quotients should by all means usesome kind of mechanical help. 

HOW TO FIND THE I Q OF ADULT SUBJECTS. Native intelligence, in so far asit can be measured by tests now available, appears to improve but littleafter the age of 15 or 16 years. It follows that in calculating the I Qof an adult subject, it will be necessary to disregard the years he haslived beyond the point where intelligence attains its final development. 

Although the location of this point is not exactly known, it will besufficiently accurate for our purpose to assume its location at16 years. Accordingly, any person over 16 years of age, however old, isfor purposes of calculating I Q considered to be just 16 years old. If ayouth 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 forthelsewhere. [44] Here it need only be repeated that 100 I Q means exactlyaverage intelligence; that nearly all who are below 70 or 75 I Q arefeeble-minded; and that the child of 125 I Q is about as much above theaverage as the high-grade feeble-minded individual is below the average. For ordinary purposes all who fall between 95 and 105 I Q may beconsidered as average in intelligence. 

[44] See Chapter VI. 

MATERIAL FOR USE IN TESTING. It is strongly recommended that in testingby the Stanford revision the regular Stanford record booklets beused. These are so arranged as to make testing accurate, rapid, andconvenient. They contain square, diamond, round field, vocabulary list, fables, sentences, digits, and selections for memory tests, the readingselection barred for scoring, the dissected sentences, arithmeticalproblems, etc. One is required for each child tested. [45]

[45] Houghton Mifflin Company will supply all the printed materialneeded in the tests, including the lines for the forms for VI,  2, thefour pictures for "enumeration, " "description, " and "interpretation, "the pictures for V,  3 and VI,  2, the colors, designs for X,  3, the codefor Average Adult 6, and score cards for square, diamond, designs, andball-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-FernaldConstruction Puzzle for X. These may be purchased of C.  H. Stoelting &Co. , 3037 Carroll Avenue, Chicago. It is not necessary, however, to havethe weights and the Construction Puzzle, as the presence of one ormore alternative tests in each year makes it possible to substituteother tests instead of those requiring these materials. This savesconsiderable expense. Apart from these, which may either be made at home(see pages 278, 279) or dispensed with, the only necessary equipment forusing the Stanford revision is a copy of this book with the accompanyingset of printed matter, and the record booklets. The record booklets aresupplied 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 yournose. _" "_Put your finger on your nose. _" Same with eyes, mouth, andhair. 

Tact is often necessary to overcome timidity. If two or threerepetitions of the instruction fail to bring a response, point to thechild's chin or ear and say: "_Is this your nose?_" "_No?_" "_Then whereis your nose?_" Sometimes, after one has tried two or three parts of thetest without eliciting any response, the child may suddenly release hisinhibitions and answer all the questions promptly. In case of persistentrefusal to respond it is best not to harass the child for an answer, butto leave the test for a while and return to it later. This is a rulewhich applies generally throughout the scale. In the case of oneexceptionally timid little girl, it was impossible to get any responseby the usual procedure, but immediately when a doll was shown the childpointed willingly to its nose, eyes, mouth, and hair. The device wassuccessful because it withdrew the child's attention from herself andcentered it upon something objective. 

SCORING. _Three responses out of four_ must be correct. Instead ofpointing, the child sometimes responds by winking the eyes, opening themouth, etc. , which is counted as satisfactory. 

REMARKS. Binet's purpose in this test is to ascertain whether thesubject is capable of comprehending simple language. The ability tocomprehend and use language is indeed one of the most reliableindications of the grade of mental development. The appreciation ofgestures comes first, then the comprehension of language heard, next theability to repeat words and sentences mechanically, and finally theability to use language as a means of communication. The present test, however, is not more strictly a test of language comprehension than theothers of the 3-year group, and in any case it could not be said to markthe _beginning_ of the power to comprehend spoken language. That isfairly well advanced by the age of 2 years. The test closely resemblesIII,  2 (naming familiar objects), and III,  3 (enumeration of objects ina picture), except that it brings in a personal element and gives someclue to the development of the sense of self. All the data agree inlocating the test at year III. 

III,  2. NAMING FAMILIAR OBJECTS

PROCEDURE. Use a key, a penny, a closed knife, a watch, and an ordinarylead pencil. The key should be the usual large-sized doorkey, not one ofthe Yale type. The penny should not be too new, for the freshly made, untarnished penny resembles very little the penny usually seen. Anyordinary pocket knife may be used, and it is to be shown unopened. Theformula is, "_What is this?_" or, "_Tell me what this is. _"

SCORING. There must be at least _three correct responses out of five_. Aresponse is not correct unless the object is named. It is not sufficientfor the child merely to show that he knows its use. A child, forexample, may take the pencil and begin to mark with it, or go to thedoor and insert the key in the lock, but this is not sufficient. At thesame time we must not be too arbitrary about requiring a particularname. "Cent" or "pennies" for "penny" is satisfactory, but "money" isnot. The watch is sometimes called "a clock" or "a tick-tock, " and weshall 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-talkare of course ignored. 

REMARKS. The purpose of this test is to find out whether the child hasmade the association between familiar objects and their names. Themental processes necessary to enable the child to pass this test arevery elementary, and yet, as far as they go, they are fundamental. Learning the names of objects frequently seen is a form of mentalactivity in which the normally endowed child of 2 to 4 years finds greatsatisfaction. Any marked retardation in making such associations is agrave indication of the lack of that spontaneity which is so necessaryfor the development of the higher grades of intelligence. It would beentirely beside the point, therefore, to question the validity of thetest on the ground that a given child may not have been _taught_ thenames of the objects used. Practically all children 3 years old, howeverpoor their environment, have made the acquaintance of at least three ofthe five objects, and if intelligence is normal they have learned theirnames as a result of spontaneous inquiry. 

Always use the list of objects here given, because it has beenstandardized. Any improvised selection would be sure to contain someobjects either less or more familiar than those in the standardizedlist. Note also that three correct responses out of five are sufficient. If we required five correct answers out of six (like Kuhlmann), or threeout of three (like Binet, Goddard, and Huey), the test would probablybelong at the 4-year level. Binet states that this test is materiallyharder than that of naming objects in a picture, since in the latter thechild selects from a number of objects in the picture those he knowsbest, while in the former test he must name the objects we havearbitrarily chosen. This difference does not hold, however, if werequire only three correct responses out of five for passing the test ofnaming objects, instead of Binet's three out of three. All else beingequal, it is of course easier to recognize and name a real object shownthan 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, " "RiverScene, " and "Post-Office. " Say, "_Now I am going to show you a prettypicture. _" Then, holding the first one before the child, close enough topermit distinct vision, say: "_Tell me what you see in this picture. _"If there is no response, as sometimes happens, due to embarrassment ortimidity, repeat the request in this form: "_Look at the picture andtell me everything you can see in it. _" If there is still no response, say: "_Show me the ... _" (naming some object in the picture). Only onequestion of this type, however, is permissible. If the child answerscorrectly, say: "_That is fine; now tell me everything you see in thepicture. _" From this point the responses nearly always follow withoutfurther coaxing. Indeed, if _rapport_ has been properly cultivatedbefore the test begins, the first question will ordinarily besufficient. If the child names one or two things in a picture and thenstops, 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 interveningquestions or urging. Anything better than enumeration (as descriptionor interpretation) is also acceptable, but description is rarelyencountered 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 thesight of a familiar object in a picture provokes recognition and callsup the appropriate name. [47] The average child of 3 or 4 years is inwhat Binet calls "the identification stage"; that is, familiar objectsin a picture will be identified but not described, their relations toone another will not be grasped. 

[47] For a discussion of the significance of the different types ofresponse, enumeration, description, and interpretation, see VII,  2, andXII,  7. 

In giving the test, always present the pictures in the same order, first Dutch Home, then River Scene, then Post-Office. The order ofpresentation will no doubt seem to the uninitiated too trivial a matterto insist upon, but a little experience teaches one that an apparentlyinsignificant change in the procedure may exert a considerable influenceupon the response. Some pictures tend more strongly than others toprovoke a particular type of response. Some lend themselves especiallyto enumeration, others to description, others to interpretation. Thepictures used in the Stanford revision have been selected from a numberwhich have been tried because they are more uniform in this respectthan most others in use. However, they are not without theirdifferences, picture _b_, for example, tending more than the others toprovoke description. 

There seems to be no disagreement as to the proper location of thistest. 

III,  4. GIVING SEX

PROCEDURE. If the subject is a boy, the formula is: "_Are you a littleboy or a little girl?_" If a girl, "_Are you a little girl or a littleboy?_" This variation in the formula is necessary because of thetendency in young children to repeat mechanically the last word ofanything that is said to them. If there is no response, say: "_Are you alittle girl?_" (if a boy); or, "_Are you a little boy?_" (if a girl). Ifthe answer to the last question is "no" (or a shake of the head), wethen 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 hasreally made the discrimination, but we must be cautious about acceptingany other response than the direct answer, "A little girl, " or, "Alittle boy. " "Yes" and "no" in response to the second question must becarefully checked up. 

REMARKS. Binet and Goddard say that 3-year-olds cannot pass this testand that 4-year-olds almost never fail. We can accept the last part ofthis statement, but not the first part. Nearly all of our 3-year-oldsubjects 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 discriminatebetween 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, asoften happens, includes only the first name (Walter, for example), say:"_Yes, but what is your other name? Walter what?_" If the child issilent, or if he only repeats the first name, say: "_Is your nameWalter ...  ?_" (giving a fictitious name, as Jones, Smith, etc. ). Thisquestion 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 the3-year group. Although the child has not had as much opportunity tolearn the family name as his first name, he is almost certain to haveheard it more or less, and if his intelligence is normal the interest inself will ordinarily cause it to be remembered. 

The critic of the intelligence scale need not be unduly exercised overthe fact that there may be an occasional child of 3 years who has neverheard his family name. We have all read of such children, but theyare so extremely rare that the chances of a given 3-year-old beingunjustly penalized for this reason are practically negligible. Inthe second place, contingencies of this nature are throughout thescale consistently allowed for in the percentage of passes requiredfor locating a test. Since (in the year groups below XIV) theindividual tests are located at the age level where they are passed by60 to 70 per cent of unselected children of that age, it follows thatthe child of average ability _is expected_ to fail on about one third ofthe tests of his age group. The plan of the scale is such as to warrantthis amount of leeway. But even granting the possibility that onesubject out of a hundred or so may be unjustly penalized for lack ofopportunity to acquire the knowledge which the test calls for, theinjustice done does not greatly alter the result. A single test affectsmental age only to the extent of two months, and the chances of two suchinjustices occurring with the same child are very slight. Herein liesthe advantage of a multiplicity of tests. No test considered by itselfis very dependable, but two dozen tests, properly arranged, are almostinfinitely reliable. 

III,  6. REPEATING SIX TO SEVEN SYLLABLES

PROCEDURE. Begin by saying: "_Can you say 'mamma'? Now, say 'nicekitty. '_" Then ask the child to say, "_I have a little dog. _" Speak thesentence distinctly and with expression, but in a natural voice and nottoo slowly. If there is no response, the first sentence may be repeatedtwo or three times. Then give the other two sentences: "_The dog runsafter the cat_, " and, "_In summer the sun is hot. _" A great deal of tactis sometimes necessary to enlist the child's coöperation in this test. If he cannot be persuaded to try, the alternative test of three digitsmay be substituted. 

SCORING. The test is passed if at least _one sentence is repeatedwithout error after a single reading_. "Without error" is to be takenliterally; there must be no omission, insertion, or transpositionof words. Ignore indistinctness of articulation and defects ofpronunciation as long as they do not mutilate the sentence beyond easyrecognition. 

REMARKS. The test does not presuppose that the child should havethe ability to make and use sentences like these for purposes ofcommunication, or even that he should know the meaning of all the wordsthey contain. Its purpose is to bring out the ability of the child torepeat a six-syllable series of more or less familiar language sounds. As every one knows, the normal child of 2 or 3 years is constantlyimitating the speech of those around him and finds this a great sourceof delight. Long practice in the semi-mechanical repetition of languagesounds is necessary for the learning of speech coördinations and istherefore an indispensable preliminary to the purposeful use oflanguage. High-grade idiots and the lowest grade of imbeciles neveracquire much facility in the repetition of language heard. The test getsat one of the simplest forms of mental integration. 

Binet says that children of 3 years _never_ repeat sentences often syllables. This is not strictly true, for six out of nineteen3-year-olds succeeded in doing so. All the data agree, however, that the_average_ child of 3 years repeats only six to seven syllablescorrectly. 

III. ALTERNATIVE TEST: REPEATING THREE DIGITS

PROCEDURE. Use the following digits: 6-4-1, 3-5-2, 8-3-7. Begin with twodigits, as follows: "_Listen; say 4-2_. " "_Now, say 6-4-1_. " "_Now, say3-5-2_, " etc. Pronounce the digits in a distinct voice and withperfectly uniform emphasis at a rate just a little faster than one persecond. Two per second, as recommended by Binet, is too rapid. 

Young subjects, because of their natural timidity in the presence ofstrangers, sometimes refuse to respond to this test. With subjects under5 or 6 years of age it is sometimes necessary in such cases to re-readthe first series of digits several times in order to secure a response. The response thus secured, however, is not counted in scoring, thepurpose of the re-reading being merely to break the child's silence. Thesecond and third series may be read but once. With the digits testsabove 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 correctdigits be given, but the order also must be correct. 

REMARKS. Others, on the basis of rather scanty data, have usuallylocated this test at the 4-year level. Our results show that with theprocedure described above it is fully as easy as the test of repeatingsentences 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 inhorizontal position. Point to the lines and say: "_See these lines. Lookclosely and tell me which one is longer. Put your finger on the longestone. _" We use the superlative as well as the comparative form of _long_because it is often more familiar to young subjects. If the child doesnot respond, say: "_Show me which line is the biggest. _" Then withdrawthe card, turn it about a few times, and present it again with theposition 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 tworesponses 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, orfive out of six_. 

Sometimes the child points, but at no particular part of the card. Insuch cases it may be difficult to decide whether he has failed tocomprehend and to make the discrimination or has only been careless inpointing. It is then necessary to repeat the experiment until theevidence is clear. 

REMARKS. As noted by Binet, success in this test depends on thecomprehension of the verbal directions rather than on actualdiscrimination of length. The child who would unerringly choose thelarger of two pieces of candy might fail on the comparison of lines. However, since the child must correctly compare the lines three times insuccession, or at least in five out of six trials, _willingness toattend_ also plays a part. The attention of the low-grade imbecile, oreven of the normal child of 3 years, is not very obedient to thesuggestions of the experimenter. It may be gained momentarily, but it isnot easily held to the same task for more than a few seconds. Hence somechildren who perfectly comprehend this task fail to make a succession ofcorrect comparisons because they are unable or unwilling to bring tobear even the small amount of attention which is necessary. This doesnot in the least condone the failure, for it is exactly in suchvoluntary control of mental processes that we find one of the mostcharacteristic differences between bright and dull, or mature andimmature subjects. 

There has been little disagreement as to the proper location of thistest. 

IV,  2. DISCRIMINATION OF FORMS

PROCEDURE. Use the forms supplied with this book. First, place thecircle of the duplicate set at "X", and say: "_Show me one likethis_, " at the same time passing the finger around the circumference ofthe circle. If the child does not respond, say: "_Do you see all ofthese things?_" (running the finger over the various forms); "_And doyou see this one?_" (pointing again to the circle); "_Now, find meanother 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 likethis_" (again passing the finger around the outline of the form at "X"). Make no comment on errors after the first one, proceeding at once withthe next card, but each time the choice is correct encourage the childwith 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 ofcomparing lines, lack of success is less often due to inability tounderstand the task than to failure to discriminate. The test may beregarded as a variation of the form-board test. It displays thesubject's ability to compare and contrast successive visual perceptionsof form. The accurate perception of even a fairly simple form requiresthe integration of a number of sensory elements into one whole. Theforms used in this test have meaning. They are far from nonsense figureseven for the (normal) child of 4 years, who has, of course, never heardabout "triangles, " "squares, " "rectangles, " etc. The meaning present atthis level of intelligence is probably a compound of such factors asappreciation of symmetry and direction, and discrimination of quantityand number. 

Another element in success, especially in the latter part of theexperiment, is the ability to make an _attentive_ comparison between theform shown and the others. The child may be satisfied to point to thefirst form his eye happens to fall upon. Far from being a legitimateexcuse for failure, such an exhibition of inattention and of weakness ofthe critical faculty is symptomatic of a mental level below 4 years. 

In addition to counting the number of errors made, it is interesting tonote with what forms they occur. To match the circle with the ellipse orthe octagon, for example, is a less serious error than to match it withthe square or triangle. 

This test was devised and standardized by Dr.  Fred Kuhlmann. It isinserted here without essential alteration, except that the sizerecommended for the forms is slightly reduced and minor changes havebeen made in the wording of the directions. Our own results arefavorable 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. Countthem with your finger, this way_" (pointing to the first one on thechild's left)--"_One_"--"_Now, go ahead. _" If the child simply gives thenumber (whether right or wrong) without pointing, say: "_No; count themwith your finger, this way_, " starting him off as before. Have him countthem aloud. 

SCORING. The test is passed only if the counting tallies with thepointing. It is not sufficient merely to state the correct numberwithout pointing. 

REMARKS. Contrary to what one might think, this is not to any greatextent a test of "schooling. " Practically all children of this age havehad opportunity to learn to count as far as four, and with normalchildren the spontaneous interest in number is such that very few4-year-olds, even from inferior social environment, fail to pass thetest. 

While success requires more than the ability to repeat the number namesby rote, it does not presuppose any power of calculation or a mastery ofthe number concepts from one to four. Many children who will readilysay, mechanically, "one, two, three, four, " when started off, are notable to pass the test. On the other hand, it is not expected that thechild who passes will also necessarily understand that four is made upof two two's, or four one's, or three plus one, etc. 

Binet, Goddard, and Kuhlmann place this test in the 5-year group, butthree separate series of tests made for the Stanford revision, as wellas nearly all the statistics available from other sources, show that itbelongs at 4 years. 

IV,  4. COPYING A SQUARE

PROCEDURE. Place before the child a cardboard on which is drawn in heavyblack lines a square about 1¼ inches on a side. [49] Give the child apencil and say: "_You see that_ (pointing to the square). _I want you tomake one just like it. Make it right here_ (showing where it is to bedrawn). _Go ahead. I know you can do it nicely. _"

[49] No material is needed if the regular Stanford record blanks areused, 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 thefour sides. 

Children sometimes have a deep-seated aversion to drawing on request anda bit of tactful urging may be necessary. Experience and tact willenable the experimenter in all but the rarest cases to come outvictorious 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 usedis 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 usuallyreduce figures in drawing from copy, but size is wholly disregarded inscoring. It is of more importance that the right angles be fairly wellpreserved than that the lines should be straight or the corners entirelyclosed. The scoring of this test should be rather liberal. 

REMARKS. After the three copies have been made say: "_Which one do youlike best?_" In this way we get an idea of the subject's power ofauto-criticism, a trait in which the mentally retarded are nearly alwaysbehind normal children of their own age. Normal children, when young, reveal the same weakness to a certain extent. It is especiallysignificant when the subject shows complete satisfaction with a verypoor performance. 

Observe whether the child makes each part with careful effort, lookingat the model from time to time, or whether the strokes are made in ahaphazard way with only an initial glance at the original. The latterprocedure is quite common with young or retarded subjects. Curiouslyenough, 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 isnecessary. Binet gives only one trial and requires pen. Goddard allowspencil, but permits only one trial. Kuhlmann requires pen and passes thechild only when two trials out of three are successful. But theseauthors locate the test at 5 years. Our results show that nearly threefourths of 4-year-olds succeed with pencil in one out of three trials ifthe scoring is liberal. It makes a great deal of difference whether penor pencil is used, and whether two successes are required or only one. No better illustration could be given of the fact that withoutthoroughgoing standardization of procedure and scoring the best mentaltest 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 copiedfrom memory (year X). These tests do not to any great extent test whatis usually known as "drawing ability. " Only the square and the diamondtests are strictly comparable with one another, the other having apsychologically different purpose. In none of them does success seem todepend very much on the amount of previous instruction in drawing. Tocopy a figure like a square or a diamond requires first of all anappreciation of spacial relationships. The figure must be perceived as awhole, not simply as a group of meaningless lines. In the second place, success depends upon the ability to use the visual impression in guidinga rather complex set of motor coördinations. The latter is perhaps themain difficulty, and is one which is not fully overcome, at least forcomplicated movements, until well toward adult life. 

It is interesting to compare the square and the diamond as to relativedifficulty. They have the same number of lines and in each case theopposite sides are parallel; but whereas 4-year intelligence is equal tothe task of copying a square, the diamond ordinarily requires 7-yearintelligence. Probably no one could have foreseen that a change in theangles would add so much to the difficulty of the figure. It would beworth 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 dowhen you are sleepy?_" If necessary the question may be repeated anumber of times, using a persuasive and encouraging tone of voice. Noother form of question may be substituted. About twenty seconds may beallowed for an answer, though as a rule subjects of 4 or 5 years usuallyanswer quite promptly or not at all. 

Proceed in the same way with the other two questions: "_What ought youto 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 formof answer is required. It is sufficient if the question is comprehendedand given a reasonably sensible answer. The following are samples ofcorrect 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 easyto decide whether the response is acceptable, failure being indicatedusually either by silence or by an absurd or irrelevant answer. One8-year-old boy who had less than 4-year intelligence answered all threequestions 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 thechild can comprehend the situations suggested and give a reasonablypertinent reply. The first requirement, of course, is to understand thelanguage; the second is to tell how the situation suggested should bemet. 

The question may be raised whether a given child might not fail toanswer the questions correctly and yet have the intelligence to do theappropriate thing if the real situation were present. This is at leastconceivable, but since it would not be practicable to make the subjectactually cold, sleepy, or hungry in order to observe his behavior, wemust content ourselves with suggesting a situation to be imagined. Itprobably requires more intelligence to tell what one ought to do in asituation which has to be imagined than to do the right thing when thereal situation is encountered. 

The comprehension questions of this year had not been standardized untilthe Stanford investigation of 1913-14. Questions _a_ and _b_ weresuggested by Binet in 1905, while _c_ is new. They make an excellenttest of 4-year intelligence. 

IV,  6. REPEATING FOUR DIGITS

PROCEDURE. Say: "_Now, listen. I am going to say over some numbers andafter I am through, I want you to say them exactly like I do. Listenclosely and get them just right--4-7-3-9. _" Same with 2-8-5-4 and7-2-6-1. The examiner should consume nearly four seconds in pronouncingeach series, and should practice in advance until this speed can beclosely approximated. If the child refuses to respond, the first seriesmay 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_. Thesecond 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 inthe 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: 'Whereis kitty?'_" After the child responds, add: "_Now say this ... _, "reading the first sentence in a natural voice, distinctly and withexpression. If the child is too timid to respond, the first sentence maybe re-read, but in this case the response is not counted. _Re-reading ispermissible only with the first sentence. _

SCORING. The test is passed if at least _one sentence is repeatedwithout error after a single reading_. As in the alternative test ofyear III, we ignore ordinary indistinctness and defects of pronunciationdue to imperfect language development, but the sentence must be repeatedwithout addition, omission, or transposition of words. 

REMARKS. Sentences of twelve syllables had not been standardizedprevious to the Stanford revision, but Binet locates memory for tensyllables at year V, and others have followed his example. Our own datashow that even 4-year-olds are usually able to repeat twelve syllableswith 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] Ifmanufactured weights are not at hand, it is easy to make satisfactorysubstitutes by taking stiff cardboard pill-boxes, about 1¼ inches indiameter, 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 preventrattling. After the box has been loaded to the exact weight, the lidshould be glued on firmly. If one does not have access to laboratoryscales, it is always possible to secure the help of a druggist in therather delicate task of weighing the boxes accurately. A set of pill-boxweights will last through hundreds of tests, if handled carefully, butthey will not stand rough usage. The manufactured blocks are moredurable, and so more satisfactory in the long run. If the weights arenot at hand, the alternative test may be substituted. 

[50] The weights required for this test, and also for IX,  2, may bepurchased of C.  H. Stoelting & Co. , 3037 Carroll Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. 

PROCEDURE. Place the 3- and 15-gram weights on the table before thechild some two or three inches apart. Say: "_You see these blocks. Theylook just alike, but one of them is heavy and one is light. Try them andtell me which one is heavier. _" If the child does not respond, repeatthe instructions, saying this time, "_Tell me which one is theheaviest. _" (Many American children have heard only the superlative formof the adjective used in the comparison of two objects. )

Sometimes the child merely points to one of the boxes or picks up one atrandom 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 takethe boxes in your hands and try them, like this_" (illustrating bylifting with one hand, first one box and then the other, a few inchesfrom the table). Most children of 5 years are then able to make thecomparison correctly. Very young subjects, however, or older ones whoare retarded, sometimes adopt the rather questionable method of liftingboth weights in the same hand at once. This is always an unfavorablesign, especially if one of the blocks is placed in the hand on top ofthe other block. 

After the first trial, the weights are shuffled and again presented forcomparison as before, _this time with the positions reversed_. The thirdtrial follows with the blocks in the same position as in the firsttrial. Some children have a tendency to stereotyped behavior, which inthis test shows itself by choosing always the block on a certainside. Hence the necessity of alternating the positions. [51] Reservecommendation 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 arecorrect. If there is reason to suspect that the successful responseswere due to lucky guesses, the test should be entirely repeated. 

REMARKS. This test is decidedly more difficult than that of comparinglines (IV,  1). It is doubtful, however, if we can regard the differenceas one due primarily to the relative difficulty of visual discriminationand muscular discrimination. In fact, the test with weights hardly taxessensory discrimination at all when used with children of 5-yearintelligence. Success depends, in the first place, on the ability tounderstand the instructions; and in the second place, on the power tohold the instructions in mind long enough to guide the process of makingthe comparison. The test presupposes, in elementary form, a power whichis operative in all the higher independent processes of thought, thepower to neglect the manifold distractions of irrelevant sensations andideas and to drive direct toward a goal. Here the goal is furnished bythe instruction, "Try them and see which is heavier. " This must be heldfirmly enough in mind to control the steps necessary for making thecomparison. Ideas of piling the blocks on top of one another, throwingthem, etc. , must be inhibited. Sometimes the low-grade imbecile startsoff in a very promising way, then apparently forgets the instructions(loses sight of the goal), and begins to play with the boxes in a randomway. His mental processes are not consecutive, stable, or controlled. Heis blown about at the mercy of every gust of momentary interest. 

There is very general agreement in the assignment of this test toyear V. 

V,  2. NAMING COLORS

MATERIALS. Use saturated red, yellow, blue, and green papers, about2 × 1 inch in size, pasted one half inch apart on white or graycardboard. For sake of uniformity it is best to match the colorsmanufactured especially for this test. [52]

[52] Printed cards showing these colors are included in the set ofmaterial 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 maybe no mistake as to which one is meant, and say: "_What is the name ofthat color?_" Do not say: "_What color is that?_" or, "_What kind of acolor is that?_" Such a formula might bring the answer, "The firstcolor"; or, "A pretty color. " Still less would it do to say: "_Show methe red_, " "_Show me the yellow_, " etc. This would make it an entirelydifferent test, one that would probably be passed a year earlier thanthe Binet form of the experiment. Nor is it permissible, after a colorhas been miscalled, to return to it and again ask its name. 

SCORING. The test is passed only if _all_ the colors are named correctlyand 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 thatcapacity is well developed years below the level at which this test isused. All 5-year-olds who are not color blind discriminate among thefour primary colors here used as readily as adults do. As stated byBinet, it is a test of the "verbalization of color perception. " It tellsus whether the child has associated the names of the four primary colorswith his perceptual imagery of those colors. 

The _ability_ to make simple associations between a sense impression anda name is certainly present in normal children some time before theabove color associations are actually made. Many objects of experienceare correctly named two or three years earlier, and it may seem atfirst a little strange that color names are learned so late. But it mustbe remembered that the child does not have numerous opportunities toobserve and hear the names of several colors at once, nor does thedesignation of colors by their names ordinarily have much practicalvalue for the young child. When he finally learns their names, it ismore because of his spontaneous interest in the world of sense. Lack ofsuch spontaneous interest is always an unfavorable sign, and it is notsurprising, therefore, that imbecile intelligence has ordinarily nevertaken the trouble to associate colors with their names. Girls aresomewhat superior to boys in this test, due probably to a greaternatural interest in colors. 

Binet originally placed this test in year VIII, changing it to year VIIin the 1911 scale. Goddard places it in year VII, while Kuhlmann omitsit altogether. With a single exception, all the actual statistics withnormal children justify the location of the test in year V. Bobertag'sfigures 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 environmentthan most of the other tests of the scale, and if the social status ofthe child is low, failure would not be especially significant untilafter 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 goeswithout saying that improvised drawings may not be substituted forBinet's until they have first been standardized. 

PROCEDURE. Show the pairs in order from top to bottom. Say: "_Which ofthese two pictures is the prettiest?_" Use both the comparative and thesuperlative forms of the adjective. Do not use the question, "Which faceis the uglier (ugliest)?" unless there is some difficulty in getting thechild 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 tocorrect his answer; or, in case this is done, we must consider only theoriginal response in scoring. 

SCORING. The test is passed only if all _three_ comparisons are madecorrectly. Any marked uncertainty is failure. Sometimes the childlaughingly designates the ugly picture as the prettier, yet shows by hisamused expression that he is probably conscious of its peculiarity orabsurdity. 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 interestingtest. One might suppose that æsthetic judgment would be relativelyindependent of intelligence. Certainly no one could have known inadvance of experience that intellectual retardation would reveal itselfin weakness of the æsthetic sense about as unmistakably as in memory, practical judgment, or the comprehension of language. But such is thecase. The development of the æsthetic sense parallels general mentalgrowth rather closely. The imbecile of 4-year intelligence, even thoughhe may have lived forty years, has no more chance of passing this testthan any other test in year V. It would be profitable to devise andstandardize a set of pictures of the same general type which wouldmeasure a less primitive stage of æsthetic development. 

The present test was located by Binet in year VI and has been retainedin that year in other revisions; but three separate Stanfordinvestigations, 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 inthe order in which they are named above. 

Occasionally there is difficulty in getting a response, which issometimes due merely to the child's unwillingness to express histhoughts in sentences. The earlier tests require only words and phrases. In other cases silence is due to the rather indefinite form of thequestion. The child could answer, but is not quite sure what is expectedof him. Whatever the cause, a little tactful urging is nearly alwayssufficient to bring a response. In this test we have not found thedifficulty of overcoming silence nearly as great as others have statedit to be. In consecutive tests of 150 5- and 6-year-old children weencountered unbreakable silence with 8 words out of the total 900(150 × 6). This is less than 1 per cent. But tactful encouragement issometimes necessary, and it is best to take the precaution of not givingthe 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, wemerely repeat the question with a word of encouragement and in acoaxing tone of voice. It would not at all do to introduce otherquestions, 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 agreat big doll. Auntie gave it to me for Christmas, " etc. In such caseswe 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 thetask. 

Unless it is absolutely necessary to give the child lavishencouragement, it is best to withhold approval or disapproval until thetest has been finished. If the first response is a poor one and wepronounce it "fine" or "very good, " we tempt the child to persist in hislow-grade type of definition. By withholding comment until the last wordhas been defined, we give greater play to spontaneity and initiative. 

SCORING. As a rule, children of 5 and 6 years define an object in termsof use, stating what it does, what it is for, what people do with it, etc. Definitions by description, by telling what substance it is madeof, 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 thirdsof the children spontaneously give a large proportion of definitions interms superior to use. 

The test is passed in year V if _four words out of the six_ are definedin terms of use (or better than use). The following are examples ofsatisfactory 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 achair"; "There is a chair"; or simply, "There" (pointing to a chair). Werecord such responses without pressing for a further definition. Aboutthe only other type of failure is silence. 

REMARKS. It is not the purpose of this test to find out whether thechild knows the meaning of the words he is asked to define. Words havepurposely been chosen which are perfectly familiar to all normalchildren of 5 years. But with young children there is a differencebetween knowing a word and giving a definition of it. Besides, we desireto find out how the child apperceives the word, or rather the object forwhich it stands; whether the thing is thought of in terms of use, appearance (shape, size, color, etc. ), material composing it, or classrelationships. 

This test, because it throws such interesting light on the maturity ofthe child's apperceptive processes, is one of the most valuable of all. It is possible to differentiate at least a half-dozen degrees ofexcellence in definitions, according to the intellectual maturity of thesubject. A volume, indeed, could be written on the development of worddefinitions and the growth of meanings; but we will postpone furtherdiscussion until VIII,  5. Our concern at present is to know thatchildren of 5 years should at least be able to define four of these sixwords in terms of use. 

Binet placed the test in year VI, but our own figures and those ofnearly all the other investigations indicate that it is better locatedin year V. 

V,  5. THE GAME OF PATIENCE

MATERIAL. Prepare two rectangular cards, each 2 × 3 inches, and divideone 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 longersides to the child. By the side of this card, a little nearer the childand a few inches apart, lay the two halves of the divided rectangle withtheir hypothenuses turned from each other as follows:

[Illustration]

Then say to the child: "_I want you to take these two pieces_ (touchingthe two triangles) _and put them together so they will look exactly likethis_" (pointing to the uncut card). If the child hesitates, we repeatthe instructions with a little urging. Say nothing about hurrying, asthis is likely to cause confusion. Give three trials, of one minuteeach. If only one trial is given, success is too often a result ofchance moves; but luck is not likely to bring two successes in threetrials. If the first trial is a failure, move the cut halves back totheir original position and say: "_No; put them together so they willlook like this_" (pointing to the uncut card). Make no other comment ofapproval or disapproval. Disregard in silence the inquiring looks of thechild who tries to read his success or failure in your face. 

If one of the pieces is turned over, the task becomes impossible, and itis then necessary to turn the piece back to its original position andbegin over, not counting this trial. Have the under side of the piecesmarked so as to avoid the risk of presenting one of them to the childwrong side up. 

SCORING. There must be _two successes in three trials_. About the onlydifficulty in scoring is that of deciding what constitutes a trial. Wecount it a trial when the child brings the pieces together and (afterfew or many changes) leaves them in some position. Whether he succeedsafter many moves, or leaves the pieces with approval in some absurdposition, or gives up and says he cannot do it, his effort counts as onetrial. A single trial may involve a number of unsuccessful changes ofposition in the two cards, but these changes may not consume altogethermore than one minute. 

REMARKS. As aptly described by Binet, the operation has the followingelements: "(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 notto lose sight of it. (2) To try different combinations under theinfluence of this directing idea, which guides the efforts of the childeven though he be unconscious of the fact. (3) To judge the formedcombination, compare it with the model, and decide whether it is thecorrect one. "

It may be classed, therefore, as one of the many forms of the"combination method. " Elements must be combined into some kind of wholeunder the guidance of a directing idea. In this respect it has somethingin common with the form-board test, the Ebbinghaus test, and the testwith dissected sentences (XII,  4). Binet designates it a "test ofpatience, " because success in it depends upon a certain willingness topersist in a line of action under the control of an idea. 

Not all failures in this test are equally significant. A bright child of5 years sometimes fails, but usually not without many trial combinationswhich he rejects one after another as unsatisfactory. A dull child ofthe same age often stops after he has brought the pieces into any sortof juxtaposition, however absurd, and may be quite satisfied with hisfoolish effort. His mind is not fruitful and he lacks the power ofauto-criticism. 

It would be well worth while to work out a new and somewhat moredifficult "test of patience, " but with special care to avoid thepuzzling features of the usual games of anagrams. The one given us byBinet is rather easy for year V, though plainly somewhat too difficultfor year IV. 

V,  6. THREE COMMISSIONS

PROCEDURE. After getting up from the chair and moving with the child tothe 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 wantyou to shut (or open) that door, and then bring me the box which you seeover there_ (pointing in turn to the objects designated). _Do youunderstand? 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 theorder in which the commissions are to be executed. 

Give the commissions always in the above order. Do not repeat theinstructions again or give any further aid whatever, even by thedirection of the gaze. If the child stops or hesitates it is neverpermissible to say: "_What next?_" Have the self-control to leave thechild alone with his task. 

SCORING. _All three commissions must be executed and in the properorder. _ Failure may result, therefore, either from leaving out one ormore of the commands or from changing the order. The former is moreoften the case. 

REMARKS. Success depends first on the ability to comprehend thecommands, and secondly, on the ability to hold them in mind. It istherefore a test of memory, though of a somewhat different kind fromthat involved in repeating digits or sentences. It is an excellent test, for it throws light on a kind of intelligence which is demanded in alloccupations and in everyday life. A more difficult test of the same typeought to be worked out for a higher age level. 

Binet originally located this test in year VI, but in 1911 changed it toyear VII. This is unfortunate, for the three Stanford investigations, aswell as the statistics of all other investigators, show conclusivelythat it is easy enough for year V. 

V. ALTERNATIVE TEST: GIVING AGE

PROCEDURE. The formula is simply, "_How old are you?_" The child of thisage is, of course, not expected to know the date of his birthday, butmerely how many years old he is. 

SCORING. About the only danger in scoring is in the failure to verifythe child's response. Some children give an incorrect answer withperfect assurance, and it is therefore always necessary to verify. 

REMARKS. Inability to give the age may or may not be significant. If thechild has arrived at the age of 7 or 8 years and has had anything like anormal social environment, failure in the test is an extremelyunfavorable sign. But if the child is an orphan or has grown up inneglect, ignorance of age has little significance for intelligence. About all we can say is that if a child gives his age correctly, it isbecause he has had sufficient interest and intelligence to rememberverbal statements which have been made concerning him in his presence. He may even pass the test without attaching any definite meaning to theword "year. " On the other hand, if he has lived seven or eight years ina normal environment, it is safe to assume that he has heard his agegiven many times, and failure to remember it would then indicate eithera weak memory or a grave inferiority of spontaneous interests, or both. Normal children have a natural interest in the things they hear saidabout themselves, while the middle-grade imbecile of even 40 years mayfail 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 italtogether 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 thanthose from less favorable surroundings. Unselected children ofCalifornia 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 isresponded to, say: "_Show me your left ear. _" Then: "_Show me your righteye. _" Stress the words _left_ and _ear_ rather strongly and equally;also _right_ and _eye_. If there is one error, repeat the test, thistime with left hand, right ear, and left eye. Carefully avoid giving anyhelp by look of approval or disapproval, by glancing at the part of thebody indicated, or by supplementary questions. 

SCORING. The test is passed if all three questions are answeredcorrectly, or if, in case of one error, the three additional questionsare all answered correctly. The standard, therefore, _is three out ofthree, or five out of six_. 

The chief danger of variation among different examiners in scoringcomes from double responses. For example, the child may point first toone ear and then to the other. In all cases of double response, the ruleis to count the second response and disregard the first. This holdswhether the first response was wrong and the second right, or _viceversa_. 

REMARKS. It is interesting to follow the child's acquisitionsof language distinctions relating to spacial orientation. Otherdistinctions of this type are those between up and down, above andbelow, near and far, before and behind, etc. As Bobertag has pointedout, the child first masters such distinctions as up and down, above andbelow, before and behind, etc. , and arrives at a knowledge of right andleft rather tardily. 

How may we explain the late distinction of right and left as comparedwith up and down? At least four theories may be advanced: (1) Somethingdepends on the frequency with which children have occasion to make therespective distinctions. (2) It may be explained on the supposition thatkinæsthetic sensations are more prominently involved in distinctions ofup and down than in distinctions of right and left. It is certainly truethat, in distinguishing the two sides of a thing, less bodily movementis ordinarily required than in distinctions of its upper and loweraspects. The former demands only a shift of the eyes, the latter oftenrequires an upward or downward movement of the head. (3) It may be dueto the fact that the appearance of an object is more affected bydifferences in vertical orientation than by those of horizontalorientation. We see an object now from one side, now from the other, andthe two aspects easily blend, while the two aspects corresponding toabove and below are not viewed in such rapid succession and so remainmuch more distinct from one another in the child's mind. Or, (4), thedifference may be mainly a matter of language. The child undoubtedlyhears the words _up_ and _down_ much oftener than _right_ and _left_, and thus learns their meaning earlier. Horizontal distinctions arecommonly made in such terms as _this side_ and _that side_, or merely bypointing, while in the case of vertical distinctions the words _up_ and_down_ are used constantly. This last explanation is a very plausibleone, but it is very probable that other factors are also involved. 

The distinction between right and left has a certain inherent and moreor less mysterious difficulty. To convince one's self of this it is onlynecessary to try a little experiment on the first fifty persons onechances to meet. The experiment is as follows. Say: "I am going to askyou a question and I want you to answer it as quickly as you can. " Thenask: "Which is your right hand?" About forty persons out of fifty willanswer correctly without a second's hesitation, several will require twoor three seconds to respond, while a few, possibly four or fiveper cent, will grow confused and perhaps be unable to respond for fiveor ten seconds. Some very intelligent adults cannot possibly tell whichis the right or left hand without first searching for a scar or someother 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 movementsautomatically initiated give the desired clue. One bright little girl of8 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 aningenious method is surely not less intelligent than the one who is ableto respond by a direct instead of an intermediate association. 

It seems that normal people never encounter a corresponding difficultyin distinguishing up and down. The writer has questioned several hundredwithout finding a single instance, whereas a great many have to employsome intermediate association in order to distinguish right and left. Itis the "p's and q's" that children must be told to mind; not the "p'sand b's. " The former is a horizontal, the latter a vertical distinction. 

Considering the difficulty which normal adults sometimes have indistinguishing right and left, is it fair to use this test as a measureof intelligence? We may answer in the affirmative. It is fair becausenormal adults, notwithstanding momentary uncertainty, are invariablyable to make the distinction, if not by direct association, then by anintermediate one. We overlook the momentary confusion and regard onlythe correctness of the response. Subjects who are below middle-gradeimbecile, however long they have lived, seldom pass the test. 

This test found a place in year VI of Binet's 1908 scale, but wasshifted to year VII in the 1911 revision. The Stanford statistics, andall other available data, with the exception of Bobertag's, justify itsretention in year VI. It is possible that the children of differentnations do not have equal opportunity and stimulus for learning thedistinction between right and left, but the data show that as far asAmerican and English children are concerned we have a right to expectthis 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 inwhich they are lettered, _a_, _b_, _c_, _d_. When the first picture isshown (that with the eye lacking), say: "_There is something wrong withthis face. It is not all there. Part of it is left out. Look carefullyand tell me what part of the face is not there. _" Often the child givesan irrelevant answer; as, "The feet are gone, " "The stomach is notthere, " etc. These statements are true, but they do not satisfy therequirements 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 correctresponse does not follow, we point to the place where the eye should beand say: "_See, the eye is gone. _" When picture _b_ is shown we saymerely: "_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 ofany kind is given unless (if necessary) with the first picture. With theothers we confine ourselves to the single question, and the answershould be given promptly, say within twenty to twenty-five seconds. 

SCORING. Passed if the omission is correctly pointed out in _three outof 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" forthe 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 theso-called "completion test, " all of which have it in common that fromthe given parts of a whole the missing parts are to be found. The wholeto be completed may be a word, a sentence, a story, a picture, a groupof pictures, an object, or in fact almost anything. Sometimes all theparts of the whole are given and only the arrangement or order is to befound, as in the test with dissected sentences. 

Further discussion of the completion test will be found in connectionwith test 4, year XII. For the present we will only observe thatnotwithstanding a certain similarity among the tests of this type, theydo not all call into play the same mental processes. The factor mostinvolved may be verbal language coherence, visual perception of form, the association of abstract ideas, etc. To pass Binet's test withmutilated pictures requires, (1) that the parts of the picture beperceived as constituting a whole; and (2) that the idea of a human faceor form be so easily and so clearly reproducible that it may act, evenbefore it comes fully into consciousness, as a model or pattern, for thecriticism of the picture shown. The younger the child, the lessadequate, in this sense, is his perceptual familiarity with commonobjects. In standardizing a series of "absurd pictures, " the writer hasfound that normal children of 3 years often see nothing wrong in apicture which shows a cat with two legs or a hen with four legs. Suchchildren would, of course, never mistake a cat for a hen. Their troublelies in the inability to call up in clear form a "free idea" of a cat ora hen for comparison with the perceptual presentation offered by thepicture. Middle-grade imbeciles of adult age have much the samedifficulty as normal children of 4 years in recognizing mutilations orabsurdities in pictures of familiar objects. 

Binet first placed this test in year VII, changing it to year VIII inthe 1911 revision. In other revisions it has been retained in year VII, although all the available statistics except Bobertag's warrant itslocation in year VI. 

VI,  3. COUNTING THIRTEEN PENNIES

PROCEDURE. The procedure is the same as in the test of counting fourpennies (year IV, test 3). If the first response contains only a minorerror, such as the omission of a number in counting, failure to tallywith 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 isnot sufficient merely to state the number of pennies without pointing, for unless the child points and counts aloud we cannot be sure that hiscorrect answer may not be the joint result of two errors in oppositedirections and equal; for example, if one penny were skipped andanother were counted twice the total result would still be correct, butthe performance would not satisfy the requirements. 

REMARKS. Does success in this test depend upon intelligence or uponschooling? The answer is, intelligence mainly. There are possibly a fewnormal 6-year-old children who could not pass the test for lack ofinstruction, but children of this age usually have enough spontaneousinterest in numbers to acquire facility in counting as far as 13 withoutformal teaching. Certainly, inability to do so by the age of 7 years isa suspicious sign unless the child's environment has been extraordinarilyunfavorable. On the other hand, feeble-minded adults of the 5-year levelusually have to have a great deal of instruction before they acquirethe ability to count 13, and many of them are hardly able to learn it atall. So much does our learning depend on original endowment. 

Binet originally placed this test in year VII, but moved it to year VIin 1911. All the statistics, without exception, show that this changewas justified. Bobertag says that nearly all 7-year-olds who are notfeeble-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 slightlydifferent from that in year IV, test 5. 

If there is no response, or if the child looks puzzled, the question maybe repeated once or twice. The form of the question must not under anycircumstances be altered. Question _b_, for example, would be materiallychanged if we should say: "_Suppose you were to come home from schooland find that your house was burning up. What would you do?_" Theexpression "burning up" would probably be much less likely to suggestcalling a fireman than would the words "on fire. "

SCORING. _Two out of three_ must be answered correctly. The harder thecomprehension questions are, the greater the variety of answers and thegreater the difficulty of scoring. Because of the difficulty manyexaminers find in scoring this test, we will list the most commonsatisfactory, 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 allsuggested by Binet in 1905. Only one of them, however, "What would youdo if you were going some place and missed your train?" was incorporatedin the 1908 or 1911 series, and this was used in year X with sevenothers much harder. The other two remained unstandardized previous tothe 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 eachtime: "_What is that?_" If the child misunderstands and answers, "Money, " or "A piece of money, " we say: "_Yes, but what do you call thatpiece of money?_" Show the coins always in the order given above. 

SCORING. The test is passed if _three of the four_ questions arecorrectly answered. Any correct designation of a coin is satisfactory, including provincialisms like "two bits" for the 25-cent piece, etc. Ifthe child changes his response for a coin, we count the second answerand ignore the first. No supplementary questions are permissible. 

REMARKS. Some of the critics of the Binet scale regard this test as oflittle value, because, they say, the ability to identify pieces of moneydepends entirely on instruction or other accidents of environment. Thefigures show, however, that it is not greatly influenced by differencesof social environment, although children from poor homes do slightlybetter with it than those from homes of wealth and culture. The factseems to be that practically all children by the age of 6 years havehad opportunity to learn the names of the smaller coins, and if theyhave failed to learn them it betokens a lack of that spontaneity ofinterest in things which we have mentioned so often as a fundamentalpresupposition of intelligence. It is by no means a test of meremechanical memory. 

This test was given a place in year VII of Binet's 1908 scale, the coinsused being the 1-sou, 2-sous, 10-sous, and 5-franc pieces. It wasomitted from the Binet 1911 revision and also from that of Goddard. Kuhlmann retains it in year VII. Others, however, have required all fourcoins to be correctly named, and when this standard is used the test isdifficult enough for year VII. Germany has six coins up to and includingthe 1-mark piece, all of which could be named by 76 per cent ofBobertag's 7-year-olds. With the coins and the standard of scoring usedin 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. Iam going to say something and after I am through I want you to say itover just like I do. Understand? Listen carefully and be sure to sayexactly what I say. _" Then read the first sentence rather slowly, in adistinct voice, and with expression. If the response is not too bad, praise the child's efforts. Then proceed with the second and thirdsentences, prefacing each with an exhortation to "say exactly what Isay. "

In this year and in the memory-for-sentences test of later years it isnot permissible to re-read even the first sentence. The only reason forallowing a repetition of one of the sentences in the earlier test ofthis kind was to overcome the child's timidity. With children of 6 yearsor upward we seldom encounter the timidity which sometimes makes it sohard 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 isrepeated without error, or if two are repeated with not more than oneerror each_. A single omission, insertion, or transposition counts as anerror. Faults of pronunciation are of course overlooked. It is notsufficient that the thought be reproduced intact; the exact languagemust be repeated. The responses should be recorded _verbatim_. This iseasily done if record blanks used for scoring have the sentences printedin full. 

REMARKS. In this test and in later tests of memory for sentences, it isinteresting to ask after each response: "_Did you get it right?_" As inthe tests with digits, it is an unfavorable sign when the child isperfectly satisfied with a very poor response. 

It is evident that tests of this type give opportunity for differentdegrees of failure. To repeat only a half or a third of each sentence ismuch more serious than to make but one error in each sentence (one wordomitted, inserted, or misplaced). It would be possible to use the samesentences at three or four different age levels, by setting theappropriate standard for success at each age. If the standard is onesentence out of three repeated with no more than two errors, the testbelongs in year V. If we require two absolutely correct responses out ofthree, the test belongs at about year VII. The shifting standard isrendered unnecessary, however, by the use of other tests of the samekind, easier ones in the lower years and more difficult ones in theupper. 

Sentences of sixteen syllables found a place in Binet's 1908 scale andwere correctly located in year VI, but later revisions, including thatof Binet, have omitted the test. 

VI. ALTERNATIVE TEST: FORENOON AND AFTERNOON

PROCEDURE. If it is morning, ask: "_Is it morning or afternoon?_" If itis afternoon, put the question in the reverse form, "_Is it afternoon ormorning?_" This precaution is necessary because of the tendency of somechildren to choose always the latter of two alternatives. Do notcross-question the child or give any suggestion that might afford a clueas to the correct answer. 

SCORING. The test is passed if the correct response is given withapparent assurance. If the child says he is not sure but _thinks_ itforenoon (or afternoon, as the case may be), we score the response afailure even if the answer happens to be correct. However, this type ofresponse is not often encountered. 

REMARKS. It is interesting to follow the child's development with regardto orientation in time. This development proceeds much more slowly thanwe are wont to assume. Certain distinctions with regard to space, as upand down, come much earlier. As Binet remarks, schools sometimes try toteach the events of national history to children whose time orientationis so rudimentary that they do not even know morning from afternoon!

The test has two rather serious faults: (1) It gives too much play tochance, for since only two alternatives are offered, guesses alone wouldgive about fifty per cent of correct responses. (2) We cannot be surethat the verbal distinction between forenoon and afternoon alwayscorresponds the two divisions of the day. It is possible that thetemporal discrimination precedes the formation of the correct verbalassociation. 

This test was included in the year VI group of the 1908 scale, but wasomitted from the 1911 revision. Nearly all the data except Bobertag'sshow that it is rather easy for year VI, though too difficult foryear V. Bobertag's figures would place the test in year VII. Possiblythe 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 theother hand?_" "_How many on both hands together?_" If the child beginsto 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 andpromptly_ without the necessity of counting. Some subjects do notunderstand the question to include the thumbs. We disregard this if thenumber of fingers exclusive of thumbs is given correctly. 

REMARKS. Like the two tests of counting pennies, this one, also, throwslight on the child's spontaneous interest in numbers. However, themental processes it calls into play are a little less simple than thoserequired for mere counting. If the child is able to give the number offingers, it is ordinarily because he has previously counted them and hasremembered the result. The memory would hardly be retained but for acertain interest in numbers as such. Middle-grade imbeciles of evenadult age seldom remember how many fingers they have, however oftenthey may have been told. They are not able to form accurate concepts ofother than the simplest number relationships, and numbers have littleinterest or meaning for them. 

Binet gave this test a place in year VII of the 1908 series, but omittedit in the 1911 revision. Goddard omits it, while Kuhlmann retains it inyear VII, where, according to our own figures, it unmistakably belongs. Bobertag finds it rather easy for year VII, though too difficult foryear 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 centpassing, the agreement among the different testers is extraordinarilyclose, and it is relatively little influenced by training and socialenvironment. For these reasons, and because it is so easy to give andscore 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 inthe following order: Dutch Home, River Scene, Post-Office. The formulafor 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 thedouble question, and follow the formula exactly. It would ruin the testto say: "_Tell me everything you see in this picture_, " for this form ofquestion tends to provoke the enumeration response even with intelligentchildren of this age. 

When there is no response, the question may be repeated as often as isnecessary to break the silence. 

SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ pictures are describedor interpreted. Interpretation, however, is seldom encountered at thisage. Often the response consists of a mixture of enumeration anddescription. The rule is that the reaction to a picture should notbe scored _plus_ unless it is made up chiefly of description (orinterpretation). 

Study of the following samples of satisfactory responses will give afairly 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 ofenumeration. A phrase or two of description intermingled with a largeramount of enumeration counts _minus_. Sometimes the description issatisfactory as far as it goes, but is exceedingly brief. In such casesa little tactful urging ("_Go ahead_, " etc. ) will extend the responsesufficiently to reveal its true character. 

REMARKS. Description is better than enumeration because it involvesputting the elements of a picture together in a simple way or notingtheir qualities. This requires a higher type of mental association(combinative power) than mere enumeration. An unusually completedescription indicates relative wealth of mental content and facility ofassociation. 

Binet placed this test in year VII, and it seems to have been retainedin this location in all revisions except Bobertag's. However, thestatistics of various workers show much disagreement. Lack of agreementis easily accounted for by the fact that different investigators haveused different series of pictures and doubtless also different standardsfor success. The pictures used by Binet have little action or detail andare therefore rather difficult for description. On the other hand, theJingleman-Jack pictures used by Kuhlmann represent such familiarsituations and have so much action that even 5- or 6-year intelligenceseldom fails with them. The pictures we employ belong without questionin year VII. 

No better proof than the above could be found to show how ability of agiven kind does not make its appearance suddenly. There is no one timein the life of even a single child when the power to describe picturessuddenly develops. On the contrary, pictures of a certain type willordinarily provoke description, rather than enumeration, as early as5 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 tolisten and to say after you just what you say. Then read the firstseries of digits at a slightly faster rate than one per second, in adistinct voice, and with perfectly uniform emphasis. _Avoid rhythm. _

In previous tests with digits, it was permissible to re-read the firstseries if the child refused to respond. In this year, and in the digitstests of later years, this is not permissible. Warning is not given asto the number of digits to be repeated. Before reading each series, getthe child's attention. Do not stare at the child during the response, asthis 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 therepetition of sentences mainly in the fact that digits have less meaning(fewer associations) than the words of a sentence. It is because theyare not as well knit together in meaning that three digits tax thememory as much as six syllables making up a sentence. 

Testing auditory memory for digits is one of the oldest of intelligencetests. It is easy to give and lends itself well to exact quantitativestandardization. Its value has been questioned, however, on two grounds:(1) That it is not a test of pure memory, but depends largely onattention; and (2) that the results are too much influenced by thechild's type of imagery. As to the first objection, it is true that morethan one mental function is brought into play by the test. The same maybe said of every other test in the Binet scale and for that matter ofany test that could be devised. It is impossible to isolate any functionfor separate testing. In fact, the functions called memory, attention, perception, judgment, etc. , never operate in isolation. There are noseparate and special "faculties" corresponding to such terms, which aremerely convenient names for characterizing mental processes of varioustypes. In any test it is "general ability" which is operative, perhapsnow _chiefly_ in remembering, at another time _chiefly_ in sensorydiscrimination, again in reasoning, etc. 

The second objection, that the test is largely invalidated by theexistence of imagery types, is not borne out by the facts. Experimentshave shown that pure imagery types are exceedingly rare, and thatchildren, especially, are characterized by "mixed" imagery. There areprobably few subjects so lacking in auditory imagery as to be placed ata serious disadvantage in this test. 

Lengthening a series by the addition of a single digit adds greatly tothe difficulty. While four digits can usually be repeated by children of4 years, five digits belong in year VII and six in year X. 

It is always interesting to note the type of errors made. The mostcommon error is to omit one or more of the digits, usually in the firstpart of the series. If the child's ability is decidedly below the testhe 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 aremade as to give a series quite unlike that which the child has heard, itis an unfavorable sign, indicating weakness of the critical sense whichis so often found with low-level intelligence. In case of extremeweakness of the power of auto-criticism, the child in response to theseries 9-8-1-7-6-, may say 1-2-3-4-5-6, or perhaps merely a couple ofdigits like 8-6, and still express complete satisfaction with his absurdresponse. After each series, therefore, the examiner should say, "_Wasit 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 callfor criticism of a performance below the age of 6 or 7 years. 

[54] "_Was it wrong?_" is not an equivalent question and should not beused. 

Digit series of a given length are not always of equal difficulty, andfor this reason it is never wise to use series improvised at the momentof the experiment. We must avoid especially series of regularlyascending or descending value, the repetition at regular intervals of aparticular digit, and all other peculiarities of arrangement which wouldfavor the grouping of the digits for easier retention. 

It remains to mention two or three further cautions in regard toprocedure. It is best to begin with a series about one digit below thechild's expected ability. If the child has a probable intelligence ofabout 6 or 7 years, we should begin with four digits; in case ofprobable 10-year intelligence we begin with five digits, etc. On theother hand, we should avoid beginning too far down, because then theresult is too much complicated by the effects of practice and fatigue. 

It is not necessary, and often it is not expedient, to give the digitstests of all the different years in succession; that is, without othertests intervening. While this may be permissible with older children, inyoung children the power of sustained attention is so weak that nosingle kind of test should occupy more than two or three minutes. Children below 6 or 7 years should ordinarily be given the tests in theorder in which they are listed in the record booklet. 

In his 1911 revision of the scale Binet unfortunately shifted this testfrom year VII to year VIII. Goddard follows his example, but Kuhlmannretains it in year VII. The data from more than a dozen leadinginvestigations in America, England, and Germany agree in showing thatthe test should remain in year VII. 

VII,  4. TYING A BOW-KNOT

PROCEDURE. Prepare a shoestring tied in a bow-knot around a stick. Theknot should be an ordinary "double bow, " with wings not over three orfour inches long. Make this ready in advance of the experiment and showthe child only the completed knot. 

Place the model before the subject with the wings pointing to the rightand left, and say: "_You know what kind of knot this is, don't you? Itis a bow-knot. I want you to take this other piece of string and tie thesame kind of knot around my finger. _" At the same time give the child apiece of shoestring, of the same length as that which is tied around thestick, and hold out a finger pointed toward the child and in convenientposition for the operation. It is better to have the subject tie thestring around the examiner's finger than around a pencil or other objectbecause the latter often falls out of the string and is otherwiseawkward to handle. 

Some children who assert that they do not know how to tie a bow-knot aresometimes nevertheless successful when urged to try. It is alwaysnecessary, 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 endfolded in) counts half credit, because children are often accustomed touse the single bow altogether. The usual plain common knot, whichprecedes the bow-knot proper, must not be omitted if the response is tocount as satisfactory, for without this preliminary plain knot abow-knot will not hold and is of no value. To be satisfactory the knotshould also be drawn up reasonably close, not left gaping. 

REMARKS. This test, which had not before been standardized, wassuggested to the writer by the late Dr.  Huey, who in a conversationonce remarked upon the frequent inability of feeble-minded adults toperform the little motor tasks which are universally learned by normalpersons in childhood. The test was therefore incorporated in theStanford trial series of 1913-14 and tried with 370 non-selectedchildren within two months of the 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th birthday. It wasexpected that the test would probably be found to belong at about the8-year level, but it proved to be easy enough for year VII, where69 per cent of the children passed it. Only 35 per cent of the6-year-olds succeeded, but after that age the per cent passing increasedrapidly to 94 per cent at 9 years. 

This little experiment, simple as it is, seems to fulfill reasonablywell the requirements of a good test. The main objection which might bebrought against it is that it is much subject to the influence oftraining. If this were true in any marked degree, the mentally retardedchildren of 7-year intelligence should be expected to succeed betterwith it than mentally advanced children of the same mental level, sincethe former would have had at least two or three years more in which tolearn the task. A comparison of the two groups, however, shows no greatdifference. The factor of age, apart from mental age, affects theresults so little that it is evident we have here a real test ofintelligence. 

It would, of course, be easy to imagine a child of 7 years who had nothad reasonable opportunity to make the acquaintance of bow-knots or tolearn to tie them. But such children are seldom encountered in the agesabove 6 or 7. Of 68 7-year-olds who were asked whether they had everseen a bow-knot ("a knot like that") only two replied in the negative. It cannot be denied, however, that specific instruction and specialstimulus to practice do play a certain part. This is suggested by thefact that girls excel the boys somewhat at each age, doubtless becausebow-knots play a larger rôle in feminine apparel. Social status affectsthe results in only a moderate degree, though it might be supposed thatpoor ragamuffins, on the one hand, and children of the very rich, on theother, would both make a poor showing in this test; the former becauseof their scanty apparel, the latter because they sometimes have servantsto dress them. 

The following are probably the chief factors determining success withthis test: (1) Interest in common objective things; (2) ability to formpermanent associative connections between successive motor coördinations(memory for a series of acts); and (3) skill in the acquisition ofvoluntary motor control. The last factor is probably much less importantthan the other two. Motor awkwardness often prolongs the time from theusual ten or fifteen seconds to thirty or forty seconds, but it israrely a cause of a failure. The important thing is to be able toreproduce the appropriate succession of acts, acts which nearly allchildren of 7 years, under the joint stimulus of example and spontaneousinterest, have before performed or tried to perform. 

VII,  5. GIVING DIFFERENCES FROM MEMORY

PROCEDURE. Say: "_What is the difference between a fly and abutterfly?_" If the child does not seem to understand, say: "_You knowflies, do you not? You have seen flies? And you know the butterflies!Now, tell me the difference between a fly and a butterfly. _" Proceed inthe same way with _stone and egg_, and _wood and glass_. A littlecoaxing is sometimes necessary to secure a response, but supplementaryquestions 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 wouldimmediately answer, "A butterfly. " The child must be left to find adifference by himself. Sometimes a difference is given, but without anyindication as to its direction, as, for example, "One is bigger than theother" (for fly and butterfly). It is then permissible to ask: "_Whichis bigger?_"

SCORING. Passed if a real difference is given in _two out of threecomparisons_. It is not necessary, however, that an _essential_difference be given; the difference may be trivial, only it must be areal one. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactoryresponses:--

_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 schoolexperience. Its excellence lies mainly, however, in the fact that itthrows light upon the character of the child's higher thought processes, for thinking means essentially the association of ideas on the basis ofdifferences or similarities. Nearly all thought processes, from the mostcomplex to the very simplest, involve to a greater or less degree one orthe other of these two types of association. They are involved in thesimple judgments made by children, in the appreciation of puns, inmechanical inventions, in the creation of poetry, in the scientificclassification of natural phenomena, and in the origination of thehypotheses of science or philosophy. 

The ability to note differences precedes somewhat the ability to noteresemblances, though the contrary has sometimes been asserted bylogician-psychologists. The difficulty of the test is greatly increasedby the fact that the objects to be compared are not present to thesenses, which means that the free ideas must be called up for comparisonand contrast. Failure may result either from weakness in the power ofideational representation of objects, or from the inadequacy of theassociations themselves, or from both. Probably both factors are usuallyinvolved. 

Intellectual development is especially evident in increased ability tonote _essential_ differences and likenesses, as contrasted with thosewhich are trivial, superficial, and accidental. To distinguish an eggfrom a stone on the basis of one being organic, the other inorganicmatter requires far higher intelligence than to distinguish them on thebasis of shape, color, fragibility, etc. It is not till well toward theadult stage that the ability to give very essential likenesses anddifferences becomes prominent, and when we get a comparison of this typefrom 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 foruse in the upper years and especially adapted to display the ability togive essential likenesses and differences. At year VII we must accept assatisfactory 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 ismeant the mechanical reappearance of the same idea, or element, insuccessive responses. For example, the child begins by comparing fly andbutterfly 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 tostereotypy finds himself unable to get away from the dominating idea ofsize and continues to make it the basis of the other comparisons: "Astone is larger than an egg, " "Wood is larger than glass, " etc. In caseof stereotypy in all three responses, we should have to score the totalresponse failure even though the idea employed happened to fit all threeparts of the question. As a rule it is encountered only with very youngchildren or with older children who are mentally retarded. It istherefore an unfavorable sign. 

Although this test has been universally used in year VIII, all theavailable statistics, with the exception of Bobertag's and Bloch's, indicate that it is decidedly too easy for that year. Binet himself saysthat nearly all 7-year-olds pass it. Goddard finds 97 per cent passingat year VIII, and Dougherty 90 per cent at year VI. With the standard ofscoring given in the present revision, and with the substitution of_stone and egg_ instead of the more difficult _paper and cloth_, thetest is unquestionably easy enough for year VII. 

VII,  6. COPYING A DIAMOND

PROCEDURE. On a white cardboard draw in heavy black lines a diamond withthe longer diagonal three inches and the shorter diagonal an inch and ahalf. The specially prepared record booklet contains the diamond as wellas many other conveniences. 

Place the model before the child with the longer diagonal pointingdirectly toward him, and giving him _pen and ink_ and paper, say: "_Iwant you to draw one exactly like this. _" Give three trials, saying eachtime: "_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 anydifficulty in getting the child to try this one. By the age of 7 thechild has grown much less timid and has become more accustomed to theuse of writing materials. 

Note whether the child draws each part carefully, looking at the modelfrom time to time, or whether the strokes are made in a more or lesshaphazard manner with only an initial glance at the original. 

After each trial, say to the child: "_Is it good?_" And after the threecopies have been made say: "_Which one is the best?_" Retarded childrenare sometimes entirely satisfied with the most nondescript drawingsimaginable, but they are more likely correctly to pick out the best ofthree than to render a correct judgment about the worth of each drawingseparately. 

SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ drawings are at leastas good as those marked satisfactory on the score card. The diamondshould be drawn approximately in the correct position, and the diagonalsmust not be reversed. Disregard departures from the model with respectto size. 

REMARKS. The test is a good one. Age and training, apart fromintelligence, affect it only moderately. There are few adult imbecilesof 6-year intelligence who are able to pass it, while but few subjectswho 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 toyear VI in Binet's 1911 revision. The change was without justification, for Binet expressly states, both in 1908 and 1911, that only half of the6-year-olds succeed with it. The large majority of investigations havegiven too low a proportion of successes at 6 years to warrant itslocation at that age, particularly if pen is required instead of pencil. Location at year VI would be warranted only on the condition that theuse of pencil be permitted and only one success required in threetrials. 

VII, ALTERNATIVE TEST 1: NAMING THE DAYS OF THE WEEK

PROCEDURE. Say: "_You know the days of the week, do you not? Name thedays of the week for me. _" Sometimes the child begins by naming variousannual holidays, as Christmas, Fourth of July, etc. Perhaps he has notcomprehended the task; at any rate, we give him one more trial bystopping him and saying: "_No; that is not what I mean. I want you toname the days of the week. _" No supplementary questions are permissible, and we must be careful not to show approval or disapproval in our looksas the child is giving his response. 

If the days have been named in correct order, we check up the responseto see whether the real order of days is known or whether the names haveonly been repeated mechanically. This is done by asking the followingquestions: "_What day comes before Tuesday?_" "_What day comes beforeThursday?_" "_What day comes before Friday?_"

SCORING. The test is passed if, within _fifteen seconds_, the days ofthe week are _all named in correct order_, and if the child succeeds inat least _two of the three check questions_. We disregard the point ofbeginning. 

REMARKS. The test has been criticized as too dependent on rote memory. Bobertag says a child may pass it without having any adequate conceptionof "week, " "yesterday, " "day before yesterday, " etc. This criticismholds if the test is given according to the older procedure, but doesnot apply with the procedure above recommended. The "checking-up"questions enable us at once to distinguish responses that are given byrote from those which rest upon actual knowledge. 

The test has been shown to be much more influenced by age, apart fromintelligence, than most other tests of the scale. Notwithstanding thisfault, 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 timeorientation. The others of this group are: "_Distinguishing forenoon andafternoon_" (VI), "_Giving the date_" and "_Naming the months_" (IX). Itwould be well if we had even more of this type, for interest in thepassing of time and in the names of time divisions is closely correlatedwith intelligence. One reason for the inferiority of the dull andfeeble-minded in tests of this type is that their mental associationsare weaker and less numerous. The greater poverty of their associationsbrings it about that their remembered experiences are less definitelylocated in time with reference to other events. 

The test was located in year IX of the 1908 scale, but was omitted fromthe 1911 revision. Kuhlmann also omits it, while Goddard places it inyear VIII. The statistics from every American investigation, however, warrant its location in year VII. It may be located in year VIII only onthe condition that the child be required to name the days backwards, andthat 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 begiven after, but not immediately after, the tests of repeating digitsforwards. 

Say to the child: "_Listen carefully. I am going to read some numbersagain, but this time I want you to say them backwards. For example, if Ishould say 1-2-3, you would say 3-2-1. Do you understand?_" When it isevident that the child has grasped the instructions, say: "_Ready now;listen carefully, and be sure to say the numbers backwards. _" Then readthe series at the same rate and in the same manner as in the otherdigits tests. It is not permissible to re-read any of the series. 

If the first series is repeated forwards instead of backwards seriesexhort the child to listen carefully and to be sure to repeat thenumbers backwards. 

SCORING. The test is passed if _one series out of three_ is repeatedbackwards without error. 

REMARKS. The test of repeating digits backwards was suggested byBobertag in 1911, but appears not to have been used or standardizedprevious to the Stanford investigation. 

It is very much harder to repeat a series of digits backwards in thedirect order at year VII, and six at year X. Reversing the order placesthree digits in year VII, four in year X, five in year XII, and six in"average adult. " Even intelligent adults sometimes have difficulty inrepeating six digits backwards, once in three trials. 

As a test of intelligence this test is better than that of repeatingdigits in the direct order. It is less mechanical and makes a muchheavier demand on attention. The digits must be so firmly fixated inmemory that they can be held there long enough to be told off, one byone, backwards. 

Feeble-minded children find this test especially difficult, perhapsmainly because of its element of novelty. School children are oftenasked to write numbers dictated by the teacher, and even the very dullacquire a certain proficiency in doing so; but the test of repeatingdigits backwards requires a certain facility in adjusting to a new task, exactly the sort of thing in which the feeble-minded are so markedlydeficient. 

As a rule the response consumes much more time than in the other digitstest. This is particularly true when the series to be repeated backwardscontains four or more digits. The chance of success is greatly increasedif the subject first thinks the series through two or three times in thedirect order before attempting the reverse order. The subject whoresponds immediately is likely to begin correctly, but to give the firstpart of the original series in the direct order. For example, 6-5-2-8 isgiven 8-2-6-5. 

Sometimes the child gives one or two numbers and then stops, havingcompletely lost the rest of the series in the stress of adjusting to thenovel and relatively difficult task of beginning with the final digit. In such cases the feeble-minded are prone to fill in with any numbersthey may happen to think of. A good method for the subject is to breakthe 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 intelligentsubjects adopt this method. One 12-year-old girl attending high schoolwas 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 toimagery type. Such a study would have to make use of adult subjectstrained in introspection. It would seem that success might be favored bythe ability to translate the auditory impression into visual imagery, sothat the remembered numbers could be read off as from a book; but thismay or may not be the case. At any rate, success seems to depend largelyupon the ability to manipulate mental imagery. 

The degree of certainty as to the correctness of the response is usuallymuch 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 supposethat your baseball has been lost in this round field. You have no ideawhat part of the field it is in. You don't know what direction it camefrom, how it got there, or with what force it came. All you know isthat the ball is lost somewhere in the field. Now, take this pencil andmark out a path to show me how you would hunt for the ball so as to besure not to miss it. Begin at the gate and show me what path you wouldtake. _"[56]

[56] The Stanford record booklet contains the circle ready for use. 

Give the instructions always as worded above. Avoid using an expressionlike, "_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 thennecessary to say: "_No; you must mark out your path with the pencil so Ican see it plainly. _" Other children trace a path only a little way andstop, saying: "Here it is. " We then say: "_But suppose you have notfound it yet. Which direction would you go next?_" In this way the childmust be kept tracing a path until it is evident whether any plan governshis procedure. 

SCORING. The performances secured with this test are convenientlyclassified into four groups, representing progressively higher types. The first two types represent failures; the third is satisfactory atyear 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 thetask. By the age of 6 years the task is usually understood, but thesearch is conducted without plan. Type _c_ is not attained by twothirds before the mental level of 8 years, and score 3 ordinarily notuntil 11 or 12 years. 

Grading presents some difficulties because of occasional border-lineperformances which have a value almost midway between the types _b_ and_c_ or between _c_ and _d_. Frequent reference to the scoring card willenable the examiner, after a little experience, to score nearly all thedoubtful performances satisfactorily. 

REMARKS. The ball-and-field problem may be called a test of practicaljudgment. Unlike a majority of the other tests, it gives the subject achance to show how well he can meet the demands of a real, ratherthan an imagined, situation. Tests like this, involving practicaladjustments, are valuable in rounding out the scale, which, as left byBinet, placed rather excessive emphasis on abstract reasoning and thecomprehension of language. The test requires little time and alwaysarouses the child's interest. 

Our analysis of the responses of nearly 1500 subjects shows thatimprovement with increasing mental age is steady and fairly rapid. Occasionally, however, one meets a high-grade performance with childrenof 6 or 7 years, and a low-grade performance with adults of averageintelligence. Like all the other tests of the scale, it is unreliablewhen used alone. 

VIII,  2. COUNTING BACKWARDS FROM 20 TO 1

PROCEDURE. Say to the child: "_You can count backwards, can you not? Iwant you to count backwards for me from 20 to 1. Go ahead. _" In thegreat majority of cases this is sufficient; the child comprehends thetask 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 countbackwards 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 abouthurrying, as this confuses some subjects. Prompting is not permissible. 

SCORING. The test is passed if the child counts from 20 to 1 _in notover forty seconds and with not more than a single error_ (one omissionor one transposition). Errors which the child spontaneously corrects arenot counted as errors. 

REMARKS. The statistics on this test agree remarkably well. It isplainly too easy for year IX, and no one has found it easy enough foryear VII. The main lack of uniformity has been in the adherence to atime 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 twentyseconds if one error is committed. We agree with Bobertag that owing tothe nature of this test we should not be pedantic about the time. Whilea majority of children who are able to count backwards do the task intwenty seconds, there are some intelligent but deliberate subjects whorequire as much as thirty-five or forty seconds. If the counting is donewith assurance and without stumbling, there is no reason why we shouldnot allow even forty seconds. Beyond this, however, our generosityshould not go, because of the chance it would give for the use ofspecial devices such as counting forwards each time to the next numberwanted. 

It may be said that counting backwards is a test of schooling, and to acertain extent this is true. It is reasonable to suppose that specialtraining would enable the child to pass the test a little earlier thanhe would otherwise be able to do, though it is doubtful whether manychildren below 7 years of age have had enough of such training toinfluence the performance very materially. On the other hand, when thechild has reached an intelligence level of 8 or at most 9 years, he isordinarily able to count from 20 to 1 whether he has ever tried itbefore or not. 

What psychological factors are involved in this test? It presupposes, inthe first place, the ability to count from 1 to 20. But this alone doesnot guarantee success in counting backwards. Something more is requiredthan a mere rote memory for the number names in their order from 1 up to20. The quantitative relationships of the numbers must also beapprehended if the task is to be performed smoothly without a great dealof special training. In addition to being reasonably secure in hisknowledge of the number relationships involved, the child must be ableto give sustained attention until the task is completed. His mentalprocesses must be dominated by the guiding idea, "count backwards. "Associations which do not harmonize with this aim, or which fail tofurther it, must be inhibited. Even momentary relaxation of attentionmeans a loss of directive force in the guiding idea and the dominance ofbetter known associations which may be suggested by the task, but areout of harmony with it. Thus, if a child momentarily loses sight of theend after counting backwards successfully from 20 to 14, he is likely tobe overpowered by the law of habit and begin counting forwards, 14-15-16-17, etc. We may regard the test, therefore, as a test ofattention, or prolonged thought control. The ability to exerciseunbroken vigilance for a period of twenty or thirty seconds is rarelyfound 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 bechanged. 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 byBinet, Goddard, Huey, and others in year X; two of them in the "easyseries" and one in the "hard series. " The Stanford data show that theybelong at the 8-year level on the standard of scoring above set forth. The three differ little among themselves in difficulty, but all of themare decidedly easier than the other five used by Binet. It would beabsurd to go on using the comprehension questions as Binet bunched them, eight together, ranging in difficulty from one which is easy enough for6-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 whenone is angry more excusable than the same act done when one is notangry?"). 

VIII,  4. GIVING SIMILARITIES; TWO THINGS

PROCEDURE. Say to the child: "_I am going to name two things which arealike in some way, and I want you to tell me how they are alike. Woodand coal: in what way are they alike?_" Proceed in the same mannerwith:--

 _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 thechild is silent or says he does not know, but in doing this we mustavoid supplementary questions and suggestions. In giving the first pair, for example, it would not be permissible to ask such additionalquestions as, "_What do you use wood for? What do you use coal for? Andnow, how are wood and coal alike?_" This is really putting the answer inthe child's mouth. It is only permissible to repeat the originalquestion in a persuasive tone of voice, and perhaps to add: "_I'm sureyou can tell me how ... And ... Are alike_, " or something to thateffect. 

A very common mistake which the child makes is to give differencesinstead 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 findingdifferences is, to a much greater extent than finding similarities, thechild's preferred method of making a comparison. When a difference isgiven, instead of a similarity, we say: "_No, I want you to tell me howthey are alike. In what way are ... And ... Alike?_" Unless the child isof rather low intelligence level this is sufficient, but the mentallyretarded sometimes continue to give differences persistently in spiteof repeated admonitions, or if they cease to do so for one or twocomparisons, they are likely to repeat the mistake in the latter part ofthe test. 

SCORING. The test is passed if a likeness is given in _two out of four_comparisons. We accept as satisfactory any real likeness, whetherfundamental or superficial, though, of course, the more essential theresemblance, the better indication it is of intelligence. The followingare samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory answers:--[58]

[58] For aid in classifying the responses in this and certain othertests 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 in1905. Our results show that it is fully as satisfactory as the test ofgiving differences. The test reveals in a most interesting way one ofthe 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 whogive the greatest number of absurd answers and who also find greatestdifficulty 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 berepeated with a little encouragement; but supplementary questions arenever in order. Ordinarily there is no difficulty in securing a responseto the definition test of this year. The trouble comes in scoring theresponse. 

SCORING. The test is passed if two of the four words are defined interms 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 thesubstance or the materials or parts composing it; and (c) those whichtell what class the object belongs to or what relation it bears toother classes of objects. 

It is possible to distinguish different grades of definitions in each ofthe above classes. A definition by description (type _a_) may be briefand partial, mentioning only one or two qualities or characteristics, orit may be relatively rich and complete. Likewise with definitions oftype _b_. Classificatory definitions (type _c_) are of particularlyuneven value, the lowest order being those which subsume the object tobe defined under a remote class and give few if any characteristics todistinguish it from other members of the same class; as, for example, "Afootball is a thing you can have fun with, " or, "A soldier is a person. "The best classificatory definitions are those which subsume the objectunder the next higher class and give the more essential traits (perhapsa number of them) which distinguish the object from others of the classnamed; as, for example, "A tiger is a large animal like a cat; it livesin the jungle and eats men and other animals, " or, "A soldier is a manwho goes to war. " These shades of distinction give interesting andvaluable clues to the maturity and richness of the apperceptiveprocesses, but for purposes of scoring it is necessary merely to decidewhether the definition is given in terms superior to use. 

The following are samples of satisfactory definitions, those for eachword being arranged roughly in the order of their value from excellentto 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 withchildren of 8, 9, and 10 years. 

REMARKS. The "use definitions" sometimes given at this age are usuallyof slightly better quality than those given in year V. Younger childrenmore often use the infinitive form, "to play with" (doll), "to drive"(horse), "to eat on" (table), etc. Use definitions of this year moreoften 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 thedescriptive or the classificatory definition? Is not the use to which anobject may be put the most essential thing about it, for the child atleast? Is it not more important to know that a fork is to eat with thanto be able to name the material it is made of? Is not the use primaryand does it not determine most of the physical characteristics of theobject?

The above questions may sound reasonable, but they are based on poorpsychology. We must rest our case upon the facts. The first lesson whichthe student of child psychology must learn is that it is unsafe to setup criteria of intelligence, of maturity, or of any other mental traiton the basis of theoretical considerations. Experiment teaches thatnormal children of 5 or 6 years, also older feeble-minded persons of the5-year intelligence level, define objects in terms of use; also thatnormal children of 8 or 9 years and older feeble-minded persons of thismental level have for the most part developed beyond the stage of usedefinitions into the descriptive or classificatory stage. An ounce offact is worth a ton of theory. 

The test has usually been located in year IX, with the requirement ofthree successes out of five trials and with somewhat more rigid scoringof the individual definitions. When only two successes are required infour trials, and when scored leniently, the test belongs at the 8-yearlevel. 

VIII,  6. VOCABULARY; TWENTY DEFINITIONS, 3600 WORDS

PROCEDURE. Use the list of words given in the record booklet. Say to thechild: "_I want to find out how many words you know. Listen; and when Isay a word you tell me what it means. _" If the child can read, give hima printed copy of the word list and let him look at each word as youpronounce it. 

The words are arranged approximately (though not exactly) in the orderof their difficulty, and it is best to begin with the easier words andproceed to the harder. With children under 9 or 10 years, begin with thefirst. Apparently normal children of 10 years may safely be creditedwith the first ten words without being asked to define them. Apparentlynormal children of 12 may begin with word 16, and 15-year-olds withword 21. Except with subjects of almost adult intelligence there is noneed to give the last ten or fifteen words, as these are almost nevercorrectly defined by school children. A safe rule to follow is tocontinue until eight or ten successive words have been missed and toscore 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 alittle encouragement is necessary; as: "_You know what a bonfire is. Youhave seen a bonfire. Now, what is a bonfire?_" If the child stillhesitates, say: "_Just tell me in your own words; say it any way youplease. 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 persistsin his refusal to define a word which he would ordinarily be expected toknow, it is better to pass on to the next one and to return to thetroublesome word later. Above all, avoid helping the child byillustrating the use of a word in a sentence. Adhere strictly to theformula given above. If the definition as given does not make it clearwhether the child has the correct idea, say: "_Explain_, " or, "_I don'tunderstand; explain what you mean. _"

Encourage the child frequently by saying: "That's fine. You are doingbeautifully. You know lots of words, " etc. Never tell the child hisdefinition is not correct, and never ask for a different definition. 

Avoid saying anything which would suggest a model form of definition, asthe type of definition which the child spontaneously chooses throwsinteresting light on the degree of maturity of the apperceptiveprocesses. Record all definitions _verbatim_ if possible, or at leastthose which are exceptionally good, poor, or doubtful. 

SCORING. Credit a response in full if it gives one correct meaning forthe word, regardless of whether that meaning is the most common one, andregardless of whether it is the original or a derived meaning. Occasionally half credit may be given, but this should be avoided as faras possible. 

To find the entire vocabulary, multiply the number of words known by180. (This list is made up of 100 words selected by rule from adictionary containing 18, 000 words. ) Thus, the child who defines20 words correctly has a vocabulary of 20 × 180 = 3600 words; 50 correctdefinitions would mean a vocabulary of 9000 words, etc. The followingare the standards for different years, as determined by the vocabularyreached by 60 to 65 per cent of the subjects of the various mentallevels:--

 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 intoconsideration in scoring. The test is intended to explore the range ofideas rather than the evolution of thought forms. When it is evidentthat the child has one fairly correct meaning for a word, he is givenfull credit for it, however poorly the definition may have been stated. 

While there is naturally some difficulty now and then in decidingwhether a given definition is correct, this happens much less frequentlythan one would expect. In order to get a definite idea of the extent oferror due to the individual differences among examiners, we have had thedefinitions of 25 subjects graded independently by 10 different persons. The result showed an average difference below 3 in the number ofdefinitions scored _plus_. Since these subjects attempted on an averageabout 60 words, the average number of doubtful definitions per subjectwas below 5 per cent of the number attempted. 

An idea of the degree of leniency to be exercised may be had from thefollowing examples of definitions, which are mostly of low grade, butacceptable 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 beenused. Leniency in judging definitions is necessary because the child'spower of expression lags farther behind his understanding than is trueof adults, and also because for the young subject the word has arelatively less unitary existence. 

REMARKS. Our vocabulary test was derived by selecting the last wordof every sixth column in a dictionary containing approximately18, 000 words, presumably the 18, 000 most common words in the language. The test is based on the assumption that 100 words selected according tosome arbitrary rule will be a large enough sampling to afford a fairlyreliable index of a subject's entire vocabulary. Rather extensiveexperimentation with this list and others chosen in a similar mannerhas proved that the assumption is justified. Tests of the same75 individuals with five different vocabulary tests of this type showedthat the average difference between two tests of the same person wasless than 5 per cent. This means that any one of the five tests used isreliable enough for all practical purposes. It is of no specialimportance that a given child's vocabulary is 8000 rather than 7600; thesignificance lies in the fact that it is approximately 8000 and not4000, 12, 000, or some other widely different number. 

It may seem to the reader almost incredible that so small a sampling ofwords would give a reliable index of an individual's vocabulary. That itdoes so is due to the operation of the ordinary laws of chance. It isanalogous to predicting the results of an election when only a smallproportion of the ballots have been counted. It is known that a ballotbox contains 600 votes, and if when only 30 have been counted it isfound that they are divided between two candidates in the proportion of20 and 10, it is safe to predict that a complete count will give the twocandidates approximately 400 and 200 respectively. [61] In 1914 about1, 000, 000 votes were cast for governor in California, and when only10, 000 votes had been counted, or a hundredth of all, it was announcedand conceded that Governor Johnson had been reëlected by the 150, 000plurality. The completed count gave him 188, 505 plurality. The error wasless 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 ofthe scale. Used with children of English-speaking parents (with childrenwhose home language is not English it is of course unreliable), itprobably has a higher value than any three other tests in the scale. Ourstatistics show that in a large majority of cases the vocabulary testalone will give us an intelligence quotient within 10 per cent of thatsecured by the entire scale. Out of hundreds of English-speakingchildren we have not found one testing significantly above age who had asignificantly low vocabulary; and correspondingly, those who test muchbelow age never have a high vocabulary. 

Occasionally, however, a subject tests somewhat higher or lower invocabulary than the mental age would lead us to expect. This is oftenthe case with dull children in cultured homes and with very intelligentchildren whose home environment has not stimulated language development. But even in these cases we are not seriously misled, for the dull childof fortunate home surroundings shows his dullness in the quality of hisdefinitions if not in their quantity; while the bright child ofilliterate parents shows his intelligence in the aptness and accuracy ofhis definitions. 

We have not worked out a satisfactory method of scoring the quality ofdefinitions in our vocabulary test, but these differences will bereadily observed by the trained examiner. Definitions in terms of useand definitions which are slightly inaccurate or hazy are quitecharacteristic of the lower mental ages. Children of the lower mentalage have also a tendency to venture wild guesses at words they do notknow. This is especially characteristic of retarded subjects and isanother example of their weakness of auto-criticism. One feeble-mindedboy of 12 years, with a mental age of 8 years, glibly and confidentlygave definitions for every one of the hundred words. About 70 of thedefinitions 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 haveproved 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 shouldbe shown before the half-dollar. 

SCORING. _All six coins must be correctly named. _ If a response ischanged 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 haveused 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 acomfortable position for writing, and say: "_I want you to writesomething for me as nicely as you can. Write these words: 'See thelittle 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 toremember 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 easilyrecognized, and if no word has been omitted. Ordinary mistakes ofspelling are disregarded. The rule is that the mistake in spelling mustnot mutilate the word beyond easy recognition. The performance may begraded by the use of Thorndike's handwriting scale. The handwriting of8-year-old children who have been in school not less than one year ormore than two usually falls between quality 7 and quality 9 on thisscale, but we shall, perhaps, not be too liberal if we consider aperformance satisfactory which does not grade below quality 6, providedit is not seriously mutilated by errors, omissions, etc. [62]

[62] See scoring card for samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactoryperformances. 

REMARKS. This test found a place in year VIII of Binet's 1908 scale, buthas been omitted from all the other revisions, including Binet's own. Bobertag did not even regard the test as worthy of a trial. Theuniversal criticism has been that it is a test of schooling rather thanof intelligence. That the performance depends, in a certain sense, uponspecial instruction is self-evident. Without such instruction no childof 8 years, however intelligent, would be able to pass the test. Naturedoes not give us a conventionalized language, either written or spoken. It must be acquired. It is also true that a high-grade feeble-mindedchild, say 8 years of age and of 6-year intelligence, is sometimes(though not always) able to pass the test after two years ofschool instruction. It is exceedingly improbable, however, that afeeble-minded subject with less than 6-year intelligence will ever beable 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 childunless it is known that he has had at least a full year of the usualschool instruction. (2) Ability to pass the test after only two years ofschool instruction is almost certain proof that the child has reached amental level of at least 6 years. (3) Failure to pass the test must beregarded as a grave symptom in the case of the child 9 or more years ofage who is known to have attended school as much as two years. (4) Formental levels higher than 8 years the test has hardly any diagnosticvalue, since feeble-minded persons of 8- or 9-year intelligence canusually be taught to write quite legibly. 

If the limitations above set forth are kept in mind, the test is by nomeans without value, and is always worth giving as a supplementary test. Learning to write simple sentences from dictation is no meanaccomplishment. It demands, in the first place, a fairly completemastery of rather difficult muscular coördinations. Moreover, thesecoördinations must be firmly associated with the corresponding lettersand words, for if the writing coördinations are not fairly automatic, somuch attention will be required to carry them out that the child willnot be able to remember what he has been told to write. The necessity ofremembering the passage acts as a distraction, and writing fromdictation 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 dayof the week, or _vice versa_, we merely repeat the question withsuitable 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 anerror and spontaneously corrects it, the change is allowed, butcorrections must not be called for or suggested. 

REMARKS. Binet originally located this test in year IX, butunfortunately moved it to year VIII in the 1911 revision. Kuhlmann, Goddard, and Huey all retain it in year IX, where, according to our owndata, it unquestionably belongs. With the exception of Binet's 1911results, the statistics for the test are in remarkably close agreementfor children in France, Germany, England, and Eastern and Western UnitedStates. It seems that practically all children in civilized countrieshave ample opportunity to learn the divisions of the year, month, andweek, and to become oriented with respect to these divisions. Specialinstruction is doubtless capable of hastening time orientation to acertain degree, but not greatly. Binet tells of a French _écolematernelle_ attended by children 4 to 6 years of age, where instructionwas given daily in regard to the date, and yet not a single one of thechildren was able to pass this test. This is a beautiful illustration ofthe futility of precocious teaching. In spite of well-meant instruction, it is not until the age of 8 or 9 years that children have enoughcomprehension of time periods, and sufficient interest in them, to keepvery close track of the date. Failure to pass the test at the age of10 or 11 years is a decidedly unfavorable sign, unless the error is veryslight. 

The fact that normal adults are occasionally unable to give the day ofthe month is no argument against the validity of the test, since thesystem of tests is so constructed as to allow for accidental failures onany particular test. As a matter of fact, very nearly 100 per cent ofnormal 12-year-old children pass this test. 

The unavoidable fault of the test is its lack of uniformity indifficulty at different dates. It is easier for school children to givethe day of the week on Monday or Friday than on Tuesday, Wednesday, orThursday. Mistakes in giving the day of the month are less likely tooccur at the beginning or end of the month than at any other time, whilemistakes in naming the month are most likely to occur then. 

It is interesting to compare the four parts of this test in regard todifficulty. Binet and Bobertag both state that ability to name the yearcomes last, but they give no figures. Our own data show that the fourparts of the test are of almost exactly the same difficulty and thatthis is true at all ages. 

IX,  2. ARRANGING FIVE WEIGHTS

Use the five weights, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 grams. Be sure that theweights are identical in appearance. The weights may be made asdescribed under V,  1, or they may be purchased of C.  H. Stoelting & Co. , Chicago, Illinois. If no weights are at hand one of the alternativetests may be substituted. 

PROCEDURE. Place the five boxes on the table in an irregular groupbefore the child and say: "_See the boxes. They all look alike, don'tthey? But they are not alike. Some of them are heavy, some are not quiteso heavy, and some are still lighter. No two weigh the same. Now, I wantyou to find the heaviest one and place it here. Then find the one thatis just a little lighter and put it here. Then put the next lighter onehere, and the next lighter one here, and the lightest of all at thisend_ (pointing each time at the appropriate spot). _Do you understand?_"Whatever the child answers, in order to make sure that he doesunderstand, we repeat the instructions thus: "_Remember now, that no twoweights are the same. Find the heaviest one and put it here, the nextheaviest here, and lighter, lighter, until you have the very lightesthere. Ready; go ahead. _"

It is best to follow very closely the formula here given, otherwisethere is danger of stating the directions so abstractly that the subjectcould not comprehend them. A formula like "_I want you to arrange theblocks in a gradually decreasing series according to weight_" would beGreek to most children of 10 years. 

If the subject still seems at a loss to know what to do, theinstructions may be again repeated. But no further help of any kind maybe given. Do not tell the subject to take the blocks one at a time inthe hand and try them, and do not illustrate by hefting the blocksyourself. It is a part of the test to let the subject find his ownmethod. 

Give three trials, shuffling the boxes after each. Do not repeat theinstructions before the second and third trials unless the subject hasused an absurd procedure in the previous trial. 

SCORING. The test is passed if the blocks are arranged in the correctorder _twice out of three trials_. Always record the order ofarrangement and note the number and extent of displacement. Obviously anarrangement like 12-6-15-3-9 is very much more serious than one like15-12-6-9-3, but we require that two trials be absolutely without error. 

Scoring is facilitated if the blocks are marked on the bottom so thatthey may be easily identified. It is then necessary to exercise somecare to see that the subject does not examine the bottom of the blocksfor a clue as to the correct order. 

REMARKS. Binet originally located this test in year IX, but in his 1911revision changed it to year VIII. Other revisions have retained it inyear IX. The correct location depends upon the weights used and upon theprocedure and scoring. Kuhlmann uses weights of 3, 9, 18, 27, 36, and45 grams, and this probably makes the test easier. Bobertag tried twosets of boxes, one set being of larger dimensions than the other. Thelarger gave decidedly the more errors. If we require only one success inthree 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 movedupward 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 thecomparison by first hefting and arranging the weights while the subjectlooks on. We prefer to keep the test in its original form, and with theprocedure and scoring we have used it is well located in year IX. 

Wallin carries his assistance still further by saying, after the firstblock has been placed, "Now, find the heaviest of the four, " and afterthe second has been placed, "Now, find the heaviest of the three, " etc. Finally, when the arrangement has been made, he tells the subject to trythem again to make sure the order is correct, allowing the subject tomake whatever changes he thinks necessary. This procedure robs the testof its most valuable features. The experiment was not devised primarilyas a test of sensory discrimination, for it has long been recognizedthat individuals who have developed as far as the 9- or 10-year level ofintelligence 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 ofthe task and the setting of a goal to be attained; secondly, upon thechoice of a suitable method for realizing the goal; and finally, uponthe ability to keep the end clearly in consciousness until all the stepsnecessary for its attainment have been gone through. Elementary as arethe processes involved, they represent the prototype of all purposefulbehavior. The statesman, the lawyer, the teacher, the physician, thecarpenter, all in their own way and with their own materials, arecontinually engaged in setting goals, choosing means, and inhibiting themultitudinous appeals of irrelevant and distracting ideas. 

In this experiment the subject may fail in any one of the threerequirements of the test or in all of them. (1) He may not comprehendthe instructions and so be unable to set the goal. (2) Thoughunderstanding what is expected of him, he may adopt an absurd method ofcarrying out the task. Or (3) he may lose sight of the end and begin toplay with the blocks, stacking them on top of one another, buildingtrains, tossing them about, etc. Sometimes the guiding idea is notcompletely 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 hishalf-rational, half-irrational procedure until all the blocks have beenarranged. 

It is essential, therefore, to supplement the mere record of success orfailure by jotting down a brief but accurate description of theperformance. Note any hesitation or inability to grasp the instructions. Note especially any absurd procedure, such as placing all the blockswithout hefting any of them, comparing only some of them, holding themup and shaking them, hefting two at once in the same hand, etc. Theideal method, of course, is to try all the blocks carefully beforeplacing any of them, then to make a tentative arrangement, and finally, to correct this tentative arrangement by means of individualcomparisons. A slight departure from this method does not always bringfailure, but it renders success less probable. As a rule it is only thevery intelligent children of 10 years who think to test out their firstarrangement by making a final and additional trial of each block inturn. Contrary to what might be supposed, success is slightly favored byhefting the blocks successively with one hand rather than by taking onein each hand for simultaneous comparison, but as the child cannot beexpected to know this, we must regard the two methods as equallylogical. 

The test of arranging weights has met universal praise. Its specialadvantage is that it tests the subject's intelligence in themanipulation of _things_ rather than his capacity for dealing with_abstractions_. It tests his ability to do something rather than hisability to express himself in language. It throws light upon certainfactors of motor adaptation and practical judgment which play a greatpart in the everyday life of the average human being. It depends aslittle upon school, perhaps, as any other test of the scale, and it isreadily usable with children of all nations without danger of beingmaterially altered in translation Moreover, it is always an interestingtest for the child. Bobertag goes so far as to say that any 8- or 9-yearchild who passes this test cannot possibly be feeble-minded. This may betrue; but the converse is hardly the case; that is, the failure of olderchildren is by no means certain proof of mental retardation. The sameobservation, however, applies equally well to many other of the Binettests, some of which correlate more closely with true mental age thanthis one. A rather considerable fraction of normal 12-year-olds fail onit, and it is in fact somewhat less dependable than certain other testsif we wish to differentiate between 9-year and 11-year intelligence. Butit 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 penciland paper. If the subject forgets the statement of the problem, it ispermissible to repeat it once, but only once. The response should bemade in ten or fifteen seconds for each problem. 

SCORING, The test is passed if _two out of three_ problems are answeredcorrectly in the allotted time. In case two answers are given to aproblem, we follow the usual rule of counting the second and ignoringthe first. 

REMARKS. Problems of this nature, when thoroughly standardized, areextremely 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, 12from 15, etc. Such subtractions, when given as problems in subtraction, are readily solved by practically all normal 8-year-olds who haveattended school as much as two years. The problems of the test have atwofold difficulty: (1) The statement of the problem must becomprehended and held in mind until the solution has been arrived at;(2) the problem is so stated that the subject must himself select thefundamental operation which applies. The latter difficulty is somewhatthe greater of the two, addition sometimes being employed instead ofsubtraction. 

It is just such difficulties as this that prove so perplexing to thefeeble-minded. High-grade defectives, although they require more thanthe usual amount of drill and are likely to make occasional errors, arenevertheless capable of learning to add, subtract, multiply, and dividefairly well. Their main trouble comes in deciding which of theseoperations a given problem calls for. They can master routine, but asregards initiative, judgment, and power to reason they are littleeducable. The psychology and pedagogy of mental deficiency is epitomizedin this statement. 

There has been little disagreement as to the proper location of the testof making change, but various procedures have been employed. Coins havegenerally been employed, in which case the subject is actually allowedto make the change. Most other revisions have also given only a singleproblem, usually 4 cents out of 20 cents, or 4 out of 25, or 9 out of25. It is evident that these are not all of equal difficulty. There isgeneral agreement, however, that normal children of 9 years should beable 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 ofsome 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. Thethree words are 'boy, ' 'ball, ' 'river. ' Go ahead and make up a sentencethat 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, andthat the reply is to be given orally. 

If the subject does not understand what is wanted, the instruction maybe repeated, but it is not permissible to illustrate what a sentence isby giving one. There must be no preliminary practice. 

A curious misunderstanding which is sometimes encountered comes fromassuming that the sentence must be constructed entirely of the threewords given. If it appears that the subject is stumbling over thisdifficulty, we explain: "_The three words must be put with some otherwords so that all of them together will make a sentence. _"

Nothing is said about hurrying, but if a sentence is not given withinone minute the rule is to count that part of the test a failure and toproceed 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 onesentence, as this is implied in the formula used and should beunderstood. 

SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ sentences aresatisfactory. In order to be satisfactory a sentence must fulfill thefollowing requirements: (1) It must either be a simple sentence, or, ifcompound, must not contain more than two distinct ideas; and (2) it mustnot 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 extensiveillustration. 

(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 wasfirst used by Masselon and is known as "the Masselon experiment. "Meumann, who used it in a rather extended experiment, [65] finds it agood test of intelligence and a reliable index as to the richness, definiteness, and maturity of the associative processes. As Meumannshows, it is instructive to study the qualitative differences betweenthe responses of bright and dull children, apart from questions ofsentence structure. These differences are especially discerniblein (a) the logical qualities of the associations, and (b) thedefiniteness of statement. As regards (a), bright children are muchmore likely to use the given words as keystones in the construction of asentence which would be logically suggested by them. For example, _donkey_, _blows_, suggest some such sentence as, "The donkey receivesblows because he is lazy. " In like manner we have found that the words_work_, _money_, _men_ usually suggest to the more intelligent childrena sentence like "Men work for their money" (or "because they needmoney, " etc. ), while the dull child is more likely to give some suchsentence 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 andfree enough from outright absurdity to satisfy the standard of scoringwhich we have set forth, is likely to express ideas which are more orless nondescript, ideas not logically suggested by the set of wordsgiven. 

[65] "Ueber eine neue Methode der Intelligenzprüfung und über den Wertder Kombinationsmethoden, " in _Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologieund 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 combinemore or less separate and isolated elements into a logical whole is oneof the most essential features of intelligence. The ability to do so ina given case depends, in the first place, upon the number and logicalquality of the associations which have previously been made with each ofthe given elements separately, and in the second place, upon thereadiness with which these ideational stores yield up the particularassociations necessary for weaving the given words into some kind ofunity. The child must pass from what is given to what is not given butmerely suggested. This requires a certain amount of invention. Scatteredfragments must be conceived as the skeleton of a thought, and thisskeleton, or partial skeleton, must be assembled and made whole. Thetask is analogous to that which confronts the palæontologist, who isable to reconstruct, with a high degree of certainty, the entireskeleton of an extinct animal from the evidence furnished by three orfour fragments of bones. It is no wonder, therefore, that subjects whoseideational stores are scanty, and whose associations are based uponaccidental rather than logical connections, find the test one ofpeculiar difficulty. Invention thrives in a different soil. 

Binet located this test in year X. Goddard and Kuhlmann assign it thesame location, though their actual statistics agree closely with ourown. 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 Binetprocedure, merely substituting for Paris the name of a city better knownto the subject. Binet's requirement of a written response also makes thetest harder. 

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to uniformity in the use of the test comesfrom the difficulty of scoring, particularly in deciding whether thesentence contains enough absurdity to disqualify it, and whether itexpresses three separate ideas or only two. It is hoped that the ratherlarge variety of sample responses which we have given will reduce thesedifficulties to a minimum. 

An additional word is necessary in regard to what constitutes anabsurdity in (b). A sentence like "There are some rivers and lakes inthe desert" is not an absurdity in certain parts of Western UnitedStates. In Professor Ordahl's tests at Reno, Nevada, many children whoseintelligence was altogether above suspicion gave this reply. Thestatement is, indeed, perfectly true for the semi-arid region in thevicinity of Reno known as "the desert. " On the other hand, suchsentences as "The desert is full of rivers and lakes, " or "There areforty rivers and lakes in the desert, " can hardly be consideredsatisfactory. Similar difficulties are presented by (c), though not sofrequently. "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. Arhyme is a word that sounds like another word. Two words rhyme if theyend in the same sound. Understand?_" Whether the child says heunderstands or not, we proceed to illustrate what a rhyme is, asfollows: "_Take the two words 'hat' and 'cat. ' They sound alike and sothey make a rhyme. 'Hat, ' 'rat, ' 'cat, ' 'bat' all rhyme with oneanother. _"

That is, we first explain what a rhyme is and then we give anillustration. A large majority of American children who have reached theage of 9 years understand perfectly what a rhyme is, without anyillustration. A few, however, think they understand, but do not; and inorder to insure that all are given equal advantage it is necessary neverto omit the illustration. 

After the illustration say: "_Now, I am going to give you a word and youwill have one minute to find as many words as you can that rhyme withit. The word is 'day. ' Name all the words you can think of that rhymewith 'day. '_"

If the child fails with the first word, before giving the second werepeat the explanation and give sample rhymes for _day_; otherwise weproceed without further explanation to _mill_ and _spring_, saying, "_Now, you have another minute to name all the words you can think ofthat rhyme with 'mill, '_" etc. Apart from the mention of "one minute"say nothing to suggest hurrying, as this tends to throw some childreninto mental confusion. 

SCORING. Passed if in _two out of the three_ parts of the experiment thechild finds _three words_ which rhyme with the word given, the timelimit for each series being _one minute_. Note that in each case theremust be three words in addition to the word given. These must be realwords, not meaningless syllables or made-up words. However, we should beliberal 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 thistest upon intelligence could not be very great. Sound associationsbetween words may be contrasted unfavorably with associations like thoseof cause and effect, part to whole, whole to part, opposites, etc. Butwhen we pass from _a-priori_ considerations to an examination of theactual data, we find that the giving of rhymes is closely correlatedwith general intelligence. 

The 9-year-olds who test at or above 10 years nearly always do well infinding rhymes, while 9-year-olds who test as low as 8 years seldompass. 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 normalchildren of corresponding mental age, the percentage successes for themrises rapidly between mental age 8 and mental age 10 or 11. 

Closer psychological analysis of the processes involved will show whythis is true. To find rhymes for a given word means that one must huntout verbal associations under the direction of a guiding idea. Everyword has innumerable associations and many of these tend, in greater orless degree, to be aroused when the stimulus word is given. In order tosucceed with the test, however, it is necessary to inhibit allassociations which are not relevant to the desired end. The directingidea must be held so firmly in mind that it will really direct thethought associations. Besides acting to inhibit the irrelevant, it mustcreate a sort of magnetic stress (to borrow a figure from physics) whichwill give dominance to those associative tendencies pointing in theright direction. Even the feeble-minded child of imbecile grade has inhis vocabulary a great many words which rhyme with _day_, _mill_, and_spring_. He fails on the test because his verbal associations cannot besubjugated to the influence of a directing idea. The end to be attaineddoes not dominate consciousness sufficiently to create more than a faintstress. 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 inoperativeand the child gives _mountain_, _valley_, or some other irrelevantassociation. The lack of associations, however, is a more frequent causeof failure than inability to inhibit the irrelevant. 

If any one supposes that finding rhymes does not draw upon the highermental powers, let him try the experiment upon himself in various stagesof mental efficiency, say at 9 A. M. , when mentally refreshed by a goodnight of sleep and again when fatigued and sleepy. Poets questioned byGalton on this point all testified to the greater difficulty of findingrhymes when mentally fatigued. In this and in many other respects themental activities of the fatigued or sleepy individual approach the typeof mentation which is normal to the feeble-minded. 

It is important to note that adults make a less favorable showingin this test than normal children of corresponding mental age, Mr.  Knollin's "hoboes" of 12-year intelligence doing hardly as well asschool children of 10-year intelligence. Those who are habituallyemployed in school exercises probably acquire an adeptness in verbalassociations which is later gradually lost in the preoccupations of reallife. 

There has been more disagreement as to the proper location of this testthan of any other test of the Binet scale. Binet placed it in year XIIof the 1908 scale, but shifted it to year XV in 1911. Kuhlmann retainsit in year XII, while Goddard drops it down to year XI. However, when weexamine the actual statistics for normal children we do not find verymarked disagreement, and such disagreement as is present can be largelyaccounted for by variations in procedure and by differing conclusionsdrawn from identical data. In the first place, Binet gave but one trial. This, of course, makes the test much harder than when three trials aregiven and only two successes are required. To make one trial equal indifficulty to three trials we should perhaps need to demand only tworhymes, instead of three, in the one trial. In the second place, theword used by Binet (_obeissance_) is much harder than one-syllable wordslike _day_, _mill_, and _spring_. Finally, the wide shift of the testfrom year XII to year XV was not justified by the statistics of Binethimself, and the figures of Kuhlmann and Goddard are really inexceptionally close agreement with our own, notwithstanding the factthat Goddard required three successes instead of two. In four series oftests, considered together, we have found 62 per cent passing atyear IX, 81 per cent at year X, 83 per cent at year XI, and 94 per centat year XII. 

IX, ALTERNATIVE TEST 1: NAMING THE MONTHS

PROCEDURE. Simply ask the subject to "_name all the months of theyear_. " Do not start him off by naming one month; give no look ofapproval or disapproval as the months are being named, and make nosuggestions or comments of any kind. 

When the months have been named, we "check up" the performance byasking: "_What month comes before April?_" "_What month comes beforeJuly?_" "_What month comes before November?_"

SCORING. Passed if the months are named in about _fifteen or twentyseconds with no more than one error_ of omission, repetition, ordisplacement, and if _two out of the three check questions_ are answeredcorrectly. Disregard place of beginning. 

REMARKS. Some are inclined to consider this test of little value, because of its supposed dependence on accidental training. With thisopinion we cannot fully agree. The arguments already given in favor ofthe retention of naming the days of the week (year VII), apply equallywell in the present case. It has been shown, however, that age, apartfrom intelligence, does have some effect on the ability to name themonths. Defective adults of 9-year intelligence do about as well with itas normal children of 10-year intelligence. 

The test appears in year X of Binet's 1908 scale and in year IX of the1911 revision. Goddard places it correctly in year IX, while Kuhlmannand Bobertag have omitted it. 

IX, ALTERNATIVE TEST 2: COUNTING THE VALUE OF STAMPS

PROCEDURE. Place before the subject a cardboard on which are pastedthree 1-cent and three 2-cent stamps arranged as follows: 111222. Besure to lay the card so that the stamps will be right side up for thechild. 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 thiscosts_ (pointing to a 2-cent stamp). _Now, how much money would it taketo 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'sspontaneous curiosity has led him to find out and remember their values. If the individual values are known, but the first answer is wrong, asecond trial may be given. In such cases, however, it is necessary to beon guard against guessing. 

If the child merely names an incorrect sum without saying anything toindicate how he arrived at his answer, it is well to tell him to figureit up aloud. "_Tell me how you got it. _"

SCORING. Passed if the correct value is given in not over fifteenseconds. 

REMARKS. The value of this test may be questioned on two grounds: (1)That it has an ambiguous significance, since failure to pass it mayresult either from incorrect addition or from lack of knowledge of theindividual values of the stamps; (2) that familiarity with stamps andtheir values is so much a matter of accident and special instructionthat the test is not fair. 

Both criticisms are in a measure valid. The first, however, appliesequally well to a great many useful intelligence tests. In fact, it isonly a minority in which success depends on but one factor. The othercriticism has less weight than would at first appear. While it is, ofcourse, not impossible for an intelligent child to arrive at the age of9 years without having had reasonable opportunity to learn the cost ofthe common postage stamps, the fact is that a large majority have hadthe opportunity and that most of those of normal intelligence have takenadvantage of it. It is necessary once more to emphasize the fact that inits 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 theweek or the months of the year, giving the date, tying a bow-knot, distinguishing right and left, naming the colors, etc. , this one alsothrows light on the child's spontaneous interest in common objects. Itis mainly the children of deficient intellectual curiosity who do nottake the trouble to learn these things at somewhere near the expectedage. 

The test was located in year VIII of the Binet scale. However, Binetused coins, three single and three double sous. Since we do not haveeither a half-cent or a 2-cent coin, it has been necessary to substitutepostage stamps. This changes the nature of the test and makes it muchharder. It becomes less a test of ability to do a simple sum, and more atest of knowledge as to the value of the stamps used. That the test iseasy enough for year VIII when it can be given in the original form isindicated by all the French, German, and English statistics available, but four separate series of Stanford tests agree in finding it too hardfor year VIII when stamps are substituted and the test is carried outaccording 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 becorrectly defined. 

X,  2. DETECTING ABSURDITIES

PROCEDURE. Say to the child: "_I am going to read a sentence which hassomething foolish in it, some nonsense. I want you to listen carefullyand tell me what is foolish about it. _" Then read the sentences, ratherslowly and in a matter-of-fact voice, saying after each: "_What isfoolish 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 childis silent, the sentence should be repeated; but no other questions orsuggestions of any kind are permissible. Such questions as "_Could theroad be downhill both ways?_" or, "_Do you think the girl could havekilled 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 easyto judge from the answer given whether the absurdity has really beendetected or not. In such cases ask him to explain himself, using somesuch formula as: "_I am not sure I know what you mean. Explain what youmean. Tell me what is foolish in the sentence I read. _" This usuallybrings a reply the correctness or incorrectness of which is moreapparent, while at the same time the formula is so general that itaffords no hint as to the correct answer. Additional questions must beused with extreme caution. 

SCORING. Passed if the absurdity is detected in _four out of the five_statements. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactoryanswers:--

(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 andserviceable tests of the entire scale. It is little influenced byschooling, and it comes nearer than any other to being a test ofthat species of mother-wit which we call common sense. Like the"comprehension questions, " it may be called a test of judgment, usingthis term in the colloquial and not in the logical sense. The stupidperson, whether depicted in literature, proverb, or the ephemeral jokecolumn, is always (and justly, it would seem) characterized by a hugetolerance for absurd contradictions and by a blunt sensitivity for thefine points of a joke. Intellectual discrimination and judgment areinferior. The ideas do not cross-light each other, but remain relativelyisolated. Hence, the most absurd contradictions are swallowed, so tospeak, without arousing the protest of the critical faculty. The latter, indeed, is only a name for the tendency of intellectually irreconcilableelements 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 andstrengthens _pari passu_ with the growing wealth of inter-associationsamong ideas; but in the average child it is not until the age of about10 years that it becomes equal to tasks like those presented in thistest. Eight-year intelligence hardly ever scores more than two or threecorrect answers out of five. By 12, the critical ability has so fardeveloped that the test is nearly always passed. It is an invaluabletest 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, forit was found that owing to timidity, deference, and suggestibilitynormal children often failed on such questions. Deference is more markedin normal than in feeble-minded children, and it is because of theinfluence of this trait that it is necessary always to forewarn thesubject that the sentence to be given contains nonsense. 

Binet located the test in year XI of the 1908 scale, but changed it toyear X in 1911. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it in year XI. The largemajority of the statistics, including those of Goddard and Kuhlmann, warrant the location of the test in year X. Not all have used the sameabsurdities, and these have not been worded uniformly. Most haverequired three successes out of five, but Bobertag and Kuhlmann requirethree out of four; Bobertag's procedure is also different in that hedoes not forewarn the child that an absurdity is to follow. 

The present form of the test is the result of three successiverefinements. It will be noted that we have made two substitutions inBinet's list of absurdities. Those omitted from the original scale are:"_I have three brothers--Paul, Ernest, and myself_, " and, "_If I weregoing to commit suicide I would not choose Friday, because Friday is anunlucky day and would bring me misfortune. _" The last has a puzzlingfeature which makes it much too hard for year X, and the other isobjectionable with children who are accustomed to hear a foreignlanguage in which the form of expression used in the absurdity isidiomatically correct. 

The two we have substituted for these objectionable absurdities are, "The road downhill" and "What the engineer said. " The five we haveused, though of nearly equal difficulty, are here listed in the orderfrom easiest to hardest. Our series as a whole is slightly easier thanBinet's. 

X,  3. DRAWING DESIGNS FROM MEMORY

PROCEDURE. Use the designs shown on the accompanying printed form. Ifcopies are used they must be exact in size and shape. Before showing thecard say: "_This card has two drawings on it. I am going to show them toyou for ten seconds, then I will take the card away and let you drawfrom memory what you have seen. Examine both drawings carefully andremember that you have only ten seconds. _"

Provide pencil and paper and then show the card for ten seconds, holdingit at right angles to the child's line of vision and with the designs inthe position given in the plate. Have the child draw the designsimmediately after they are removed from sight. 

SCORING. The test is passed if _one of the designs is reproducedcorrectly and the other about half correctly_. "Correctly" means thatthe _essential plan_ of the design has been grasped and reproduced. Ordinary irregularities due to lack of motor skill or to hasty executionare disregarded. "Half correctly" means that some essential part of thedesign has been omitted or misplaced, or that parts have been added. 

The sample reproductions shown on the scoring card will serve as aguide. It will be noted that an inverted design, or one whose right andleft sides have been transposed, is counted only half correct, howeverperfect it many be in other respects; also that design _b_ is countedonly 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 rapidanalysis would seem to be the most important, for if the designs areanalyzed they may be reproduced from a verbal memory of the analysis. Without some analysis it would hardly be possible to remember thedesigns at all, as one of them contains thirteen lines and the othertwelve. The memory span for unrelated objects is far too limited topermit us to grasp and retain that number of unrelated impressions. Success is possible only by grouping the lines according to theirrelationships, so that several of them are given a unitary value andremembered as one. In this manner, the design to the right, which iscomposed of twelve lines, may be reduced to four elements: (1) The outerrectangle; (2) the inner rectangle; (3) the off-center position of theinner rectangle; and (4) the joining of the angles. Of course the childdoes not ordinarily make an analysis as explicit as this; but analysisof some kind, even though it be unconscious, is necessary to success. 

Ability to pass the test indicates the presence, in a certain definiteamount, of the tendency for the contents of consciousness to fuse into ameaningful whole. Failure indicates that the elements have maintainedtheir unitary character or have fused inadequately. It is seen, therefore, that the test has a close kinship with the test of memory forsentences. The latter, also, permits the fusion or grouping ofimpressions according to meaning, with the result that five or six timesas many meaningful syllables as nonsense syllables or digits can beretained. 

Binet had many more failures on design _a_ than on design _b_. This wasprobably due to the fact that he showed the designs with our _b_ to theleft. A majority of subjects, probably because of the influence ofreading habits, examine first the figure to the left, and because of theshort time allowed for the inspection are unable to devote much time tothe design at the right. We have placed the design of greater intrinsicdifficulty at the left, with the result that the failures are almostequally divided between the two. 

Binet used this test in his unstandardized series of 1905, omitted it in1908, but included it in the 1911 revision, locating it in year X. Except for Goddard, who recommends year XI, there is rather generalagreement that the test belongs at year X. Our own data show that it maybe placed either at year X or year XI, according as the grading is rigidor 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 heavytype and should not contain the bars dividing it into memories. TheStanford record booklet contains the selection in two forms, onesuitable for use in scoring, the other in heavy type to be read by thesubject. 

PROCEDURE. Hand the selection to the subject, who should be seatedcomfortably in a good light, and say: "_I want you to read this for meas nicely as you can. _" The subject must read aloud. 

Pronounce all the words which the subject is unable to make out, notallowing 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, ormispronunciation of one word. 

The subject is not warned in advance that he will be asked to reportwhat he has read, but as soon as he has finished reading, put theselection out of sight and say: "_Very well done. Now, I want you totell me what you read. Begin at the first and tell everything you canremember. _" After the subject has repeated everything he can recall andhas 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 thechild stops, to prompt him with such questions as, "_And what next?Where were the houses burned? What happened to the fireman?_" etc. Thereport must be spontaneous. 

Now and then, though not often, a subject hesitates or even refuses totry, saying he is unable to do it. Perhaps he has misunderstood therequest 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. _" Othersmisunderstand in a different way, and thinking they are expected to tellmerely what the story is about, they say: "It was about some houses thatburned. " In such cases we repeat the instructions with special emphasison the words _all you can remember_. 

SCORING. The test is passed _if the selection is read in thirty-fiveseconds with not more than two errors, and if the report contains atleast eight "memories. "_ By underscoring the memories correctlyreproduced, and by interlineations to show serious departures from thetext, the record can be made complete with a minimum of trouble. 

The main difficulty in scoring is to decide whether a memory has beenreproduced correctly enough to be counted. Absolutely literalreproduction is not expected. The rule is to count all memories whosethought is reproduced with only minor changes in the wording. "It tookquite 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 thecenter"; "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"; "whowas sick" for "who was asleep"; etc. Occasionally we may give halfcredit, as in the case of "was seventeen thousand dollars" for "wasfifty thousand dollars"; "and fifteen families" for "and seventeenfamilies, " etc. 

REMARKS. Are we warranted in using at all as a measure of intelligence atest which depends as much on instruction as this one does? Many areinclined to answer this question in the negative. The test has beenomitted from the revisions of Goddard, Kuhlmann, and Binet himself. Asregards Binet's earlier test of reading for two memories, in year VIII, there could hardly be any difference of opinion. The ability to read atthat age depends so much on the accident of environment that the test ismeaningless unless we know all about the conditions which havesurrounded 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 passit for lack of the requisite school instruction. Children of 10 yearswho have attended school with reasonable regularity for three years arepractically always able to read the selection in thirty-five seconds andwithout over two mistakes unless they are retarded almost to theborder-line of mental deficiency. Of our 10-year-olds who failed to meetthe test, only a fourth did so because of inability to meet the readingrequirements as regards time or mistakes. The remaining failures werecaused by inadequate report, and most of these subjects were of thedistinctly retarded group. 

We may conclude, therefore, that given anything approaching normaleducational advantages, the test is really a measure of intelligence. Used with due caution, it is perhaps as valuable as any other test inthe scale. It is only necessary, in case of failure, to ascertain thefacts regarding the child's educational opportunities. Even thisprecaution is superfluous in case the subject tests as low as 8 years bythe remainder of the scale. A safe rule is to omit the test from thecalculation of mental age if the subject has not attended school theequivalent of two or three years. 

It has been contended by some that tests in which success depends uponlanguage mastery cannot be real tests of intelligence. By such criticslanguage tests have been set over against intelligence tests ascontrasting opposites. It is easy to show, however, that this view issuperficial and psychologically unsound. Every one who has anacquaintance with the facts of mental growth knows that language masteryof some degree is the _sine qua non_ of conceptual thinking. Languagegrowth, in fact, mirrors the entire mental development. There are fewmore reliable indications of a subject's stage of intellectual maturitythan his mastery of language. 

The rate of reading, for example, is a measure of the rate ofassociation. Letters become associated together in certain combinationsmaking words, words into word groups and sentences. Recognition is forthe most part an associative process. Rapid and accurate associationwill mean ready recognition of the printed form. Since language units(whether letters, words, or word groups) have more or less preferredassociations according to their habitual arrangement into larger units, it comes about that in the normal mind under normal conditions thesepreferred sequences arouse the apperceptive complex necessary to make arunning recognition rapid and easy. It is reasonable to suppose that inthe subnormal mind the habitual common associations are less firmlyfixed, thus diminishing the effectiveness of the ever-changingapperceptive expectancy. Reading is, therefore, largely dependent onwhat James calls the "fringe of consciousness" and the "consciousness ofmeaning. " In reading connected matter, every unit is big with a mass oftendencies. The smaller and more isolated the unit, the greater is thenumber of possibilities. Every added unit acts as a modifier limitingthe number of tendencies, until we have finally, in case of a largemental unit, a fairly manageable whole. When the most logical andsuitable of these associations arise easily from subconsciousness toconsciousness, recognition is made easy, and their doing so will dependon whether the habitual relations of the elements have left permanenttraces in the mind. 

The reading of the subnormal subject bears a close analogy to thereading of nonsense matter by the normal person. It has been ascertainedby experiment that such reading requires about twice as much time as thereading of connected matter. This is true for the reason that out ofthousands of associations possible with each word, no particularassociation is favored. The apperceptive expectancy, practically _nil_in the reading of nonsense material, must be decidedly deficient in allpoor reading. 

Furthermore, in the case of the ordinary reader there is a feeling ofrightness or wrongness about the thought sequences. That lessintelligent subjects have this sense of fitness to a much less degree isevidenced by their passing over words so mutilated in pronunciation asto deprive them of all meaning. The transposition of letters and words, and the failure to observe marks of punctuation, point to the samething. In other words, all the reading of the stupid subject is withmaterial which to him is more or less nonsensical. [66]

[66] See "Genius and Stupidity, " by Lewis M. Terman, in _PedagogicalSeminary_, 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 recognizingprinted words, do not sense shades of meaning. Their reading is by smallunits. Words and phrases do not fuse into one mental content, but remainrelatively unconnected. The expression is monotonous and the voice hasmore of the unnatural "schoolroom" pitch. They read more slowly, moreoften misplace the emphasis, and miscall more words. In short, one whohas psychological insight and is acquainted with reading standards caneasily detect the symptoms of intellectual inferiority by hearing a dullsubject read a brief selection. 

The giving of memories is also significant. Feeble-minded adults whohave been well schooled are sometimes able to read the words of the textfairly fluently, but are usually unable to give more than a scantyreport of what has been read. The scope of attention has been exhaustedin the mere recognition and pronouncing of words. In general, thegreater the mechanical difficulties which a subject encounters, the lessadequate is his report of memories. 

The test has, however, one real fault. School children have a certainadvantage in it over older persons _of the same mental age_ whose schoolexperience is less recent. Adult subjects tend to give their report inless literal form. It is necessary, therefore, to give credit for thereproduction of the ideas of the passage rather than for strictlyliteral "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 hastwenty-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 werequire eight memories, as we have done, the test becomes difficultenough for non-selected school children of 10 years. Location in year Xseems preferable, because it insures that the child will almostcertainly have had the schooling requisite for learning to read aselection of this difficulty, even if he has started to school at alater age than is customary. Naturally, placing the test higher in thescale makes it more a test of report and less a test of ability torecognize 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. Eachquestion may be repeated, but its form must not be changed. It is notpermissible to make any explanation whatever as to the meaning of thequestion, except to substitute _beginning_ for _undertaking_ when (b)seems not to be comprehended. 

SCORING. _Two out of the three_ questions must be answeredsatisfactorily. Study of the following classified responses should makescoring 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 ofintelligence, see page 158. 

Binet used eight questions, three "easy" and five "difficult, " andrequired that five out of eight be answered correctly in year X. Theeight 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 itwas not needed and is not entirely satisfactory. 

X,  6. NAMING SIXTY WORDS

PROCEDURE. Say: "_Now, I want to see how many different words you canname in three minutes. When I say ready, you must begin and name thewords as fast as you can, and I will count them. Do you understand? Besure 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 whatis wanted. As a rule the task is comprehended instantly and entered intowith great zest. 

Do not stare at the child, and do not say anything as the test proceedsunless there is a pause of fifteen seconds. In this event say: "_Goahead, as fast as you can. Any words will do. _" Repeat this urging afterevery pause of fifteen seconds. 

Some subjects, usually rather intelligent ones, hit upon the device ofcounting or putting words together in sentences. We then break in with:"_Counting_ (or _sentences_, as the case may be) _not allowed. You mustname separate words. Go ahead. _"

Record the individual words if possible, and mark the end of eachhalf-minute. If the words are named so rapidly that they cannot be takendown, it is easy to keep the count by making a pencil stroke for eachword. If the latter method is employed, repeated words may be indicatedby making a cross instead of a single stroke. Always make record ofrepetitions. 

SCORING. The test is passed if _sixty_ words, exclusive of repetitions, are named in three minutes. It is not allowable to accept twenty wordsin one minute or forty words in two minutes as an equivalent of theexpected score. Only real words are counted. 

REMARKS. Scoring, as we have seen, takes account only of the number ofwords. It is instructive, however, to note the kind of words given. Somesubjects, more often those of the 8- or 9-year intelligence level, givemainly isolated, detached words. As well stated by Binet, "Littlechildren exhaust an idea in naming it. They say, for example, _hat_, andthen pass on to another word without noticing that hats differ in color, in form, have various parts, different uses and accessories, and that inenumerating all these they could find a large number of words. "

Others quickly take advantage of such relationships and name many partsof an object before leaving it, or name a number of other objectsbelonging 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 distinctword groups. 

Another type of response consists in naming only objects present, orwords which present objects immediately suggest. It is unfortunate thatthis occurs, since rooms in which testing is done vary so much withrespect to furnishings. The subject who chooses this method is obviouslyhandicapped if the room is relatively bare. One way to avoid thisinfluence is to have all subjects name the words with eyes closed, butthe distraction thus caused is sometimes rather disturbing. It isperhaps best for the present to adhere to the original procedure, and tofollow the rule of making tests in a room containing few furnishings inaddition to the necessary table and chairs. 

A fourth type of response is that including a large proportion ofunusual or abstract words. This is the best of all, and is hardly everfound except with subjects who are above the 11-year intelligence level. 

It goes without saying that a response need not belong entirely to anyone of the above types. Most responses, in fact, are characterized by amixture of two or three of the types, one of them perhaps beingdominant. 

Though not without its shortcomings, the test is interesting andvaluable. Success in it does not, as one might suppose, depend solelyupon the size of the vocabulary. Even 8-year-olds ordinarily know themeaning of more than 3000 words, and by 10 years the vocabulary usuallyexceeds 5000 words, or eighty times as many as the child is expected toname in three minutes. The main factors in success are two, (1) richnessand variety of previously made associations with common words; and (2)the readiness of these associations to reinstate themselves. The youngor the retarded subject fishes in the ocean of his vocabulary with asingle hook, so to speak. He brings up each time only one word. Thesubject endowed with superior intelligence employs a net (the idea of aclass, for example) and brings up a half-dozen words or more. The latteraccomplishes a greater amount and with less effort; but it requiresintelligence and will power to avoid wasting time with detached words. 

One is again and again astonished at the poverty of associations whichthis test discloses with retarded subjects. For twenty or thirty secondssuch children may be unable to think of a single word. It would beinteresting if at such periods we could get a glimpse into the subject'sconsciousness. There must be some kind of mental content, but it seemstoo vague to be crystallized in words. The ready association of thoughtswith definite words connotes a relatively high degree of intellectualadvancement. Language forms are the short-hand of thought; withoutfacile 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 poorshowing in this test. When this happens it is usually due either toexcessive embarrassment or to a strange persistence in running down allthe words of a given class before launching out upon a new series. Occasionally, too, an intelligent subject wastes time in thinking up abeautiful list of big or unusual words. As stated by Bobertag, successis favored by a certain amount of "intellectual nonchalance, " awillingness to ignore sense and a readiness to break away from a trainof associations as soon as the "point of diminishing returns" has beenreached. This doubtless explains why adults sometimes make such asurprisingly poor showing in the test. They have less "intellectualnonchalance" than children, are less willing to subordinate suchconsiderations as completeness and logical connection to the demands ofspeed. Knollin's unemployed men of 12- to 13-year intelligence succeededno better than school children of the 10-year level. 

We do not believe, however, that this fault is serious enough to warrantthe elimination of the test. The fact is that in a large majority ofcases the score which it yields agrees fairly closely with the result ofthe scale as a whole. Subjects more than a year or two below the mentalage of 10 years seldom succeed. Those more than a year or two above the10-year level seldom fail. 

There is another reason why the test should be retained, it often hassignificance beyond that which appears in the mere number of wordsgiven. The naming of unusual and abstract words is an instance of this. An unusually large number of repetitions has symptomatic significancein the other direction. It indicates a tendency to mental stereotypy, sofrequently encountered in testing the feeble-minded. The proportion ofrepetitions made by normal children of the 10- or 11-year intelligencelevel rarely exceeds 2 or 3 per cent of the total number of words named;those of older retarded children of the same level occasionally reach6 or 8 per cent. 

It is conceivable, of course, that a more satisfactory test of thisgeneral nature could be devised; such, for example, as having thesubject name all the words he can of a given class (four-footed animals, things to eat, articles of household furniture, trees, birds, etc. ). Themain objection to this form of the test is that the performance would inall probability be more influenced by environment and formal instructionthan is the case with the test of naming sixty words. 

One other matter remains to be mentioned; namely, the relative number ofwords named in the half-minute periods. As would be expected, the rateof naming words decreases as the test proceeds. In the case of the10-year-olds, we find the average number of words for the six successivehalf-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 beginningand improve as they go. As a rule it is only the very intelligent whoimprove after the first half-minute. On the other hand, mentallyretarded subjects and very young normals exhaust themselves so quicklythat only a few words are named in the last minute. 

Binet first located this test in year XI, but shifted it to year XII in1911. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it in year XI, though Goddard'sstatistics suggest year X as the proper location, and Kuhlmann's evensuggest year IX. Kuhlmann, however, accepts fifty words as satisfactoryin case the response contains a considerable proportion of abstract orunusual words. All the American statistics except Rowe's agree inshowing 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 onlytwo trials are given, one of which must be correct. The test is somewhattoo easy for year 10 when three trials are given. 

The test of repeating six digits did not appear in the Binet scale andseems not to have been standardized until inserted in the Stanfordseries. 

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 arerequired to pass from the ability to repeat sixteen or eighteensyllables (year VI) to the ability to repeat twenty or twenty-twosyllables. Similarly in memory for digits. Five digits are almost aseasy at year VII as six at year X. Two explanations are available: (1)The increased difficulty may be accounted for by a relatively slowgrowth of memory power after the age of 6 or 7 years; or (2) theincrease in difficulty may be real, expressing an inner law as to thebehavior of the memory span in dealing with material of increasinglength. Both factors are probably involved. 

This is another of the Stanford additions to the scale. Average childrenof 10 years ordinarily pass it, but older, retarded children of 10-yearmental age make a poorer showing. In the case of mentally retardedadults, especially, the verbal memory is less exact than that of schoolchildren 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 bepurchased of C.  H. Stoelting & Co. , Chicago, Illinois. A home-made onewill do as well if care is taken to get the dimensions exact. Quarter-inch wood should be used. The inside of the frame should be3 × 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 shortside nearest him. The blocks are placed in an irregular position on theside of the frame away from the subject. Take care that the board withthe 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 thespace will be filled up. If you do it rightly they will all fit in andthere will be no space left over. Go ahead. _"

Do not tell the subject to see how quickly he can do it. Say nothingthat would even suggest hurrying, for this tends to call forth thetrial-and-error procedure even with intelligent subjects. 

[Illustration]

SCORING. The test is passed if the child succeeds in fitting the blocksinto place _three times in a total time of five minutes for the threetrials_. 

The method of procedure is fully as important as the time, but is not soeasily scored in quantitative terms. Nevertheless, the examiner shouldalways take observations on the method employed, noting especiallyany tendency to make and to repeat moves which lead to obviousimpossibilities; i. E. , moves which leave a space obviously unfitted toany of the remaining pieces. Some subjects repeat an absurd move manytimes over; others make an absurd move, but promptly correct it; others, and these are usually the bright ones, look far enough ahead to avoiderror altogether. 

REMARKS. This test was devised by Professor Freeman, was adaptedslightly by Healy and Fernald, and was first standardized byDr.  Kuhlmann. Miss Gertrude Hall has also standardized it, but on adifferent procedure from that described above. [67]

[67] _Eugenics and Social Welfare Bulletin_, No.  5, The State Board ofCharities, Albany, New York. 

The test has a lower correlation with intelligence than most of theother tests of the scale. Many bright children of 10-year intelligenceadopt the trial-and-error method and have little success, while retardedolder children of only 8-year intelligence sometimes succeed. Age, apartfrom intelligence, seems to play an important part in determining thenature of the performance. A favorable feature of the test, however, isthe fact that it makes no demand on language ability and that it bringsinto play an aspect of intelligence which is relatively neglected by theremainder of the scale. For this reason it is at least worth keeping asan 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 caseforty 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 meanby pity?_" and so on with the other words. If the meaning of theresponse is not clear, ask the subject to explain what he means. If thedefinition is in terms of the word itself, as "Pity means to pitysomeone, " "Revenge is to take revenge, " etc. , it is then necessary tosay: "_Yes, but what does it mean to pity some one?_" or, "_What does itmean to take revenge?_" etc. Only supplementary questions of this kindare permissible. 

SCORING. The test is passed if _three of the five_ words aresatisfactorily defined. The definition need not be strictly logical northe language elegant. It is sufficient if the definition shows that themeaning of the word is known. Definitions which define by means of anillustration are acceptable. The following are samples of satisfactoryand 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 commonabstract words should develop so late. Most children who have hadanything like ordinary home or school environment have doubtless heardall of these words countless times before the age of 12 years. Nevertheless, the statistics from the test show unmistakably that beforethis age such words have but limited and vague meaning. Other vocabularystudies confirm this fact so completely that we may say there is hardlyany trait in which 12- to 14-year intelligence more uniformly excelsthat of the 9- or 10-year level. 

This is readily understandable when we consider the nature of abstractmeanings and the intellectual processes by which we arrive at them. Unlike such words as _tree_, _house_, etc. , the ideas they contain arenot the immediate result of perceptual processes, in which even childishintelligence is adept, but are a refined and secondary product ofrelationships between other ideas. They require the logical processes ofcomparison, abstraction, and generalization. One cannot see justice, forexample, but one is often confronted with situations in which justice orinjustice is an element; and given a certain degree of abstraction andgeneralization, out of such situations the idea of justice willgradually be evolved. 

The formation and use of abstract ideas, of one kind or another, represent, _par excellence_, the "higher thought processes. " It is notwithout significance that delinquents who test near the border-line ofmental deficiency show such inferior ability in arriving at correctgeneralizations regarding matters of social and moral relationships. Wecannot expect a mind of defective generalizing ability to form verydefinite or correct notions about justice, law, fairness, ownershiprights, etc. ; and if the ideas themselves are not fairly clear, therules 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 requiredtwo successes. In the 1911 revision he shifted the test from year XI toyear XII, where it more nearly belongs. Goddard also places it inyear XII and uses Binet's words, translating _bonté_, however, as_goodness_ instead of _kindness_. Kuhlmann retains the test in year XIand adds _bravery_ and _revenge_, requiring three correct definitionsout of five. Bobertag uses _pity_, _envy_, and _justice_, requires twocorrect 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 somany doubtful definitions. Even intelligent children often say:"Goodness means to do something good, " "Kindness means to be kind tosome one, " etc. These definitions in a circle occur less than half asoften 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 inwhich we have listed them in the test (i. E. , beginning with the easiestand ending with the hardest). On the standard of three correctdefinitions, 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 inyear 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 Stanfordrecord booklet contains the sentences in convenient form. 

It is not permissible to substitute written words or printed script, asthat would make the test harder. All the words should be printed in capsin 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 sothat they don't make any sense. If the words were changed around in theright order they would make a good sentence. Look carefully and see ifyou can tell me how the sentence ought to read. _"

Give the sentences in the order in which they are listed in the recordbooklet. 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 akind of mental paralysis. If the subject has no success with the firstsentence in one minute, read it off correctly for him, somewhat slowly, and pointing to each word as it is spoken. Then proceed to the secondand third, allowing one minute for each. 

Give no further help. It is not permissible, in case an incorrectresponse is given, to ask the subject to try again, or to say: "_Are yousure that is right?_" "_Are you sure you have not left out any words?_"etc. Instead, maintain absolute silence. However, the subject ispermitted 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 theonly requirement is to use all the words given, and that it is permittedto add as many other words as he likes. It is then necessary to repeatthe instructions and to allow a new trial. 

SCORING. _Two sentences out of three must be correctly given within theminute allotted to each. _ It is understood, of course, that if the firstsentence has to be read for the subject, both the other responses mustbe 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 asregards sentence structure, or else fail to give the exact meaningintended. These are given half credit. Full credit on one, and halfcredit on each of the other two, is satisfactory. The following aresamples 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 maynot be presupposed at the age in which it is given, and successtherefore depends very little on experience. The worst that can be urgedagainst it is that it may possibly be influenced to a certain extent bythe amount of reading the subject has done. But this has not beendemonstrated. At any rate, the test satisfies the most importantrequirement of a test of intelligence; namely, the percentage ofsuccesses increases rapidly and steadily from the lower to the higherlevels 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 theexperiment of Ebbinghaus. As will readily be observed, however, itdiffers to a certain extent from the Ebbinghaus completion test. Ebbinghaus omits parts of a sentence and requires the subject to supplythe omissions. In this test we give all the parts and require theformation of a sentence by rearrangement. The two experiments arepsychologically similar in that they require the subject to relate givenfragments into a meaningful whole. Success depends upon the ability ofintelligence to utilize hints, or clues, and this in turn depends on thelogical integrity of the associative processes. All but the highestgrade of the feeble-minded fail with this test. 

This test is found in year XI of Binet's 1908 series and in year XII ofhis 1911 revision. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it in the originallocation. That it is better placed in year XII is indicated by all theavailable statistics with normal children, except those of Goddard. Withthis exception, the results of various investigators for year XII are inremarkably 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 tohave used exactly the same arrangement of words, and that some havepresented the words of a sentence in a single line, others in two orthree 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 givenabove. The method is to say to the subject:

"_You know what a fable is? You have heard fables?_" Whatever theanswer, proceed to explain a fable as follows: "_A fable, you know, is alittle story, and is meant to teach us a lesson. Now, I am going to reada fable to you. Listen carefully, and when I am through I will ask youto tell me what lesson the fable teaches us. Ready; listen. _" Afterreading the fable, say: "_What lesson does that teach us?_" Record theresponse _verbatim_ and proceed with the next as follows: "_Here isanother. Listen again and tell me what lesson this fable teaches us_, "etc. 

As far as possible, avoid comment or commendation until all the fableshave been given. If the first answer is of an inferior type and weexpress too much satisfaction with it, we thereby encourage thesubject to continue in his error. On the other hand, never expressdissatisfaction with a response, however absurd or _malapropos_ it maybe. Many subjects are anxious to know how well they are doing andcontinually ask, "Did I get that one right?" It is sufficient to say, "You are getting along nicely, " or something to that effect. Offer nocomments, suggestions, or questions which might put the subject on theright track. This much self-control is necessary if we would make theconditions of the test uniform for all subjects. 

The only occasion when a supplementary question is permissible is incase of a response whose meaning is not clear. Even then we must becautious and restrict ourselves to some such question as, "_What do youmean?_" or, "_Explain; I don't quite understand what you mean_. " Thescoring of fables is somewhat difficult at best, and this additionalquestion is often sufficient to place the response very definitely inthe right or wrong column. 

SCORING. Give score 2, i. E. , 2 points, for a correct answer, and 1 foran 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 ifone is correct and two deserve half credit. 

Score 2 means that the fable has been correctly interpreted and that thelesson it teaches has been stated in general terms. 

There are two types of response which may be given half credit. Theyinclude (1) the interpretations which are stated in general terms andare fairly plausible, but are not exactly correct; and (2) those whichare perfectly correct as to substance, but are not generalized. 

We overlook ordinary faults of expression and regard merely theessential 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 reasonabledegree of expertness in scoring fables may be acquired with only alimited amount of actual practice. The sampling may appear to the readerneedlessly prolix, but experience has taught us that in givingdirections for the scoring of tests error always lies on the side oftaking 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 mayaptly be named, was used by the writer in a study of the intellectualprocesses of bright and dull boys in 1905, [71] and was furtherstandardized by the writer and Mr.  Childs in 1911. [72] It has proved itsworth in a number of investigations. It has been necessary, however, tosimplify the rather elaborate method of scoring which was proposed in1911, not because of any logical fault of the method, but because of thedifficulty in teaching examiners to use the system correctly. The methodexplained above is somewhat coarser, but it has the advantage of beingmuch 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 MeasuringScale of Intelligence, " _Journal of Educational Psychology_ (1912). 

The generalization test presents for interpretation situations which areclosely paralleled in the everyday social experience of human beings. Ittests the subject's ability to understand motives underlying acts orattitudes. It gives a clue to the status of the social consciousness. This is highly important in the diagnosis of the upper range of mentaldefectiveness. The criterion of the subnormal's fitness for life outsidean institution is his ability to understand social relations and toadjust himself to them. Failure of a subnormal to meet this criterionmay lead him to break common conventions, and to appear disrespectful, sulky, stubborn, or in some other way queer and exceptional. He islikely to be misunderstood, because he so easily misunderstands others. The skein of human motives is too complex for his limited intelligenceto untangle. 

Ethnological studies have shown in an interesting way the social originof the moral judgment. The rectitude of the moral life, therefore, depends on the accuracy of the social judgment. It would be interestingto know what proportion of offenders have transgressed moral codesbecause of continued failure to grasp the essential lessons presentedby human situations. 

For the intelligent child even the common incidents of life carry anendless succession of lessons in right conduct. On the average schoolplayground not an hour passes without some happening which is fraughtwith a moral hint to those who have intelligence enough to generalizethe situation. A boy plays unfairly and is barred from the game. Onebullies his weaker companion and arouses the anger and scorn of all hisfellows. Another vents his braggadocio and feels at once the witheringscorn of those who listen. Laziness, selfishness, meanness, dishonesty, ingratitude, inconstancy, inordinate pride, and the countless otherfaults all have their social penalties. The child of normal intelligencesees the point, draws the appropriate lesson and (provided emotions andwill are also normal) applies it more or less effectively as a guide tohis own conduct. To the feeble-minded child, all but lacking in thepower of abstraction and generalization, the situation conveys no suchlesson. It is but a muddle of concrete events without generalsignificance; or even if its meaning is vaguely apprehended, the powersof inhibition are insufficient to guarantee that right action willfollow. 

It is for this reason that the generalization test is so valuable in themental examinations of delinquents. It presents a moral situation, imagined, to be sure, but none the less real to the individual of normalcomprehension. It tells us quickly whether the subject tested is able tosee beyond the incidents of the given situation and to grasp their widerrelations--whether he is able to generalize the concrete. 

The following responses made by feeble-minded delinquents from16 to 21 years of age demonstrate sufficiently their inability tocomprehend 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 aperson of this degree of comprehension is not promising material formoral education. His weakness in the ability to generalize a moralsituation is not due to lack of instruction, but is inherent in thenature of his mental processes, all of which have the infantile qualityof average 9- or 10-year intelligence. Well-instructed normal childrenof 10 years ordinarily succeed no better. The ability to draw thecorrect lesson from a social situation is little developed below themental level of 12 or 13 years. 

The test is also valuable because it throws light on the subject'sability to appreciate the finer shades of meaning. The mentally retardedoften show marked inferiority in this respect. They sense, perhaps, in ageneral way the trend of the story, but they fail to comprehend muchthat to us seems clearly expressed. They do not get what is left for thereader to infer, because they are insensible to the thought fringes. Itis these which give meaning to the fable. The dull subject may be ableto image the objects and activities described, but taken in the roughsuch imagery gets him nowhere. 

Finally, the test is almost free from the danger of coaching. Thesubject who has been given a number of fables along with twenty-five orthirty other tests can as a rule give only hazy and inaccurate testimonyas to what he has been put through. Moreover, we have found that, evenif a subject has previously heard a fable, that fact does not materiallyincrease his chances of giving a correct interpretation. If thesituation depicted in the fable is beyond the subject's power ofcomprehension even explicit instruction has little effect upon thequality of the response. 

Incidentally, this observation raises the question whether the use ofproverbs, mottoes, fables, poetry, etc. , in the moral instruction ofchildren may not often be futile because the material is not fitted tothe child's power of comprehension. Much of the school's instruction inhistory and literature has a moral purpose, but there is reason tosuspect 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 theadditional picture _d_. Present in the same order. The formula to beginwith is identical with that in VII,  2: "_Tell me what this picture isabout. What is this a picture of?_" This formula is chosen because itdoes not suggest specifically either description or interpretation, andis therefore adapted to show the child's spontaneous or natural mode ofapperception. However, in case, this formula fails to bring spontaneousinterpretation for three of the four pictures, we then return to thosepictures on which the subject has failed and give a second trial withthe formula: "_Explain this picture_. " A good many subjects who failedto interpret the pictures spontaneously do so without difficulty whenthe more specific formula is used. 

If the response is so brief as to be difficult to classify, the subjectshould 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 wordof commendation or approval until all the pictures have been respondedto. A moment's thought will reveal the absolute necessity of adhering tothis rule. Often a subject will begin by giving an inferior type ofresponse (description, say) to the first picture, but with the secondpicture adjusts better to the task and responds satisfactorily. If insuch a case the first (unsatisfactory) response were greeted with anapproving "That's fine, you are doing splendidly, " the likelihood of anyimprovement taking place as the test proceeds would be greatly lessened. 

SCORING. _Three pictures out of four_ must be satisfactorilyinterpreted. "Satisfactorily" means that the interpretation given shouldbe reasonably plausible; not necessarily the exact one the artist had inmind, yet not absurd. The following classified responses will serve asa 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 onthe picture. We may score them _plus_, provided they are not too muchout of harmony with the situation and actions represented in thepicture. Interpretations so gratuitous as to have little or no bearingupon the scene depicted should be scored _minus_. 

REMARKS. The test of picture interpretation has been variously locatedfrom 12 to 15 years. It cannot be too strongly emphasized thateverything depends on the nature of the pictures used, the form in whichthe question is put, and the standard for scoring. The Jingleman-Jackpictures used by Kuhlmann are as easy to interpret at 10 years as theStanford pictures at 12. Spontaneous interpretation ("What is this apicture of?" or "What do you see in this picture?") comes no morereadily at 14 years than provoked interpretation ("Explain thispicture") at 12. The standard of scoring is no less important. If withthe Stanford pictures we require three satisfactory responses out offour, the test belongs at the 12-year level, but the standard of twocorrect out of four can be met a year or two earlier. 

Even after we have agreed upon a given series of pictures, the formulafor giving the test, and upon the requisite number of passes, thereremains still the question as to the proper degree of liberality indeciding what constitutes interpretation. There is no single point inmental development where the "ability to interpret pictures" sweeps inwith a rush. Like the development of most other abilities, it comes byslow degrees, beginning even as early as 6 years. 

The question is, therefore, to decide whether a given response containsas much and as good interpretation as we have a right to expect at theage level where the test has been placed. It is imperative for any onewho would use the scale correctly to acquaint himself thoroughly withthe procedure and standards described above. 

XII,  8. GIVING SIMILARITIES, THREE THINGS

PROCEDURE. The procedure is the same as in VIII,  4, but with thefollowing 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 tosecure a response. 

SCORING. _Three satisfactory responses out of five_ are necessary forsuccess. Any real similarity is acceptable, whether fundamental orsuperficial, although the giving of fundamental likenesses is especiallysymptomatic of good intelligence. 

Failures may be classified under four heads: (1) Leaving one of thewords out of consideration; (2) giving a difference instead of asimilarity; (3) giving a similarity that is not real or that is toobizarre or far-fetched; and (4) inability to respond. Types (1), (3), and (4) are almost equally numerous, while type (2) is not oftenencountered at this level of intelligence. 

This test provokes doubtful responses somewhat oftener than the earliertest of giving similarities. Those giving greatest difficulty are theindefinite statements like "All are useful, " "All are made of the samematerial, " etc. Fortunately, in most of these cases an additionalquestion is sufficient to determine whether the subject has in mind areal similarity. Questions suitable for this purpose are: "Explain whatyou mean, " "In what respect are they all useful?" "What material doyou mean?" etc. Of course it is only permissible to make use ofsupplementary questions of this kind when they are necessary in order toclarify a response which has already been made. 

While the amateur examiner is likely to have more or less trouble indeciding upon scores, this difficulty rapidly disappears withexperience. The following samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactoryresponses will serve as a fairly adequate guide in dealing with doubtfulcases:--

(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 toclassification into a next higher class. This is the best type ofresponse, but with most of the series it accounts for less than twothirds of the successes among subjects of 12-year intelligence. Theproportion is less than one third for subjects of 10-year intelligenceand nearly three fourths at the 14-year level. It would be possible andvery desirable to devise and standardize an additional test of thiskind, but requiring the giving of an essential resemblance orclassificatory similarity. 

For discussion of the psychological factors involved in the similaritiestest, 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 wordsmust 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, foldit once, and in the middle of the folded edge tear out or cut out asmall notch; then ask the subject to tell you _how many holes there willbe in the paper when it is unfolded_. The correct answer, _one_, isnearly always given without hesitation. But whatever the answer, unfoldthe paper and hold it up broadside for the subject's inspection. Next, take another sheet, fold it once as before and say: "_Now, when wefolded it this way and tore out a piece, you remember it made one holein the paper. This time we will give the paper another fold and see howmany holes we shall have. _" Then proceed to fold the paper again, thistime in the other direction, and tear out a piece from the folded sideand ask how many holes there will be when the paper is unfolded. Afterrecording the answer, unfold the paper, hold it up before the subject soas to let him see the result. The answer is often incorrect and theunfolded sheet is greeted with an exclamation of surprise. The governingprinciple is seldom made out at this stage of the experiment. Butregardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the first and secondanswers, proceed with the third sheet. Fold it once and say: "_When wefolded 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 pointfold the paper a third time and say: "_Now, I am folding it again. Howmany holes will it have this time when I unfold it?_" Record the answerand again unfold the paper while the subject looks on. 

Continue in the same manner with sheets four, five, and six, adding onefold each time. In folding each sheet recapitulate the results with theprevious sheets, saying (with the sixth, for example): "_When we foldedit 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 therewere eight, when we folded it again there were sixteen; now, tell mehow many holes there will be if we fold it once more. _" In therecapitulation avoid the expression "_When we folded it once, twice, three times_, " etc. , as this often leads the subject to double thenumeral heard instead of doubling the number of holes in the previouslyfolded sheet. After the answer is given, do not fail to unfold the paperand let the subject view the result. 

SCORING. The test is passed _if the rule is grasped by the time thesixth sheet is reached_; that is, the subject may pass after fiveincorrect responses, provided the sixth is correct and the governingrule can then be given. It is not permissible to ask for the rule untilall six parts of the experiment have been given. Nothing must be saidwhich could even suggest the operation of a rule. Often, however, thesubject grasps the principle after two or three steps and gives itspontaneously. In this case it is unnecessary to proceed with theremaining steps. 

REMARKS. This test was first used by the writer in a comparative studyof the intellectual processes of bright and dull boys in 1905, but itwas not standardized until 1914. Rather extensive data indicate that itis a genuine test of intelligence. Of 14-year-old school childrentesting between 96 and 105 I Q, 59 per cent passed this test; of14-year-olds testing below 96 I Q, 41 per cent passed; of those testingabove 105, 71 per cent passed. That is, the test agrees well with theresults obtained by the scale as a whole. Of "average adults" only10 per cent fail; and of "superior adults, " fewer than 5 per cent. As arule, the higher the grade of intelligence, the fewer the stepsnecessary for grasping the rule. Of the superior adults, only35 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 inintelligence it is little influenced by age. Other advantages of thetest are the keen interest it always arouses and its independence oflanguage ability. It has been used successfully with immigrant subjectswho had been in this country but a few months. 

We have named the experiment an "induction test. " It might be supposedthat the solution would ordinarily be arrived at by deduction, or by an_a-priori_ logical analysis of the principle involved. This, however, israrely the case. Not one average adult out of ten reasons out thesituation in this purely logical manner. It is ordinarily only after oneor more mistakes have been made and have been exposed by the examinerholding up the unfolded paper to view that the correct principle isgrasped. In the absence of deductive reasoning the subject must notethat each unfolded sheet contains twice as many holes as the previousone, and must infer that folding the paper again will again double thenumber. The ability tested is the ability to generalize fromparticulars where the common element of the particulars can be discernedonly by the selective action of attention, in this case attention to thefact 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 presidentand a king; what are they?_" If the subject stops after one differenceis given, we urge him on, if possible, until three are given. 

SCORING. The three differences relate to power, tenure, and manner ofaccession. Only these differences are considered correct, and thesuccessful response must include at least two of the three. We disregardcrudities of expression and note merely whether the subject has theessential idea. As regards power, for example, any of the followingresponses are satisfactory: "The king is absolute and the president isnot. " "The king rules by himself, but the president rules with the helpof the people. " "Kings can have things their own way more thanpresidents can, " etc. 

It may be objected that the reverse of this is sometimes true, that theking of to-day often has less power than the average president. Sometimes subjects mention this fact, and when they do we credit themwith this part of the test. As a matter of fact, however, this answer isseldom given. 

Sometimes the subject does not stop until he has given a half-dozen ormore differences, and in such cases the first three differences may betrivial and some of the later ones essential. The question then ariseswhether we should disregard the errors and pass the subject on his latercorrect responses. The rule in such cases is to ask the subject to pickout the "three main differences. "

Sometimes accession and tenure are given in the form of a singlecontrast, as: "The president is elected, but the king inherits histhrone and rules for life. " This answer entitles the subject to creditfor both accession and tenure, the contrast as regards tenure beingplainly implied. 

Unsatisfactory contrasts are of many kinds and are often amusing. Someof 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 aregiven. About thirty "average adults" out of a hundred, includinghigh-school students, give at least one unsatisfactory contrast. 

The test has been criticized as depending too much on schooling. Thecriticism is to a certain extent valid when the test is used with youngsubjects, say of 10 or 12 years. It is not valid, however, if the use ofthe test is confined to older subjects. With the latter, it is not atest of knowledge, but of the discriminative capacity to deal withknowledge already in the possession of the subject. It would bedifficult to find an adult, not actually feeble-minded, who is ignorantof the facts called for: That the king inherits his throne, while thepresident is elected; that the tenure of the king is for life, and thatof the president for a term of years; that kings ordinarily have, or aresupposed to have, more power. Even the relatively stupid adult knowsthis; but he also knows that kings are different from presidents inhaving crowns, thrones, palaces, robes, courtiers, larger pay, etc. , andhe makes no discrimination as regards the relative importance of thesedifferences. 

The test is psychologically related to that of giving differences inyear VII and to the two tests of finding similarities; but it differsfrom these in requiring a comparison based on fundamental rather thanaccidental distinctions. The idea is good and should be worked out inadditional tests of the same type. 

The test first appeared in the Binet revised scale of 1911. Kuhlmannomits it, and besides our own there are few statistics bearing on it. Our results show that if two essential differences are required, thetest belongs where we have placed it, but that if only one essentialdifference 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 understandwhat I read. _" Then read the following three problems, rather slowly andwith expression, pausing after each long enough for the subject to findan 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, butwait 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. _ Thefollowing explanations and examples will make clear the requirements ofthe 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 asituation are given, out of which the entire situation is to beconstructed. 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 isgood, some have criticized Binet's selection of problems. Meumann thinksthe lawyer element of the second is so unfamiliar to children as torender that part of the test unfair. Several "armchair" critics havementioned the danger of nervous shock from the first problem. Bobertagthrows out the test entirely and substitutes a completion test modeledafter that of Ebbinghaus. Our own results are altogether favorable tothe test. If it is used in year XIV, Meumann's objection hardly holds, for American children of that age do ordinarily know something aboutmaking wills. As for the danger of shock from the first problem, we havenever once found the slightest evidence of this much-feared result. Thesubject 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 andrequired both to be answered correctly. The test was located in year XIIof the 1908 scale, and in year XV of the 1911 revision. Goddard andKuhlmann retain it in the original location. The Stanford results of1911, 1912, 1914, and 1915 agree in showing the test too difficult foryear XII, even when only two out of three correct responses arerequired. If the original form of the experiment is used, it isexceedingly difficult for year XV. As here given it fits well atyear XIV. 

XIV,  5. ARITHMETICAL REASONING

PROCEDURE. The following problems, printed in clear type, are shown oneat a time to the subject, who reads each problem aloud and (with theprinted problem still before him) finds the answer without the use ofpencil 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 abouthurrying. While one problem is being solved, the others should be hiddenfrom view. It is not permissible, if the subject gives an incorrectanswer, to ask him to solve the problem again. The following exception, however, is made to this rule: If the answer given to the third problemindicates that the word _yard_ has been read as _feet_, the subject isasked to read the problem through again carefully (aloud) and to tellhow he solved it. No further help of any kind may be given. 

SCORING. _Two of the three_ problems must be solved correctly within theminute allotted to each. No credit is allowed for correct method if theanswer is wrong. 

REMARKS. We have selected these problems from the list used by Bonser inhis _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 thesurprising fact that the test as here used and scored is not passed bymuch over half of the children of any age in the grades below thehigh-school age. Of the high-school pupils 19 per cent failed to pass, 21 per cent of ordinarily successful business men (!), and 27 per centof Knollin's unemployed men testing up to the "average adult" level. Tofind average intelligence cutting such a sorry figure raises thequestion whether the ancient definition of man as "the rational animal"is justified by the facts. The truth is, _average_ intelligence does notdo a great deal of abstract, logical reasoning, and the little it doesis done usually under the whip of necessity. 

At first thought these problems will doubtless appear to the reader tobe mere tests of schooling. It is true, of course, that in solving themthe subject makes use of knowledge which is ordinarily obtained inschool; but this knowledge (that is, knowledge of reading and ofaddition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) is possessed bypractically all adults who are not feeble-minded, and by many who are. Success, therefore, depends upon the ability to apply this knowledgereadily and accurately to the problems given--precisely the kind ofability in which a deficiency cannot be made good by school training. Wecan teach even morons how to read problems and how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide with a fair degree of accuracy; the trouble comeswhen they try to decide which of these processes the problem calls for. This may require intelligence of high or low order, according to thedifficulty of the problem. As for the present test, we have shown thatalmost totally unschooled men of "average adult" intelligence pass thistest 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 wherethe large hand would be, and where the small hand would be?_" Subjectsof 12- to 14-year intelligence practically always answer this in theaffirmative. Then continue: "_Now, suppose the two hands of the clockwere to trade places, so that the large hand takes the place where thesmall hand was, and the small hand takes the place where the large handwas. What time would it then be?_"

Repeat the test with the hands at 8. 10 (10 minutes after 8), and againwith the hands at 2. 46 (14 minutes before 3). 

The subject is not allowed to look at a clock or watch, or to aidhimself by drawing, but must work out the problem mentally. As a rulethe answer is given within a few seconds or not at all. If an answer isnot forthcoming within two minutes the score is failure. 

SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ problems are solvedwithin the following range of accuracy: the first solution is consideredcorrect if the answer falls between 4. 30 and 4. 35, inclusive; the secondif the answer falls between 1. 40 and 1. 45, and the third if the answerfalls between 9. 10 and 9. 15. 

REMARKS. It appears that success in the test chiefly depends uponvoluntary control over constructive visual imagery. Weakness of visualimagery may account for the failure of a considerable percentage ofadults to pass the test. Visual imagery, however, is not absolutelynecessary to success. One 8-year-old prodigy, who had 12-yearintelligence, arrived in forty seconds at a strictly mathematicalsolution for the second problem, as follows: "If it is 2. 46, and thehands trade places, then the little hand has gone about one fourth ofthe distance from 9 o'clock to 10 o'clock. One fourth of 60 minutes is15 minutes, and so the time would be 15 minutes after 9 o'clock. " Such asolution is certainly possible by the use of verbal imagery of any type. 

The test shows a high correlation with mental age, but more than mostothers it is subject to the influence of cribbing. For this reason, other positions of the clock hands should be tried out for the purposeof finding substitute experiments of equal difficulty. Until suchexperiments have been made, it will be necessary to confine theexperiment to the three positions here presented. 

Schooling seems to have no influence whatever on the percentage ofpasses. 

This test was first used by Binet in 1905, but was not included ineither the 1908 or 1911 series. Goddard and Kuhlmann both include thetest in their revisions, placing it in year XV. They give only twoproblems (our _a_ and _c_) and require that both be answered correctly. Neither Goddard nor Kuhlmann, however, indicates the degree of errorpermitted. 

Something depends upon original position of the hands. Binet used 6. 20and 2. 46. For some reason the 2. 46 arrangement is much more difficultthan either 8. 10 or 6. 22, yielding almost twice as many failures aseither 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 berepeated without error. The two series are: 2-1-8-3-4-3-9 and9-7-2-8-4-7-5. Note that in none of the tests of repeating digits is itpermissible to warn the subject of the number to be given. 

REMARKS. Binet originally placed this test in year XII, giving threetrials, but later moved it to year XV. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it inyear XII. Our data show that when three trials are given the test is tooeasy for year XIV, but that it fits this age when only two trials areallowed; that after the age of 12 or 14 years memory for relativelymeaningless material, like digits or nonsense syllables, improves butlittle; and that above this level it does not correlate very closelywith 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 theaverage 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 totalscore 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_ arenecessary for a pass. It is not sufficient merely to give a correctmeaning for each word of a pair; the subject must point out a differencebetween the two words so as to make a real contrast. For example, if thesubject defines _evolution_ as a "growth" or "gradual change, " and_revolution_ as the turning of a wheel on its axis, the experimentershould say: "_Yes, but I want you to tell me the difference betweenevolution and revolution. _" If the contrast is not then forthcoming theresponse is marked _minus_. 

The following are sample definitions which may be consideredacceptable:--

 (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 forthe correct grading of responses to this test. Subjects are often soclumsy in expression that their responses are anything but clear. It isthen necessary to ask them to explain what they mean. Furtherquestioning, however, is not permissible. For uniformity in scoring itis necessary to bear in mind that the definitions given must, in orderto be satisfactory, express the essential distinction between the twowords. 

REMARKS. What we have said regarding the psychological significance oftest 2, year XII, applies equally well here. The test on the whole is avaluable one. Our statistics show that it is not, as some critics havethought, mainly a test of schooling. 

The main criticism to be made is that it imposes a somewhat difficulttask upon the power of language expression. For this reason it isnecessary in scoring to disregard clumsiness of expression and to lookonly to the essential correctness or incorrectness of the thought. 

This test first appeared in year XIII of Binet's 1908 scale. The termsused were "happiness and honor"; "evolution and revolution"; "event andadvent"; "poverty and misery"; "pride and pretension. " In the 1911revision, "happiness and honor" and "pride and pretension" were dropped, and the other three pairs were moved up to the adult group, two out ofthree successes being required for a pass. Kuhlmann places it inyear XV, using "happiness and honor" instead of our "character andreputation, " 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 eachone of the smaller boxes contains a little tiny box. How many boxes arethere altogether, counting the big one?_" To be sure that the subjectunderstands repeat the statement of the problem: "_First the large box, then two smaller ones, and each of the smaller ones contains a littletiny box. _"

Record the response, and, showing another box, say: "_This box has twosmaller boxes inside, and each of the smaller boxes contains two tinyboxes. How many altogether? Remember, first the large box, then twosmaller 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 withoutthe aid of pencil or paper. Only one half-minute is allowed for eachproblem. Note that each problem is stated twice. 

A correction is permitted, provided it is offered spontaneously and doesnot seem to be the result of guessing. Guessing can be checked up byasking the subject to explain the solution. 

SCORING. _Three of the four_ problems must be solved correctly withinthe half-minute allotted to each. 

REMARKS. Success depends, in the first place, upon ability to comprehendthe statement of the problem and to hold its conditions in mind. Subjects much below the 12-year level of intelligence are often unableto do this. 

Granting that the problem has been comprehended, success seems to dependchiefly upon the facility with which the constructive imaginationmanipulates concrete visual imagery. In this respect it resembles theproblem 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 theintrospective study of mental imagery has little to contribute to themeasurement of intelligence. Intelligence tests are concerned with thetotal result of a thought process, rather than with the imagery supportsof that process. Thought may be carried on almost equally well byvarious kinds of imagery. As Galton showed, a person can be taught tocarry on arithmetical processes by the use of smell imagery. The kind ofimagery employed is the product of slight, innate preferencescomplicated by the more or less accidental effects of habit. 

We may say that imagery is to thinking what scaffolding is toarchitecture. The important thing is the completed building rather thanthe nature of the scaffolding employed in erecting it. No one thinks ofblaming the ill construction of a building upon the kind of scaffoldingused, for if the architect and builder are competent satisfactoryscaffolding will be found. Just as little are deficiencies orpeculiarities of imagery the real cause of low-order intelligence. Wecannot increase intelligence by formal drill in the use of supposedlyimportant kinds of mental imagery, any more than we can transform aplain carpenter into a Michael Angelo by instructing him in the use ofscaffolding 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 presentform only after a good deal of preliminary experimentation. Itcorrelates fairly well with mental age as determined by the scale as awhole. It was passed by 55 per cent of high-school pupils and by65 per cent of unschooled business men. Success in it is thus seen notto 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 ofschooling, the uneducated business men even surpassing our high-schoolstudents. 

For the higher levels of intelligence, especially, the test is superiorto that of repeating digits in the direct order. It is less mechanicaland 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 containall the letters of the alphabet. Now, examine the arrangement of theletters. 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 arearranged in the up-and-down order_ (pointing again), _and the letters inthe other two diagrams run in just the opposite way from the hands of aclock_ (pointing). _Look again and you will see that the second diagramis 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, eachletter has a dot. Now, all of this represents a code; that is, a secretlanguage. It is a real code, one that was used in the Civil War forsending secret messages. This is the way it works: we draw the lineswhich hold a letter, but leave out the letter. Here, for example, is theway we would write 'spy?'_" Then write the word _spy_, pointing outcarefully where each letter comes from, and emphasizing the fact thatthe dot must be used in addition to the lines in writing any letter inthe 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 forgetthe dots for the letters in this diagram and this one_" (pointing). Atthis point, take away the diagrams and tell the subject to write thewords _come quickly_. Say nothing about hurrying. 

The subject is given a pencil, but is allowed to draw only the symbolsfor the words _come quickly_. He is not permitted to reproduce theentire code and then to copy the code letters from his reproduction. 

SCORING. The test is passed if the words are written in _six minutes andwithout more than two errors_. Omission of a dot counts as only a halferror. 

REMARKS. It is not easy to analyze the mental functions which contributeto success in the code test. Contrary to what might be supposed, successdoes not necessarily depend upon getting and retaining a visual pictureof the diagrams. Kinæsthetic imagery will answer the purpose just aswell, or the original visual impression may even be translated at onceinto auditory-verbal imagery and remembered as such. The significance ofthe test must be expressed in other terms than the kind of imagery itmay happen to bring into play. 

Healy and Fernald describe the task of writing a code sentence withoutcopy 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 nospecial stimulus to attention is offered by the experimenter. Observations we have made on subjects during the test confirm this viewas to the factors involved. 

That inability to remember the code as a whole is not a common cause offailure is shown by the fact that subjects above 12-year intelligencewho have failed on the test are nearly always able to reproduce thediagrams and insert the letters in their proper places. To give the codeform of a given letter without copy, however, makes a much heavierdemand on attention. Nearly all subjects find it necessary to trace thecode form, in imagination, from the beginning up to each letter whosecode form is sought. Subjects of superior intelligence, however, sometimes hit upon the device of remembering the position of theindividual key letters e. G. (the first letter of each figure) fromwhich, as a base, any desired letter form may be quickly sought out. 

The test correlates well with mental age, but for some reason notapparent it is passed by a larger percentage of high-school pupils thanunschooled adults of the same mental level. 

The code test was first described by Healy and Fernald in their "Testsfor Practical Mental Classification. "[77] The authors gave no data, however, which would indicate the mental level to which the testbelongs. Dr.  Goddard incorporated it in year XV of his revision of theBinet scale, but also fails to give statistics. The location giventhe test in the Stanford revision is based on tests of nearly500 individuals ranging from a mental level of 12 years to that of"superior adult. " It appears that the test is considerably moredifficult 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 berepeated without a single change of any sort. Get attention beforegiving each sentence. 

SCORING. Passed _if one sentence is repeated without a single error_. InVI and X we scored the response as satisfactory if one sentence wasrepeated without error, or if two were repeated with not more than oneerror each. 

REMARKS. The test of repeating sentences is not as satisfactory in thehigher intelligence levels as in the lower. It is too mechanical to taxvery heavily the higher thought processes. It does, however, have acertain correlation with intelligence. Contrary to what one would haveexpected, uneducated adults of "average adult" intelligence surpassedour high-school students of the same mental level. 

Binet located this test in year XII of the 1908 series, but shifted itto year XV in 1911. The American versions of the Binet scale haveusually retained it in year XII, though Goddard admits that thesentences are somewhat too difficult for that year. Kuhlmann puts thetest in year XII, but reduces the sentences to twenty-four syllables andpermits one re-reading. We give only two trials and our sentences areconsiderably more difficult. With the procedure and scoring we haveused, the test is rather easy for the "average adult" group, but alittle 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 eightinches long. Above it, an inch or two, draw a short horizontal lineabout an inch long and parallel to the first. Tell the subject that thelong line represents the perfectly level ground of a field, and that theshort line represents a cannon. Explain that the cannon is "_pointedhorizontally (on a level) and is fired across this perfectly levelfield_. " After it is clear that these conditions of the problem arecomprehended, we add: "_Now, suppose that this cannon is fired off andthat the ball comes to the ground at this point here_ (pointing to thefarther end of the line which represents the field). _Take this penciland draw a line which will show what path the cannon ball will take fromthe time it leaves the mouth of the cannon till it strikes the ground. _"

SCORING. There are four types of response: (1) A straight diagonal lineis drawn from the cannon's mouth to the point where the ball strikes. (2) A straight line is drawn from the cannon's mouth runninghorizontally until almost directly over the goal, at which point theline drops almost or quite vertically. (3) The path from the cannon'smouth first rises considerably from the horizontal, at an angle perhapsof between ten to forty-five degrees, and finally describes a gradualcurve downward to the goal. (4) The line begins almost on a level anddrops more rapidly toward the end of its course. 

Only the last is satisfactory. Of course, nothing like a mathematicallyaccurate solution of the problem is expected. It is sufficient if theresponse belongs to the fourth type above instead of being absurd, asthe other types described are. Any one who has ever thrown stones shouldhave the data for such an approximate solution. Not a day of schoolingis necessary. 

(b) _Problem as to the weight of a fish in water_

PROCEDURE. Say to the subject: "_You know, of course, that water holdsup a fish that is placed in it. Well, here is a problem. Suppose we havea bucket which is partly full of water. We place the bucket on thescales 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 thewhole thing weigh?_"

SCORING. Many subjects even as low as 9- or 10-year intelligence willanswer promptly, "Why, 45 pounds and 5 pounds makes 50 pounds, ofcourse. " But this is not sufficient. We proceed to ask, with seriousdemeanor: "_How can this be correct, since the water itself holds up thefish?_" The young subject who has answered so glibly now laughssheepishly and apologizes for his error, saying that he answered withoutthinking, etc. This response is scored failure without furtherquestioning. 

Other subjects, mostly above the 14-year level, adhere to the answer"50 pounds, " however strongly we urge the argument about the waterholding up the fish. In response to our question, "_How can that be thecase?_" it is sufficient if the subject replies that "The weight isthere just the same; the scales have to hold up the bucket and thebucket has to hold up the water, " or words to that effect. Only somesuch response as this is satisfactory. If the subject keeps changing hisanswer or says that he _thinks_ the weight would be 50 pounds, but isnot certain, the score is failure. 

(c) _Difficulty of hitting a distant mark_

PROCEDURE. Say to the subject: "_You know, do you not, what it meanswhen they say a gun 'carries 100 yards'? It means that the bullet goesthat far before it drops to amount to anything. _" All boys and mostgirls more than a dozen years old understand this readily. If thesubject does not understand, we explain again what it means for a gun"to carry" a given distance. When this part is clear, we proceed asfollows: "_Now, suppose a man is shooting at a mark about the size of aquart can. His rifle carries perfectly more than 100 yards. With such agun is it any harder to hit the mark at 100 yards than it is at50 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 notsufficient, nor can we pass the response which merely states that it is"easier to aim" at 50 yards. The correct principle must be given, onewhich shows the subject has appreciated the fact that a small deviationfrom the "bull's-eye" at 50 yards, due to incorrect aim, becomes alarger deviation at 100 yards. However, the subject is not required toknow that the deviation at 100 yards is exactly twice as great as at50 yards. A certain amount of questioning is often necessary before wecan decide whether the subject has the correct principle in mind. 

SCORING THE ENTIRE TEST. _Two of the three problems_ must be solved insuch a way as to satisfy the requirements above set forth. 

REMARKS. These problems were devised by the writer. They yieldinteresting results, when properly given, but are not without theirfaults. Sometimes a very superior subject fails, while occasionally aninferior subject unexpectedly succeeds. On the whole, however the testcorrelates fairly well with mental age. At the 14-year level less than50 per cent pass; of "average adults, " from 60 to 75 per cent aresuccessful. Few "superior adults" fail. 

The test as here given is little influenced by the formal instructiongiven in the grades or the high school. In fact, 80 per cent of ouruneducated business men, as contrasted with 65 per cent of high-schooljuniors and seniors, passed the test. Success probably depends in themain upon previous interest in physical relationships and upon theability to understand phenomena of this kind which the subject has hadopportunity to observe. 

It would be interesting to standardize a longer series of problemsdesigned to test a subject's comprehension of common physicalrelationships. In the first few months of life a normal child learnsthat objects unsupported fall to the ground. Later he learns that fireburns; 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 asone lies prone in the water; that mud is thrown from a rotating wheel(and always in the same direction); that a stone which is flyingthrough the air swiftly is more dangerous than one which is movingslowly; that it is more dangerous to be run over by a train than by abuggy; that it is hard to run against a strong wind; that cyclones blowdown trees and houses; that a rapidly moving train creates a strongerwind than a slower train; that a feather falls through the air with lessspeed than a stone; that a falling object gains momentum; that a heavymoving object is harder to stop than a light object moving at the samerate; that freezing water bursts pipes; that sounds sometimes giveechoes; that rainbows cannot be approached; that a lamp seems dim bydaylight; that by day the stars are not visible and the moon only barelyvisible; that the headlights of an approaching automobile or train areblinding; that if the room in which we are reading is badly lighted wemust hold the book nearer to the eyes; that running makes the heart beatfaster and increases the rate of breathing; that if we are cold we canget warm by running; that whirling rapidly makes us dizzy; that heat orexercise will cause perspiration, etc. 

Although the causes of some of these phenomena are not understood evenby intelligent adults without some instruction, the facts themselves arelearned by the normal individual from his own experience. The higher themental level and the greater the curiosity, the more observant one isabout such matters and the more one learns. Many items of knowledge suchas we have mentioned could and should be standardized for various mentallevels. In devising tests of this kind we should, of course, have tolook 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 "superioradult" 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 passthe test is relatively independent of the number of years the subjecthas attended school, our business men showing even a higher percentageof 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 itonce over in the middle), _then I fold it this way_ (folding it again inthe middle, but at right angles to the first fold). _Now, I will cut outa notch right here_" (indicating). At this point take scissors and cutout a small notch from the middle of the side which presents but oneedge. Throw the fragment which has been cut out into the waste-basket orunder the table. Leave the folded paper exposed to view, but pressedflat against the table. Then give the subject a pencil and a secondsheet of paper like the one already used and say: "_Take this piece ofpaper and make a drawing to show how the other sheet of paper would lookif it were unfolded. Draw lines to show the creases in the paper andshow what results from the cutting. _"

The subject is not permitted to fold the second sheet, but must solvethe problem by the imagination unaided. 

Note that we do not say, "_Draw the holes_, " as this would inform thesubject that more than one hole is expected. 

SCORING. The test is passed _if the creases in the paper are properlyrepresented, if the holes are drawn in the correct number, and if theyare located correctly_, that is, both on the same crease and each abouthalfway between the center of the paper and the side. The shape of theholes is disregarded. 

Failure may be due to error as regards the creases or the number andlocation of the holes, or it may involve any combination of the aboveerrors. 

REMARKS. Success seems to depend upon constructive visual imagination. The subject must first be able to construct in imagination the creaseswhich result from the folding, and secondly, to picture the effects ofthe cutting as regards number of holes and their location. It appearsthat a solution is seldom arrived at, even in the case of collegestudents, by logical mathematical thinking. Our unschooled subjects evensucceeded somewhat better than high-school and college students of thesame mental level. 

Binet placed this test in year XIII of the 1908 scale, but shifted it tothe adult group in the 1911 revision. Goddard retains it in the adultgroup, while Kuhlmann places it in year XV. There have also been certainvariations in the procedure employed. As given in the Stanford revisionthe test is passed by hardly any subjects below the 14-year level, butby 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 digitsreversed. The series used are: 7-2-5-3-4-8-9-6; 4-9-8-5-3-7-6-2; and8-3-7-9-5-4-8-2. 

Guard against rhythm and grouping in reading the digits and do not givewarning as to the number to be given. 

The test is passed by about one third of "average adults" and by overtwo thirds of "superior adults. " The test shows no marked differencebetween 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 oreight lines. When I am through I will ask you to repeat as much of it asyou can. It doesn't make any difference whether you remember the exactwords or not, but you must listen carefully so that you can tell meeverything it says. _" Then read the following selections, pausing aftereach 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 ourwording of the instructions, that a perfect reproduction is expected. Others fall into the opposite misunderstanding and think that they areprohibited from using the words of the text and must give the thoughtentirely in their own language. In cases of hesitation we should urgethe subject a little and remind him that he is to express the thought ofthe selection in whatever way he prefers; that the main thing is to tellwhat the selection says. 

SCORING. The test is passed if the subject is able to repeat inreasonably consecutive order the main thoughts of at least one of theselections. Neither elegance of expression nor _verbatim_ repetition isexpected. We merely want to know whether the leading thoughts in theselection have been grasped and remembered. 

All grades of accuracy are found, both in the comprehension of theselection and in the recall, and it is not always easy to draw the linebetween satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses. The following sampleperformances 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 lessa test of memory than of ability to comprehend the drift of an abstractpassage. A subject who fully grasps the meaning of the selection as itis read is not likely to fail because of poor memory. Mere verbal memoryimproves but little after the age of 14 or 15 years, as is shown by thefact that our adults do little better than eighth-grade children inrepeating sentences of twenty-eight syllables. On the other hand, adultintelligence is vastly superior in the comprehension and retention of alogically presented group of abstract ideas. 

There is nothing in which stupid persons cut a poorer figure than ingrappling with the abstract. Their thinking clings tenaciously to theconcrete; their concepts are vague or inaccurate; the interrelationsamong their concepts are scanty in the extreme; and such poor mentalstores as they have are little available for ready use. 

A few critics have objected to the use of tests demanding abstractthinking, on the ground that abstract thought is a very special aspectof intelligence and that facility in it depends almost entirely onoccupational habits and the accidents of education. Some have even goneso far as to say that we are not justified, on the basis of any numberof such tests, in pronouncing a subject backward or defective. It issupposed that a subject who has no capacity in the use of abstract ideasmay nevertheless have excellent intelligence "along other lines. " Insuch cases, it is said, we should not penalize the subject for hisfailures in handling abstractions, but substitute, instead, testsrequiring motor coördination and the manipulation of things, tests inwhich the supposedly dull child often succeeds fairly well. 

From the psychological point of view, such a proposal is naïvelyunpsychological. It is in the very essence of the higher thoughtprocesses to be conceptual and abstract. What the above proposal amountsto is, that if the subject is not capable of the more complex andstrictly human type of thinking, we should ignore this fact and estimatehis intelligence entirely on the ability he displays to carry on mentaloperations of a more simple and primitive kind. This would be likeasking the physician to ignore the diseased parts of his patient's bodyand to base his diagnosis on an examination of the organs which aresound!

The present test throws light in an interesting way on the integrity ofthe critical faculty. Some subjects are unwilling to extend the reportin the least beyond what they know to be approximately correct, whileothers with defective powers of auto-criticism manufacture a reportwhich draws heavily on the imagination, perhaps continuing in garrulousfashion as long as they can think of anything having the remotestconnection with any thought in the selection. We have included, for eachselection, one illustration of this type in the sample failures givenabove. 

The worst fault of the test is its susceptibility to the influence ofschooling. Our uneducated adults of even "superior adult" intelligenceoften fail, while about two thirds of high-school pupils succeed. Theunschooled adults have a marked tendency either to give a summary whichis inadequate because of its extreme brevity, or else to give acriticism 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 formthan we have given above. Goddard gives the test like Binet and retainsit in the adult group. Kuhlmann locates it in year XV, using onlyselection (a). On the basis of over 300 tests of adults we find thetest too difficult for the "average adult" level, even on the basis ofonly one success in two trials and when scored on the rather liberalstandard above set forth. 

SUPERIOR ADULT, 5: REPEATING SEVEN DIGITS REVERSED

PROCEDURE and SCORING, the same as in previous tests of this kind. Theseries 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, asit was added later to the test series. As far as we have used it we havefound few "average adults" who pass, while about half the "superioradults" 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 hissolution orally as he works it out. It is then possible to make acomplete record of the method employed. 

The subject is likely to resort to some such method as to "fill the3-pint vessel two thirds full, " or, "I would mark the inside of the5-pint vessel so as to show where 4 pints come to, " etc. We inform thesubject that such a method is not allowable; that this would beguessing, since he could not be sure when the 3-pint vessel was twothirds full (or whether he had marked off his 5-pint vessel accurately). Tell him he must _measure_ out the water without any guesswork. Explainalso, that it is a fair problem, not a "catch. "

Say nothing about pouring from one vessel to another, but if the subjectasks whether this is permissible the answer is "yes. "

The time limit for each problem is 5 minutes. If the subject fails onthe first problem, we explain the solution in full and then proceed tothe next. 

The second problem is like the first, except that a 5-pint vessel and a7-pint vessel are given, to get 8 pints, the subject being told to beginby filling the 5-pint vessel. 

In the third problem 4 and 9 are given, to get 7, the instruction beingto "begin by filling the 4-pint vessel. "

Note that in each problem we instruct the subject how to begin. This isnecessary in order to secure uniformity of conditions. It is possible tosolve 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 thedirection opposite from that recommended. 

Give no further aid. It is necessary to refrain from comment of everykind. 

SCORING. _Two of the three_ problems must be solved correctly within the5 minutes allotted to each. 

REMARKS. We have called this a test of ingenuity. The subject who isgiven the problem finds himself involved in a difficulty from which hemust extricate himself. Means must be found to overcome an obstacle. This requires practical judgement and a certain amount of inventiveingenuity. Various possibilities must be explored and either acceptedfor trial or rejected. If the amount of invention called for seems tothe reader inconsiderable, let it be remembered that the importantinventions of history have not as a rule had a Minerva birth, butinstead have developed by successive stages, each involving but a smallstep in advance. 

It is unnecessary to emphasize at length the function of invention inthe higher thought processes. In one form or another it is present inall intellectual activity; in the creation and use of language, in art, in social adjustments, in religion, and in philosophy, as truly as inthe domains of science and practical affairs. Certainly this is true ifwe accept Mason's broad definition of invention as including "everychange in human activity made designedly and systematically. "[78] Fromthe psychological point of view, perhaps, Mason is justified in lookingupon the great inventor as "an epitome of the genius of the world. " Todevelop a Krag-Joergensen from a bow and arrow, a "velvet-tipped"lucifer match from the primitive fire-stick, or a modern piano from thefirst crude, stringed, musical instrument has involved much the sameintellectual processes as have been operative in transforming fetishismand magic into religion and philosophy, or scattered fragments ofknowledge 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 presentto the senses and to picture new situations with their possibilities andconsequences. Images are united in order to form new combinations. 

As we have several times emphasized, the decisive intellectualdifferences among human beings are not greatly dependent upon mere sensediscrimination or native retentiveness. Far more important than the rawmass of sense data is the correct shooting together of the senseelements in memory and imagination. This is but another name forinvention. It is the synthetic, or apperceptive, activity of the mindthat gives the "seven-league boots" to genius. It is, however, a kind ofability which is possessed by all minds to a greater or less degree. Anytest has its value which gives a clue, as this test does, to thesubject's ability in this direction. 

The test was devised by the writer and used in 1905 in a study of theintellectual processes of bright and dull boys, but it was not at thattime standardized. It has been found to belong at a much higher mentallevel than was at first supposed. Only an insignificant number pass thetest below the mental age of 14 years, and about two thirds of "averageadults" fail. Of our "superior adults" somewhat more than 75 per centsucceed. Formal education influences the test little or not at all, theunschooled business men making a somewhat better showing than thehigh-school students. 

SELECTED REFERENCES

The following classified lists include only the most importantreferences under each topic. So many investigations have been made withthe Binet-Simon tests in the last few years, and so many articles havebeen written in evaluation of the method, that a complete bibliographyof the subject would require thirty or forty pages. Those who desire tomake a more thorough study of the literature are referred to theadmirable annotated bibliography compiled by Samuel C. Kohs, andpublished by Warwick & York, Baltimore. Kohs's Bibliography contains254 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 OFINTELLIGENCE

 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.