Classic Audiobook Collection - The Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman ~ Full Audiobook [science]

Episode Date: March 2, 2026

The Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman audiobook. Genre: science In The Measurement of Intelligence, psychologist Lewis M. Terman lays out the early twentieth-century case for making human ability measurable. Best known for refining the Binet-Simon scale into what became the Stanford-Binet, Terman explains how standardized tasks, careful scoring, and statistical comparison can be used to estimate mental development and to distinguish typical progress from significant delay or exceptional advancement. Moving from principles to practice, he discusses how tests are designed and administered, what different kinds of items are meant to capture, and how results can be interpreted for schools, clinics, and research. Along the way, Terman addresses the practical questions that still surround assessment: reliability, sources of error, the influence of age and schooling, and the dangers of overconfident conclusions. The book also reveals the ambitions and anxieties of its era, when intelligence testing was rapidly becoming a tool for sorting students and shaping educational policy. Both a technical guide and a historical window into the origins of IQ testing, this work invites listeners to consider what measurements can illuminate - and what they can easily distort - about the mind. For ad-free listening try our premium subscription Chapters (Approximate) (00:00:00) Chapter 00 (00:07:05) Chapter 01 (00:40:38) Chapter 02 (01:05:53) Chapter 03 (01:30:51) Chapter 04 (01:55:16) Chapter 05 (02:15:23) Chapter 06 (03:01:50) Chapter 07 (03:24:16) Chapter 08 (03:59:41) Chapter 09 (04:15:26) Chapter 10 (04:33:11) Chapter 11 (04:54:50) Chapter 12 (05:17:31) Chapter 13 (05:51:29) Chapter 14 (06:34:45) Chapter 15 (07:08:35) Chapter 16 (07:52:20) Chapter 17 (08:47:43) Chapter 18 (09:13:25) Chapter 19 (09:40:24) Chapter 20 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. Preface The constant and growing use have been at Simon intelligence scale in public schools, institutions for defectives, reform schools, juvenile courts, and police courts is sufficient evidence of the intrinsic worth of the method. It is generally recognized, however, that the serviceableness of the scale has hitherto been seriously limited, both by the lack of a sufficiently detailed guide and by a number of recognized imperfections in the scale itself. The Stanford revision and extension has been

worked out for the purpose of correcting as many as possible of these imperfections, and it is here presented with a rather minute description of the method as a whole and of the individual tests. The aim has been to present the explanations and instructions so clearly and in such untechnical form as to make the book of use, not only to the psychologist, but also to the rank and file of teachers, physicians and social work. More particularly, it is designed as a text for use in normal schools, colleges and teachers' reading circles. While the use of the intelligence scale for research purposes and for accurate diagnosis

will of necessity always be restricted to those who have had extensive training in experimental psychology, the author believes that the time has come when its wider use for more general purposes should be encouraged. However, it cannot be too strongly emphasized that no one, whatever his previous training may have been, make proper use of the scale unless he is willing to learn the method of procedure and scoring down to the minutest detail. A general acquaintance with the nature of the individual tests is by no means sufficient. Perhaps the best way to learn the method will be to begin by studying the book through in order to gain a general acquaintance with the tests, then if possible to observe a few examinations, and finally to take up the procedure for detailed study in connection with practice testing.

20 or 30 tests made with constant reference to the procedure described in part 2 should be sufficient to prepare the teacher or physician to make profitable use of the scale. The Stanford revision of the scale is a result of a number of investigations made possible by the cooperation of the author's graduate students. Grateful acknowledgement is especially due to Professor H. G. Childs, Miss Grace Lindman, Dr. George Ordal, Dr. Louise Ellison O'Dall, Miss Neva Galbraith. Mr. Wilford Talbert. Mr. J. J. Harold Williams and Mr. Herbert Egnoland. Without their assistance, this book could not have been written. Stanford University, April 1916.

End of Editor's Introduction and Preface. Chapter 1 of The Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. This is the Librevox recording. All Libravox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Librevox.org. Read by Leon Harvey. The Measurement of Intelligence Chapter 1, the uses of intelligence tests Intelligence tests of retired school children

Numerous studies of the age-grade progress of school children have afforded convincing evidence of the magnitude and seriousness of the retardation problem. Statistics collected in hundreds of cities in the United States show that between a third and a half of the school children fail to progress through the grades at the expected rate, that from 10 to 15% are retarded two years or more, and that from 5 to 8% are retired at least three years. More than 10% of the $400 million annually expended in the United States for school instruction is devoted to re-teaching children what they have already been taught but have failed to learn. The first efforts at reform which resulted from these findings were based on the

supposition that the evils which had been discovered could be remedied by the individualization of instruction, by improved methods of promotion, by increased attention to children's health, and by other reforms in school administration. Although reforms along these lines have been productive and much good, they have nevertheless been in a measure disappointing. The trouble was they were too often based upon the assumption that under the right conditions all children will be equally, or almost equally, capable of making satisfactory school progress.

Psychological studies of school children by means of standardized intelligence tests have shown that this supposition is not in accord with the facts. It has been found that children do not fall in. into well-defined groups, the feeble-minded and the normal. Instead, there are many grades of intelligence, ranging from idiocy on the one hand to genies on the other. Among those classed as normal, vast individual differences have been found to exist in original mental endowment, differences which affect profoundly the capacity to profit

from school instruction. We are beginning to realize that the school must take into account more seriously than it has yet done the existence and significance of these differences in endowment, instead of wasting energy in the vain attempt to hold a mentally slow and defective children up to a level of progress which is normal to the average child, it will be wiser to take account of the inequalities of children in original endowment and to differentiate the course of study in such a way that each child will be allowed to progress at the rate which is normal to him, whether that rate be rapid or slow. While we cannot hold all children to the same standard of school progress,

we can at least prevent the kind retodation which involves failure and the repetition of a school grade. It is well enough recognized that children do not enter with very much zest upon school work in which they have once failed. Failure crushes self-confidence and destroys the spirit of work. It is a sad fact that a large proportion of children in the schools are requiring the habit of failure. The remedy, of course, is to measure out the work for each child in proportion to his mental ability. Before an engineer constructs a railroad bridge or trestle, he studies the materials to be used, and learns by means of tests exactly the amount of strain per unit of size whose materials will be able to withstand.

He does not work empirically and count upon patching up the mistakes which may later appear under the stress of actual use. The educational engineer should emulate this example. Tests and forethought must take the place of failure and patchwork. Our efforts have been too long directed by trial and error. It is time to leave off guessing and to acquire a scientific knowledge of the material with which we have to deal. When instruction must be repeated, it means that the school, as well as the pupil, has failed. Every child who fails in his schoolwork or is in danger of failing

should be given a mental examination. The examination takes less than one hour, and the result will contribute more to a real understanding of the case than anything else that could be done. It is necessary to determine whether a given child is unsuccessful in school because of poor native ability or because of poor instruction, lack of interest, or some other removable cause. It is not sufficient to establish any number of special classes if they are to be made the dummy ground for all kinds of troublesome cases. The feeble-minded, they're physically defective, the merely backward, the trance, the incorrigibles, etc. Without scientific diagnosis and classification of these children, the educational work of the special class must blunder along

in a dark. In such diagnosis and classification, our main reliance must always be in mental tests, properly used and properly interpreted. Intelligence tests are the feeble-minded. Thus fire intelligence tests have found their chief application in the identification and grading of the feeble-minded. Their value for this purpose is twofold. In the first place, it is necessary to ascertain the degree of defect before it is possible to decide intelligently upon either the content or the method of instruction suited to the

training of the backward child. In the second place, intelligence tests are rapidly extending our concerns. of feeble-mindedness to include milder degrees of defect than have generally been associated with this term. The earlier methods of diagnosis caused a majority of the higher-grade defectives to be overlooked. Previous to the development of psychological methods, the low-grade more than was about as high a type of defective as most physicians or even psychologists were able to identify as feeble-minded. Whether intelligence tests have been made in any considerable number in the schools, they have shown that not far from two percent of

the children enrolled have a grade of intelligence which, however long they live, will never develop beyond the level which is normal to the average child of 11 or 12 years. The large majority of those belong to the more grade, that is, their mental development will stop somewhere between seven-year and 12-year level of intelligence, more often between nine and 12. The more we learn about such children, the earlier it becomes that they must be looked upon as real defectives. They may be able to drag along to the fourth fifth or the fourth, sixth grades, but by the age of 16 or 18 years, they are never able to cope successfully

with the more abstract and difficult parts of the common school course of study. They may master a certain amount of route learning, such as that involved in reading and in the manipulation of number of combinations, but they cannot be taught to meet new conditions effectively or to think, reason, and judge as normal persons do. It is safe to predict that in the near future intelligence tests will bring tens of thousands of these high-grade defectives under the surveillance and protection of society. This will ultimately result in curtailing the reproduction of feeble modernness and in the elimination of enormous amounts of crime, pauperism, and industrial inefficiency.

It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the high cases of the type now so frequently overlooked are precisely the ones whose guardianship it is most important for the state to assume. Intelligence tests of delinquents One of the most important facts brought to light by the use of intelligence tests is the frequent association of delinquency and mental deficiency. Although it has long been recognized that the proportion of feeble mightiness among offenders is rather large, the real amount has, until recently, been underestimated, even by the most competent students of criminology.

The criminologists have been accustomed to give more attention to the physical, then to the mental correlates of crime. Thus, Lombroso, and its followers subjected doubt. thousands of criminals to observation and measurement with regard to such physical traits as size and shape of the skull, bilateral asymmetries, anomalies of the ear, eye, nose, palate, teeth, hands, fingers, hair, dermal sensitivity, etc. The search was for physical stigmata, characteristic of the criminal type. Although such studies performed an important service in creating a scientific interest in criminology, the theories of Lombroso have been wholly discredited by the results.

of intelligence tests. Such tests have demonstrated, beyond any possibility of doubt, that the most important trait of at least 25% of our criminals is mental weakness. The physical abnormalities which have been found so common among prisoners are not the stigmata of criminality, but the physical accompaniments of feeble-mindedness. They have no diagnostic significance except insofar as they are indications of mental deficiency. Without exception, every study which has been made of the intelligence level of delinquents has furnished convincing testimony as to the close relation existing between mental weakness and moral abnormality. Some of these findings are as follows. Ms. Rens tested 100 girls of the Ohio State Reformatory and reported 36% as

certainly feeble-minded. In every one of these cases, the commitment papers had given the pronouncement intellect sound. Under the direction of Dr. Goddara to the Bennett test 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 nine-year intelligence. Another of 15 and a half had eight-year intelligence. Of 56 delinquent girls 14 to 20 years of age, tested by Hill and Goddode, almost half belonged to either the nine or the 10-year level of intelligence. Dr. D.G. Fernald's test of 100 prisoners at the Massachusetts State Reformatory showed that at least 25% were feeble Of 1,186 girls tested by Ms. Deucon at the State Industrial School for Girls at Lancaster,

Pennsylvania, 28% were found to have sub-normal intelligence. Dr. Catherine Bermont-Davies' report on 1,000 cases entered in the Bedford Home for Women. New York stated that there was no doubt 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 Ronald in charge. Of 564 prostitutes investigated by Dr. Anna Dwyer in connection with the Municipal Court of Chicago, only 3% 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.

Test by Dr. George Ordal and Dr. Louise Ellison Ordal of cases in the Geneva School for girls, Geneva, Illinois, showed that, on a conservative basis of classification, at least 18% were feeble-minded. At the Joliet Prison, Illinois, the same authors found 50% at the female prisoners feeble-minded, and 26% of the male prisoners. At the St. Charles School for Boys, 26% were feeble-minded. Tests by Dr. J. Harold Williams of 150 delinquents in the Woodhurst State School for Boys, Wittier, California, gave 28% feeble-minded, and 25% at or near the borderline. 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 Fernard 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 Clinton, In an unusually thorough psychological study of 1,000 young adult prisoners finds the proportion of feeble-mindedness not far from 50%. But it is needless to multiply statistics.

Those given are but samples. Tess are at present being made in most of the progressive prisons, reform schools and juvenile courts throughout the country, and while there are minor discrepancies in regard to the actual percentage who are feeble-minded, there is no investigator who denies the fearful role played by mental deficiency in the production of vice-crime and delinquency. Paredity studies of degenerate families have confirmed in a striking way the testimony secured by intelligence tests. Among the best known of such families are the Calicacques, the Dukes, the Hillfolk, the Nams, the Zeros and the Ishmaelites.

The Calicac family Martin Calicac 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 to break descendants of this temporary union. It is known that 36 of these were illegitimate, that 33 were sexually immoral, that 24 were confirmed alcoholics, and that eight 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 Kelly-Cack 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.

individual. It was made up of doctors, lawyers, judges, educators, traders, and landholders. The hill folk are a New England family of which 709 persons have been traced. Of the married women, 24% had given birth to illegitimate offspring, and 10% 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%. It was, It was estimated that the hill folk have, in the last 60 years, cost the state of Massachusetts' uncharitable relief, care of feeble-minded, epileptic and insane, conviction and punishment for crime, prostitution, pauperism, etc., at least $500,000.

The NAM family and the Dukes 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 Calicax and the hill folk, the evidence is strong that it was a lady. 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 a state nearly $1,500,000. While 540 jukes, practically one-fifth were born out of wedlock, 37 were known to be syphilitic, 53 had been in the ballhouse, 76 had been sentenced to prison,

and 229 women of measurable age, 128 were prostitutes. The economic damage inflicted upon the state of New York by the Dukes in 75 years was estimated and more than $1,300,000, to say nothing of diseases and other evil influences which they helped to spread. But why do the feeble mind tend so strongly to become delinquent? The answer may be stated in simple terms.

Morality depends upon two things, A, the ability to foresee and to weigh the possible consequences. for self and others of different kinds of behaviour, and B, upon their willingness and capacity to exercise self-restraint, that there may be many intelligent criminals is due to the fact that A may exist with B, on the other hand, B presupposes A. In other words, not all criminals are feeble-minded, but all feeble-minded are at least potential criminals. That every feeble-minded woman is a potential prostitute would hardly be disputed by anyone. Moral judgment, like business judgment, social judgment, or any other kind of high thought process, is a

function of intelligence. Morality cannot flower and fruit if intelligence remains infertile. All of us in early childhood lacked moral responsibility. We were as rank egoists as any criminal. Respect for the feelings, the property rights, or any other kind of rights of others had to be laboriously acquired under the whip of discipline. But by degrees we learned that only when instincts are curbed and conduct is made to conform to principles established formally or accepted tacitly by our neighbors, does this become a livable world for any of us? Without the intelligence to generalize the particular, devisee distinct consequences of present acts, to weigh these foreseen consequences in the nice balance of imagination, morality cannot be learned. When the adult

body, with its adult instincts, is coupled with the undeveloped intelligence and weak inhibitory powers of a 10-year-old child, and the only possible outcome, except in those cases where constant guardianship is exercised by relatives or friends, is some form of delinquency. Considering the tremendous cost of vice and crime, which in all probability amounts to not less than $500 million per year in the United States alone, it is evident that psychological testing is found here one of its richest applications. Before offenders can be subjected to rational treatment, a mental diagnosis is necessary, and while intelligence tests do not constitute a complete psychological diagnosis, they are, nevertheless, its most indispensable part. intelligence tests of superior children The number of children with very superior ability is approximately as great as the number of people-minded.

The future welfare of the country hinges in a small degree upon the right education of these superior children. Whether civilization moves on and up depends most on the advances made by creative thinkers and leaders in science, politics, art, morality and religion. Moderate ability can follow or imitate, but just must show the way. Through the levelling influences of the educational lockstep, such children at present are often lost in the masses.

It is a rare child who is able to break this lockstep by extra promotions. Taking the country over, the ratio of accelerates to retire dates in the school is approximately 1 to 10. Through the handicapping influences of poverty, social neglect, physical defects or educational maladjustments, many potential leaders in science, art, government and industry are denied the opportunity of a normal development. The use we have made of exceptional ability reminds one of the primitive methods of surface mining. It is necessary to explore the nation's hidden resources of intelligence. The common saying that genius will out is one of those dangerous half-truths, with which too many people rest content. Psychological tests show that children of superior ability are very likely to be misunderstood in school.

The writer has tested more than 100 children who were as much above average intelligence as moral and effect is up below. The large majority of these were found located below the school grade warranted by their intellectual level. One third had failed to reap any advantage whatsoever in terms of promotion from their very superior intelligence. Even genius languishes when kept over long at tasks that are too easy. Our data show that teachers sometimes fail entirely to recognize exceptional superiority in a pupil and that the degree of such superiority is rarely estimated with anything like the accuracy which is possible to the psychologist after a one-hour examination. BF, for example, was a little over seven-a-half years old when tested.

He was in the third grade, and was therefore thought by his teacher to be accelerated in school. This boy's intelligence, however, was found to be above the 12-year level. There is no doubt that his mental ability would have enabled him, with a few months of individual instruction, to carry fifth or even sixth grade work as easily as third, and without injury to body or mind. Nevertheless, the teacher and both the parents of this child had found nothing remarkable about him. In reality, he belongs to a creative genius not found oftener than one in several thousand cases. Another illustration is that of a boy of ten and a half 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 as retained from the parents that this boy at an age when most children are reading fairy stories, passion for standard medical literature and textbooks in physical science. Yet after more than a year of daily contact with this young genius, who was a relative of my abbeyed the composer, the teacher had discovered no symptoms of unusual ability. Teachers should be better trained in detecting the science of superior ability. Every child who consistently gets high marks in his schoolwork with apparent age should be given a mental examination and if his intelligence level warrants, It should either be giving extra promotions or placed in a special class for superior children where faster progress can be made.

The latter is a better plan because it fates the necessity of skipping grades. It permits rapid but continuous progress. The usual reluctance of teachers to give ex-promotions probably rests upon three factors. One, mere inertia. Two, a natural unwillingness to part with exceptionally satisfactory pupils. And three, the traditional belief that Procoseousie's children, should be held back for fear of dire physical or mental consequences. In order to throw light on the question whether exceptionally bright children are especially likely to be one-sided,

nervous, delicate, morally abnormal, socially unadaptable or otherwise peculiar, the writer has secured rather extensive information regarding 31 children whose mental age was found by intelligence tests to be 25% above the actual age. This degree of intelligence is possessed by about two children out of 100, and is nearly as far above average intelligence as high-grade people modernness is below. The supplementary information which was furnished in most cases by the teachers may be summarized as follows. 1. Ability special or general. In the case of 20 out of 31, the ability is decidedly general, and with 2 is mainly general. The talents of 5 are described as more or less special,

but only in one case it is 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 lisp and one stutters. These figures are about the same as one defines 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 8 with unfavorable moral traits are described as follows. 2 are very self-willed. One needs close watching. One is cruel to animals. One is untruthful. One is unreliable. One is a bluffer.

One 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. 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 one. Inspires repugnance one. No answer. One. 7. Is the child a leader? Yes, 14. No, or not particularly 12. Dalfour 5. 8. Is play life normal? Yes, 26. No, one. Hardly one. Doubtful 3. 9. Is child spoiled or vain? No, 22. Yes, 5. Somewhat, 2. No answer. 2. According to the above data, exceptionally intelligent children are fully as likely to be healthy as ordinary children.

Their ability is far more often general than special. They are studious above the average. Really serious faults are not common among them. They are nearly always socially adaptable, are sought after as playmates and companions. Their play life is usually normal. They are leaders far often than other children. And notwithstanding, there are many really superior qualities. They are seldom, vain, or spoiled.

It would be generally to the advantage of such children if their superior ability were more promptly and fully recognized, and if, under probable medical supervision, of course, they were promoted as rapidly as their mental development would warrant. Unless they are given the grade of work which calls forth their best efforts, they run the risk of falling into lifelong habits of sub-maximum efficiency. The danger in the case of such children is not over-pressure but under pressure. intelligence tests as a basis for grading. Not only in the case of retired or exceptionally bright children, but with many others also, intelligence tests can aid in correctly placing the child in school. The pupil who enters one school system from another is a case in point.

Such a pupil nearly always suffers a loss of time. The indefensible custom is to grade the newcomer down a little, because for Suf, the textbooks he has studied, may have differed somewhat from those years about to take up. or because the school system from which he comes may be looked upon as inferior. Teachers are too often suspicious of all other educational methods besides their own. The present treatment accorded such children, which so often does some injustice and injury, should be replaced by an intelligence test.

The hour of time required for the test is a small matter in comparison with the loss of a school term by the pupils. Indeed, it will be so able to make all promotion on the basis chiefly of intellectual Either road, the school system has had to rely on tests of information because reliable tests of intelligence have not until recently been available. As trained Bennett examiners become more plentiful, the information standard will have to give away to the criteria which asks merely that the child shall be able to do the work of the next higher grade. The brief intelligence test is not only more enlightening than the examination, it is also

more hygienic. The school examination is often for the child a source of worry and anxiety. A mental test is an interesting and pleasant experience. Intelligence tests for vocational fitness The time is probably not far distant when intelligence tests will become a recognised and widely used instrument for determining vocational fitness. Of course it is not claimed that tests are available which will tell us unerarily exactly what one of a thousand or more occupations are given individual's fitted to pursue. But when thousands of children who have been tested by the Bennett scale have been followed out into the industrial world and their success in various occupations noted, we shall know fairly definitively the vocational significance of any given degree of mental inferiority or superiority. Researchers of this kind will ultimately determine the minimum intelligence quotient necessary for success in each leading occupation.

Industrial concerns doubtless suffer enormous losses from the employment of persons whose mental ability is not equal to the tasks they are expected to perform. The present methods of trying out new employees, transferring them to simpler and simpler jobs as their inefficiency becomes apparent is wasteful and to a great extent unnecessary. A jabriamor more satisfactory method would be to employ a psychologist to examine applicants for positions and to weed out the unfit. Any business employing as many as 500 or 1,000 workers as, for example, a large department store could save in this way several times a salary of a well-trained psychologist. That the industrially inefficient or often of subnormal intelligence has already been demonstrated

in a number of psychological investigations. Of 150 hobos tested under the direction of the writer by Mr. Nolan, at least 20% belonged to the more grade of mental deficiency, and almost as many more were borderline cases. To be sure, large proportion were found perfectly normal, and a few even decidedly superior in mental ability, but the ratio of mental deficiency was about 15 times as high as at holding for the general population. Several had as low as nine or ten-year intelligence, and one had a mental level of seven years.

The industrial history of such subjects, as given by themselves, was always about what the mental level would lead us to expect. Unskilled work, lack of interest and accomplishment, frequent discharge from jobs, discouragement, and finally, the road. The above findings have been fully paralleled by Mr. Glenn Johnson and Professor Eleanor Rowland of Reed College, who tested 108 unemployed charity cases in Portland, Oregon. Both of these investigators made use of the Stanford Division of the Bennett scale, which is especially servicable in distinguishing the upper-grade defectives from normals.

It highly needs to be emphasized that when charity organizations help the fable-minded to float along in the social and industrial world and to produce and rear children of their kind, a doubtful service is rendered. A little psychological research would aid the united charities of any city to direct their expenditures into more profitable channels that would otherwise be possible. Other uses of intelligence tests. Another important use of intelligence tests is in the study of the factors which influence mental development. It is desirable that we should be able to guard the child against influences which affect mental development unfavorably, but as long as these influences have not been sifted, weighed and measured, we have nothing

but conjecture on which to base our efforts in this direction. When we search the literature of child hygiene for reliable evidence as to the injuries effects upon mental ability of malnutrition, decayed teeth, obstructed breathing, reduced to sleep, bad ventilation, insufficient exercise, etc. We are met by endless assertion, painfully unsupported by demonstrated fact. We have indeed very little exact knowledge regarding the mental effects of any of the factors just mentioned. When standardized mental tests have come into more general use, such influences will be easy to detect wherever they are really present. Again, the most important question of heredity is that regarding the inheritance of intelligence,

but this is a problem which cannot be attacked at all without some accurate means of identifying the thing, which is the object of study. Without the use of scales for measuring intelligence, we can give no better answer as to the essential difference between a genius and of fall, then is to be found in legend and fiction. Applying this to school children, it means that without such tests we cannot know to what extent a child's mental performances are determined by environment and to what extent by heredity. Is the place of the so-called lower classes in the social industrial scale the result of their inferior native endowment, or is there apparent inferiority merely a result of their inferior to home in school training? Is genies more common

among children of the educated classes than among the children of the ignorant and poor? Are the inferior race is really inferior or are they merely unfortunate in their lack of opportunity to learn? Only intelligence tests can answer these questions and grade the raw material with which education works. Without them we can never distinguish the results of our educational efforts with a given child from the influence of the child's original endowment. Such tests would have told us, for example, wherever the much-discussed Wander children, such as the C.D. and we know boys and the stoner girl owe their precarious intellectual powers to superior training, as their parents believe, or to superior native ability. There's supposed effects upon mental development of new methods of mind training which are exploited so confidently from time of time,

e.g. the Montessori method and the various systems of sensory and motor training for the people-minded, will have to be checked up by this same kind of scientific measurement. In all these fields, intelligence tests are certain to play an ever-increasing role, with the exception to of moral character, there is nothing as significant for a child's future as his grade of intelligence. Even health itself is likely to have less influence in determining success in life. Others strength and swiftness have always had great survival value among the lower animals. These characteristics have long since lost their supremacy in man's struggle for existence. For us, the rule of brawn has been broken, and intelligence has become the decisive factor in success.

Schools, railroads, factories, and the largest commercial concerns may be successfully managed by persons who are physically weak or even sickly. One who has intelligence constantly measures opportunities against his own strength or weakness and adjust himself to conditions by following those leads which promise most towards the realization of his individual possibilities. All classes of intellects, the weakest as well as the strongest, will profit by the application of their talents, two tasks which are consonant with their ability. When we have learned the lessons which intelligence tests have to teach, we shall no longer

blame mentally defective workmen for their industrial inefficiency, punish weak-minded children because of their inability to learn, or imprison and hang mentally defective criminals because they lacked the intelligence to appreciate the ordinary codes of social conduct. End of Chapter 1 of the Measurement of Intelligence Chapter 2 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. This is the Libravox recording. All Librevox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please. visit Libravox.org. Read by Leon Harvey. Chapter 2. Sources of error in judging intelligence.

Are intelligence tests superfluous? Binnet tells us that he often encountered the criticism that intelligence tests are superfluous and that in going to so much trouble to devise his measuring scale, he was forcing an open door. Those who made this criticism believed that the observant teacher, or parent, is able to make an offhand estimate of a child's intelligence which is accurate enough. It is a stupid teacher, said one. who needs a psychologist to tell her which pupils are not intelligent. Everyone who uses intelligence tests meets this attitude from time to time. This should not be surprising or discouraging.

It is only natural that those who are unfamiliar with methods of psychology should occasionally question their validity or worth, just as there are many excellent people who do not believe in vaccination against typhoid and smallpox, operations for appendicitis, etc. There is an additional reason why the applications of psychology have to overcome a good deal of conservatism and skepticism, namely the fact that everyone, whether psychologically trained or not, acquires in the ordinary experiences of life a certain degree of expertness in the observation and interpretation of mental traits.

The possession of this little fund of practical working knowledge makes most people slow to admit anyone's claim to greater expertness. When the astronomer tells us the distance to Jupiter, we accept his statement because he recognized that our ordinary experience affords no basis for judgment about such matters. But everyone acquires more or less facility in distinguishing the coarser differences among people in intelligence, and this half-knowledge naturally generates a certain amount of resistance to the more refined method of tests. It should be evident, however, that we need more than the ability merely to distinguish a genus from a simpleton, just as a physician needs something more than the ability to distinguish an athlete from a man-diving of consumption.

It is necessary to have a definite and accurate diagnosis, one which will differentiate more finely than the main degrees and quality. of intelligence. Just as in the case of physical illness, we need to know not merely that the patient is sick, but also why he is sick, what organs are involved, what course of the illness will run, and what physical work the patient can safely undertake. So in the case of a retired child, we need to know the exact degree of intellectual deficiency. What mental functions are chiefly concerned in the defect, whether the deficiency is due to innate endowment, to physical illness, or to faults of education, and what lines of mental activity the child will be able to pursue with reasonable herbic success.

In the diagnosis of a case of malnutrition, the up-to-date physician does not depend upon general symptoms, but instead makes a blood test to determine the exact number of red corpuscles per cubic millimeter of blood and the exact percentage of hemoglobin. He is learned that external appearances are often misleading. Similarly, every psychologist who is experienced in the mental examination of school children knows that his own or the teacher's estimate of a child's intelligence is subject to grave and frequent error.

The necessity of standards In the first place, in order to judge individual's intelligence, it is necessary to have in mind some standard as to what constitutes normal intelligence. This, the ordinary parent or teacher, does not have. In the case of school children, for example, each pupil is judged with reference to the average intelligence of the class, but the teacher is no means of knowing whether the average for her class

is above, equal to, or below that for children in general. Her standard may be too high, too low, vague, mechanical or fragmentary. The same, of course, holds in the case of parents or anyone else attempting to estimate intelligence on the basis of common observation. The intelligence of retarded children usually overestimated. One of the most common errors made by the teacher is to overestimate the intelligence of the over-age pupil.

This is because she fails to take account of age differences and estimates intelligence on the basis of the child's school performance in the grade where he happens to be located. tends to overlook the fact that quality of school work is no index of intelligence unless age is taken into account. The question should be not, is this child doing his school work well, but rather, in what school grade should a child of this age be able to do satisfactory work? A high-grade imbecile may do average work in the first grade, and a high-grade moron average work in the third or fourth grade provided that only they are sufficiently overage for

the grade in question. Our experience in testing children for segregation in special classes has time and time again brought this fallacy of teachers to our attention. We've often found one or more fable-minded children in a class after the teacher has confidently ascertained that there was not a single exceptionally dull child present. In every case, there has been opportunity to follow the later school progress of such a child, the validity of the intelligence test has been fully confirmed. The following are typical examples of the neglect of teachers to take the age factor into

account when estimating the intelligence of the over-each child. A.R. Girl? Age 11. In low second grade. She was able to do the work of this grade, not well, but possibly. 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 seven-year standard, and that instead of only been able to do the work of the second grade indifferently, a child of this age should have been equal to the work at the fifth grade. In reality, AR is definitely feeble-minded. Although she is from a home of average culture is 11 years old and has attended school five years, she is 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 a 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 behaviour. The Bennett test quickly showed that he had a mental level of approximately nine years. There is little probability that his comprehension will ever surpass that at the average 10-year-old. R.A. Boy age 17, mental age 11. Sixth grade. School work nearly average. Teachers estimate of intelligence average. Test plainly shows this child to be a high grade moron, or borderliner at best. Had attended school regularly 11 years and has made six

grades, teacher had compared child with his 12-year-old classmates. H.A. Boy age 14, mental age 9.6. Low fourth grade, schoolwork inferior, teacher's estimate of intelligence average. The teacher blamed the inferior quality of schoolwork 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 until he is 21 years of age. F.I. Boy, age 12-11, mental age 9-4, third grade, school work average, teachers 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% below chronological age who is 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 aged 8.10, Mental age 6.7, has been in first grade three and a half years. School work average. Teachers 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 two years, school work inferior.

Teachers estimate of intelligence average. The teacher nevertheless adds, The 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 five-year intelligence are able to profit little from drill, that weakness comes to light in their ability to perform. higher types of mental activity.

The intelligence of superior children usually underestimated. We have already mentioned the frequent failure of teachers and parents to recognize superior ability. The fallacy here is again largely due to the neglect of the age factor. But the resulting error is in the opposite direction from that set forth above. The superior child is likely to be a year or two younger than the average child of his grade and is accordingly judged by a standard which is too high. the following are illustrations

M.I. Girl age 11.2. Mental age, above average. 16. 6th grade. School work superior. Teachers estimate of intelligence average. Teacher credit superior schoolwork to unusual home advantages. Father a college professor.

The teacher considers the child accelerated in school, but reality, she ought to be in the second year of high school instead of the sixth grade. H.A. Boy age 11. age 14, 6th grade, school work average, teachers' 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 to 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 six years of age should be judged very superior rather than merely superior in intelligence? The intelligence quotients of this girl is 140, which is not reached by more than one child in 200. S.A. Boy aged 8.10, mental age 10, 10, 9, 4th grade. School work average. Teachers estimate of intelligence average, teacher attributes schoolwork acceleration to studiousness and delight in schoolwork.

It would be more reasonable to infer that these traits are indications of unusually superior intelligence. Other fallacies in the estimation of intelligence. Another source of error in the teacher's judgment comes from the difficulty of distinguishing genuine dullness from the mental condition which results sometimes from unfavorable social environment or lack of training. BP, boy, age seven, 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 Bennett 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 he 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.

XY. Boy age 10. Son of a successful businessman, he was barely able to read in the second reader. The Bennett 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 seems to have been due to an unfavorable attitude towards school work, due in turn to lack of discipline in the home,

and to the fact that because of the father's frequent changes of business headquarters, the boy had never attended one school longer than three months. Another source of error in judging intelligence from the common observation is the tendency to overestimate the intelligence of the sprightly, talkative, sanguine child, and to underestimate the intelligence of the child who is less emotional, reacts slowly and talks little. One occasionally finds a feeble-minded adult, perhaps of only nine or ten-year intelligence whose verbal fluency, mental liveliness and self-confidence would mislead the offhand

judgment of even the psychologist. One individual of this type, a borderline case at best, was accustomed to a rang street audiences and had served as a major in Kelly's Army, a horde of several hundred unemployed men who, a few years ago, organized and started to march from San Francisco to Washington. Binet's questionnaire on teachers' methods of judging intelligence. Aroused by the skepticism so often shown towards this test method, Binet decided to make a little study of the method by which teachers are accustomed to arrive at a judgment as to a child's intelligence. Accordingly, through the cooperation of the Director of Elementary Education in Paris, he secured answers from a number of teachers to the following questions. 1. By what means do you judge the intelligence of your pupils?

Two, how often have you been deceived in your judgments? About 40 replies were received. Most of the answers to the first questions were vague, one-sided, verbal or bookish. Only a few showed much psychological discrimination as to what intelligence is and what its symptoms are. There was a very general tendency to judge intelligence by success in one or more of the school studies. Some thought that ability to master arithmetic was a sure criterion. Others were influenced almost entirely by the pupil's ability to research. read. One teacher said that the child who can read so expressively as to make you feel the

punctuation is certainly intelligent, an observation which is rather good as far as it goes. A few judged intelligence by the pupil's knowledge of such subjects as history and geography, which, as Bennett points out, is too confounded intelligence with the ability to memorize. Memory, says Bennett, is a great simulator of intelligence. It is a wise teacher who is not deceived by it, only a small minority mentioned resourcefulness in play, capacity to adjust to practical situations, or any other out-of-school criteria. Some suggested asking the pupil such questions as the following. Why do you love your parents? If it takes three persons seven hours to do a piece of work, would it take seven persons any longer? Which would you rather

have? A fourth of a pie, or a half of a half? Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead? If you had 20 cents, what would you do of it? A great many based their judgments mainly on the general appearances of the face and eyes, an active or passive expression of the eyes, was looked upon as especially significant. One teacher thought that a mere glance of the eye was a vision to display the grade of intelligence. If the eyes are penetrating, reflective, or show curiosity, the child must be intelligent. If they are heavy and expressionless, he must be dull. The mobility of countenance came in for frequent mention,

also the shape of the head. No one will deny that intelligence displays itself to a greater or less extent in the features. But how, asked Bennett, are we going to standardize a glance of the eye or an expression of curiosity so that it will serve as an exact measure of intelligence? The fact is,

the more one sees of feeble-minded children, the less reliance one comes to place upon facial expression as a sign of intelligence. Some children, who are only slightly backward, have the general appearance of low-grade imbeciles. On the other hand, not a few who are distinctly feeble-minded are pretty and attractive. With many such children, a reddy smile takes the place of comprehension. If the smile is rather sweet and sympathetic, as is often the case, the observer is almost sure to be deceived.

As regards to shape of the head, peculiar confirmation of the ears and other stigmata, signs long ago demonstrated that these are ordinarily of little or no significance. In reply to the second question, some teachers stated that they never made a mistake, while others admitted failure in one case out of three. Still others said, once in ten years, once in twenty years, once in a thousand times, etc. As Bennett remarks, the answers to this question are not very enlightening. In the first place, the teacher, as a rule, loses sight of the pupil when he has passed from her care and seldom has opportunity of finding out whether his later success belies her judge. or confirms it. Errors go undiscovered for the simple reason that there is no

opportunity to check them up. In the second place, who estimate is so rough that an error must be very great in order to have any meaning. If I say that a man is six feet and two inches tall, it is easy enough to apply a measuring stick and prove the correctness or incorrectness of my assertion. But if I simply say that the man is rather tall, or very tall, the error must be very extreme before we can expose it, particularly since the estimate can itself be checked up only by observation. and not by a controlled experiment. The teacher's answers seem to justify three conclusions.

One. Teachers do not have a very definite idea of what constitutes intelligence. They tend to confuse it variously with the capacity for memorizing, facility and reading, ability to master arithmetic, etc. On the whole, their standard is too academic. They fail to appreciate the one-sidedness of the school's demands upon intelligence. In a quaintly humorous passage discussing this tendency, Bennett characterizes the child in a class as de Natchere, a French word which we may translate, though rather too literally, as denatured. Too often this denatured child of the classroom is the only child the teacher knows.

2. In judging intelligence, teachers are too easily deceived by a sprightly attitude, a sympathetic expression, a glance at the eye, or a chance bump on the head. 3. Although a few teachers seem to realize the many possibilities of error, the majority show rather undue confidence in the accuracy of their judgment. Binnet's experiment on how teachers test intelligence. Finally, Bennett had three teachers come to his laboratory to judge the intelligence of children whom they have never seen before. Each spent an afternoon in the laboratory and examined five pupils. In each case the teacher was left free to arrive at a conclusion in her own way. Binnet, who remained in the room and took notes, recounts with playful humour how the teachers were unavoidally compelled to result to the much-abused test method,

although their attempts at using it were, sometimes, from the psychologist's point of view, amusingly clumsy. One teacher, for example, questioned the child about some canals and sluces which were in the vicinity, asking what their purpose was and how they worked. Another showed the children some pretty pictures, which she had brought with her for the purpose, and asked questions about them. Showing the picture of a garret, she asked how her garret differs from an ordinary room. One teacher asked whether in building a factory

it was best to have the walls thick or thin. As King Edward had just died, another teacher questioned the child about the details of this event in order to find out whether they were in the habit of reading the newspapers or understood the things they heard others read. Other questions related to the names of the streets

in the neighborhood. The road one should take to reach a certain point in the vicinity, etc. Bennett notes that many of the questions were special and were only applicable to the children of this particular school. The method of proposing the questions and judging their responses was also at fault. The teachers did not adhere consistently to any defined formula in giving a particular test to the different children. Instead, the questions were materially altered from time to time.

One teacher scored the identical response differently for two children, giving one child more credit than the other because she had already judged his intelligence to be superior. In several cases, the examination was needlessly delayed in order to instruct the child in what he did not know. The examination ended, quite properly for a teacher's examination, with questions about history, literature, the metric system, etc., and with recitation of a fable. A comparison of the results showed hardly any agreement among the estimates of the three teachers. when questioned about the standard they had been taken in arriving in their conclusions, one teacher said she had taken the answers of the first pupil as a point of departure,

and that she had judged the other pupils by this one. Another judged all the children by a child of her acquaintance, whom she knew to be intelligent. This was, of course, an unsafe method, because no one could say how the child taken as an ideal would have responded to the test's use with the five children. In summarizing the result of his little experiment, Bennett points out that the teachers employed, as if by instinct, the very method which he himself recommends. In using it, however, they made numerous errors. Their questions were often needlessly long. Several were dilemma questions, that is, answerable by yes or no. In such cases,

chance alone will cause 50% of the answers to be correct. Some of the questions were merely tests of school knowledge. Others were entirely special, usable only with the children of this particular school on this particular day. Not all of the questions were put in the same terms, and a given response did not always receive the same score. When the children responded incorrectly or incompletely, they were often given help, but not always to the same extent. In other words, says Spinnett, it was evident that the teachers employed very awkwardly a very excellent method. The above remark is as pertinent as it is expressive. As a statement implies, the test method is better refinement and standardization of the common sense approach. Bina remarks that most people

who inquire into his method of measuring intelligence do so expecting to find something very surprising and mysterious, and on seeing how much it resembles a method which common sense employs in ordinary life, they have a sigh of disappointment and say, is that all? Bina reminds us that the difference between the scientific and unscientific way of doing a thing is not necessarily a difference in the nature of the method. It is often merely a difference in exactness. Science does the thing better because it does it more accurately. It was, of course, not the purpose of the Binet to cast a slur on the good sense and judge the teachers. The teachers who took part in this little experiment described above were Binet's personal friends. The errors he points out

in his entertaining and good-humid account of the experiment are inherent in this situation. The other kind of errors which any person, whoever discriminating an observant, is likely to make in estimating the intelligence of a subject without the use of standardized tests. It is a writer's experience that the teacher's estimate of a child's intelligence is much more reliable than that of the average parent, more accurate even that of the physician who has not had psychological training. Indeed, it is an exceptional school physician who is able to give any very valuable assistant to teachers in the classification of mentally exceptional children for special pedagogical treatment. This is only to be expected for the physician has

ordinarily had much less instruction in psychology than the teacher, and of course infinitely less experience in judging the mental performances of children. Even if graduated from a first-class medical school, the instruction he has received in his important subject of mental deficiency has probably been less adequate than given to the students of a standard normal school. As a rule, the doctor has no equipment for special fitness which gives him many advantage of the teacher in acquiring facility in the use of intelligence tests. As for parents, it would of course be unreasonable to expect for them a very accurate judgment regarding the mental peculiarities of their children. The difficulty is not simply that which comes from lack of special training.

The presence of parental affection renders impartial judgment impossible. Still more serious are the effects of habituation to the child's mental traits. As a result of such habituation, the most intelligent parent tends to develop an unfortunate blindness to all sorts of abnormalities which exist in his own children. The only way to escape from the fallacies we've mentioned lies in the use of some kind of refined psychological procedure. In it testing is designed to become universally known and practice in schools, prisons, reformatories, charity stations, orphan asylums and even ordinary homes

for the same reason that Babcock testing has become universal in derrying. Each is indispensable to its purpose. End of Chapter 2 of the Measurement of Intelligence Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 3 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. This is a Libravox recording. All Librivox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravox.org. Read by Leon Harvey

Chapter 3. Description of the Binet Simon Method Essential Nature of the Scale The Binet Scale is made up of an extended series of tests in the nature of stunts or problems, success in which depends the exercise of intelligence. As left by Bennett, the scale consists of 54 tests, so graded in difficulty, that the easiest lie well within the range of normal three-year-old children, while the hardest tax the intelligence of the average adult. The problems are designed primarily to test native intelligence, not school knowledge or

home training. They try to answer the question, how intelligent is this child? How much the child has learned is of significance insofar as it throws light on his ability to learn more. Binnett fully appreciated the fact that intelligence is not homogeneous, that it has many aspects, and that no one kind of test will display it adequately. He therefore assembled for his intelligence-scale tests of many different types, some of them designed to display differences of memory, other differences in power to reason, ability to compare, power of comprehension, time orientation, facility in the use of number concepts, power to combine ideas into a meaningful

whole, maturity of a perception, wealth of ideas, knowledge of common objects, etc. How the scale was derived. The tests were arranged in order of difficulty as found by trying them upon some 200 normal children of different ages from 3 to 15 years. It was found for illustration that a certain test was passed by only a very small proportion of the younger children, say the 5-year-olds, and that the number passing this test increased rapidly in the succeeding years until by the age of 7 or 7. 8 years, let us say, practically all the children were successful.

If in our supposed case the test was passed by about 2 thirds to 3 fourths of the normal children age 7 years, it was considered by Bennett a test of 7 year intelligence, and like manner a test by 65 to 75% of the normal 9-year-olds was considered a test of 9-year intelligence and so on. By trying out many different tests in this way, it was possible to secure 5 tests to represent each age from 3 to 10 years, excepting age 4, which is only 4, 5 for age 12, 5 for 15, and 5 for adults, making 54 tests in all. Lists of tests. The following is the list of tests as arranged by Bennett in 1911, shortly before his untimely death.

Age 3. 1. Points to nose, eyes and mouth. 2. repeats 2 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 3 digits. 4 compares to 2 lines.

Age 5. 1. compares 2 weights. 2. copies a square. 3 repeats a sentence of 10 syllables. 4. Counts 4 pennies. 5. Unites the halves of a divided rectangle. age six one distinguishes between morning and afternoon two defines familiar words in terms of use three copies a diamond four counts thirteen pennies five distinguishes pictures of ugly and pretty faces age seven one shows right hand and left ear two describes a picture three executes three commissions given simultaneously four counts the value of six sous three of which are

double. Five. Names four cardinal colors. Age 8. 1. compares two objects from memory. Two, counts from 20 to 0. 3. Note submissions from pictures. Four, gives day and date. Five, repeats five digits. Age 9. One, gives change from 20 sous. Two, defines familiar words in terms superior use. 3. Recognises all the pieces of money. 4. Names the months of the year in order. 5. Answers easy comprehension questions. Age 10. 1. Arranges 5 blocks in order of weight. 2. Copies drawings from memory.

3. Criticizes absurd statements. 4. Answers difficult comprehension questions. 5. Us 3 given words in not more than 2 sentences. age 12. 1. Resists suggestion. 2. Composes one sentence containing three given words. 3. Names 60 words in 3 minutes. 4. Defines certain abstract words. 5. Discovers the sense of a disarranged sentence. Age 15. 1. Repeat 7 digits. 2. Finds 3 rhymes for a given word. 3. Repeats a sentence of 26 syllables.

4. interprets pictures. 5. Interprets given facts. Adult. 1. Solves the paper cutting test. 2. Rearranges a triangle in imagination. 3. Gives differences between pairs of abstract terms. 4. gives three differences between a president and a king. 5. gives the main thought of a selection which he has heard read.

It should be emphasized that merely to name the tests in this way gives little idea of their nature and meaning. and tells nothing about Binet's method of conducting the 54 experiments. In order to use the test intelligently, is necessary to acquaint oneself thoroughly with the purpose of each test, its correct procedure and the psychological interpretation of different types of response. In fairness to Binet, it should also be borne in mind that the scale of tests was only a rough approximation to the ideal which the author had set himself to realize.

Had his life been spared a few years longer, he would doubtless have carried the method much nearer perfection. How the scale is used. By means of the Bennett tests, we can judge the intelligence of a given individual by comparison with standards of intellectual performance for normal children of different ages. In order to make the comparison, it is only necessary to begin the examination of the subject at a point in the scale where all the tests are passed successfully and to continue up the scale until no more successes are possible.

Then we compare one subject's performances with the standard for normal children of the same age, and note the amount of acceleration or retardation. Let us suppose the subject being tested is nine years of age. If he goes as far in the test as normal nine-year-old children ordinarily go, we can say that the child has a mental age of nine years, which in this case is normal, our child being nine years of age. If he goes only as far as normal eight-year-old children ordinarily go, we say that his mental age is eight years.

In like manner, a mentally defective child of nine years may have a mental age of only four years, or a young genies of nine years may have a mental age of 12 or 13 years. Special characteristics of the Bennett-Simon method Psychologists had experimented with intelligence tests for at least 20 years before the Bennett scale made its appearance. The question naturally suggests itself why Bennett should have been successful in a field where previous efforts had been for the most part futile. The answer to this question is found in three essential differences between Bennett's method and those formerly employed. One, the use of age standards. Bennett was the first to utilize the idea of age standards, or norms, in the measurement of intelligence.

It will be understood, of course, that Bennett did not set out to invent tests of 10-year intelligence, 6-year intelligence, etc. Instead, as already explained, he began with a series of tests ranging from very easy to very difficult, and by trying these tests on children of different ages and noting the percentages of successes in the various years, he was able to locate them approximately in the years where they belonged. this plan has a great advantage of giving us standards which are easily grasped to say for illustration that a given subject has a grade of intelligence equal to that of the average child of eight years is a statement whose general import does not need to be explained previous investigators had worked with the subject the degree of whose intelligence was unknown and with tests the difficulty of which was equally unknown an immense amount of ingenuity was spent in devising tests which were used in such a way as to preclude any very meaningful interpretation of the responses The Bennett method enables us to characterize the intelligence of a child in a far more definite way than it had hitherto been possible. Current descriptive terms like bright, moderately bright, dull, very dull, feeble-minded, etc., have had no universally accepted meaning.

A child who is designated by one person as moderately bright may be called very bright by another person. The degree of intelligence which one cause moderate dullness, another may call extreme dullness, etc. But everyone knows what is meant by the term eight-year mentality, four-year mentality, etc. Even though he is not able to define these grades of intelligence in psychological terms, and by ascertaining experimentally what intellectual tasks children of different ages can perform, we are, of course, able to make our age standard as definite as we please. Why should a device so simple have waited so long for a discoverer? We do not know.

It is of a class with many other unaccountable mysteries in the development of scientific method. the idea of an age-grade method, as this is called, did not come to Bennett himself until he had experimented with intelligence tests for some 15 years. At least his first provisional scale published in 1905 was not made up according to the age-grade plan. It consisted merely of 30 tests, arranging roughly in order of difficulty. Although Bennett's nowhere gives an account of the steps by which this crude and ungraded scale was transformed into the relatively complete age-grade scale of 1908, we can infer that the original and ingenious idea of utilizing age norms was suggested by the data collected with the 1905 scale.

However, the discovery was made it ranks, perhaps from the practical point of view, as the most important in all the history of psychology. 2. The kind of mental functions brought into play. In the second place, the Bennett test differ from most of the earlier attempts in that they are designed to test the higher and more complex mental processes instead of the simpler and more elementary ones. Hence they set problems for the reasoning powers and ingenuity, provoke judgments about abstract matters, etc. Instead of attempting to measure sensory discrimination, mere retentiveness, rapidity of reaction, and the like.

Psychologists had generally considered the higher processes too complex to be measured directly, and accordingly sought to gather them indirectly by correlating supposed intelligence with simpler processes which could readily be measured, such as reaction time, rapidity of tapping, discrimination of tones and colours, etc. While they were disputing over their contradictory findings in this line of exploration, Binet went directly to the point and succeeded where they had failed. It is now generally admitted by psychologists that higher intelligence is little concerned in such elementary processes as those mentioned above. Many of the animals have keen sensory discrimination.

Feble-minded children, unless a very low grade, do not differ very markedly from normal children, insensitivity of the skin, visual acuity, simple reaction time, type of imagery, etc. But the power of comprehension, abstraction, and ability to direct thought in the nature of the associated processes is amount of information possessed and in spontaneously of attention. They differ enormously. 3. Bennett would test general intelligence.

Finally, Bennett's success was largely due to his abandonment of the old faculty psychology, which, far from being defunct, had really given direction to most of the early work with mental tests, where others had attempted to measure memory, attention, sense discrimination, etc. As separate faculties or functions, Bennett undertook to ascertain the general level of intelligence. Others had thought the task easier of accomplishment by measuring each division or aspect of intelligence separately, and submitting the results. Binet II began in this way, and it was only after years of experimentation by the usual methods that he finally broke away from them and undertook, so to speak, to triangulate the height of his tower

without first getting the dimensions of the individual stones which made it up. The assumption that it is easier to measure a part, or one aspect of intelligence, then all of it is fallacious in that the parts are not separate parts and cannot be separated by any refinement of experiment. They are interwoven and intertwined. Each ramifies everywhere and appears in all other functions. The analogy of the stones of the tower does not really apply. memory, for example, cannot be tested separately from attention or sense discrimination separately

from the associated processes. After many vain attempts to disentangle the various intellective functions, been decided to test their combined functional capacity without any pretense of measuring the exact contribution of each of the total product. It is highly too much to say that intelligence tests have been successful just to the extent to which they have been guided by this aim. Memory, attention, imagination, etc. are terms of structural, psychology. Binnett's psychology is dynamic. He conceives intelligence as the sum total of those thought processes which constitute in mental adaptation. This adaptation is not explicable in terms of the old mental faculties. No one of these can explain a single thought process, for such processes

always involve the participation of many functions whose separate roles are impossible to distinguish accurately. Instead of measuring the intensity of various mental states, psychophysics, it is more enlightening to measure their combined effort on adaptation using a biological comparison, Bennett says the old faculties correspond to the separate tissues of an animal or plant, while his own scheme of thought corresponds to the functioning organ itself. For Bennett, psychology is a science of behavior. Binet's conception of general intelligence. In devising tests of intelligence, it is of course necessary to be guided by some assumption, or assumptions, regarding the nature of intelligence.

To adopt any other course is to depend for success upon happy chance. However, it is impossible to arrive at a final definition of intelligence on the basis of a-priority considerations alone. To demand, as critics of the Bennett method have sometimes done, that one who would measure intelligence should first present a complete definition of it is quite unreasonable. As Stern points out, electrical currents were measured long before their nature was well understood. similar illustrations could be drawn from the processes involved in chemistry, physiology,

and other sciences. In the case of intelligence, it may be truthfully said that no adequate definition can possibly be framed which is not based primarily on the symptoms empirically brought to light by the test method. The test that can be done in advance of such data is to make tentative assumptions as to the probable nature of intelligence, and then to subject these assumptions to tests which will show their correctness or incorrectness. The new hypothesis can then be framed for further trial, and thus gradually we shall be led to a

conception of intelligence which will be meaningful and in harmony with the ascertainable facts. Such was the method of Binet. Only those unacquainted with Bennett's more than 15 years of labour preceding the publication of his intelligence scale would think of accusing him of making no effort to analyse the mental processes which he tests bring into play. It is true that many of Bennett's earlier assumptions proved untenable, and in this event He was always ready with exceptional candor and intellectual plasticity to acknowledge his error and to plan a new line of attack.

In its conception of intelligence emphasizes three characteristics of the thought process. One, its tendency to take and maintain a definite direction. Two, the capacity to make adaptations for the purpose of attaining a desired end. And three, the power of auto-criticism. How these three aspects of intelligence enter into the performances with various tests of the scale is set forth from time. time in our directions for giving and interpreting the individual tests. An illustration which may be given here is that of the patient's test, or uniting the disarranged parts of a divided rectangle.

As described by Bennett, this operation has the following elements. One, to keep in mind the end to be attained, that is to say the figure to be formed. Two, to try different combinations under the influence of this directing idea, which guise the efforts of the subject, even though he may not be conscious of the fact. and three, to judge the combination which has been made, to compare it with a model, and to decide whether it is the correct one. Much the same processes are called for in many other of the Bennett tests, particularly those of arranging weights, rearranging dissected sentences, drawing a diamond or square from copy, finding a sentence containing three given words, counting batwigs, etc. However, an examination of the scale will show that the choice of tests was not guided entirely by any single formula as to the nature of intelligence. Binna's approach was a many-sided one. The scale includes tests of time orientation, of three

or four kinds of memory, of a perception, of language comprehension, of knowledge about common objects, of free association, of number of mastery, of constructive imagination, and of ability to compare concepts, to see contradictions, to combine fragments into a unitary whole, to comprehend abstract terms, and to meet novel situations. Other concepts of intelligence. It is interesting to compare Binance's conception of intelligence with the definitions which have been offered by other psychologists.

According to Ebbingor's, for example, the essence of intelligence lies in comprehending together in a unitary, meaningful whole, impressions and associations which are more or less independent, heterogeneous or even partially contradictory. Intellectual ability consists in the elaboration of a whole into its worth and meaning by means of many-sided combination, correction and completion of numerous kindred associations.

It is a combination itinerary. Mumen offers two-fold definition. From the psychological point of view, intelligence is the power of independent and creative elaboration of new products out of the material given by memory and the senses. From the practical point of view, it involves the ability to avoid errors to surmount difficulties and to adjust to environment.

Stone defies intelligence as, the general capacity of an individual consciously to adjust his thinking to new requirements. It is general adaptability to new problems and conditions of life. Spearman, Hart and others of the English school defined intelligence as a common central factor, which participates in all sorts of special mental activities. This factor is explained in terms of a psychosochological hypothesis of cortex energy, cerebral plasticity, etc. The above definitions are only to a slight extent contradictory or in harmonious.

They differ mainly in point of view or in the location of the emphasis. Each expresses a part of the truth, and none all of it. It will be evident that the conception of Bennett is broad enough to include the most important elements in each of the other definitions quoted. Guiding Principles in Choice and Arrangement of Tests. In choosing his tests, Binnet was guided by the conception of intelligence which we have set forth above. Tests were devised which would presumably bring into play the various mental processes thought to be concerned in intelligence, and then these tests were tried out in normal children of different ages. If the percentage passes for a given test increased but little or not at all in going from younger to older children, this test was discarded.

On the other hand, if in proportion of passes increased rapidly with age, and if children of a given age who on other grounds were known to be bright, pass more frequently than children or the same age who were known to be dull, then the test was judged a satisfactory test of intelligence. As we have shown elsewhere, practically all have been its tests fulfill these requirements reasonably well, a fact which bears eloquent testimony to the keen psychological. insight to their author. In arranging the tests into a system, Binnet's guiding principle was to find an arrangement of the test which would cause an average child of any given age test at age. That is, the average five-year-old must show a mental age of five years, the average eight-year-old, a mental age of eight years, etc. In order to secure this result, Binet found that its data seemed to require the location of an individual test in that year where it was passed by about two-thirds to three-fourths of unselected children. It was in the assembling of the test,

that the most serious faults of the scale had their origin. Further investigation has shown that a great many of the tests were misplaced as much as one year, and several of them two years. On the whole, the scale has been at left it, was decidedly too easy in the lower ranges and too difficult in the upper. As a result, the average child of five years was paused to test at not far from six years, the average child of 12 years not far from 11. In the Stanford revision, an effort has been made to corrector's fault, along with certain other generally recognized imperfections. Avaled Limitations of the Binet tests. The Binet tests have often been criticized for their unfitness to perform certain services which in reality they were never meant to render. This is unfair.

We cannot make a just evaluation of the scale without bearing in mind its avowed limitations. For example, the scale does not pretend to measure the entire mentality of the subject, but only general intelligence. There is no pretense of testing the emotions or the world beyond the extent to which these naturally display themselves in the tests of intelligence. The scale was not designed as a tool for the analysis of those emotional or volatational operations which are concerned in such mental disorders as hysteria, insanity, etc. The conditions do not present a progressive reduction of intelligence to the infantile level, and in most of them other factors besides intelligence play an important role.

Moreover, even in the normal individual, the fruitfulness of intelligence, the direction in which it shall be applied, and its methods of work are to a certain extent determined by the extraneous factors of emotion, and volition. It should nevertheless be pointed out that defects of intelligence in a large majority of cases also involve disturbances of the emotional and volitional functions. We do not expect to find perfectly normal emotions or willpower of average strength coupled with marked intellectual deficiency, and as a matter of fact, such a combination is rare indeed. In the course of an examination with the Bennett tests, the experienced clinical psychologist is able to gain considerable

insight into the subject's emotional and volitional equipment, even though the method was designed primarily for another purpose. A second misunderstanding can be avoided by remembering that the Binnett scale does not pretend to bring to light the idiosyncrasies of special talent, but only to measure the general level of intelligence. It cannot be used for the discovery of exceptional ability in drawing, painting, music, mathematics, oratory, salesmanship, etc., because no effort is made to explore the processes underline these abilities.

It can therefore never serve as a detailed chart for the vocational guidance of children, telling us which will succeed in business, which in art, which in medicine. and etc. It is not a new kind of phrenology. At the same time, we've already pointed out, it is capable of bounding roughly the vocational territory which an individual intelligence will probably permit success, nothing else preventing. In the third place, it must be supposed that the scale can be used as a complete pedagogical guide. Although intelligence tests furnish data of the greatest significance for pedagogical procedure, they do not suggest the appropriate educational methods in detail. These will have to be worked out in a practical way for the various

grades of intelligence and at great costs of labour and patience. Finally, in arriving at an estimate of a subject's grade of intelligence and his susceptibility in training, it would be a mistake to ignore the data obtainable from other sources. No competent psychologist, however ardent a supporter of the Bennett method he might be, would recommend such a policy. Those who accept the method as all-sufficient are as much an error as those considerate as no more important than any one of a dozen other approaches. Standardised tests have already become and will remain by far the most reliable

single method for creating intelligence, but the results they furnish will always need to be interpreted in the light of supplementary information regarding the subject's personal history, including medical record, accidents, play habits, industrial efficiency, social moral traits, school success, home environment, etc. Without question, however, the improved Bennett tests will contribute more than all other data combined to the end of enabling us to forecast the child's possibilities of future improvement, and this is the information which will lay most in the proper direction of his education. End of Chapter 3 of the Measurement of Intelligence, read by Leon Harvey.

Chapter 4 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. This is the Librivox recording. All Librivox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Librevox.org. Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 4 Nature of the Stanford revision and extension. Although the Bennett scale quickly demonstrated, demonstrated its value as an instrument for the classification of mentally retired and otherwise exceptional children.

It had, nevertheless, several imperfections which greatly limited its usefulness. There was a dearth of tests at the higher mental levels. The procedure was so inadequately defined that Neel's disagreement came about in the interpretation of data, and so many of the tests were misplaced as to make the results of an examination more or less misleading, particularly in the case of very young subjects and those near the adult level. It was for the purpose of correcting these certain other faults that the Stanford investigation was planned. Sources of data.

Our revision is the result of several years of work and evolved the examination of approximately 2,300 subjects, including 1,700 normal children, 200 defective and superior children, and more than 400 adults. of 400 of the 1,700 normal children had been made by Childs and Termin in 1910 to 11, and of 300 children by Trost Waddle and Termin in 1911-12. For various reasons, however, the results of these tests did not furnish satisfactorily data for a thoroughgoing and revision of the scale. Accordingly, a new investigation was undertaken, somewhat more extensive than the others,

and more carefully planned. Its main features may be described as follows. 1. The first step was to assemble as nearly as possible all the results which had been secured for each test at the scale by all the workers of all countries. The result was a large sheet of tabulated data for each individual test, including percentages passing the test at various ages, conditions under which the results were secured, method of procedure, etc. After a comparative study of these data and in the lighter results, we had itself secured a provisional arrangement of the tests was prepared for tryout. 2. In addition to the tests of the original

Bennett scale, 40 additional tests were included for tryout. This, it was expected, would make possible the elimination of some of the least satisfactory tests and at the same time permit the addition of enough new ones to give at least six tests instead of five for each age group. 3. A plan was then devised for securing subjects who should be as nearly as possible representative of the several ages. was to select a school in a community of average social status, a school attended by all or practically all the children in the district where it was located. In order to get a clear picture of age differences, the tests were confined to children

who within two months of a birthday. To avoid accidental selection, all the children within two months of a birthday were tested in whatever grade enrolled. Tests of foreign-born children, however, were eliminated in the treatment of results. There remained tests of approximately 1,000 children, of whom 9505. were between 5 and 14 years of age. 4. The children's responses were, for the most part, recorded for batim.

This made it possible to rescore the records accordingly to any desired standard and thus to fit a test more perfectly to the age level assigned it. 5. Much attention was given to securing uniformity of procedure. A half year was devoted to training the examiners and another half year to the supervision of the testing. In the further interests of uniformity, all of the people were. records were scored by one person, the writer.

Method of arriving at a revision. The revision of the scale below the 4-10-year level was based almost entirely on the tests of the above-mentioned 1,000 unselected children. The guiding principle was to secure an arrangement of the test and a standard of scoring which would cause the median mental age of the unselected children of each age group to coincide with the median chronological age. That is, a correct scale must cause the average child of five years to test exactly at five, the average child at six to test exactly at six, etc. Or to express the same fact in terms of intelligence quotient, a correct scale must give a median

intelligence quotient of unity, or 100% for unselected children of each age. If median mental age resulting at any point from the provisional arrangement of tests was too high or too low, it was only necessary to change the location of certain of the tests, or to change the standard of scoring, until an order arrangement and a standard of passing were found which would throw the median mental age where it belonged. We had already became convinced, for reasons to involve for a presentation here, that no satisfactory revision of the Bennett scale was possible on any theoretical considerations as to the percentage of passes which an individual test ought to show in a given year in order to be considered standard for that year. As was to be expected, the first draft of revision did not prove

satisfactory. The scale was still too hard at some points and too. easy at others. In fact, three successive revisions were necessary, involving three separate scoring of the data and as many tabulations of the mental ages before the desired degree of accuracy was secured. As finally revised, the scale gives immediate intelligence quotient closely approximating 100 for the unselected children of each age from 4 to 14. Since our school children who were above 14 years and still in the grades were retired leftovers, it was necessary to base the revision above this level on the tests of adults. These in included 30 businessmen and 150 migrating unemployed men tested by Mr. H. E. Nolan,

150 adolescent delinquents tested by Mr. J. Harold Williams and 50 high school students tested by the writer. The extension of the scale in the upper range is such that ordinary intelligent adults, little educated, tests up to what is called the average adult level. Adults whose intelligence is known from other sources to be superior are found to test well up towards the superior adult level, and this holds whether the subjects in question are well educated or practically on. practically unschooled. The almost entirely unschooled businessman, in fact, tested fully as well as high school juniors and seniors. Figure 1 shows the distribution of mental ages for 62 adults, including the 30 businessmen and 32 high school pupils who were tested over 16 years of age. It will be noted that

the middle section of the graph represents the mental ages falling between 15 and 17. This is the range which we have designated as the average adult level. Those above 17 are called superior adults, those between 13 and 15 inferior adults. Subjects much over 15 years of age who test in the neighbourhood of 12 years may ordinarily be considered borderline cases. The following method was employed for determining the validity of a test. The children of each age level were divided into three groups according to intelligence quotient. Those testing below 90, those between 90 and 109, and those with intelligence quotients of 110 or above. The percentages of passes on each individual test

or near that age level, would then ascertain separately for these three groups. If a test fails to show a decidedly higher proportion of passes to the superior IQ group than in the inferior IQ group, it cannot be regarded as a satisfactory test of intelligence. On the other hand, a test which satisfies this criterion must be accepted as valid or the entire scale must be rejected. Henceforth, it stands the force with the scale as a whole. When tried out by this method, some of the tests which have been criticised show a high degree of reliability.

Certain others which have been considered excellent proved to be so little correlated with intelligence that they had to be discarded. After making a few necessary eliminations, 90 tests remained, or 36 more than the number included in the Binet 1911 scale. There are six at each age level from 3 to 10, 8 at 12, 6 at 14, 6 at average adult, 6 at superior adult, and 16 alternative tests. The alternative tests, which are distributed among the different groups, are intended to be used only as substitutes when one or more of the regular tests have been rendered by coaching or otherwise undesirable. Of the 36 new tests, 27 were added and standardized in the various standpoint for investigations. Two tests were borrowed from the Healy-Fernoud series, one from Colman, one was adopted from Bonsoe, and the remaining five were amplifications or adaptations of some of the earlier binnet tests. Following is a complete list of the tests of the Stanford revision. Those designated,

All, are alternative tests. The guide for giving and scoring the test is presented at length in part two of this volume. The Stanford revision and extension. Year 3, 6 tests, 2 months each. 1. Points to part of body, 3 or 4. Nose, eyes, mouth, hair. 2. Names familiar objects, 3 or 5.

Key, penny, closed-knife, watch, pencil. 3. Pictures, enumeration or better. At least three 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. One of 3. Alternative. Repeats 3 digits. 1 success in 3 trials. Order correct. Year 4. Six tests, two months each.

1. Comparious lines. Three trials, no error. 2. Discrimination of forms. Coleman. Not over three errors. 3. Counts 4. Penys, no error. 4. Copies square. Pencil 1 of 3. 5. Comprehension 1st Degree 2 of 3. Stanford Edition. What must you do when you are sleepy? Cold, hungry. 6. Repeats 4 digits. 1 of 3 order correct.

Stanford Edition. Alternative repeats 12 to 13 syllables. One of three absolutely correct, or two with one error each. Year 5, six tests, two months each. 1. Comparison of weights. 2 of 3. 3.15, 15, 15, 3.15. 2. Colors, no error. Red, yellow, blue, green. 3. aesthetic comparison no error four definitions use or better four of six chair horse fork doll pencil table five patients or divided rectangle two of three trials one minute each six three commissions no error order correct alternative age year six six six tests two months each. One, right and left, no error. Right hand, left ear, right eye. Two,

mutilated pictures, three or four correct. Three, counts 13 pennies. One of two trials without error. Four, comprehension, second degree, two of three. What's the thing for you to do? A, if it's raining when you start to school. B, if you find your houses on fire. C, if you're going someplace and you miss your car. 5. Coins 3 or 4. Nickel penny quarter dime. Six. Repeats 16 to 18 syllables. One of three absolutely correct or two with one error each. Alternative. Morning or afternoon. Here 7. Six tests two months each. One, fingers, no error. Right, left, both. 2. Pictures, description or better, over half of performance description. Dutch home, Riversame Post Office.

3. Repeats 5 digits, 1 of 3. Order correct. 4. Ties bow knot. Model shown 1 minute. Stanford Edition. 5. Gives differences 2 of 3. Fly and butterfly, stone and egg, wooden glass. 6. Copies diamond. Pen, 2 of 3. Alternative 1, names days of weeks.

Order correct, 2 of 3 checks correct. Alternative 2. Repeates 3 digits backwards. 1 of 3. Year 8, 6 tests, 2 months each. 1. Ball and Field. Inferior a plan or better, Stanford Edition. 2. Counts 20 to 1. 40 seconds, 1 error allowed.

3. Comprehension, 3rd degree, 2 of 3. What's the thing for you to do? A. When you have broken something which belongs to someone 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 here without meaning to do it. 4.

Give similarities. Two things. 2 of 4. Stanford Edition. Wooden and coal. Apple and Beach. Iron and silver. Ship an automobile.

5. Definition superior to use. 2 or 4. Balloon, Tiger, Football, Soldier 6. Vocabulary, 20 words, Stanford Edition. For list of words used, see record booklet. Alternative 1. First 6 coins, no error. Alternative 2, dictation.

See the little boy? Easy legible, pen, one minute. Year 9, 6 tests, 2 months each. 1. Date. Allow error of 3 days in, see, No error in A, B, or D. A, day of week, B, months. C, day of months, D, year. 2. Waits. 36, 9, 12, 15. Procedure not illustrated, 2 of 3. 3. Makes change. 2 of 3, no coins, paper or pencil.

10, 4.15, 12, 25, 4. 4. repeats 4 digits backwards. 1 of 3. Stanford Edition. 5. 3 words, 2 of 3 oral. 1 sentence or not over 2 coordinate clauses. Boy River Bore Work Money Men Desert Rivers Lakes. 6. Rhymes. 3 rhymes for 2 or 3 words.

1 minute for each part. Day, Mill, Spring. Alternative 1 months. 15 seconds and 1 error in naming. 2 checks of 3 correct. Alternative 2. Stamps gives total value. Second trial if individual values are known. Year 10, 6 tests 2 months each. 1. Vocabulary 30 words, Stanford Edition. 2. Absurdities 4 of 5.

1. Spontaneous correction allowed. 4 of Bennett's 1 Stanford. 3. Designs 1.1.5 correct. Exposed 10 seconds. 4. Reading and report. 8 memories, 35 seconds and 2 mistakes in reading. Binet's selection. 5. Comprehension. 4th degree 2 of 3. Questions may be repeated. A. What ought you to say when someone asks you 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.

60 words illustrate with clouds dog chair happy alternative one repeat six digits one of two order correct Stanford edition alternative two repeats 20 to 22 syllables one of three correct or two with one error each alternative three form board hilly for an out puzzle a three times in five minutes year 12 eight tests three months each one vocabulary 40 words Stanford Edition. 2. Abstract words, 3 or 5. Pity, revenge, charity, envy, justice. 3. Ball and Field, Superior Plan, Stanford Edition.

4. Dissected sentences, 2 of 3, 1 minute each. 5. Fables, score 4, i.e. 2 correct, or the equivalent in half credits, Stanford Edition. Hercules and the Wagoner, Maiden Eggs, Fox and Crow, Farmer and Stork, Miller, Son and Donkey. 6. repeats 5 digits backwards 1 of 3. Stanford Edition. 7. Pictures interpretation 3 or 4. Explain this picture. Dutch Home River Seam Post Office Colonial Home. 8. Gives similarities. Three things. 3 or 5. Stanford Edition. Snake, cow, sparrow, book, teacher, newspaper, wool, cotton, leather, knife blade, penny, piece of wire, rose potato. Tree. Year 14, six tests, four months each. One, vocabulary 50 words, Stanford Edition.

Two, induction test, gets ruled by six-folding, Stanford Edition. Three, President and King. Power, ascension, tenure, two of three. Four, Problems of Fact, Two of Three, Binets Two and One Stanford Edition. Five, Arithmetic Reasoning, One Minute each, Two of Three, Adapted from Ponsor. 6. Clock, 2 of 3. Eramazont exceed 3 or 4 minutes. 622, 8.10, 246. Alternative repeats 7 digits, 1 of 2, order correct. Average adult, 6 tests 5 months each.

1. Vocabulary, 65 words, Stanford Edition. 2. Interpretation of Fables, score 8, Stanford Edition. 3. Difference between abstract words. 3. Real contrasts out of 4. in out on us. Evolution and revolution. Poverty and misery. Character and reputation. 4. Problem of the enclosed boxes. 3.04. Stanford Edition. 5. repeats 6 digits backwards. 1 of 3. Stanford Edition. 6. Code. Rights come quickly. 2 errors. A mission of dot counts half error. Illustrate with war and spy. From Healy and Fernald.

Alternative 1. repeats 28 syllables. One of 2 absolutely correct. Alternative 2. 2. Comprehension of Fiscal Relations 2 of 3, Stanford Edition. Path of Cannon Boar, Weight of Fish and Water, Hitting Distant Mark. Superior Adult, 6 tests, 6 months each. 1. Vocabulary, 75 words, Stanford Edition. 2. Binet's paper cutting test, draws, falls and locates holes. 3. Repeats 8 digits 1 of 3, order correct, Stanford edition. 4.

Repeats Thought of Passage Heard, 1 of 2. Binnets and Whistlow's selections adapted. 5. Repeats 7 digits backwards. 1 of 3, Stanford Edition. 6. Ingenuity Test. 2 of 3, 5 minutes each, Stanford Edition. Summary of changes. A comparison of the above list with either the Binet 1908 or 1911 series will reveal many changes.

On the whole, it differs somewhat more than the Binet 1911 scale than from that of 1908. Thus, the 49 tests below the adult group, in the 1911 scale, two are eliminated and 29 are relocated. Of these 25 are moved downward and four upward. The shifts are as follows. Down one year, 18, down two years four, down three use two, down six years one, up one year three, up two years one. Of the adult group in Bennett's 1911 series one is eliminated, two are moved up to superior adult and one is moved up to 14. Accordingly, of Binet's entire 54 tests, we have eliminated three and relocated 32, leaving only 19 in the positions assigned them by Binet.

The three eliminated are repeating two digits, resisting suggestion and reversed triangle. The revision is really more extensive than the above figures would suggest, since minor changes have been made in the scoring of a great many test in order to make them fit better the locations assign them. Throughout the scale, the procedure and scoring have been worked over and made more definite with the idea of promoting uniformity. This phase of the revision is perhaps more important than the mere relocation of tests. Also, the addition of numerous tests in the upper ranges of the upper ranges affects very considerably the mental ages above the level of 10 or 11 years. Effects of the revision are the mental ages secured. The most important

effect of the revision is to reduce the mental ages secured in the lower ranges of the scale. and to raise considerably the mental ages above 10 or 11 years. This difference also obtains through to a somewhat smaller extent between the Stanford Division and those of Goddard in common. For example, of 104 adult individuals testing by the Stanford revision between 12 or 14 years, and who were therefore somewhat above the level of feeble-mindedness as that term is usually defined, 50% tested below 12 years by the Goddard revision. That the dull and borderline adults are so much more readily distinguished

from the feeble-minded by the Stanford revision than by other Binet series is due as much to the addition of tests in the upper groups as to the relocation of existing tests. On the other hand, the Stanford Division causes young subjects to test lower than any other version of the Binet scale. At five or six years, the mental ages secured by the Stanford Division average from six to ten months lower than other revisions yield. The above differences are more significant than would it first appear. An error of ten months in the mental age of a five-year-old is a serious an error of 20 months in the case of a 10-year-old. Stating the error in terms of the intelligence quotient makes him more evident.

Thus, an error of 10 months in the mental age of a 5-year-old means an error of almost 15% in the intelligence quotient. A scale which tests this method too low would cause a child with a true intelligence quotient of 75, which ordinarily means feeble mightness or borderline intelligence, to test at 90, or only slightly below normal. Three serious consequences came from the two great ease of the original its scale at the lower end, and its two great difficulty at the upper end. 1. In young subjects, the higher grade of mental deficiency were overlooked, because the scale

caused such subjects to test only a little below normal. 2. The proportion of feeble-mindedness among adult subjects was greatly overestimated, because subjects who were really of the 12 or 13-year mental level could only earn a mental age of about 11 years. 3. Confusion resulted in efforts to trace the mental growth field-minded or normal children. For example, by other versions of the Bennett scale, an average 5-year-old will show an intelligence quadrant probably not far from 110 or 115 at 9, an intelligence quotient of about 100, and at 14, an intelligence quotient of about 85 or 90.

By such a scale, the true borderline case would test approximately as follows. At age 5, 90 IQ, apparently not far below normal. At age 9, 75 IQ, borderline. At age 14, 65 IQ, Moron deficiency. On the other hand, re-tests of children by the Stanford Division have been found to yield intelligence quotients almost identical with those secured from two to four years earlier by the same tests. Those who created people-minded in the first test, created feeble-minded in the second test. The dull remained dull, the average remained average, the superior remained superior, and always in approximately the same degree. It is unnecessary to emphasize further the importance of having an intelligence scale, which is equally accurate at all points.

Absolute perfection in this respect is not claimed for the Stanford Division, but it is believed to be at least free from the more serious errors of the other Bennett arrangements. End of Chapter 4 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. Recorded by Leon Harvey. It's something else here now. Something new. Exclusively on Paramount Plus. It's the series Stephen King calls Scary as Hell.

Everything here is impossible, but it's also real. Sci-fi vision calls it the best show streaming right now. We're running out of time and we still don't know the rules. Don't miss what the movie blog calls something you need to watch. Saving those children is how we all go home. From Binge All Episodes exclusively on Paramount Plus. Chapter 5 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Termin. This is a Libravox recording.

All Libravox recordings are in the public domain. For more information on a volunteer, please visit Libravox.org. Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 5 Analysis of 1000 Intelligence Quotience An extended account of the 1,000 tests on which this Stanford revision is chiefly based has been presented in a separate monograph. This chapter will include only the briefest summary of some of

of those results of the investigation which contribute to the intelligent use of the revision. The Distribution of Intelligence The question as to the manner in which intelligence is distributed is one of great practical as well as theoretical importance. One of the most vital questions which can be asked by any nation of any age is the following. How high is the average level of intelligence among our people and how frequent are the various grades of ability above or below the average? With the development of standardized tests we are approaching for the first time in the people history a possible answer to this question. Most of the earlier Bennett studies, however,

have thrown little light on the distribution of intelligence because of their failure to avoid the influence of accidental selection in choosing subjects for testing. The method of securing subjects for the Stanford Division makes our results in this point especially interesting. It is believed that the subject used for this investigation where is nearly representative of average American-born children as it is possible to secure. The intelligence quotients for these 1,000 unselected children were calculated, and their distribution was for ages separately. The distribution was found fairly symmetrical at each age from 5 to 14. At 15 the range is on either side of 90 as a median and at 16 on either side of 80 as a median.

That the 15 and 16 year olds test low is due to the fact that these children are left over retire dates and are below average intelligence. The IQs were then grouped in ranges of 10. In the middle group were thrown those from 96 to 105. The ascending groups including, in order, the IQs from 106 to 115, etc., correspondingly with the descending groups. Figure 2 shows the distribution found by this grouping for the 905 children of ages 5 to 14 combined. The subjects above 14 are not included in this curve because they are left-overs and not representative of their ages.

The distribution for the ages combined is seen to be remarkably symmetrical. The symmetry for the separate ages is hardly less marked, considering that only 80 to 120 children was tested at each age. In fact, the range included the middle 50% of IQs was found practically constant from 5 to 14 years. The tendency is for the middle 50% 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 is evident that there is no definite defining line between normality and feeble-mindedness or between normality and genius. Psychologically, the mentally defective child does not belong to a distinct type, nor does the genius. There is no line of demarcation between either of these extremes and the so-called normal child. The number of mentally defective individuals in a population will depend upon the standard arbitrarily set up as to what constitutes mental deficiency.

Similarly for genius, it is exactly as we should undertake to close. classify all people into the three groups. Abnormally tall, normally tall and abnormally short. 2. The common opinion that extreme deviations below the median are more frequent than extreme deviations above the median seems to have no foundation in fact. Among unselected school children, at least for every child of any given degree of deficiency, there is another child as far above the average IQ as the former is below. We have shown elsewhere the serious consequences of neglect of this fact. 3.

The traditional view that variability in mental traits becomes more marked during adolescence is here contradicted as far as intelligence is concerned for the distribution of IQs is practically the same at each age from 5 to 14. For example, 6-year-olds differ from one another fully as much as to 14-year-olds. The validity of the intelligence quotient. The facts presented above argue strongly for the validity of the IQ as an expression of a child. intelligence status. This follows necessarily from the similar nature of the distributions at the various ages. The inference is that a child's IQ, as measured by

the scale, remains practically constant, retests of the same children and intervals of two to four years support this inference. Children of superior intelligence do not deteriorate as they get older and dull children do not develop average intelligence. Knowing a child's IQ we can predict with a high degree of accuracy the course of his later development. The mental age of a subject is meaningless if considered apart from chronological age. It is only the ratio of retardation or acceleration to chronological age that is the IQ, which has significance.

It follows also that if the IQ is a valid expression of intelligence, as it seems to be, then the Binet-Simon-Agrained method becomes transformed automatically into a point-scale method if one wants to use it that way. As such, it is superior to any other point scale that has been proposed because it includes a larger number of tests and its points have definitely. meaning. Sex Differences The question as to the relative intelligence of the sexes is one of perennial interest and great social importance.

The ancient hypothesis that one which dates from time when only men concern themselves with scientific hypothesis took for granted the superiority of the male. With the development of individual psychology, however, it was soon found that as far as the evidence of mental tests can be trusted, the average intelligence of women and girls is as high as that of men and boys. men and boys. If we accept this result, we then confronted with the difficult problem of finding an explanation for the fact that so few of those who have acquired eminence in the various intellectual fields have been women.

Two explanations have been reposed. One, that women became eminent less often than men, simply for lack of opportunity and stimulus, that two, that while the average intelligence of the sexes is the same, extreme variations may be more common in males. It is pointed out that not only are there are more eminent. men than eminent women, but that statistics also show a preponderance of males in institutions for the mentally defective. Accordingly, it is often said that women are grouped closely about the average, while men

show a wider range of distribution. Many hundreds of articles and books of popular or quasi-scientific nature have been written on one aspect, or another, of this question of sex differences in intelligence. But all such theoretical discussions taken together are worth less than the results of one good experiment. Let us see what our 1,000 IQs have to offer towards a solution of the problem. 1. When the IQs of the boys and girls were treated separately, there was found a small but fairly constant superiority of the girls up to the age of 13 years. At 14, however, the curve for the girls dropped below that for boys. This is shown in figure 3. The supplementary data,

including the teacher's estimates of intelligence on a scale of 5, the teacher's judgments in regard to the quality of the schoolwork and records showing the age-grade distribution of the sexes, were all sifted for evidence as to the genuineness of the apparent superiority of the girls age for age. The results of all these lines of inquiry support the test in suggesting that the superiority of the girls is probably real, even up to, and including age 14. The apparent superiority of the boys at this age being fully accounted for by the more frequent elimination of 14-year-old girls from the grade by promotion to the high school. 2. However, the superiority of girls over boys is so slight amounting at most ages to only 2 or 3 points in terms of IQ that for practical purposes it would seem negligible. This offers no support to the opinion expressed by Yerickson-Buges. At certain ages,

serious injustice will be done individuals by evaluating their scores in the light of norms which do not take account of sex differences. 3. Apart from a small superiority of girls, the distribution of intelligence into the two sexes is not different. The supposed wider variation of boys is not found. Girls do not group themselves together about the median more closely than do boys. The range of IQ, including the middle 50%, is approximately the same for the two sexes. 4. When the results for the individual tests were examined, it was found that not many showed very extreme differences as to the percent of boys and girls passing. In a few cases, however,

the difference was rather marked. The boys were decidedly better in arithmetic, giving differences between a president and a king, solving the form board, making change, reversing hands of clock, finding similarities, and solving the induction test. The girls were superior in drawing designs from memory, aesthetic comparison, pairing objects from memory, answering the comprehension questions, repeating digits and sentences, tying a bow knot, and finding rhymes. Accordingly, our data, for which the most part agree with the results of others, justified the conclusion that the intelligence of girls at least up to fourteen years does not differ materially from that of boys either as regards the average level or the range of distribution it may still be argued that the mental development of boys beyond the age of fourteen years lasts longer and extends further than in the case of girls

but as a matter of fact this opinion receives little support from such tests as have made on men and women college students the fact that so few women have attained eminence may be due to wholly extraneous factors the most important of which are the following. 1. The occupations which it is possible to achieve eminence are, for the most part, only now beginning to open their doors to women. Women's career has been largely that of homemaking, in occupation in which eminence, in the strict sense of the word, is impossible. Two, even the small number of women who embark upon a professional career, a majority marry and they're offered to devote a fairly large proportion of their energy to bearing and rearing children. 3. Both the training given to girls and the general atmosphere in which they grow up are unfavourable

to the incalculation of a professional point of view, and as a result, women are not spurred on by deep-seated motives to constant and strenuous intellectual endeavours as men are. 4. It is also possible that the emotional traits of women are such as to favour the development of the sentiments at the expense of inner intellectual endowment. Intelligence of the different social classes Of the 1,000 children, 492 were classified by their teachers according to social class in the following five groups, very inferior, inferior, average, superior and very superior.

A comparative study was then made of the distribution of IQs for these different groups. The data may be summarized as follows. 1. The median IQ for children of the superior social class is about 7 points above, and that of inferior social class about 7 points below. The median IQ 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 medium-mental age for all classes taken together. 2. That the children of the superior social class make a better showing in the test 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 teacher's rankings of the children according to intelligence B, the age-grade progress of the children, C, the quality of the schoolwork, 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 old children in the same family. 3. In order to facilitate comparison, it is advisable to express the intelligence of all social classes in terms of the same objective scale of intelligence. This scale should be based on the median four classes taken together. 4. As regards the responses to individual technical, how children of a given social class were not distinguishable from children of the same intelligence in any other social class. The relation of the IQ to the quality of the child's schoolwork.

The schoolwork of 504 children was graded by the teachers on a scale of five grades, very inferior, inferior, average, superior and very superior. When this grouping was compared with that made on the basis of IQ, fairly close agreement was found. However, in about one case out of ten, there was rather serious disagreement. A child, for example, would be rated as doing average schoolwork when his IQ would place him in the very inferior intelligence group. When the data were searched for explanations of such disagreements, it was found that most of them were plainly due to the failure of teachers who take into account the age of the child when granting the quality of his schoolwork. When allowance was made for this tendency, there were no disagreements which justified any serious suspicion as to the accuracy of the intelligence scale.

Minor disagreements may of course be disregarded since the quality of schoolwork did be disregarded, since the quality of schoolwork did not be disarranted. depends in part on other factors than intelligence such as industry, health, regularity of attendance, quality of instruction, etc. The relation between IQ and grade progress. This comparison which is made for the entire 1,000 children, showed a fairly high correlation, but also some astonishing disagreements. Nine-year intelligence was found all the way from grade 1 to grade 7, inclusive, 10-year intelligence all the way from grade 2 to grade 7, and 12-year intelligence all the way from

in grade 3 to grade 8. Plainly, the school's efforts at grading failed to give homogeneous groups of children as regards mental ability. On the whole, the grade location of the children did not fit their mental age is much better than it did their chronological ages. When the data were examined, it was found that practically every child whose grade failed to correspond fairly closely with his mental age was either exceptionally bright or exceptionally dull.

Those who tested between 96 and 105 IQ were never seriously misplaced in school. The very dull children, however, were usually located for one to three grades above where they belonged by mental age, and the dull of the child the more serious as a rule was the misplacement. On the other hand, the very bright children were nearly always located for one to three grades below where they belonged by mental age, and the brighter the child, the more serious the the school was mistake. The child of 10-year mental age in the second grade, for example, is almost certain to

be about 7 or 8 years old. The child of 10-year intelligence in the 6th grade is almost certain to be 13 to 15 years of age. All this is due to one fact, and one fact alone. The school tends to promote children by age rather than ability. The bright children are held back while the dull children are promoted beyond their mental ability. The retardation problem is exactly the verse of what we have thought it to be. It is the bright children who are retarded and the dull children who are accelerated. The remedy is to be sought in differentiated causes, special classes, for both kinds of mentally exceptional children, just as many special classes are needed for superior children as for the inferior.

The social consequences of suitable educational advantages for children of superior ability will no doubt greatly exceed anything that could possibly result from the special instruction of dullards and borderline cases. Special study of the IQs between 70 and 79 revealed the fact that a child of this grade of intelligence never does satisfactory work in the grade where he belongs by chronological age. By the time he's attended school four or five years, such a child is usually found doing very inferior to average work in a grade from two to four years below his age. On the other hand, the child of an IQ or 120 or above is almost never found below the grade for his chronological age, and occasionally he is one or two grades above.

Wherever located, his work is always superior or very superior, and the evidence suggests strongly that it would probably remain so even if extra promotions were granted. Correlation between IQ and the teacher's estimates of the child's intelligence. By the Pearson formula, the correlation found between the eye and the teacher's estimates of the child's intelligence. The calculation found between the IQs and the teachers' rankings on a scale of 5 was 0.48. This is about what others have found, and is both high enough and low enough to be significant. That it is moderately high in so far correlates the test. That it is not higher means that either teachers or the tests have made a good many mistakes.

When the data was searched for evidence on this point, it was found, as we have shown in Chapter 2, that the fault was plainly on the part of the teachers. The serious mistakes were nearly all made with children who were either overage or underage for their grade, mostly the former. In estimating the children's intelligence, just as in grading their school success, the teachers often failed to take account of the age factor. For example, the child whose mental age was, say, two years below normal, and who was enrolled in a class with children about two years younger than himself, was often graded average in intelligence. The tendency of teachers is to estimated child's intelligence, accordingly to the quality of his school work, in the grade where he happens to be located. This results in overestimation the intelligence of older retired children and underestimating the intelligence of the younger advanced children. The disagreements between the tests and the teacher's estimates are thus found, when analyzed, to confirm the validity of the test method rather than the bring it under suspicion.

The validity of the individual tests The validity of each test was checked up by measuring it against the scale as a whole in a manner described on page 55. For example, if 10-year-old children having 11-year intelligence do not succeed with a given test any better than 10-year-old children who have 9-year intelligence, then either this test must be accepted as valid or the scale as a whole must be rejected. Since we know, however, that the scale as a whole has at least a reasonably high degree of reliability, this method becomes a sure and ready means of judging the worth of a test. When the tests were tried out in this way, it was found that some of those which have been most criticized having relatively a high correlation with intelligence. Among these are naming the days of the week,

giving the value of stamps, counting 13 pennies, giving differences between President and King, finding rhymes, giving age, distinguishing right and left, and interpretation of pictures, others having a high reliability are the vocabulary tests, arithmetic reasoning, giving differences, copying a diamond, giving date, repeating digits in reverse order, interpretation of fables, the dissected sentence tests, naming 60 words, finding omissions in pictures, and recognising absurdities. Among the somewhat less satisfactory tests are the following. Repeating digits, direct order, naming coins, distinguishing forenoon and afternoon,

defining in terms of use, drawing designs from memory, and aesthetic comparison. Binet's line suggestion test correlated so little with intelligence that it had to be thrown out. The same was also true of two of the new tests which we had added in the series for try-out. Tests showing a medium correlation with the scale as a whole include arranging weights, executing three commissions, naming colours, giving number of fingers, describing pictures, naming the months, making change, giving superior definitions, finding similarities, reading from memories, reversing hands of clock, defining abstract words, problems of fact, bow-not induction test, and comprehension questions.

A test which makes a good showing on this criterion of agreement with the scale as a whole becomes immune to theoretical criticisms. Whatever it appears to be for mere inspiration it is a real measure of intelligence. Henceforth, it stands for force with the scale as a whole. The reader will understand, of course, that no single test used alone will determine accurately the general level of intelligence. A great many tests are required and for two reasons. One, because intelligence has many aspects, and two, in order to overcome the accidental influences

of training or environment. If many tests are used, no one of them need show more than a moderately high correlation with the scale as a whole. As stated by Binnet, let the tests be rough if there are only enough of them. End of Chapter 5 of the Measurement of Intelligence, read by Leon Harvey. Chapter 6 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. This is a Librivox recording. All Librevox recordings are in the public domain. For more information on to volunteer, please visit Librevox.org Recorded by Leon Harvey Chapter 6

The significance of various intelligence quotients Frequency of different degrees of intelligence Before we can interpret the results of an examination It is necessary to know how frequently an IQ of the size found occurs among unsleected children Our tests of 1,000 unselected children enable us to answer this question with some degree of definiteness A study of these 1000 IQs shows the following significant facts. The table is displayed on the page, with several columns going down.

The lowest 1% go to 70 or below. The highest 1% reach 130 or above. The lowest 2% go to 73 or below. The highest 2% reach 128 or above. The lowest 3% go to 76 or below. The highest 3% reach 125 or above. The lowest 5% go to 78 or below, the highest 5% go to 122 or above, the lowest 10% go to 85 or below, the highest 10% reach 116 or above, the lowest 15% go to 88 or below, the highest 15% reach 113 or above,

the lowest 20% go to 91 or below, the highest 20% reach 110 or above, The lowest 25% go to 92 or below. The highest 25% reach 108 or above. The lowest 33 and 1 3rd percent go to 95 or below. The highest 33 and 1 3rd percent reach 106 or above. Or to put some of the above facts in another form, the child reaching about 110 is equal or excelled by 20 out of 100. The child reaching about 115 is equaled or excelled by 10 out of 100.

The child reaching about 125 is equaled or excelled by about 3 out of 100. The child reaching about 130 is equal or excelled by 1 out of 100. Conversely, we may say regarding the sub-normals that the child testing at about 90 is equaled or excelled by 80 out of 100. The child testing at about 85 is equaled or excelled by 90 out of 100. The child testing at about 75 is equaled or excelled by 97 out of 100. Testing at about 70 is equal to excelled by 99 out of 100. Classification of intelligence quotients. What do the above IQs imply in such terms as feeble-mindedness, borderline intelligence,

dullness, normality, superior intelligence, genius, etc. When we use these terms, two facts must be born in mind. One, that the boundary lines between such groups are absolutely arbitrary, a matter of definition only, and two, that the individuals compromising one of the group, do not make up a homogenous type. Nevertheless, since terms like the above are convenient and will probably continue to be used, it is desirable to give them as much definiteness as possible. On the basis of the tests we have made, including many cases of all grades of intelligence, the following suggestions are offered for the classification of intelligence quotients.

A table is displayed of IQ and classification. I.Q. above 140. Classification, Neugenius or genius. 120 to 140, very superior intelligence 110 to 120 superior intelligence 90 to 110, normal or average intelligence, 80 to 90, DOLUS, rarely classifiable as feeble-mindedness. 70 to 80, borderline deficiency, sometimes classified as DALNUS, often as feeble-mindedness. Below 70, definite feeble-mindedness. Of the feeble-minded, those between 50 and 70 IQ include most

the morons, high, middle and low. Those between 20 or 25 and 50 are ordinarily to be classed as imbeciles and those below 20 or 25 as idiots. According to this classification, the adult idiot would range up to about three-year intelligence as the limit. The adult imbecile would have a mental level between three and seven years, and the adult moron would range from about seven-year to 11-year intelligence. It should be added, however, that the classification of IQs for the various sub-grades of feeble-mindedness is not very secure, for the reason that the exact curves of mental growth have not been worked out for such grades. As far as the public schools are concerned, this is not greatly matter, as they never enroll idiots, and very rarely even the high-grade

imbecile. School defectives are practically all of the moron and borderline grades, and these, it is important, teachers should be able to recognize. The following discussions and illustrative cases will perhaps give a fairly definite idea of the significance of various grades of intelligence. Feeble-mindedness Rarely above 75 IQ There are innumeral grades of mental deficiency ranging from somewhat below average intelligence to profound idiocy

In the literal sense every individual below the average is more or less mentally weak or feeble. Only a relatively small proportion of these, however, are technically known as feeble-minded. It's therefore necessary to set forth the criterion as to what constitutes a feeble mighterness in the commonly accepted sense of the word. The definition in most

general use is the one framed by the Royal College of physicians and surgeons of London and adopted by the Royal English Commission on Mental Deficiency. It is substantially as follows. A feeble-minded person is one who is incapable because of mental defect existing from birth or from an early age. A, of competing on equal terms with his normal fellows, or B, of managing himself or his affairs with ordinary prudence. Two things to be noted in regard to this definition. In the first place, it is stated in terms of social and industrial efficiency. Such efficiency, however, depends not merely on the degree of intelligence, but also on emotional, moral,

physical and social traits as well. This explains why some individuals with IQ somewhat below 75 can hardly be classed as feeble-minded in the ordinary sense of that term, while others with IQ a little above 75 could hardly be classified in any other group. In the second place, the criterion set up by the definition is not very definite, because the vague meaning of the expression ordinary prudence. Even the expression competing on equal terms cannot be taken literally. would include also those who are merely dull. It is the second part of the definition that more nearly expresses the popular criterion, for as long as an individual manages his affairs in such a way as to be self-supporting,

and in such a way as to avoid becoming a nuisance or burden to his fellowmen, he escapes the institutions for defectives and may pass for normal. The most serious defect of the definition comes from a lax interpretation of the term ordinary prudence, etc. The popular standard is so low that hundreds of thousands of high-grade defective escape identification as such. Moreover, there are many grades of severity in social and industrial competition. For example, most of the members of such families as the Dukes, the NAMS, the hill folk, and the Calicacs are able to pass as normal in their own crude environment. But when compelled

to compete with average American stock, that deficiency becomes evident. It is therefore necessary to supplement the social criterion with a more strictly psychological one. For this purpose, there is nothing else as significant as the IQ. All who test below 70 IQ by the Stanford revision of the Bennett-Simon scale should be considered feeble-minded, and it is an open question whether it would not be justifiable to consider 75 IQ as a lower limit of normal intelligence. Certainly, a large proportion of falling between 70 and 75 can hardly be classed as other than feeble-minded, even according to the social criterion. Examples of feeble-minded school children. F.C. Boy, aged 8, 6, mental age 4, 2,

IQ, 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 the teacher's time, he appeared uneducable. We'll probably develop to about the six or seven year mental level. High grade imbecile has since been committed to a state institution. Cases as low as have seen rarely get into the public schools. RW. Boy age 1310. Mental age 7.6. IQ approximately 55. Home excellent is pubicent because of age and maturity has been promoted to the third grade, though it can hardly do the work of the second. As attended school more than six years, will probably never develop much, if any, beyond eight years and will never be self-supporting, low-grade moron. MS. Girl age 7, 6, mental age 46, IQ 60. Father a gardener, home conditions and medical attention fare, 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 other children. We'll probably never develop beyond a mental level of eight years. R.M. Boy age 15. Mental age 9. IQ 60. Decidedly superior home environment and care. After attending school, eight years is in the 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. S.M. Girl aged 19-2, mental age 10, IQ approximately 65, not counting age beyond 16. From very superior family, has attended public and private schools

12 years and has been promoted to 7th 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. children, susceptible to attention from men and is to be constantly guided. Writing excellent, knows the number combinations but missed all the absurdities and has the vocabulary of the average 10-year-old, the type from which prostitutes often come. R.H. Boy age 14, mental age 84, IQ 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 at attendance regular. Reads in

foreth rate of that expression and with little comprehension of what is read. Fair skill and 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. Indifference to praise or blame, as 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-poorne, colloquial expressions. Three years later at age 17 was in a special class attempting sixth grade work, reported

as doing absolutely nothing in that grade, still sullen, indifferent, and slow to grasp directions and lacking in play interests. No way perception 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 behaviour, R.H. shows himself to be a typical case of moron deficiency. I.M. Girl aged 14-2, mental age 9,

IQ approximately 65, father a labourer, 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. GV. Boy age 10, mental age 64, IQ 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 handwork, in all of which he excels, his quiet and inactive, lacks self-confidence in place little. Mentally slow, inert, thick and inattentive, health fare. Three years later, GV 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. VJ. Girl age 116, mental age 8, IQ 70, has been tested three times in the last five years, always with approximately the same result in terms of IQ. Home fare to inferior, has been in a special class two years and in school, altogether nearly six years. It's barely able to do third grade work. Her feeble mightiness is recognized by teachers and by other pupils, be like. at about middle morn to high morn level. A.W. Boy, age 94, mental age 7, IQ 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. Higher IQ than VJ described above, but his deficiency is fully as evident. It's generally recognized as mentally defective. Slightly abstracted one of the pennies used in the test and slipped in his pocket. has caused much trouble at school by puncturing bicycle tires. High grade moron. AC, boy age 12, mental age 8.5 IQ70, from Portuguese's family of 10 children, has a feeble-minded brother.

Parents in uncomfortable circumstance and respectable. AC has attended school regularly since he was six years old, trying unsuccessfully to do the work of the fourth grade. Reads poorly in the third reader, hesitates, repeats, miss calls 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 10 cents if one marble cost 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 proprietary. Tattles

Three years later at age of 15, was in a special class and was little 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. AC must be considered definitively feeble-minded.

H.S. Boy age 11. Mental age 8.3. IQ approximately 75. Eight years tested at 6. Parents highly educated. Father a scholar. Brother and sister of very superior intelligence. started to school at 7 but was drawn because of lack of progress, started again at 8, as now doing poor work in the second grade. We're clearly and nervous, painfully aware of his inability to learn.

Doing the test kept saying, I tried anyway. It's all I can do if I do my best, ain't it? Etcetera. Regarded defective by other children, we'll probably never be able to do work beyond the 4th or 5th grade, and it's not likely to develop above the 11-year level if as high. IS. Boy age 9-6. Mental age 7.

IQ 75. German parentage started a 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 in numbers. IS is described as quite, 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 schoolwork.

Miss calls the simplest words, moral traits, unsatisfactory. may reach sixth or seventh grade if he remains in school long enough. Ayat's learned to walk at two years and to talk at three. The above are cases of such mental deficiency that there could be no disagreement among competent judges in classifying them in the group of feeble-minded. All are definitely institutional cases. It is such a matter of record, however,

that one of the cases HS was diagnosed by a physician without test as backward but not a defective, and with the aden encouragement that the backwardness will be outgrown. Of course, the reverse is the case. The deficiency is becoming more and more apparent as a boy approaches the age where more is expected of him. In at least three of the above cases, S, M, I.S, and I.M, the teachers had not identified the backwardness as feeble mightiness. Not far from two children out of 100 or 20 out of 1,000 in the average public school are the defective, as some of those just described. Teachers get so accustomed to saying a few with them in every group of 200 or 300 pupils that they are likely to regard. them as merely dull, dreadfully dull, of course, but not defective.

Children like these, for their own good and for that of other pupils, should be kept out of the regular classes. They will rarely be equal to the work of the fifth grade, however long they attend school. They will make a little progress in a well-managed special class, but with the approach of adolescents, at least, the state should take them into custodial care for its own protection. Borderline cases, usually between 70 and 80 IQ. The borderline cases are those which fall near the boundary between that greater mental deficiency, which will be generally recognised as such, and the higher group usually class as normal but dull. They are the doubtful cases, the ones we are always trying, really with success, to restore to normality.

It must be emphasised, however, that this doubtful group is not marked off by definite IQ limits. Some children with IQ as high as 75 or even 80 will have to be classified as feeble-minded. Some as low as 70 IQ may be so well endowed in other mental traits, that they may manage as adults to get along fairly well in a simple environment. The ability to compete with one's fellows in the social and industrial world does not depend upon intelligence alone. Such factors as moral traits, industry, environment to being encountered, personal appearance and influential relatives are also involved. Two children classified above as feeble-minded had an IQ as high as 75.

In these cases, the emotional, moral or physical qualities were so defective as to render a normal social life out of the question. This is occasionally true even with an IQ as high as 80. Some of the borderline cases with even less intelligence may be so well endowed in other mental traits that they are capable of become independent on skilled labourers and of supporting a family after a fashion. Examples of borderline deficiency. SF, girl age 17, mental age 11, 6. IQ approximately 72, disregarding age above 16 years.

Father intelligent, mother probably high grade defective. lives in a good home with an aunt who is a woman of good sense and skillful in her imagination of the girl. S.F. has attended excellent schools for 11 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 have in 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 towards men and not to appropriate other people's property s f is ordinarily docile but is subject to fits of anger and obstinacy she finally determined to leave her home threatened to take up with a man less allowed to work elsewhere since then she is being 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 house-worker when she tries This young woman is feeble-minded and should be classed as such. She is listed here with the borderline 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 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 IQ. Father a labourer, dull, subject to fits of rage and beats the boy. Mother, not far from borderline, FH has always had the best of school advantages,

and has been promoted to the seventh grade. It's really about equal to fifth grade work. Fairly rapid and accurate in number of combinations, but cannot solve arithmetic problems which require any reasoning. Reeds 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 fasting a dangerous, sharp-pointed steel paper file into the pupil's seat for him to sit down on.

He is cruel, stubborn, and plays trant, but is fairly industrious when he gets a job as a Rand or Difflery 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 is altogether doubtful whether he were able to make a living and to keep out of trouble, though he's now, at age 20, employed as messenger boy for the Western Union and $30 a month. This is considerably less than pick and shovel men get in the community where he lives, delinquents and criminals often being to this level of intelligence. WC. Boy age 168, mental age 12. IQ 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 the most pitiful case of the over-stimulated 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 you could do. If the boy had been the son of a common labourer, he would probably have left school early and have become a dependable and contented labourer. In a very simple environment, he would probably not be considered defective. C.P. Boy H. 10.2. Mental age 7.11. IQ 78. Portuguese boy, son of a skilled labourer.

One of eleven children, most of whom have about the 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 it is regarded as impossible in his school work. Like his brother, MP, the next case to be described, he will doubtless become a fairly reliable labourer 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

schoolwork beyond 5th or 6th grade. MP, boy age 14, mental age 103, IQ 77. Has been tested for successive years, IQ always been between 75 and 80, brother to CP above. In school nearly 8 years, it has been promoted to the 5th grade. At 16 was doing poor work in the 6th grade. School work advantages, as the father has tried conscientiously to give his child a good education. perfectly normal in appearance and in play activities and is liked by other children, seems to be thoroughly dependable both in his school and in his outside work.

We'll probably become an excellent labourer and will pass as perfectly normal, notwithstanding a grade of intelligence which will not develop above 11 or 12 years. What shall we say of cases, are the last two which tested high-grade minority or at a borderline, but are well-enough renowned in moral and personal traits to pass this normal in an uncomplicated social environment? According to the classical definition of feeble mighterness, such individuals cannot be considered defectives. Hardly anyone would think of them as institutional cases. Among laboring men and serving girls, there are thousands like them.

They are the world's who is afforded in drawers of water, and yet, as far as intelligence is concerned, the tests have told the truth. These boys are uneducable beyond the merest rudiments of training. No amount of school instruction will ever make them intelligent photos or capable citizens in the true sense of the word. Judge psychologically, they cannot be considered normal. It is interesting to note that MP and CP represent the levels of intelligence which is very, very common among Spanish Indian and Mexican families of the Southwest and also among Negroes. Del Daldness seems to be racial, or at least inherit in the family stocks from which they come.

The fact that one meets this type with such extraordinary frequency among Indians, Mexicans and Negroes suggest quite forcibly that the whole question of racial differences in mental traits will have to be taken up anew and by experimental methods. The writer predicts that when this is done, there will be discovered. enormously significant racial differences in general intelligence, differences which cannot be wiped out by any scheme of mental culture. Children of this group should be segregated in special classes and be given instruction which is concrete and practical. They cannot master abstractions, but they can often be made efficient workers able to look out for themselves. There is no possibility at present of convincing society that they should not be allowed to reproduce, although from a eugenic point of view, they constitute a grave problem because of their unusually prolific breeding. normals. IQ usually 80 to 90. In this group included, those children who would not,

according to any of the commonly accepted social standards, be considered feeble-minded, but who are nevertheless far enough below the actual average of intelligence among races of Western European descent that they cannot make ordinary school progress or master other intellectual difficulties which average children are equal to. A few of this class test at low as 75 to 80 IQ, but the majority are not far from 85. This unmistakably normal children, who go much below this, in California at least, are usually Mexicans, Indians or Negroes. R.G. Negro boy, age 13.5, mental age 10, 6. I.Q. approximately 80. Normal in appearance and conduct, but very dull. It's 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 labourers, but his intelligence will never exceed the 12-year level and is not likely to advance beyond the seventh grade if as far. FD. Boy, tested at 10-2, IQ 83 and again at a 14-1, IQ 79. Mental age in the first test was 86 and in the second test 11. Son of a barber, father dead. Mother capable, makes a good home and cares of her children well. At 10 was doing unsatisfactory work in the fourth grade and at 12 unsatisfactory work in the low 6. Good looking normal in appearance and social development, and though occasionally obstinate, is usually steady.

Anyone unacquainted with his poor schoolwork and low IQ 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 8th grade with low marks by the age of 16 or 17. G.G. Girl age 12-4, mental age 1010, IQ 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 towards other children normal. Simply dull. We'll 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 or 90 will usually be able to reach the eighth grade, but ordinarily only after from one or three or four failures. They are so very numerous about 15% of the school enrollment that it is doubtful whether we can expect soon to have special classes enough to accommodate all. The most feasible solution is a differentiated course of study with parallel classes in which every child will be allowed to make the best progress of which he is capable without incurring the risk of failure and non-promotion.

The so-called Mannheim system or something similar to it is what we need. Average intelligence IQ-90-110 is, is it often said that the schools are made for the average child, but that the average child does not exist. He does exist, and at very large numbers, about 60% of all school children test between 90 and 110 IQ, and about 40% between 95 and 105. That these children are average is attested by their school records, as well as by their IQs. A record showed that of more than 200 children below 14 years of age, and with IQ between 95 and 105, not one was making much more, nor much less, than average school progress.

were two years retarded, but in each case this was due to late start, illness or irregular attendance. Children who test close to 90, however, often fail to get along satisfactorily, while those testing near 110 are occasionally able to win an extra promotion. The children of this average group are seldom school problems as far as the ability to learn is concerned, nor are they likely to cause trouble in discipline as a dull or borderline cases. It is therefore highly necessary to give illustrative cases here. The high school, however, does not fit that grade of intelligence as well as the elementary and grammar schools. High schools probably enrol a disproportionate number of pupils in the IQ range

above 100. That is, the average intelligence among high school pupils is above the average for the population in general. It is probably not far from 110. College students are, of course, a still more selected group, perhaps coming chiefly from the range above 115. The child whose school marks are barely average in the elementary grades when measured against children in general will ordinarily earn something less than average marks in high school and perhaps excessively poor marks in college. Superior Intelligence IQ 110 to 120 Children of this group ordinarily make iron marks and are capable of making somewhat more rapid progress

than the strictly average child. Perhaps most of them could complete the eighth grade in seven years as easily as the average child does in eight years. They are not usually the best scholars, but on a scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, and failure, they were usually rank as good, though of course the degree of application is a factor. It is rare, however, to find a child of this level

who is positively intelligent in his schoolwork or who dislikes school. In high school, they are likely to win about the average mark. Intelligence of 110 to 120 IQ is approximately five times as common among children of superior social status as among children of inferior social status. The proportion among the former been about 24% of all, and among the latter, only 5% of all. The group is made up, largely of children, of the fairly successful mercantile or professional classes. The total number of children between 110 and 120 is almost exactly the same as the number between, 80 and 90, namely about 15%. The distance between these two groups, say between 85 and 115, is as great as the distance between average intelligence and borderline deficiency,

and it would be absurd to suppose they could be taught to best advantage in the same classes. As a matter of fact, pupils between 110 and 120 usually held back to the rate of progress which the effort child can make. They are little encouraged to do the best. Very superior intelligence, IQ 120 to 140. Children of this group are better than somewhat above average. They are unusually superior. Not more than three out of 100 go as high as 125 IQ, and only about 1 out of 100 as high as 130. In the schools of a city of average population, only about one child in 250 or 300 tests as

high as 140 IQ. In a series of 476 unselected children, there was not a single one reaching 120 whose social class was described as below average. Of the children of superior social status, about 10% reached 1,000. The 120 to 140 group is made up almost entirely of children whose parents belong to the professional or very successful business classes. The child of a skilled laborer belongs here occasionally, the child of a common laborer very rarely indeed.

At least this is true in the smaller cities of California among populations made up of native-born Americans. In all probability, it would not have been true in the earlier history of the country when ordinary labor was more often than now performed by men of average intelligence, and it would probably not hold true now among certain immigrant populations of good stock, but limited social and educational advantages. What can children of this grade of ability do in school? Their question cannot be answered as satisfactorily as one could wish, for the simple reason that such children are rarely permitted to do what they can. What they do accomplish is as follows. Of 54 children

offer 1,000 unselected cases falling in this group, 12.5% were advanced in the grade two years, approximately 54% were advanced one year. Twenty-eight percent were in the grade where they belonged by chronological age and three children or five and a half percent were actually retarded one year. But wherever located, such children rarely get anything but the highest marks, and the evidence goes to show that most of them could easily be prepared for high school by the age of 12 years. Serious injuries done them by schools which believe in putting on the breaks. The following are illustrations of children testing between 130 and 145. Not all are taken from the 1,000 unselected tests. The bioterra has discovered several children of this grade,

as a result of lectures before teachers and institutes. It is his custom in such lectures to ask the teachers to bring in for a demonstration test the brightest child in the city or county, etc. The IQ resulting from such a test is usually between 130 and 140, occasionally a little higher. Examples of very superior intelligence. Margaret P. Aged 8.10. Mental age 111. IQ 130. Father only a skilled labourer, house painter, but a man of unusual.

intelligence and a character of his social class. Home care above average. MP's attended school a little less than three years and is completing fourth grade. Mark's all excellent, health perfect, social and moral traits are the very best, is obedient, conscientiousness and usually reliable for her age. Quiet and confident bearing, but no touch of vanity. MP is known to be related on her father's side to John Wesley and a maternal grandfather was a highly skilled mechanic and the inventor of an important training coupling device used on all rail. Although she is not yet nine 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. IQ 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 being. 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 high school.

As it is, she is at least a grade below where she belongs by mental age, Something better than average college record may be safely predicted for JR. E.B. Girl age 7.9. Mental age 10.2. IQ 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 a 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 a 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. L.B. Girl aged 8.6. Mental age 116. IQ 135. Test nearly three years earlier, aged 511, mental age 7, 6, IQ 127. Daughter of a university professor.

At age of 8.6, was doing very super. superior work in the fifth grade, later at age 106 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've known her since 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 65, mental age 9, 6, IQ 148. When tested at age 5-2, he had a mental age of 7-6, IQ-142.

Father, a university professor. R.S. entered school at exactly six years of age, and at the present writing is 7.5 years old and is entering the third grade. Lease his class in school and takes delight in the work. His normal and play life and social traits, and it's dependable and thoughtful beyond his years. Should enter high school, not later than 12, could probably be made ready a year earlier, but he is somewhat nervous. This might not be wise.

T.F. Boy age 106, mental age 14, IQ 133. At 136 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 nine years and was not taught to read till 8 and a half. At this writing, he is 15 and a half years old and is a senior in high school. He would complete the high school course in 3 and 1 half years with age B marks, mostly A. Gets his hardest mathematics lessons in five to ten minutes. Science is his play. When he discovered Hodge's natural study and life at age of 11 years, he literally slept with it book until 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 principal's underlying electrical applications. He's known by his playmate says, 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 aged 8-2. Mental Age 114. IQ. 138. Father was a lawyer. Parents now dead. He's an high fourth grade. Leads his class,

attractive, healthy, normal appearing lad. Full of good humour. He is loving and obedient, strongly attached to his foster mother, and 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 its joys. That come that day for girls and boys. 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. It were easily be able to enter college by age of 15 if he is allowed to make his progress which

would be normal to a child of his intelligence, but is too much to expect that a school will permit this. F.MCA Boy aged 10-3, mental age 146, IQ 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 allowed 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 that writer has ever seen. He has a normal play instincts, and when not a play, he has the dignified bearing of a young prince. Although without vanity, his vocabulary is 9,014 years, and his ability is remarkably even in all directions.

F should easily enter college by the age of 15. 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 seven and a half, entered the first grade at 9 a.m., and had been promoted the fourth grade by 3pm on the same day. Has now attended school a half year as in the fifth grade, age seven years, eight months. Father is on the faculty of a university.

EM is as superior in personal and moral traits as his intelligence, responsible, sturdy, playful, full of humor, loving, obedient, health is excellent, has had no home instruction in schoolwork. His progress has been perfectly natural. The above list of very superior children includes only a few of those we have tested who belong to this grade of intelligence. Every child in this list is so interesting that it is hard to admit any. We have found all such children, with one or two exceptions not included here, so superior to average children in all sorts of mental and moral traits, that one is at a loss to understand how the popular superstitions about the queerness of bright children

could have originated or survived. Nearly every child we have found with IQ above 140 is the kind one feels. Before the test is over, one would like to adopt. If the crime of kidnapping could ever be forgiven, it would be in the case of a child like one of these. Genius and near-genius. Intelligence tests have not been in use long enough to enable us to define genius definitively in terms of IQ. The following two cases are offered as among the highest test records of which the writer has personal knowledge. It is doubtful whether more than one child in 10,000, goes as high as either. One case has been reported, however, in which the IQ is not far from 200.

Such a record, if reliable, is certainly phenomenal. E.F. Russian boy, aged 8.5, mental age 13, IQ approximately 155, mother is a university student, apparently a very superior intelligence. EF has a sister almost as remarkable as himself. EF is in the sixth grade at the head of his class. Although about four grades advanced beyond his chronological age, he is still one of grade retarded. He could easily carry seventh grade work. In all probability, EF 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 over-stimulation. 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 the city, but he is one of 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 124, IQ 160, vocabulary 7,012 years. This test was not made by the writer, but by one of his graduate students. The record included the verbatim responses, so that was easy to verify the scoring. There can be no doubt as to the substantial accuracy of the test.

This IQ of 160 is the highest one of the Stanford University records. BF has excellent health, normal play interests, and is a favorite among his playfellows. Parents have not thought of him as especially remarkable. He is only in the third grade, and is therefore about three grades below his mental age. It is especially noteworthy that not one of the children we have described with IQ above 130 has ever had any unusual amount or kind of home instruction. In most cases, the parents were not aware of their very great superiority, nor can we give the credit to the school or its methods.

The school has, in most cases, been a deterrent to their progress rather than a help. These children have been taught in classes with average and inferior children like those described in the first part of this chapter. Their high IQ is only an index of their extraordinary cerebral endowment. This endowment is for life. There is not the remotest probability that any of these children will deteriorate to the average level of intelligence with the onset of maturity. Such an event would be no less a miracle, barring insanity, than the development of an imbecile into a successful lawyer or physician. Is the IQ often misleading? Do the cases described in this chapter give a reliable picture as to what one may expect are the various IQ levels?

Does the IQ furnish anything like a reliable index of an individual's general educational possibilities and of his social worth? Are they not feeble-minded geniuses? Are they not children of exceptionally high IQ who are nevertheless fools? We have no hesitation in saying that there is not one case in 50 in which there is any serious contradiction between the IQ and the child's performances in and out of school. We cannot deny the existence of feeble-minded geniuses, but after a good deal of search we have not found one. Occasionally, of course, one finds a feeble-minded person who is an expert penman, who draws skillfully, who plays her musical instrument tolerably well, or who handles number combinations with unusual rapidity, but

these are not geniuses, they are not authors, artists, musicians or mathematicians. As for the exceptionally intelligent children who appear feeble-minded, we have found but one case, a boy of 10 news with an IQ of about 125. This boy, who we have tested several times in whose development we have followed for five years, was once diagnosed by a physician as feeble-minded. His behaviour among other persons than his familiar associates is such as to give this impression. Nothing less than an entire chapter would be adequate for a description of this case, which is in reality one of disturbed emotional and social development with superior intelligence. It should be emphasized, however, that what we have said about the significance

of various IQs calls only for the IQ secured by the use of the Stanford revision. As we have shown elsewhere, page 62, the IQs yielded by other versions of the Bennett tests are often so inaccurate as to be misleading. We have not found a single child who tested between 70 and 80 IQ by the Stanford revision who was able to do satisfactory schoolwork in the grade where he belonged by chronological age. Such children are usually from two to three grades retired by the age of 12 years. On the other hand, the child with an IQ of 120 or above is almost never found below the grade for his chronological age, and occasionally he is one or two grades above. Wherever located, his schoolwork is so superior as to suggest strongly the desirability of extra promotions. Those who test

between 96 and 105 are almost never more than one grade above or below where they belong by chronological age, and even the small displacement of one year, is usually determined. by illness, age of beginning school, etc. End of Chapter 6 of the Measurement of Intelligence Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 7 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. This is a Librevox recording. All Librevox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Librevox.org.

Read by Leon Harvey. Chapter 7 Reliability of the Bennett-Simon method General value of the method In a former chapter we have noted certain imperfections of the scale devised by Binnett and Simon, namely that many of the tests were not correctly located, that the choice of tests was in a few cases unsatisfactory, that the directions for giving and scoring the tests

were sometimes too indefinite, and that the upper and lower ranges of the scale especially stood in native extensions and corrections. All of these faults have been quite generally admitted. The method itself, however, after being put to the test by psychologists of all countries and all face, by the skeptical as well as the friendly, has amply demonstrated its value. The agreement on the point is as completely as it is regarding the scales imperfections. The following quotations from prominent psychologists who have studied the method will serve to show how it is regarded by those most entitled to an opinion.

There can be no question about the fact that the Bennett-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. All the different authors who have made these researchers, with the Bennett's method, are in a great 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. If serves as a relatively simple and speeding method of securing by means accessible to everyone,

a true insight into the average level of ability of a child between 23 and 15 years of age, 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. 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 is nothing else to be considered. The value of the method lies both in the swiftness and the accuracy with which it works. One who knows how to apply the test correctly, and who is experienced in the psychological interpretation of responses, can in 40 minutes arrive at a more accurate judgment as to where subjects' intelligence then would be possible without the tests after months or even years of close observation. The reasons for this have already been set forth.

The difference is something like that between measuring a person's height with the outstick and estimating it by guess, that this is not an unfair statement of the case is well shown by the following candid confession by a psychologist who tests. 200 juvenile delinquents brought before Judge Lindsay's court. As a matter of interest, I estimated the mental ages of my subjects before testing them. In 54 of the estimates, the error is not more than one year in either direction. 70 of the subjects were estimated too high. The average error being two years and seven months. 26 of the subjects were estimated too low.

The average error being two years and two 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. Criticisms of the Bennett method have also been frequently voiced, but chiefly by persons who have a little experience with it or by those whose scientific training highly justifies an opinion. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that eminence in law, medicine, education, or any other profession does not of itself enable anyone to pass judgment

on the validity of a psychological method. Dependence of the scale's reliability on the training of the examiner On this point, two radically different opinions have been urged. On the one hand, some have insisted that the results of a test made by other than a thoroughly trained psychologist are absolutely worthless. At the opposite extreme, are a few who seem to think that any teacher or physician can secure perfectly valid results after a few hours acquaintance with the tests. The dispute is one which cannot be settled by the ascitation of opinion, and unfortunately, thoroughgoing investigations have not yet made as to the frequency and extent of errors made by untrained, partially trained exam. The only study of this kind which has so far been reported is the following. Dr. Coz gives the results of tests made by 58 inexperienced teachers who were taking a summer course in the training school at Vineland.

The class met three times a week for instruction in the use of the Bennett scale. During the first week the students listened to three lectures by Dr. Goddard. The second week was given over to demonstration testing. Each students saw four children tested and attended two discussion periods for an hour each. During the third, fourth and fifth weeks, each student tested one child per week and observed the testing of two others. The student was allowed to carry the test through his own way but received criticism after it was finished.

Twice a week Dr. Goddard spent an hour with the class discussing experimental procedure. The subjects tested were feeble-minded children whose exact mental ages were already known, and for this reason it was possible to check up the accuracy of each student's work. Coe's table of results for the trial testing of the 174 children showed. 1. That 50% of the work was exact as anyone in the laboratory could make it. 2. That in an additional 38% of the results were within 3 5ths of a year of being exact. 3. That nearly 90% 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 any previous experience with the Binnett tests, Dr. Coe seems to be entirely justified in his conclusion that it is possible, in the brief period of six weeks, to teach people to use the tests with a reasonable degree of accuracy. What shall we say of the teacher, or of the physician, who had not even had this amount of instruction? The writer's experience forces him to agree with Bennett and with Dr. Goddard that anyone with intelligence enough to be a teacher, and who is willing to devote conscientious study to the mastery of the technique, can use the scale accurately enough to get a better idea

of a child's mental endowment than it could possibly get in any other way. It is necessary, however, for the untrained person to recognize his own lack of experience, and in no case would it be justifiable to base important action or scientific conclusions upon the results of the inexpert examiner. As Bennett himself repeatedly insisted, the method is not absolutely mechanical, and cannot be made so by elaboration of instructions. It is sometimes held that the examination and classification of backward children for special instruction should be carried out by the school physicians.

The fact is, however, that there is nothing in the physician's training to give him any advantage over the ordinary teacher in the use of the Binnett tests. Because of her more intimate knowledge of children, and because of her superior tact and adaptability, the average teacher is perhaps better equipped than the average physician to give intelligence tests. Finally, it should be emphasized that whatever the previous training or experience of the examiner may have been his ability

to adjust to the child's personality and his willingness to follow conscientiously, directions for giving the tests are important factors in his equipment. Influence of the subject's attitude. One continually meets such queries as, how do you know the subject did his best? Possibly the child was nervous or frightened, or perhaps incorrect answers were purposely given. All such objections may be disposed of by saying that the competent examiner can easily control the experiment in such a way that embarrassment is soon replaced by self-confidence

and in such a way that effort is kept at its maximum. As for mischievous deception, it would be a poor clinis who could not recognize and deal with the little that is likely to arise. Cautions regarding embarrassment, fatigue, fright, illness, etc., are given in Chapter 9. Most of the errors, which have been reported along this line, are such as can nearly always be avoided by ordinary prudence, coupled with a little power of observation. We must not charge the mistakes of untrained and indiscreet examiners against the validity of the method itself. It is possibly true that even if the examiner is tactful and prudent, an unfavourable attitude on the part of the subject may occasionally affect the results of a test to some extent, but it ought not seriously to invalidate one examination and of 500. The greatest danger is in the case of a young subject who has been recently arrested and brought before a court. Even here, a little common sense and scientific insight should enable one to guard against a mistaken diagnosis.

The influence of coaching It might be supposed that after the intelligence scale had been used with a few pupils in a given school, all of their fellows would soon be appraised of the nature of the tests, and so learned the correct responses. Experience shows, however, that there is little likelihood of such influence except in the case of a small minority of the tests. Experiments in the psychology of testimony have demonstrated that children's abilities report upon a complex set of experiences is astonishingly weak. In testing with the Stanford Division, a child is ordinarily weak. given from 24 to 30 different tests, many of which are made up of three or more items. Of the total 40 to 50 items, the child is ordinarily able to report but few, and those not always correctly.

Such tests as memory for sentences and digits, drawing the square and diamond, reproducing the designs from memory, comparing weights and lines, describing and interpreting pictures, aesthetic comparison, vocabulary, dissecting sentences. Fables, reading for memories, finding differences and similarities, arithmetical reasoning, and the form-borne test are hardly subject to a report at all. While almost any of the other tests might theoretically be communicated, there is little danger that many of them will be. It is assumed, of course, that the examiner will take proper precautions to prevent any of his blanks or other material from falling into the hands of those who are to be examined. The following tests are the ones most subject to the influence

of coaching. Ball and field, giving date, naming 60 words, finding rhymes, changing. hands of clock, comprehension of physical relations, induction test and ingenuity test. In several instances we have interviewed children an hour or two after they have taken the examination in order to find out how many of the tests they could recall. A boy of four 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 three years could recall nothing whatever that was intelligible. An eight-year-old boy said, he'd maybe tire not.

He asked me about a ship and an auto. He wanted me to count backwards. He made me say over some things, numbers and things. A boy of twelve years said, he told me to say all the words I could think of. He says some foolish things and asked what was foolish. He could not repeat a single absurdity. I had to put some blocks together. I had to do some problems in arithmetic.

He could not repeat a single problem. He read some fables to me. Asked about the fables. He was able to recall only part of one and that of the fox and the crow. He showed me the pictures of a field and wanted to know how to find a ball. It is evident from the above samples of report that the danger of coaching increases considerably with the age of the children concerned. With young subjects, the danger is hardly present at all. With children of the upper grammar grades in the high school,

and most if all of the prisons and reformatories, it must be taken to account. Alternative tests may sometimes be used to advantage when there is evidence of coaching on any of the regular tests. be desirable to have two or three additional scales which could be used interchangeably with the Binet Simon. Reliability of the repeated tests Will the same tests give consistent results when used repeatedly with the same subject? In general we may say that they do. Something depends however on the age and intelligence of the subject and on the time interval between the examinations. Goddard proves that feeble-minded individuals whose intelligence has reached its full development continue to test at exactly the same

mental age by the Bennett scale, year after year. In their case, familiarity with the tests does not in the least improve the responses. At each retesting, the responses given at previous examinations are repeated with only the most trivial variations. Of 352, feeble-minded children tested at Fineland three years in succession, 109 gave absolutely no variation. 232 showed a variation of not more than two-fifths of a year, while 22 gained as much as one year in the three tests. The later presumably were younger children whose intelligence was still developing. Goddard has also tested 464 public school children for three successive years. Approximately half of these showed normal progress or more in mental age,

while most of the remainder showed somewhat less than normal progress. Bobatag's retesting of 83 normal children after an interval of a year gave results entirely in harmony with those of Goddard. Three application of the tests showed absolutely no influence of familiarity. the correlation of the two tests been almost perfect. 0.95. Those who tests at age in the first test had advanced on the average exactly one year. Those who tested plus in the first test advanced in the 12 months about a year and a quarter,

as we should expect those to do whose mental development is accelerated. Correspondingly, those who tested minus at the first test advanced only about 3 fourths of a year in mental age during the interval. Our own results with a mixed group of normal, superior, dull and feeble-minded children, agree fully with the above findings. In this case, the two tests were separated by an interval of two to four years, and the correlation between their results was practically perfect. The average difference between the IQ obtained in the second test

and that obtained in the first test was only 4%, and the greatest difference found was only 8%. The repetition of the tests at shorter intervals will perhaps affect the results somewhat more, but the influence is much less than one might expect. The rider has tested, at intervals of only a few days to a few weeks, weeks, 14 backward children of 12 to 18 years and 8 normal children of 5 to 13 years. The backward children showed an average improvement in the second test of about 2 months

in mental age. The normal children, an average improvement of little more than 3 months. No child varied in the second test more than half a year from the mental age first secured. On the whole, normal children profit more from the experience of previous test than to the backward and feeble-minded. We've retested 45 normal children and 50 defectives with a bit of 1908 and 1911 scales at brief intervals. The author does not state which scale was applied first, but the mental age is secured

by the two scales, but practically the same when allowances was made for the slightly greater difficulty of the 1911 series of tests. We may conclude, therefore, that while it would probably be desirable to have one or more additional scales for alternative use in testing the same children at very brief intervals, the The same scale may be used for repeated tests at intervals of a year or more with little danger of serious inaccuracy. Moreover, results like those set forth above are important evidence as to the validity of the test method.

The influence of social and educational advantages. The criticism has often been made that the responses to many of the tests are so much subject to the influence of school and home environment as seriously to invalidate the scale as a whole. Some of the tests most often named in this connection are the following, giving a religion sex, naming common objects, colors and coins, giving the value of stamps, giving date, naming the months of the year and the days of the week, distinguishing four noon and afternoon, counting, making change, reading from memories, naming 60 words, giving definitions, finding

rhymes, and constructing a sentence containing three given words. It has in fact been found wherever comparisons have been made that children of superior social status yield a higher average mental age than children of the laboring classes. The results of Dekyllery and Degand and of Newman, Stern, and Bennett himself may be referred to in this connection. In the case of the Stanford investigation also, it was found that when the unselected school children were grouped in three classes according to social status, superior, average and inferior, the average IQ for the superior social group was 107, and that of the inferior

social group 93. This is equivalent to a difference of one year in mental age with seven-year-olds and to a difference of two years with 14-year-olds. However, the common opinion that the child from a cultured home does better in tests solely by reasoning superior home advantages is an entirely gratuitous assumption. Practically all of the investigations which have been made of the influence of nature and nurture on mental performance agree in attributing far more to original endowment than to environment. Common observation would itself suggest that the social class to which the family belongs depends less on chance than on the parent's native qualities of intellect and character. The results of five separate and distinct lines of inquiry based on the Stanford data agree in supporting the conclusion that the children of successful and cultured parents test higher than children from wretched and ignorant homes for the simple reason that their hereditary is better. The results of this investigation are set forth in full elsewhere. It would, of course, be going too far to deny all possibility of environmental conditions

affecting the result of an intelligence test. Certainly, no one would expect that a child reared in a cage and denied all in decorous without human beings could be by any system of mental measurement test up to the level of normal children. There is, however, no reason to believe that ordinary differences in social environment, apart from hereditary, differences such as those obtaining among unselected children, attending approximately the same general type of school in a civilized community affects to any great extent the validity of the scale. A crucial experiment would be to take a large number of very young children of the lower classes and after placing them in the most favorable environment obtainable to compare their later mental

development with that of children born into the best homes. No extensive study of this kind has been made by the writer has tested 20 orphaned children who for the most part had come from very inferior homes. They had been in a well-conducted orphanage from two to several years and had enjoyed during that the advantages of an excellent village school. Nevertheless, all but three tested below average, ranging from 75 to 90 IQ. The impotence of school instruction to neutralize individual differences in native endowment will be evident to anyone who follows the school career of backward children. The children who are seriously retarded in school are not normal, and cannot be made normal by any

refinement of educational method. As a rule, the longer the inferior child attends school, the more evident his inferiority becomes. It would hardly be more than more. It would hardly be reasonable, therefore, to expect that a little incidental instruction in the home would weigh very heavily against the same native differences in endowment. Cases like the following show conclusively that it does not. X is the son of unusually intelligent and well-educated parents. The home is everything one would expect of people of scholarly pursuits and cultivated tastes, but X has always been irresponsible, troublesome, childish and queer. He learned to walk two years to talk at three, and has always been delicate and nervous. When brought for a good,

examination, he was eight years old. He had twice attempted schoolwork, but could accomplish nothing and was withdrawn. His play life was not normal, and other children, younger than himself, abused and tormented him. The minute test gave an IQ 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 IQ 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 40-minute test had told more

about his mental ability of this boy than the intelligent mother had been able to learn in 11 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. Zed is a bright-eyed, dark-skinned girl of nine 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 easy turned 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 their miserable cammon in which she lives. The examination begins with the eight-year tests. The responses are quick and accurate. We proceed to the nine-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%. By the vocabulary test, she is credited with the knowledge of nearly 6,000 words or nearly four times as many as X, the boy of cultured home and scholarly parents had learned by the age of eight years. Five years have passed. When given the test, Z was in the fourth grade and, as we have already stated, nine years of age.

As a result of the test, she was transferred to the fifth grade. Later she skipped again, 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 45 minutes. The above cases, eights of which could be paralleled by many others which we have found, will serve to illustrate the fact that exceptionally superior endowment is discoverable by the tests, however unfavourable the home from which it comes, and that inferior endowment cannot be normalized by all the advantages of the most cultured home. Quoting again from Stern, the tests actually reach and discover the general developmental conditions of intelligence and not mere fragments of knowledge

and attainments acquired by chance. End of Chapter 7 of the Measurement of Intelligence. Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 8 Of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Termin This is a Libravox recording All Libravox recordings are in the public domain

For more information or to volunteer Please visit Libravox.org Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 8 General Instructions Necessity of Securing Attention and Effort The Child's Intelligence is to be judged by success in the performance of certain tasks

These tasks may appear to the examiner to be very easy, indeed, but we must bear in mind that they are often anything but easy for the child. Real effort and attention are necessary for his success, and occasionally even his best effort falls short of the desired results. If the tests are to display the child's real intellectual ability, it will be necessary, therefore, to avoid as nearly as possible every disturbing factor which would divide his attention or in any other way into the quality of his responses. To ensure this, it will be necessary to consider somewhat in detail a number of factors which influence effort, such as degree of quiet, the nature of surroundings, presence or absence of

others, means of gaining the child's confidence, the avoidance of embarrassment, fatigue, etc. One should not expect, however, to secure an absolutely equal degree of attention from all subjects. The power to give sustained attention to a difficult task is characteristically weak in dull and feeble-minded children. What we should labour to secure is the maximum attention of which the child is capable, and, if this is unsatisfactory with that external cause, we are to regard the fact as symptomatic of inferior mental ability, not as an extenuating factor or an excuse for lack of success in the tests. Attention, of course, cannot be normal

if any acute physical or mental disturbance is present. Toothache, headache, earache, nausea, fever, cold, etc., all render the test inadvisable. The same is true of mental anxiety or fear, as in the case of the child who has just been arrested and brought before the court. Quiet and seclusion The tests should be conducted in a quiet room, located where the noises of the street and other outside distractions cannot enter. A reasonably small room is better than a very large one, because if it is more home-like. The furnishings of the room should be simple. A table and two chairs are sufficient.

If the room contains a number of unfamiliar objects, such as psychological aparadus, pictures on the walls, etc., the attention of the child is likely to be drawn away from the tasks which is given to do. The halls and corridors, which is sometimes necessary to use in testing, schoolchildren, are usually noisy, cold, or otherwise objectionable. Presence of others A still more disturbing influence is a presence of others. Generally speaking, if accurate results are to be secured, it is not permissible to have any auditor, besides possibly an assistant, to record the responses.

Even the assistant, however quiet and obtrusive, is sometimes a disturbing element. Though something of a convenience, the assistant is by no means necessary, after the examiner has thoroughly mastered the procedure of the tests and has acquired some skill in the use of abbreviations in recording and answers. If an assistant or any other person is present, he should be seated somewhat behind the child, not too close, and should take no notice of the child either when he enters the room or at any time during the examination. At all events, the presence of parent, teacher, school principal, or governess is to be avoided. Contrary to what one might expect, these distract the child much more than a strange personality would do.

Their critical attitude towards the child's performance is very likely to cause embarrassment. If the child is alone with the examiner, he is more at ease from the mere fact that he does not feel that there is a reputation to sustain. The praise is so lavishly bestowed upon him by the friendly and sympathetic examiner lends to the same effect. As Bennett emphasizes, if the presence of others cannot be avoided, it is at least necessary to require of them absolute silence. Parents and sometimes teachers have an almost irrepressible tendency to interrupt the examination with excuses for the child's failures and with disturbing explanations which are likely to aid the child in comprehending the required task. Without the least intention of doing so, they sometimes practically tell the child how to respond. Parents especially cannot refrain from scolding the child or showing impatience when his answers do not come up to expectation.

This, of course, endangers the child's success still further. The psychologist is not surprised at such conduct. It would be foolish to expect average parents, even apart from their bias in the particular case at hand, to adopt a scientific attitude of the trained examiner, since we cannot, in a few moments at our disposal, make them over into psychologists. Our only recourse is to deal with them by exclusion. This is not to say that it is impossible

to test a child satisfactorily in the presence of others. If the examiner is experienced, and if the child is not timid, it is sometimes possible to make a successful test in the presence of quite a number of auditors, provided that remain silent, refraining from staring, and otherwise conduct themselves with discretion.

But not even the veteran examiner can always be sure of, the outcome in demonstration testing. Getting into report. The examiner's first task is to win the confidence of the child and overcome his timidity. Unless a report has first been established, the results of the first tests given are likely to be misleading. Time and effort necessary for accomplishing this are for viable factors, depending upon the personality of both the examiner and the subject.

In a majority of cases, from three to five minutes should be sufficient, but in a few cases somewhat more time is necessary. The writer has found that when a strange child is brought to the clinic for examination, it is advantageous to go out of doors with him for a little walk around the university buildings. It is usually possible to return from such a stroll within a few minutes, with the child chattering away as though to an old friend. Another approach is to begin by showing the child some interesting object such as a toy or a formboard or pictures not used in the test. The only danger in this method is that the child is likely to find the object so interesting that he may not be willing to abandon it for the tests, or that his mind will keep

reverting to it during the examination. Still another method is to give the child his seat as soon as he is ushered into the room, and, after a word of greeting, which must be spoken in a kindly tone but without gushiness, to open up a conversation about matters likely to be of interest. The weather, place of residence, pets, sports, games, toys, travels, current events, etc., are suitable topics if rightly employed. When the child has begun to express himself without timidity, and it is clear that his confidence has been gained or one may proceed, as though in continuance of the conversation to inquire the name, age and school grade. The examiner notes these down in the appropriate blanks, rather unconcernally, at the same

time complimenting the child, unless it is clearly a case of serious retardation on the fine progress is made with his studies. Keeping the child encouraged Nothing contributes more to a satisfactory report than praise of the child's efforts. Under no circumstances should the examiner permit himself to show displeasure at a response, however absurd it may be. In general, the poorer the response, the better satisfied one should appear to be with it. An error is always to be passed by without common, unless it is painfully evident with the child himself, in which case the examiner will do

well to make some excuse for it, e.g., you are not quite old enough to answer questions like that one, but never mind you were doing beautifully, etc. exclamations like, fine, splendid, etc., should be used lavishly. Almost any innocent deception, you is permissible, which keeps the child interested, confident, and at his best level of effort. The examination should begin with tests that are fairly easy in order to give the child a little experience with success before the more difficult tests are reached. The importance of tact It goes without saying that children's personalities are not so uniform and simple that we can

adhere always to a single stereotype procedure in working our way into their good graces. Suggestions like the above have value, but, like rules of adequate, they must be supported by the tact, comes of intuition and cannot be taught. The address which flatters and pleases one child may excite disgust in another. The examiner must scent this situation and adapt his method to it. One child is timid and embarrassed. Another may think his mental powers are under suspicion and so react with sullen obstinacy. A third may be in an angry mood as a result of recent playground quarrel. Situations like these are of course exceptional, but in any case it is necessary to create in the child a certain mood or indefinable attitude of mind before the test begins.

Personality of the examiner Doubtless there a person so lacking in personal adaptability that success in this kind of work would be for them impossible. The wooden, mechanical, matter of fact and unresponsive personality is as much out of place in the psychological clinic as the traditional bull in the china shop. It would make an interesting study for someone to investigate by exact methods the influence on test results of personality of different examiners who have been equally trained in the methods to be employed and who are equally conscientious in a plighted them according to rules. On the whole, differences of this kind are probably not very great amount experienced and reasonably competent examiners. Adaptability grows with experience and with increase of self-confidence. After a few test scores, there should be no serious failure from inability to get into report with a child.

Even in those rare cases where the child breaks down and cries from timidity, or perhaps refuse to answer out of embarrassment, the difficulty can be overcome by sufficient tact so that the examination may proceed as though nothing had happened. If the examiner has the proper psychological and personal equipment, the testing of 20 or 30 children forms a fairly satisfactory apprenticeship. Without psychological training, no amount of experience will guarantee absolute accuracy of the results. The avoidance of fatigue Against the validity of intelligence tests, it is often argued that the result of an examination depends a great deal on the time of day when it is made, whether in the morning hours, when in the mind is at its best, or in the afternoon when it is supposedly fatigued.

Although no very extensive investigation has been made of this influence, there is no evidence that the ordinary fatigue incident to schoolwork injures the child's performance at precipitably. Our tests have 1,000 children show no inferiority of results secured from 1 to 4pm, as compared with tests made from 9 to 12 a.m. An explanation for this is not hard to find. Although schoolwork causes fatigue, in the sense that a part of the child's available supply mental energy is used up, there is always a reserve of energy sufficient to carry the child through a 30 to 50 minute test.

The fact that the required tasks are novel and interesting to a high degree ensures that the reserve energy will really be brought into play. This principle, of course, has natural limits. The examiner would avoid testing a child who was exhausted either from work or play or a child who was noticeably sleepy. Duration of the examination. About the only danger of fatigue lies in making the examination too long. Young children shows symptoms of weariness much more quickly than older children, and it is there to be a very quickly than older children, and it is there to the same. Therefore fortunate, they're not so much time is needed for testing them. The following allowances of time will usually be found sufficient.

Children 3 to 5 years old, 25 to 30 minutes. Children 6 to 8 years old, 30 to 40 minutes. Children 9 to 12 years old. 40 to 50 minutes. Children 13 to 15 years old, 50 to 60 minutes. Adults 60 to 90 minutes. This allowance ordinarily includes the time necessary for getting to report with a child In addition to that actually consumed in the tests, but the examiner need not expect to hold fast

to any schedule. Some subjects respond in a lively matter. Others are exasperatingly slow. It is more often the mentally retired child who answers slowly, but exceptions to this rule are not uncommon. One eight-year-old boy examined by the writer answered, hesitatingly, that it required two sittings of nearly an hour each to complete the test. The result, however, showed a mental age of eleven and a half years, or an IQ of 143.

It is permissible to hurry the child by the occasional, that's fine, now quickly, etc. But in doing this, caution must be exercised or the child's mental process may be blocked. The appearance of nagging must be carefully avoided. If the test goes so slowly that it cannot be completed in the above limits of time, it is usually best to stop and complete the examination at another time. When this is not possible, it is advisable to take a ten-minute intermission and a little walk out of doors. can be saved by having all the necessary materials close at hand and conveniently arranged.

The coins should be kept in a separate purse, and the pictures, colours, stamps, and designs for drawing should be mounted on stiff cardboard which may be punched and kept in a notebook cover. The series of sentences, digits, comprehension questions, fables, etc. should either be mounted in similar fashion or else printed in full on the record sheets used in the tests. The latter is more convenient. All other materials should be kept where they will not have to be hunted for. Besides saving valuable time, a little methodical foresight of this kind adds to the success of the test.

If the child was kept waiting, the test loses his interest and attention strays. See to it if possible that no lull occurs in the performance. Inexperience examiners sometimes waste time foolishly by stopping to instruct the child on his failures. This undoubtedly bad, for besides losing time it makes a child conscious of the imperfection of his responses and creates embarrassment. to the purpose of the test which is to ascertain the child's intellectual level, not to instruct him.

Desirable range of testing. There are two considerations here of equal importance. It is necessary to make the examination thorough, but in the pursuit of thoroughness, we must be careful not to produce fatigue or enue. Unless there is reason to suspect mental retardation, it is usually best to begin with the group of tests just below the child's age. However, if there is a failure in the tests of that group, it is necessary to go back and try all the tests of the previous group.

In like manner, the examination should be carried up the scale until a test group has been found in which all the tests are failed. It must be admitted, however, that because of time limitations and fatigue, it is not always practicable to adhere to this ideal of thoroughness. In testing normal children, little error will result if we go back no further than the year which yielded only one failure. And if we stop with the year in which there was only one success, this is the lowest permissible limit of thoroughness. Defectives are more uneven mentally than normal children and therefore

scatter their successes and failures over a wider range. With such subjects, it is absolutely imperative that the test be thorough. In the case of defectives, it is sometimes necessary to begin with random testing until the rough idea is gained of the mental level, but the skilled observer soon becomes able to utilize symptoms of the child's conversation and conduct enter dispense with most of its preliminary exploration. Order of giving the tests. The child's efforts in the tests are sometimes markedly influenced by the order in which they are given. If language tests or memory tests are given first, the child is likely to be embarrassed. More suitable to begin with are those which test knowledge or judgment about objective things,

such as the pictures, weights, stamps, bow knot, colours, coins, counting pennies, number of fingers, right and left, time orientation, ball and field, paper folding, etc. Tests like naming 60 words, finding rhymes, give differences or similarities, making sentences, repeating sentences, and drawing are especially unsuitable because they tend to provoke self-consciousness. The tests, as arranged, in this revision, are in the order which it is usually best to follow, but one should not hesitate to depart from the order given when it seems best in a given case to do so.

It is necessary to be constantly alert so that when the child shows a tendency to balk at a given type of test, such as those of memory, language, numbers, drawing, comprehension, etc., the work can be shifted to more agreeable tasks. When the child is at ease again, it is usually possible to return to the troublesome tests with better success. In the case of eight-year-old DC, who is a speech defective but otherwise above normal, it was quite impossible at the first setting to give such tests as sentence making, naming 60 words, reading, repeating sentences, giving definitions, etc.

At each test of this type, the child's voice broke and he was ready to cry. due no doubt to sensitiveness regarding his speech defect. Others do everything willingly except the drawing and copying. The younger children sometimes refuse to repeat the sentences or digits. In all such cases, it is best to pass on to something else. After a few minutes, the rejected task may be done willingly. Cokesing to be avoided. Although we should always encourage the child to believe that he can answer correctly,

if he will only try, we must avoid the common practice of dragging out responses by too much urging and coaxing. The sympathies of the examiner tend to lend him into the habit of repeating and explaining the question if the child is not answered promptly. This is nearly always a mistake, for the question is one which should be understood. Besides, explanations and coaxing are too often equivalent to answering the questions for the child. It is almost impossible to impress this danger sufficiently upon the untrained examiner.

One who is not familiar with the psychology of suggestion may put the answer in the child's mouth without suspecting what he is doing. Adhering to formula It cannot be too strongly emphasized that unless we follow a standardized procedure, the tests lose their significance. The danger is chiefly that have unintentionally and unconsciously introducing variations which will affect the meaning of the test. One o's had not had a thorough training in the methods of mental testing cannot appreciate

how numerous are the opportunities for the unconsciousness transformation of a test. Many of these are pointed out in the description of the individual tests, but it would be hopefully to undertake to warn the experimenter against every possible error of this kind. the emission or the addition of a single phrase in giving the test will alter materially the significance of the response. Only the trained psychologists can vary the formula without risk of invalidating the result, and even he must be on his guard. All sorts of misunderstandings regarding the correct placing of tests and regarding their

accuracy or inaccuracy have come about through the failure of different investigators to follow the same procedure. One who would use the tests for any serious purpose, therefore must study the procedure for each and every test until he knows it thoroughly. that a considerable amount of practice is necessary before one learns to avoid slips. During the early stages of practice, it is necessary to refer to the printed instructions frequently in order to check up errors before they have become habitual. The instructions hit the row available are at fault in not defining the procedure with sufficient definiteness, and it

is the purpose of this volume to make good this deficiency as far as possible. It is too much, however, to suppose that the instructions can be made foolproof, with whatever definiteness they may be set forth. Situations are sure to arise which the examiner cannot be formally prepared for. There is no limit to the multitude of misunderstandings possible. After testing hundreds of children, one still finds new examples of misapprehension. In a few such cases, the instruction may be repeated. If there is reason to think the child's hearing was at fault,

or if some extraordinary distraction had occurred, but unless otherwise stated in the directions, the repetition of a question is ordinarily to be avoided, supplementary explanations are hardly ever permissible. Short, numberless situations may arise in the use of a test which may injure the validity of the response, events which cannot always be dealt with by preconceived for all. Accordingly, although we must urge unceasingly the importance of following the standard procedure, it is not to be supposed that formulas are an adequate substitute either for scientific judgment or for common sense.

Scoring The exact method of scoring the individual tests is set forth in the following chapters. Reference to the record booklet for use in testing will show that the records are to be kept in detail. Each subdivision of a test should be scored separately in order that the clinical picture may be as complete as possible. This helps the final evaluation of the results. It makes much difference. For example, whether success in repeating six digits is earned by repeating all three correctly or only one, or whether the child's lack of success with the absurdities is due to failure on two, three, four, or all of them. Time should be recorded whenever

called for in the record blanks. Recording responses. Plus and minus signs. alone are usually not sufficient. Whenever possible, the entire response should be recorded. If the test results are to be used by any other person than the examiner, this is absolutely essential. Any other standard of completeness opens the door to a carelessness and inaccuracy. In nearly all the tests, except that of naming 60 words, the examiner will find it possible by the liberal use of abbreviations to record practically the entire response verbatim. In doing so, however, one must be careful to avoid keeping the child waiting. Occasionally it is necessary to leave off recording altogether because of the embarrassment sometimes aroused in the child by saying his answer risen down.

The writer has met the latter difficulty several times. When, for any reason, it is not feasible to record anything more than score marks, success may be indicated by the sign plus, failure by minus, and half credit by one half. An exceptionally good response may be indicated by plus plus, and an exceptionally poor response by minus minus. If there is a slight doubt about a success or failure of the signed question mark may be added to the plus or minus. In general, however, score the response either plus or minus, avoiding half credit as far as

it is possible to do so. If the entire response is not recorded, it is necessary to record at least the score mark for each test when the test is given. It must be borne in mind that the scoring is not a purely mechanical affair. Instead, the judgment of the examiner must come into play with every record made. If the scoring is delayed, there is not only the danger of forgetting a response, but the judgment is likely to be influenced by the subject's responses to succeeding questions. Our special record booklet contains wide margins, so that extended notes and observations

regarding the child's responses and behavior can be recorded as the test proceeds. Scattering of successes. It is sometimes a source of concern to the untrained examiner that their successes and failures should be scattered over quite an extensive range of years. it may be asked, should not a child who has 10 year intelligence answer correctly all the tests up to and include group 10 and fail on all the tests beyond? There are two reasons why such is almost never the case. In the first place, the intelligence of an individual is ordinarily not even.

There are many different kinds of intelligence, and in some of these the subject is better endowed than in others. A second reason lies in the fact that no test can be purely and simply a test of native intelligence. Given a certain degree of intelligence, accidents of experience, and accidents of experience, and training bring it about that this intelligence will work more successfully with some kinds of material than with others. For both these reasons, their results of scattering of successes and failures over three or four

years. The subject first fails on one or two tests of a group, then in two or three tests of the following group. The number of failures increasing until there are no successes at all. Success tapers off from 100% to zero. Once in a great while, a child fails on several of the tests of a given year and succeeds with a majority of those in the next higher year. This is only an extreme instance of uneven intelligence or of specialized experience and does not

necessarily reflect upon the reliability of the test for children in general. The method of calculation given above strikes kind of average and gives the general level of intelligence, which is essentially the thing we want to know. Supplementary considerations. It would be a mistake to suppose that any set of mental tests could be devised which would give us complete information about a child's native intelligence. There are no tests which are absolutely pure tests of intelligence. All are influenced to a greater or less degree, also by training and by social environment.

For this reason, all the ascertainable facts bearing on such influences should be added to the record of the mental examination, and should be given due weight in reaching a final conclusion as to the level of intelligence. The following supplementary information should be gathered when possible. 1. Social status. Very superior, superior, average, average, inferior, or very, Very inferior. 2. The teachers estimate of the child's intelligence. Very superior. Superior. Superior. Average. Or very inferior.

3. School opportunities, including use of attendance, regularity, retardation, or acceleration, etc. 4. Quality of schoolwork. Very superior. Superior. Superior. Average. Inferior. 5. Physical handicaps, if any. Adenoids, disease tonsils, partial deafness, imperfect vision, malnutrition, etc. In addition, the examiner will need to take account of the general attitude of the child during the examination. This is provided for in the record blanks under the heading comments. The comments should describe as fully as possible the conduct and attitude of the child during the examination,

with emphasis upon such disturbing factors as fear, timidity, unwillingness to answer, overconfidence, carelessness, lack of attention, etc. Sometimes also it is desirable to verify the child's age and to make record of the verification. Once more, let it be argued that no degree of mechanical perfection of the tests can ever take the place of good judgment and psychological insight. Intelligence is too complicated to be weighed

like a bag of grain by anyone who can read figures. Alternative tests The tests designated as alternative tests are not intended for regular use. Inasmuch as they have been standardized and belong in the year group where they are placed, they may be used as substitute tests on certain occasions. Sometimes, one of the regular tests is spoiled in giving it, or the requisite material for it may not be at hand. Sometimes there may be reason to suspect that the subject has become acquainted with some of the tests. In such cases, it is a great convenience to have a few substitutes available.

It is necessary, however, to warn against a possible misuse of alternative tests. It is not permissible to count success in an alternative test as offsetting failure in a regular test. This would give the subject too much leeway a failure. There are very exceptional cases, however, when it is legitimate to break this rule, namely, when one of the regular tests would be obviously unfair to the subject being tested. In Year 10, for example, one of the three alternative tests should be substituted for the reading test, 10, test 4, in case we are testing a subject who has not had the equivalent of at least two

years of school work. In year 8, it would be permissible to substitute the alternative test of naming six coins instead of the vocabulary test in the case of a subject who came here from home where English was not spoken. In 7, it would perhaps not be unfair to substitute the alternative test in place the test of copying a diamond. In the case of the subject who, because of timidity or embarrassment, refused to attempt the diamond, but it would be going entirely too far to substitute an alternative test in the

place of every regular test which is subject responded to by silence. In a large majority of cases, persistent silence deserves to be scored failure. Certain tests have been made alternatives because of their inferior value, some because the presence of other tests of similar nature in the same year rendered them less necessary. Finding Mental Age As there are six tests in each age group, from 3 to 10, each test in this part of the scale counts two months towards mental age. There are eight tests in Group 12, which, because of the emission of the 11 year group, have a combined value of 24 months, or 3 months each.

Similarly, each of the six tests in 14 has a value of four months. 24 divided by 6 equals 4. The tests of the average adult group are given a value of 5 months each, and those are the superior adult group, a value of 6 months each. These values are, in a sense, arbitrary, but they are justified in the fact that they are such as to cause ordinary adults to test at the average adult level. The calculation of mental age is therefore simplicity itself. The rule is, one, credit the subject with all the tests below the point where the examination begins, remembering that the examination goes back until the year group has been found in which all the tests are passed, and two, add to this basil credit two months each for each test passed successfully,

up to and including year 10, three months for each test passed in 12. 4 months for each test passed in 14, 5 months for each success in average adult, and 6 months for each success in superior adult. For example, let us suppose that a child passes all the tests in 6, 5 of the 6 tests in 7, 3 in 8, 2 in 9 and 1 in 10. The total credit earned is as follows. Credit presupposed years 1 to 5? 5 years. Credit earned in six, six tests passed, two months each, one year. Credit earned in seven, five tests passed two months each, ten months. Credit earned in eight, three tests passed, two months each, six months.

Credit earned in nine, two tests passed, two months each, four months. Credit earned in ten, one test passed, two months, two months each. Total credit? 10 months. Taking a subject to tests higher, let us suppose the following tests are passed, all in 10, 6 of the 8 in 12, 2 of the 6 in 14, and 1 of the 6 in average adult. The total credit is as follows. Credit presupposed years 1 to 9, 9 years. Credit earned in 10, 6 tests passed, 2 months each, 1 year. Credit earned in 12, 6 tests passed 3 months each, 1 year, 6 months. Earned in 14, two tests passed, four months each.

Zero years, eight months. Credit earned in average adult, one success, five months. Five months. Total credit, 12 years, seven months. One other point. If one or more tests of a year group have been omitted, as sometimes happens either from oversight or lack of time, the question arises how the tests,

which were given such a year group, should be evaluated. Suppose, for example, a subject has been given only four of the six tests, in a given year and that he passes two or half for those given. In such a case the probability would be that had all six tests being given, three would have been passed, that is one half of all. It is evident therefore that when a test has been omitted, our proportionally larger value should be assigned to each of those given. If all six tests are given in any year group below 12, each has a value of two months.

If only four are given each has a value of three months, 12 divided by four equals three. 5 tests only are given each has a value of 2.4 months. 12 divided by 5 equals 2.4. If in U group 12, only 6 of 8 tests are given, each has a value of 4 months, 24 divided by 6 equals 4. If in the average adult group, only 5 of the 6 tests are given, each has a value of 6 months instead of the usual 5 months. In this connection, it will need to be remembered that the 6 average adult tests have a combined value of 30 months, 6 tests, 5 months each. Also, that the combined value of the six superior adult test is 36 months, 6 multiplied by 6 equals 36. Accordingly, if only 5 of the 6 superior adult tests are given, the value of each is 36 divided by 5 equals 7.2 months.

For example, let us suppose that a subject has been tested as follows. All the 6 tests in 10 were given and all were passed. Only 6 the 8 and 12 were given and 5 were passed. 5 of the 6 in 14 were given and 3 were passed. 5 of the 6 in average adult were given and one was passed 5 were given in superior adult and no credit earned The result would be as follows Credit presupposed year is 1 to 9, 9 years

Credit earned in 10, 6 given 6 successes 1 year credit earned in 12 6 given 5 passed Unit value of each test given is 24 divided by 6 equals 4 Total value of the 5 tests passed is 5 multiplied by 4 or one year, eight months. Credit earned in 14, 5 tests given 3 past. Unit value of each of the 5 given is 24 divided by 5 equals 4.8.

Value of the 3 past is 3 multiplied by 4.8, or 0 years, 14 plus months. Credit earned in average adult 5 tests given 1 past. Unit value of the 5 test given is 30 divided by 5 equals 6. Value of 1 success, 0 years, 6 months. Credit earned in superior adult. 0 year, 0 months. Total credit, 13 years, 4 plus months. The calculation of mental age is really simpler than our verbal illustrations make it appear. After the operation has been performed 20 or 30 times, it can be done in less than half a minute without danger of error.

The use of the intelligence quotient. Elsewhere explained, the mental age alone does not tell us what we want to know about a child's intelligence status, The significance of a given number of years of retardation or acceleration bends upon the age at the child. A three-year-old child who is retired one year is ordinarily feeble-minded. A ten-year-old retired at one year is only a little below normal. The child who a three years of age is retired at one year will probably be retired two years at the age of six, three years at the age of nine, and four years at the age of twelve. What we want to know, therefore, is the ratio existing between mental age and real age.

This is the intelligence quotient, or IQ. Find it we simply divide mental age, expressed in years and months, by real age, also expressed in years and months. The process is easier if we express each age in terms of months known before dividing. The division can of course be performed almost instantaneously and with much less danger of error by the use of a slide rule or a division table. One who has to calculate many intelligence quotients should by all means use some kind of mechanical help.

How to find the IQ of adult subjects. If intelligence, in so far as it can be measured by tests now available, appears to improve but little after the age of 15 or 16 years. It follows that in calculating the IQ of an adult subject it will be necessary to disregard the years he has lived beyond the point where intelligence attains its final development. Although the location of this point is not exactly known, it will be sufficiently accurate for our purpose to assume its location at 16 years. Accordingly, any person over 16 years of age, however old is for purposes of calculating IQ.

considered to be just 16 years old. Every youth of 18 and a man of 60 years both have a mental age at 12 years, the IQ in each case is 16 divided by 12, or 0.75. The significance of various values of the IQ is set forth elsewhere. Here it need only be repeated that 100 IQ means exactly average intelligence, that nearly all who are below 70 or 75 IQ are feeble-minded, and that the child of 125 IQ is about as much above the average as a high-grade, feeble-minded individual is below the average.

For ordinary purposes, all who fall between 95 and 105 IQ may be considered as average in intelligence. Material for use in testing. It is strongly recommended that in testing by the Stanford revision, the regular Stanford Record booklets be used. These are so arranged as to make testing accurate, rapid and convenient. They contain square diamond, round field, vocabulary list, fables, sentences, digits, and selections for memory tests. The reading selection, barred for scoring. the dissected sentences, or with medical problems, etc. One is required for each child tested.

End of Chapter 8 of the Measurement of Intelligence. Read by Leon Harvey. Chapter 9 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. This is a Librivox recording. All Libravox recordings are in the public domain. For more informational to volunteer, please visit Librevox.org. Read by Leon Harvey. Chapter 9. Instructions for Year 3.

Test 1. Pointing to parts of the body. Procedure. After getting the child's attention, say, Show me your nose. Put your finger on your nose. Same with eyes, mouth and hair. Tact is often necessary to overcome timidity. If two or three repetitions of the instructions fail to bring a response, point to the child's chin or ear and say, Is this your nose? No. Then where is your nose?

Sometimes, after one has tried two or three parts of the teeth, test without eliciting any response, the child may suddenly release his inhibitions and answer all the questions promptly. In case of persistent refusal to respond, it is best not to arrest the child for an answer, but to leave the test for a while and return to it later. This is a rule which applies generally throughout the scale. In the case of one exceptionally timid little girl, it was impossible to get any response by the usual procedure, but immediately, when a doll was shown, the child pointed willingly to its nose, eyes, mouth and hair. The device was successful because it withdrew the child's attention from herself and centered upon something

objective. Scoring. Three responses out of four must be correct. Instead of pointing, the child sometimes responds by winking the eyes, opening the mouth, etc., which is counted as satisfactory. Remarks Binance purpose in this test is to ascertain whether the subject is capable of comprehending simple language. The ability to comprehend a news language is indeed one of the most reliable indications of the grade of mental development. The appreciation of gestures comes first, then the comprehension of language heard, next the ability to repeat words and sentences mechanically, and finally the ability to use language as a means for communication. The present test,

however, is not more strictly a test of language comprehension than the others of the three-year group, and in any case, it could not be said to mark the beginning of the power to comprehend spoken language. That is fairly well advanced by the age of two years. The test closely resembles year 3 test 2 naming familiar objects and year 3 enumeration of objects in a picture except that it brings in a personal element and gives some clue to the development of the sense of self or the data agree in locating the test at year 3 test 2 naming familiar objects procedure user key a penny a closed knife a watch and an ordinary lead pencil the key should be the usual large-sized door key not one of the Yale type The penny should not be too new, for the freshly made untarned penny resembles very little the penny usually seen. Any ordinary pocket knife may be used, and it is to be shown unopened.

The formula is, what is this, or tell me what this is. Scoring There must be at least three correct responses out of five. A response is not correct unless the object is name. It is not sufficient for the child merely to show that he knows its use. A child, for example, may take the pencil and begin to mark with it or go to the door and insert the key in the lock, but this is not sufficient. At the same time, we must not be too arbitrary about requiring a particular name. Sent or pennies for penny is satisfactory, but money is not.

The watch is sometimes called a clock or a tick-tock, and we shall perhaps not be too liberal if we score these responses plus. Pen for pencil, however, is unsatisfactory. substitute names for key and knife are rarely given. Mispronunciations due to baby talk are of course ignored. Remarks The purpose of this test is to find out whether the child has made the association between familiar objects and their names. The mental processes necessary to enable the child to pass this test are very elementary, and yet, as far as they go, they are fundamental.

Learning the names of objects frequently seen is a form of mental activity in which the normally endowed child of two to four years. years finds great satisfaction. Any marked retardation in making such associations is a grave indication of the lack of that spontaneity which is so necessary for the development of the higher grades of intelligence. It would be entirely beside the point, therefore, to question the validity of the test on the ground that a given child may not have been taught the names of the objects used. Practically all children three years old, however, poor their environment, have made the acquaintance of at least three of the five objects, and if intelligence is normal, they have learned their names as a result of spontaneous inquiry. Always use the list of objects here given, because it has

been standardized. Any improvised selection would be sure to contain some objects either less or more familiar than those in the standardized list. Note also that three correct responses out of five are sufficient. If we require five correct answers out of six like Coleman, or three out of three, like Binet, Goddard and Huey, the test would probably belong in the four-year level. Binnett states that this test is materially harder than that of naming objects in a picture, since in the latter the child selects from a number of objects in the picture those he knows best, while in the former test he must name the objects we have arbitrarily chosen. The difference does not hold, however, if we require only three correct responses out of five for passing the test of naming objects. Instead of been it's three out of three. All else been equal, it is of course easier to recognize and name a real object shown than it is to recognize and name it from a picture.

Test 3 Enumeration of objects in pictures Procedure Use the three pictures designated as Dutch home, river scene and post office Say, now I'm going to show you a pretty picture Then holding the first one before the child close enough to permit direct vision Say, tell me what you see in this picture

If there is no response as sometimes happens due to embarrassment or timidity Repeat the request in this form Look at the picture and tell me everything you can see in it. If there is still no response, say, show me the blank, naming some objects in the picture. Only one question of this type, however, is permissible. If the child answers correctly, say, that is fine. Now tell me everything you see in the picture. From this point, the response nearly always follows without further coaching.

Indeed, if report has been properly cultivated before the test begins, the first question will ordinarily be sufficient. If the child names one or two things in a pitcher and then stops, urge him on by saying, And what else? Proceed with pictures B and C in the same manner. Scoring The test is passed if the child enumerates as many as three objects in one picture spontaneously, that is, without intervening questions or urging.

Anything better than enumeration, as description or interpretation, is also acceptable. But description is rarely encountered before five years, and enumeration rarely before 4, 9 or 10. Remarks. The purpose of the test in this year is to find out whether the sight of a familiar object in a picture provokes recognition and calls up the appropriate name. The average child of 3 or 4 years is in what Bennett calls the identification stage, that is, familiar objects in a picture will be identified but not described.

Their relations to one another will not be grasped. In giving the test, always present the picture in the same order. First Dutch home, then Rivers Seine, then post office. The order of presentation will no doubt seem to the unindisiated, too trivial a matter to insist upon, but a little experience teaches one that the apparently insignificant change in the procedure may exert a considerable influence upon the response. Some pictures tend more strongly than others to provoke a particular type of response. Some lend themselves especially to enumeration, others to description, others to interpretation.

The pictures used in the Stanford Division have been selected from a number which have been tried because they are more uniform in this respect than most others in use. However, they are not without their differences. Picture B, for example, tending more than the else to provoke a description. It seems to be in no disagreement as to the proper location of this test. Test 4. Giving sex. Procedure If the subject is a boy, the formula is, are you a little boy or a little girl? If a girl, are you a little girl or a little boy? This variation in the formula is necessary because the tendency in young children to repeat mechanically the last word of anything that is said to them.

If there is no response, say, are you a little girl, if a boy, or are you a little boy if a girl? If the answer to the last question is no, or a shake of the head, we then say, well, what are you? Are you a little boy or a little girl, or vice versa? Scoring. The response is satisfactory if it indicates that the child has really made the discrimination, we must be cautious about accepting any further response than the direct answer. A little girl or a little boy, yes and no, in response to the second question, must be carefully

checked up. Remarks Binit and Godard say that three-year-olds cannot pass this test and our four-year-olds almost never fail. We can accept the last part of this statement, but not the first part. Nearly all of our three-year-old subjects succeed with it. The test probably has nothing to do with sex consciousness as such. Success in it would seem to depend on the ability to discriminate to in familiar class names which are in a certain degree related. Test 5.

Giving the family name. Procedure The child is asked, what is your name? If the answer, as often happens, includes only the first name, Walter, for example, say, yes, but what is your other name, Walter what? If the child is silent, or if he only repeats the first name, say, is or named Walter, blank, giving a fictitious name as Jones Smith, etc. This question nearly always brings the correct answer if it is known. Scoring

Simply plus or negative, no attention is paid to faults of pronunciation. Remarks There is unanimous agreement that this test belongs in the three-year group. Although the child has not had as much opportunity to learn the family name as his first name, he is almost certain to have heard it more or less, and if his intelligence is normal, the interest in self will ordinarily cause it to be remembered. The critic of the intelligence scale need not be unduly exercised over the fact that there may be an occasional child of three years who has never heard his family name.

We have all read of such children, but they are so extremely rare that the chances of a given three-year-old being unjustly penalized for this reason are practically negligible. In the second place, contingencies of this nature are throughout the scale, consistently allowed for in the percentage of passes required for locating a test, since, in the year groups below 14, the individual tests are located at the age level where they are passed by 60 to 70% of unselected children of that age. It follows that the child of average ability is expected to fail on about one-third of the tests of his age group. The plan of the scale is such as to warrant this amount of leeway, but even granting the possibility that one subject at

have a hundred or so may be unjustly penalized for lack of opportunity to acquire the knowledge which the test calls for. The injustice done not greatly altered the result. A single test affects mental age only to the extent of two months, and the chances of two such injustices occurring with the same child are very slight. Herein lies the advantage of a multiplicity of tests. No tests considered by itself as very dependable, but two dozen tests properly arranged are almost infinitely reliable. Test 6. Repeating 6 to 7 syllables.

Procedure Begin by saying, Can you say, Mama? Now say, nice kitty. Then ask the child to say, I have a little dog. Speak the sentence distinctly and with expression, but in a natural voice and not too slowly.

If there is no response, the first sentence may be repeated two or three times, then give the other two sentences, The dog runs after the cat, and, in summer the sun is hot. A great deal of tact is sometimes necessary to enlist the child's cooperation in this test. If he cannot be persuaded to try, the alternative test of three digits may be substituted. Scoring The test is passed, if at least one sentence is repeated without error after a single reading.

Without error is to be taken literally. There must be no omission, insertion or transposition of words. ignore in distinctness of articulation and defects of pronunciation as long as they do not mutilate the sentence beyond easy recognition. Remarks The test does not presuppose that the child should have the ability to make and use sentences like these for purposes of communication or even that he should know the meaning of all the words they contain.

Its purpose is to bring out the ability of the child to repeat a six-syllable series of more or less familiar language sounds. As everyone knows, the normal child of two or three years is constantly imitating the speech of those around him and finds his a great source of delight. Long practice in the semi-mechanical repetition of language sounds is necessary for the learning of speech coordinations and is therefore an indispensable preliminary to the purposeful use of language. High-grade ears and the lowest grade of imbeciles never acquire much facility in the repetition of language heard. The test gets at one of the simplest forms of mental integration.

Binner says that children of three years never repeat sentences of ten syllables. This is not strictly true. For six out of 19 three-year-olds succeed in doing so. All the data agree, however, that the average child of three years repeats only six to seven syllables correctly. Alternative test. Repeating three digits. Procedure Use the following digits.

641-352-837. Begin with two digits as follows. Listen, say, 4-2, now say, 641, now say 352, etc. Pronounce digits in a distinct point, and with perfectly uniform emphasis at a rate just a little faster than 1 per second, 2 per second as recommended by Bennett is too rapid. Young subjects, because of their natural timidity in the presence of strangers, sometimes refuse to respond to this test. We have subjects under 5 or 6 years of age, it is sometimes not. necessary in such cases to reread the first series of digits several times in order to secure a response. The response thus secured, however, is not counting and scoring. The purpose of the

re-reading being merely to break the child's silence. The second and third series may be read but once, with the digits test above year four in the re-reading of the series is never permissible. Scoring Passed to the child repeats correctly. After a single reading, one series out of the three series given. Not only must the correct digits be. given but the order also must be correct. Remarks. Others on the basis of rather scanty data have usually located this test at the four-year level. Our results show that with the procedure described above, it is fully as easy as a test of repeating sentences of six to seven syllables.

End of Chapter 9 of the Measurement of Intelligence, read by Leon Harvey. Chapter 10 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. This is a Libravox recording. All Libravox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Libravox.org. Read by Leon Harvey. Chapter 10. Instructions for Year 4. Year 4 test 1. Comparison of Lines Procedure Present the appropriate accompanying card with the lines in the horizontal position and pointing to the top pair of lines say, see these lines? Look closely and tell me which one is longer. Put your finger on the longest one. We use a superlative as well as the comparative form of long

because it is often more familiar to young subjects. If the child does not respond, say, show me which line is the biggest. In the same way, show the middle and lower pairs of lines saying which one is the longest here. Scoring. All three comparisons must be made correctly, or if only two responses out of three are correct, all three pairs are again shown just as before, and if there is no error this time the test is passed. The standard, therefore, is three correct responses out of three or five out of six. Sometimes the child points but at no particular part of the card. In such cases it may be difficult to decide whether he has failed to comprehend and to make the discrimination

or has only been careless in pointing. It is then necessary to repeat the experiment until the evidence is clear. Remarks As noted by Binnet, success in this test, it peopers. on the comprehension of the verbal directions rather than on actual discrimination of length. The child who would unknowingly choose a larger of two pieces of candy might fail on the comparison of lines. However, since the child must correctly compare the lines three times in succession or at least in five out of six trials, willingness to attend also plays a part.

The attention of the low-grade imbecile or even of the normal child of three years is not very obedient to the suggestions of the experimenter. It may be gained momentarily, but it is not easily held to the same task for more than a few seconds. Hence, some children who perfectly comprehend this task fail to make a succession of correct comparisons because they are unable or unwilling to bring to bear even the small amount of attention which is necessary. This does not at least condone the failure, for it is exactly in such voluntary control of mental processes that we find one of the most characteristic differences between bright and dull, or mature and image. mature subjects. There can be little disagreement as to the proper location of this test. Test 2. Discrimination of forms. Procedure. Use the forms supplied with this book. First, place the circle

of the duplicate set at X and say, show me one like this. At the same time passing the finger around the circumference of the circle, if the child does not respond, say, do you see all of these things, running the finger over the various forms, and do you see this one, pointing again to the circle? Now find me another one just like this. Use the square next, then the triangle, and the others in any order. Correct the child's first error by saying, no, find one just like this, again passing the finger around the outline of the form at X. Make no comment on errors after the first one, proceeding at once with the next card, but each time the choice is correct and encourage the child with a hearty that's good or something similar.

Scoring The test is passed if seven out of ten choices are correct, the first corrected error being counted. Remarks In the test of discriminating forms, unlike the test of comparing lines, lack of success is less often due to inability to understand the task than to failure to discriminate. The test may be regarded as a variation of the form board test. It displays a subject's ability to compare and contrast excessive visual perceptions of form. The accurate perception of even a fairly simple form requires the integration of a number of sensory elements into one hole.

The forms used in this text have meaning. They are far from nonsense figures even for the normal child or four years, who has of course never heard about triangles, squares, rectangles, etc. etc. The meaning present at this level of intelligence is probably a compound of such factors as appreciation of symmetry and direction and discrimination of quantity and number. Another element is success, especially in the latter part of the experiment, is the ability to make an attentive comparison between the form shown and the others. The child may be satisfied to point to the first form his eye happens to fall upon. Far from being a legitimate excuse for failure, such an exhibition of inattention and of weakness of the critical faculty is symptomatic of a mental level below four years.

In addition to counting the number of errors made, it is interesting to note with what forms they occur. To match the circle with the ellipse or the octagon, for example, is a less serious error than to match it with the square or triangle. This test was devised and standardized by Dr. Alfred Coleman. It is inserted here without a central alteration, except that the third, the size recommended for the forms is slightly reduced and minor changes have been made in the wording of the directions. Our own results are favorable to the test and to the location assigned to it by its author. Test 3. Counting four pennies Procedure

Place four pennies at a horizontal row before the child, say, see these pennies? Count them and tell me how many there are. Count them with your finger this way, pointing to the first one on the child's left. 1. Now go ahead. If the child simply gives the number, whether or wrong, without pointing, say, No, count them with your finger this way, starting him off as before. Have him count them aloud. Scoring

The test is passed only if the counting tallies with the pointing. It is not sufficient merely to state the correct number without pointing. Remarks Contrary to what one might think, this is not to any great extended test of schooling. practically all children of this age have had opportunity to learn to count as far as four. Of normal children, the spontaneous interest in numbers is such that very few four-year-olds, even from inferior social environments, fail to pass the test. While success requires more than the ability to repeat the number names by rote,

it does not presuppose any power of calculation or a mastery of the number concepts from one to four. Many children who will readily say mechanically, 1, 2, 3, 4, when started off, are not able to pass the test. On the other hand, it is not expected that the child who passes will also necessarily understand that 4 is made up of 2-2s, or 4-1s, or 3 plus 1, etc. Binet Goddard and Coleman placed this test in the 5-year group, but three separate series of tests made for the Stanford Division

as well as nearly all the statistics available from other sources showed that belongs at four years. Test 4. Copying a square. Procedure Place before the child of cardboard on which is drawn in heavy black lines a square about one and a quarter inches on a side. Give the child a pencil and say, You see that, pointing to the square?

I want you to make one just like it. Make it right here, showing where it is to be drawn. Go ahead. I know you can tell you. do it nicely. Avoid such an expression as, I want you to draw a figure like that. The child may not know the meaning of either draw or figure. Also in pointing to the model, take care not to run the finger around the four sides. Children sometimes have a deep-seated aversion to drawing on request, and a bit of tactful urging may be necessary. Experience intact will enable the experimenter in all

but the rarest cases to come out victorious in these little battles with bulky wills. Give three trials, saying each time, made it exactly like this, pointing to model. Make sure that the child is in an easy position and that the paper used is held so it cannot slip. Scoring The test is passed of at least one drawing out of the three is as good as those marked plus on the scorecard. Young subjects usually reduce figures in drawing from copy, but size is wholly disregarded in scoring. It is of more importance that the right angles be fairly well preserved than that the line should be straight or the corners entirely closed.

The scoring of this test should be rather liberal. Remarks After the three copies have been made say, Which one do you like best? In this way we get an idea of the subject's power of auto-criticism, a trait in which the mentally retarded are nearly always behind normal children of their own age. Normal children, when young, reveal the same weakness, to a certain extent. It is especially significant when this subject shows complete satisfaction

with a very poor performance. Observe whether the child makes each part with careful effort. Looking at the model from time to time, or whether the strokes are made in a haphazard way with only an initial glance at the original. The latter procedure is quite common with young or retarded subjects. Curiously enough, the first trial is more successful than either of the others, due perhaps, to a waning of effort and attention. Note that pencil is used instead of pen and that only one success is necessary. Bennett gives only one trial and requires pen. Godot allows pencil but permits only one trial. Coleman requires pen and passes the child only when two trials out of three are successful. But these authors locate the test at five years. Our results show that nearly three-fourths of four-year-olds

succeed with pencil in one out of three trials if the scoring is liberal. It may It makes a great deal of difference whether pen or pencil is used and whether two successes are required for only one. No better illustration could be given of the fact that without thoroughgoing standardization of procedure and scoring, the best mental test may be misleading as to the degree of intelligence it indicates. Copying a square is one of three drawing tests used in the Bennett scale. The others being the diamond, year 7, and the designs to be copied from memory year 10.

These tests do not to any great extent test what is usually known as drawing ability. Only the square and the diamond tests are strictly comparable with one another, the other having a psychologically different purpose. In none of them does success seem to depend very much on the amount of previous instruction and drawing. To copy a figure like a square or a diamond requires, first of all, an appreciation of spatial relationships. The figure must be perceived as a whole, not simply as a group of meaningless lines.

In the second place, success depends upon the ability to use the visual impression in guiding a rather complex set of motor coordination. The latter is perhaps the main difficulty, and is one which is not fully overcome, at least for complicated movements, until well towards adult life. It is interesting to compare the square and the diamond as to relative difficulty. They have the same number of lines, and in each case the opposite sides are parallel, but whereas four-year intelligence is equal to the task of copying a square. the diamond ordinarily requires seven-year intelligence.

Probably no one could have forsain that a change in the angles would add so much to the difficulty of the figure. It would be worthwhile to devise and standardize still more complicated figures. Test 5. Comprehension first degree. Procedure After getting the child's attention, say, what must you do when you are sleepy? If necessary, the question may be repeated a number of times, using a persuasive and encouraging. tone of voice. No other form of question may be substituted. About 20 seconds may be allowed for an answer, though as a rule subjects of four or five years usually answer

quite promptly or not at all. Proceed in the same way with the other two questions. What ought you to do when you are cold? What ought you to do when you are hungry? Scoring. There must be two correct responses out of three. No one form of answer is required. It is sufficient if the question is comprehended and given a reasonably sensible answer. The following our samples are correct responses. A. Go to bed. Go to sleep. Have my mother get me ready for bed. Lie still, not talk and I'll soon be asleep. B. Put on a coat or cloak, furs, wrap up, etc. Build a fire. Run and I'll soon get warm. Get close to the stove. Go into the house or go to bed. May possibly deserve the score plus, though they are somewhat doubtful and

are certainly inferior to the responses just given. See, eat something, drink some milk, buy lunch, have my mama spread some bread and butter, etc. With the comprehension questions in this year, it is nearly always easy to decide whether the response is acceptable, fairly being indicated usually either by silence or by an absurd or irrelevant answer. One eight-year-old boy who had less than four-year intelligence answered all three questions by putting his finger on his eye and saying, I'd do that, have to cry, is a rather common incorrect response. Remarks, the purpose of these questions is to ascertain whether the child can comprehend the situation suggested and give a reasonably pertient reply. The first requirement, of course, is to understand the language. The second is to tell

how the situation suggested should be met. The question may be raised whether a given child might not fail to answer the questions correctly and yet have the intelligence to do the appropriate thing if the real situation were present. This is at least conceivable, but since it would not be practicable to make the subject actually cold, sleepy or hungry in order to observe his behaviour, we must content ourselves with suggesting a situation to be imagined. It probably requires more intelligence to tell what one ought to do in a situation which has to be imagined, then to do the right thing when the real situation is encountered. The comprehension questions of this year has not been standardized until the standpoint investigation

of 1913-14. Questions A and B were suggested by Binet in 1905, while C is new. They make an excellent test of four-year intelligence. Test 6. Repeating four digits. Procedure. Say, Now listen, I am going to say over some numbers, and after I am through, I want you to say them exactly like I do. Listen closely and get them just right. 4739. Same with 2854 and 7261. The examiner should consume nearly four seconds in pronouncing each series and should practice in advance until this speed can be closely approximated. If the child refuses to respond, the first series may be repeated, as often as may be necessary, to prove an attempt, but success with a series which has been re-read may not be counted.

The second and third series may be pronounced but once. Scoring. Passed to 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 Binnet in the scale and seems not to have been used by any of the Binet workers. It is passed by about three-fourths of our four-year-olds. Alternative test, repeating 12 to 13 syllables. The three sentences are, A, the boy's name is John. He is a very good boy.

B, when the train passes you, we'll hear the whistle blow. C, we are going to have a good time in the country. Procedure. Get the child's attention and say, Listen, say this. Where is Kitty? After the child responds, add, now say this, reading the first sentence in a natural voice, distinctly and with expression. If the child is too timid to respond, the first sentence may be re-read, but in this case the response is not counted. Rereading is permissible only with the first sentence.

Scoring. The test is passed of at least one sentence is repeated without error after a single reading. As in the alternative test of year three, we ignore ordinary indistinctness and defects of pronunciation due to imperfect language development, but the sentence must be repeated without addition, omission or transposition of words. Remarks. Sentences of 12 syllables had not been standardized previous to the Stanford Division, but bin it locates memory for 10 syllables at Year 5, and others have followed his example. Our own data show that even 4-year-olds are usually able to repeat 12 syllables with the procedure

here is set forth. of Chapter 10 of the Measurement of Intelligence, read by Leon Harvey. It is necessary to have two weights, identical in shape, size and appearance, weighing respectively 3 and 15 grams. If manufactured weights are not at hand, it is easy to make satisfactory substitutes by taking stiff cardboard peel boxes, about 1 and 1⁄4 inches in diameter, and filling them with cotton and shot to the desired weight. The shot must be embedded in the centre of the cotton so as to prevent rattling.

After the box has been loaded to the exact weight, the lid should be glued on firmly. If one does not have access to laboratory scales, it is always possible to to secure the help of a druggist in the rather delicate task of weighing the boxes accurately. A set of pillbox weights will last through hundreds of tests if handled carefully, but they will not stand rough usage. The manufactured blocks are more durable, and so more satisfactory in the long run. If the weights are not at hand, the alternative test may be substituted. Procedure

Place the 3 in 15 gram weights on the table before the child some 2 or 3 inches apart. You say, you see these blocks, they look just alike, but one of them is heavy and one is light. Try them and tell me which one is heavier. If the child does not respond, repeat the instructions, saying this time, tell me which one is the heaviest. Many American children have heard only the superlative form with the objective used in the comparison of two objects.

Sometimes the child merely points to one of the boxes or picks up one at random and hands it to the examiner, thinking he's asked to guess which is heaviest. We then say, no, that is not the way. You must take the boxes in your hands and try them like this, illustrating by lifting with one hand, first one box and then the other, a few inches from the table. Most children of five years are then able to make the comparison correctly. Very young subjects, however, or all the ones who are retarded, sometimes adopt the rather questionable method of lifting both weights in the same hand at once.

This is always an unfavourable sign, especially in one of the blocks is placed in the hand on top of the other block. After the first trial, the weights are shuffled, and again, presented for comparison as before, this time with the positions reversed. The third trial follows with the blocks in the same position as in the first trial. Some children have a tendency to stereotyped behaviour, which in this test shows itself by choosing always a block on a certain side, hence the necessity of altering the positions. Reserve commendation until all three trials have been given.

Scoring The test is passed if two of the three comparisons are correct. If there is reason to suspect that the successful responses were due to lucky guesses, the test should be entirely repeated. Remarks. This test is decidedly more difficult than that of comparing lines, H4 test one. It is doubtful, however, if we can regard the difference as one due primarily due to the relative difficulty of visual discrimination and to muscular discrimination. In fact, the test with weights hardly taxes sensory discrimination at all when used with children of five-year intelligence. Success depends in the first place on the

ability to understand the instructions and in the second place on the power to hold the instructions in mind long enough to guide the process of making the comparison. The test presupposes, in elementary form, a power which is operative in all the higher independent processes of thought. The power to neglect the manifold distractions of irrelevant sensations and ideas and to drive direct towards a goal. Here the goal is furnished by the instruction. Try them and see which is heavier.

This test must be held firmly enough in mind to control the steps necessary for making the comparison. Ideas of piling the blocks on top of one another, throwing them etc, must be inhibited. Sometimes a low-grade imbecile starts off in a very promising way, then apparently forgets the instructions, loses sight of the goal, and begins to play with the boxes in a random way. His mental processes are not consecutive, stable or controlled. He is blown about at the mercy of even a gust of momentary interest. There is very general agreement in the assignment of this test to year five. Test two. Naming colors

Materials Use saturated red, yellow, blue, and green papers, about two by one inch in size, pasted one half inch apart on white or grey cardboard. For sake of uniformity, it is best to match the colours manufactured, especially for this test. Procedure Point to the colours in the order red, yellow, blue, green. Bring the finger close to the colour designated in order that there be no mistake as to which colour is meant, and say, what is the name of that colour?

Do not say, what colour is that, or what kind of a colour is that? Such a formula might bring the answer, the first colour, or a pretty colour. Still less would do it to say, show me the red, show me the yellow, etc. This would make it an entirely different test, one that would probably be passed a year earlier than the bin-up form of the experiment, nor is it permissible after a colour has been miscalled to return to it and again ask its name. Scoring The test is passed only if all the colours are named correct,

and without marked uncertainty, however, prefixing the adjective, dark or light, before the name of a color is overlooked. Remarks Naming colors is not a test of color discrimination, for that capacity is well developed to use below the level at which the test is used. All five-year-olds who are not colorblind discriminate among the four primary colors here are used, as readily as adults do. As stated by Bennett, it is a test of the verbalization of color perception. It tells us whether the child has associated the names of the four-priced. primary colors with his perceptual imagery of the colors. The ability to make associations between a sense impression and a name is certainly present

in normal children, sometime before the above color associations are actually made. Many objects of experience are correctly named two or three years earlier, and it may seem at first little strange that color names learn so late. But it must be remembered that the child does not have numerous opportunities to observe and hear the names of several colors at once, nor does the designation of colors by their names ordinarily have much practical value for the young child. When he finally learns their names, he is more because of his spontaneous interest in the world of sense.

Lack of such spontaneous interest is always an unfavorable sign, and is not surprising, therefore, that imbecile intelligence has ordinarily never taken the trouble to associate colors with their names. Girls are somewhat superior to boys in this test, due probably to a greater natural interest in colors. Binnet originally placed this test in year 8, changing it to year 7 in the 1911 scale. Goddard places it in seven, while common omits it altogether.

With a single exception, all the actual statistics with normal children justify the location of the test in Year 5. Bobatag's figures are the exception, opposed to which are Roe, Winch, Dumville, Doherty, Brigham, and all three of the Stanford investigations. The test is probably more subject to the influence of home environment than most of the other tests of the scale, and if the social status for the child is low, failure would not be especially significant until after the age of 60. years. On the whole, it is an excellent test. Test 3. Aesthetic Comparison. Use the three pairs of faces

supplied with the printed forms. It goes without saying that improvised drawings may not be substituted for binnets until they have first been standardized. Procedure. Show the pairs in order from top to bottom. Say, which of these two pictures is the prettiest. Use both the comparative and the superlative forms of the objective. Do not use the question, which faces you? ugliest unless there is some difficulty in getting the child to respond. It is not permitted in case of an incorrect response to give that part of the test again and to allow the child a chance to correct his answer, or in case this is done, we must consider only the original response scoring.

Scoring. The test is passed only of all three comparisons are made correctly. Any marked uncertainty is failure. Sometimes the child laughingly designates the ugly pictures as a prettier, yet shows by his amused expression that he is properly conscious of its peculiarity or observatory. In such cases, pretty seems to be given the meaning of funny or amusing. Nevertheless, we score this response as failure, since it betokes about the infertile tolerance of aggliness. Remarks

From the psychological point of view, this is the most interesting test. One might suppose that aesthetic judgment would be relatively independent of intelligence. Certainly no one could have known in advance of experience that intellectual retardation would reveal itself in weakness of the aesthetic sense about as unmistakably as in memory, practical judgment or the comprehension of language. But such is the case. The development of the aesthetic sense parallels general mental growth rather closely. The imbecile of four-year intelligence, even though he may have lived 40 years, has no more chance of passing this test than any other test in year five.

It would be profitable to devise and standardise a set of pictures of the same general type which would measure a less primitive stage of aesthetic development. The present test was located by Bennett in year six and has been retained in that year in other revisions, but three separate Stanford investigations as well as the statistics of which Dunfield, Brigham, Rowell and Dowarty warrant its location in year 5. Test 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. in the order in which they are named above. Occasionally there is difficulty in getting a response which is sometimes due merely to the child's unwillingness to express his thoughts and sentences. The earlier tests require only words and phrases.

In other cases, science is due to the rather indefinite form of the question. The child could answer, but is not quite sure what is expected of him. Whatever the case, a little tactful urging is nearly always sufficient to bring a response. In this test, we have not found the difficulty of overcoming science nearly as great as others have stated it to be. In consecutive tests of 150, 5 and 6 year old children, we encountered unbreakable silence with eight words out of the total 900, 150 multiplied by 6. This is less than 1%, but fattenful encouragement is sometimes necessary, and is best to take the precaution of not giving the test until report has been well established. The urging should take the following form.

I'm sure you know what a something is, you have seen a something, now tell me what is a something. That is, we merely repeat the question with a word of encouragement and in a coaxing tone of voice. It would not at all do to introduce other questions like, what does a something look like, or what is a something for? What do people do with a something? Sometimes, instead of attempting a definition of dull, for example, the child begins to talk in a more or less irrelevant way as, I have a great big doll, auntie gave it to me for Christmas, etc. In such cases, we repeat the question and say, yes, but tell me, what is a doll? is usually sufficient to bring the little chatterbox back to the task. Unless it is absolutely

necessary to give the child lavish encouragement, it is best to withhold approval or disapproval until the test has been finished. Here the first responses are poor one and we pronounce it fine or very good. We tempt the child to persist in his low-grade type of definition. By withholding common until the last word has been defined, we give greater play to spontaneity and initiative. Scoring As a rule, children of five or six years, defy the final. an object in terms of use, stating what it does, what it is for, what people do with it, etc. Definitions by description by telling what substances it is made of, and by giving the class

to which it belongs are grouped together as definitions superior to use. It is not before eight years that two-thirds of the children spontaneously give a large proportion of definitions in terms superior to use. The test is passed in year five if four words out of the six are defined in terms of use or better than use. The following are examples of satisfactory responses. Chair, to sit on, you sit on it, it is made of wood and has legs in a 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. Dull, to play with. What do 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 beat on. What do you put the dinner on? Where you write.

It is made of wood and has legs. Examples of failure are such responses as the following. A chair is a chair. There is a chair. Or simply, there, pointing to a chair. We record such responses without pressing for a further definition about the only other type of failure is silence. Remarks

It is not the purpose of this test to find out whether the child knows the meaning of the words he is asked to define. Words are purposely been chosen, which are perfectly familiar to all normal children of five years. But with young children, there is a difference between knowing a word and giving a definition of it. Besides, we desire to find out how the child a perceives the word, or rather the object for which it stands, whether the thing is thought of in terms of use, appearance, size, shape, colour, etc., material composing it, or class relationships. This test, because it throws such an interesting light on the maturity of the child's percept processes, is one of the most valuable of all. It is possible to differentiate at least half a dozen degrees of excellence in definitions

according to the intellectual maturity of the subject. A volume indeed could be written on the development of word definitions and the growth of meanings, but we will postpone further discussion until year-age test five. Our concern at present is to know that children of five years should at least be able to define four of these six words in terms of use. Bennett placed the test in year six, but our own figures in those of those of the, of nearly all out the investigations indicate that it is better located in year 5. Test 5.

The game of patience. Material. Prepare two rectangular cards, each 2 by 3 inches, and divide one of them into two triangles by cutting it along one of its diagonals. Procedure Place the uncut card on the table with one of its longest sides to the child. By the side of this card, a little nearer the child and a few inches apart, lay the two halves of the the divided rectangle with the hypotenuses turned from each other as follows.

Then say to the child, I want you to take these two pieces, touching the two triangles, and put them together say they will look exactly like this, pointing to the uncut card. If the child hesitates, we repeat the instructions with little urging. Say nothing about hurrying, as this is likely to cause confusion. Give three trials of one minute each. It is only one trial is given success is too often a result of chance moves, but luck is not likely to bring two successive in three trials. If the first trial is a failure, move the card house back to their original position and say,

No, put them together so they would look like this, pointing to the uncut card. Make no other comment of approval or disapproval. Disregard in silence the inquiring looks of the child who tries to read his success or failures in your face. If one of the pieces is turned over, the task becomes impossible, and it is then necessary to turn the piece back to its original position and begin over, not counting this trial. Have the underside of the pieces marked so as to avoid the risk of presenting one of them to the child wrong side up? Scoring. There must be two successes in three trials. About the only difficulty in scoring is that of deciding what constitutes the trial. We count it a trial when the child

brings the pieces together and, after a few or many changes, leaves them in some position. Whether he succeeds after many moves or leaves the pieces with the peripheral in some absurd position or gives up and says he cannot do it. His effort counts as one trial. A single trial may involve a number of unsuccessful changes of position in the two cards, but these changes may not consume altogether more than one minute. Remarks As aptly described by Binet, the operation has the following elements. One, to keep in mind the end to be attained, that is to say, the figure to be formed. It is necessary to comprehend this end and not to lose sight of it. Two, to try different combinations under the influence of this

directing idea which guides the efforts of the child, even though he be unconscious of the fact. 3. To judge the formed combination, compare it with the model, and decide whether it is the correct one. It may be classed, therefore, as one of the many forms of the combination method. Elements must be combined into some kind of whole under the guidance of a directing idea. In this respect, it is something common with the form board test, the Ebbingor's test, and the test with dissected sentences. Year 12, test four. Bennett designates it as a test of patience

because success in it depends upon a certain willingness to persist in a line of action under the control of an idea. Not all failures in this test are equally significant. A bright child of five years sometimes fails, but usually not without many trial combinations which rejects one after another

as unsatisfactory. A dull child at the same age often stops after he is brought the pieces into any sort of juxtaposition, however absurd, and may be quite satisfied with his foolish effort. His mind is not fruitful, and he lacks the power of auto-criticism. It would be well worthwhile to work out a new and somewhat more difficult test of patients, but with special care to avoid the puzzling features of the usual games of anagrams.

The one given us by Bennett is rather easy for year five, though plainly somewhat too difficult for year four. Test six. Three commissions. Procedure After getting up from the chair and moving with the child to the centre of the room, say, Now I want you to do something for me. Here's a key. I want you to put it on that chair over there,

then I want you to shut or open that door, and then bring me the box which you see over there, pointing in turn to the objects designated. Do you understand? Be sure to get it right. First put the key on the chair, then shut, open the door, then bring me the box again pointing.

Go ahead. Stress the words first and then, so as to emphasize the order in which the commissions are to be executed. Give the commissions always in the above order. Do not repeat the instructions again or give any further aid whatever, even by the direction of the gaze. If the child stops or hesitates, it is never permissible to say, what next?

Have the self-control to leave the child alone with his task. Scoring. All three commissions must be executed and in the proper order. Value may result, therefore either from leaving out one or more of the commands or from changing the order. The former is more often the case. Remarks, success depends first on the ability to comprehend the commands. and secondly, on the ability to hold them in mind.

It is therefore a test of memory, though of a somewhat different kind, from that involved in repeating digits or sentences. It is an excellent test, for it throws light on a kind of intelligence which is demanded in all occupations and in everyday life. A more difficult test of the same type ought to be worked out for a higher age level. Bennett originally located this test in Year 6, but in 1911 changed to year 7. This is unfortunate, for the three sample investigations, as well as the statistics of all other investigators,

show conclusively that it is easy enough for the year 5. Alternative test. Giving age. Procedure. The formula is simply, how old are you? The child of this age is, of course, not expected to know the date of his birthday, but merely how many years old he is. Scoring About the only danger in scoring is in the failure to verify the child's response. Some children give an incorrect answer with perfect assurance, and is therefore always necessary to verify. Remarks. Inability to give the age may or may not be significant. If the child has

arrived at the age of seven or eight years and has had anything like a normal social environment, failure in this test is an extremely unfavourable sign. But if the child is an orphan or has grown up in neglect, ignorance of age has little significance for intelligence. About all we can say is that if a child gives his age correctly, it is because he has had sufficient interest and intelligence to remember verbal statements which have been made concerning him in his presence. He may even pass the test without attaching any definite meaning to the word year. On the other hand, if he has lived seven or eight years in a normal environment, it is safe to assume that he has heard his age given many times and failure to remember it would then indicate either a weak memory or a grave

inferiority of spontaneous interests, or both. Normal children have a natural interest in these things they heard said about themselves, while the middle-grade imbecile of even 40 years may fail to remember his age, however often it may have heard it stated. Binnet placed the test in year six, the 1908 series, but omitted it altogether in 1911. Coleman and Goddard also admitted, perhaps wisely. Nevertheless, it is always interesting to give it as a supplementary test. Children from good homes acquired the knowledge about a year earlier than those from less favourable surroundings. Unselected children of California ordinarily pass this test at five years. End of Chapter 11 of the Measurement of Intelligence

Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 12 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Termin This is the Librevox recording All Librevox recordings are in the public domain For more information onto volunteer Please visit Librevox.org Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 12

Instructions for Year 6 Test 1 distinguishing right and left Procedure Say to the child Show me your right hand After this is responded to say Show me your left ear

Then show me your right eye Stress the words left at ear Rather strongly and equally Also right and eye If there is one error Repeat the test this time with left hand right ear and left eye Carefully avoid giving any help

By look of approval or disapproval By glancing at the part of the body indicated or by supplementary questions. Scoring The test is passed if all three questions are answered correctly, or if, in case of one error, the three additional questions are all answered correctly. The standard, therefore, is 3 out of 3 or 5 out of 6. The chief danger of variation among different examiners in scoring comes from double responses.

For example, the child may point first to one ear and then to the other. In all cases of double response, the rule is to count the second response and disregard the first. This holds whether the first response was wrong and the second right or vice versa. Remarks It is interesting to follow the child's acquisitions of language distinctions relating to spatial orientation. Other distinctions of this type are those between up and down, above and below, near and far, before and behind, etc. As Bogotag has pointed out, the child's first masters such distinctions as up and down, above and below, before and behind, etc., and arrives at a knowledge of right and left rather tardily.

How may we explain the late distinction of right and left, as compared with up and down? At least four theories may be advanced. One, something depends on the frequency with which children have occasion to make the respective distinctions. Two, it may be explained on the supposition that kinesthetic sensations are more prominently involved in distinctions of up and down than in distinctions of right and left. It is certainly true that, in distinguishing the true sides of a thing, less bodily movement is ordinarily required in the distinctions of its upper and lower aspects. The former demands only a shift of the eyes.

The latter often requires an upward or downward movement of the head. 3. It may be due to the fact that the appearance of an object is more affected by differences in vertical orientation than by those of horizontal orientation. We see an object now from one side, now from the other, and the two aspects easily blend. While the two aspects corresponding to above and below are not viewed in such rapid succession and so remain much more distinct from one another in the child's mind, or for the difference may be mainly a matter of language.

The child undoubtedly hears the words up and down much oftener than right and left, and thus learns their meaning earlier. Horizontal distinctions are commonly made in such terms as this side and that side, or merely by pointing, while in the case of vertical distinctions, the words up and down are used constantly. This last explanation is a very plausible one, but it is very probable that other factors are also involved. The distinction between right and left has a certain inherent, more or less mysterious difficulty.

To convince oneself of this that is only necessary to try a little experiment on the first 50 persons one chances to meet. The experiment is as follows. Say, I'm going to ask you a question and I want you to answer it as quickly as you can. Then ask, which is your right hand? About 40 persons out of 50 will answer correctly without a second's hesitation. Several will require two or three seconds to respond, while a few, possibly four or five percent, will be. grow confused and perhaps be unable to respond for five or ten seconds. Some very intelligent adults cannot possibly tell which is the right or left hand without first

searching for a scar or some other distinguishing mark which is known to be on a particular hand. Others resort to insipotent movements of writing, and since of course everyone knows which hand he writes with, the writing movements automatically initiated give the desired clue. One bright little girl of eight years was spotted by trying to wink first one eye and then the other. Ask why she did this, she said she knew she could wink her left eye but not her right. One who is resourceful enough to adopt such an ingenious method is surely not less intelligent than the one who is able to respond by a direct instead of an intermediate association. It seems that normal people never encounter a corresponding difficulty in distinguishing up and down.

The writer has questioned several hundred without finding a single instance, whereas a great many have to employ some intermediate association in order to distinguish right and left. It is the P's and Q's that children must be told to mind, not the P's and Bs, The former is a horizontal, the latter, a vertical distinction. Consider the difficulty which normal adults sometimes have in distinguishing right and left. Is it fair to use this test as a measure of intelligence? We may answer in the affirmative. It is fair because normal adults, notwithstanding momentary uncertainty, are invariably able to make the distinction.

If not by direct association, then by an intermediate one. We overlook the momentary confusion and regard only the correctness of the result. response. Subjects who are below middle-grade imbecile, however, long they have lived, seldom passed the test. This test found a place in year six of business 1908 scale, but was shifted to year seven in the 1911 revision, the stand-for statistics, and all other available data, with the exception of Bobertags, justifies retention in year six. It is possible that the children of different nations do not have equal opportunity and stimulus for learning the distinctions between right and left, but the data show that as far as American and English children are concerned,

we have a right to expect this knowledge in children of six years. Test 2. Finding emissions in pictures Procedure Show the pictures to the child one at a time in the order in which they are lettered, A, B, C, D. When the first picture is shown that with the eye lacking, say, There is something wrong with his face. It is not all there. Part of it is left out.

Look carefully and tell me. what part of the face is not there. Often the child gives an relevant answer as the feet are gone, the stomach is not there, etc. These statements are true, but they do not satisfy the requirements of the test, so we say, no, I am talking about the face. Look again and tell me what is left out of the face. If the correct response does not follow, we point to the place where the eye should be and say, see, the eye is gone. When picture B is shown, we merely say, what is left out of this face, likewise with picture C. For picture D, we say, what is left out of this picture? No help of any kind is given, unless, if necessary,

with the first picture. With the others, we confine ourselves to this single question, and the answer should be given promptly, say within 20 to 25 seconds. Scoring. Past of the emission is correctly pointed out in three out of four of the pictures. Certain minor errors we may overlook, such as eyes instead of eye for the first picture, nose in one ear instead of merely nose for the third, hands instead of arms for the fourth, etc. Errors like the following, however, count as failure. The other eye, or the other ear, for the first or third, the ears for the fourth, etc.

Remarks The test is one of the two or three dozen forms of the so-called completion test, all of which have it in common that from the given parts of a whole, the missing parts are to be found. The whole to be completed may be a word, a sentence, a story, a picture,

a group of pictures, an object, or in fact, almost anything. Sometimes all the parts of the parts of a whole, the whole are given and only the arrangement order is to be found. As in the test with dissected sentences, further discussion of the completion test will be found in connection with test four year 12. For the present we will only observe that notwithstanding a certain similarity among the tests of this type, they do not all call into play the same mental processes.

The factor most involved may be verbal language coherence, visual perceptions or form, the association of abstract ideas, etc. To pass binist tests with mutilated pictures requires one at the parts of the picture be perceived, as constituting a whole, and two, that the idea of a human face will form be so easily and so clearly reproducible that it may act, even before it comes fully into consciousness as a model or pattern for the criticism of the picture shown. The younger the child, the less adequate in this sense, is his perceptual familiarity with common objects.

The standardising a series of absurd pictures, the writer has found that normal children of three years often see nothing wrong in a picture which shows a cat with two legs or a hen with four legs. Such children would of course never mistake a cat for a hen. Their trouble lies in the inability to call up in clear form a free idea of a cat or a hen for comparison with the perceptual presentation offered by the pictures. Middle-grade imbeciles of adult age have much the same difficulty as normal children of four years in recognising mutilations or absurdities in pictures of familiar objects.

Then at first placed this test in Year 7, changing it to Year 8 in the 1911 revision. In other revisions it has been retained in Year 7, although, All the available statistics except Boba Tags warranted its location in year 6. Test 3. Counting 13 pennies. Procedure The procedure is the same as in the test of counting four pennies, year 4, test 3. In the first response contains only a minor error, such as the omission of a number of counting, failure to tally with a finger, etc. A second trial is given.

Scoring. The test is passed if there is one success and two trials. Success requires that the counting should tally with the point. pointing. It is not sufficient merely to state the number of pennies without pointing, for unless the child points and counts allowed, we cannot be sure that his correct answer may not be the joint result of two areas in opposite directions and equal. For example, if one penny was skipped and another were counted twice, the total result would still be correct, but the performance would not satisfy the requirements. Remarks. Does success in this test depend upon intelligence or upon

schooling? The answer is intelligence mainly. There are possibly a few normal six-year-old children, who could not pass the test for lack of instruction. But children of this age usually have enough spontaneous interest in numbers to acquire facility in counting as far as 13 without formal teaching. Certainly, inability to do so by the age of seven years is a suspicious sign unless the child's environment has been extraordinarily unfavorable. On the other hand, feeble-minded adults at the five-year level usually have to have a great deal of instruction before they acquire the ability to count 13,

and many of them are hardly able to learn it at all. So much does our learning depend on original and doubt Bennett originally placed this test in Year 7, but moved it to year 6 in 1911. All the statistics without exception showed that this change was justified. Bobatag says that nearly all seven-year-olds who were not feeble-minded can pass it, a statement which we can fully agree. Test 4. Comprehension 2nd Degree

Procedure The questions used in this year are A, what's the thing to do if it's raining when you start school? B, what's the thing to do if you find the houses on fire. C. What's the thing to do if you are going someplace and miss your train or car, etc? Note that the wording of the first part of the questions is slightly different from that in year four, test five. If there is no response or if the child looks puzzled, the question may be repeated once or twice. The form of the question must not under any circumstances be altered. Question B, for example, would be materially changed if we should say,

suppose you were to come home from school and find your house is burning up. What would you do? The expression, burning up, would probably be much less likely to suggest calling a fireman than with the words on fire. Scoring Two out of three must be answered correctly. The harder the comprehension questions are, greater the variety of answers, and the greater the difficulty of scoring. Because of the difficulty, many examiners find in scoring this test, we will list the most common satisfactory, unsatisfactory, and doubtful responses to each question. A. If it is raining when you start to school. Satisfactory. Take umbrella. Bring a parasol. Put on rubbers. Wear an overcoat, etc.

This type of response occurred 61 times out of 72 successes. Half 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 first seem to be examined 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 be 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 whose regions of the southwest where rains are so infrequent their umbrellas are rarely used. Bring my lunch made me considered a satisfactory response in case a child is in the habit of doing so on rainy days.

B. If you find your house is on fire. Satisfactory Ring the fire alarm, call the fireman, 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. Response to this tie bar, jump out of the windows, save yourself, get out as fast as you can, save the baby, get my dolls and jewelry and hurry it and get out. These answers are about one-seventh as frequent as a perfectly satisfactory.

and the rule for scoring them is a matter of some importance. Under certain circumstances, the eligible thing to do would be to save oneself or valuables without wasting time trying to call help. It 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 and injustice, it may be desirable to score such answers as plus. We may 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% of the responses which do not belong obviously to the unsatisfactory group. Take the Jitney is a modern variation of this response which must be counted as satisfactory. Unsatisfactory. These are endless. When it 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 a 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 partially trained examiners. Remarks The three comprehension questions of this group were all suggested by Bennett in 1905. Only one of them, however, what would you do if you were going to someplace in Mr. O'Train was incorporated in the 1908 or 1911 series, and this was used in year 10, with seven others much harder. The other two remained unstandardised previous to the Stanford investigation. Test 5

Naming 4 coins Procedure Show a nickel, a penny, a quarter, and a dime, asking each child. time. What is that? If the child misunderstands and answers money or a piece of money, we say, Yes, but what do you call that piece of money? Show the coins always in the order given above. Scoring. The test is passed if three of the four questions are correctly answered. Any correct designation of a coin is satisfactory, including provincialisms like two bits for the 25 cent piece, etc. If the child changes his response for a coin, we count the second answer and ignore the

first. No supplementary questions are permissible. Remarks. Some of the critics of the Bennett scale regard this test as of little value, because they say the ability to identify pieces of money depends entirely on instruction or other accidents of environment. The figures show, however, that it is not greatly influenced by differences of social environment, although children from poor homes do slightly better with it than those from homes of wealth and culture. The fact seems to be that practically all children by the age of six years have had opportunity to learn the names of the small coins, and if they have failed to learn them, it betokens the lack of that spontaneity of interest in things which we have mentioned as so often as the fundamental

presupposition of intelligence. It is by no means a test of mere mechanical memory. This test was given a place in Year 7 of Binet's 1908 scale, the coins used being the one-sou, two sous, and ten sous, and the five franc pieces. It was omitted from the Bennett 1911 revision, and also from that of Godot. Colman retains it in Year 7. Others, however, have required all four coins to be correctly named, and when this standard is used, the test is difficult enough for year 7. Germany has six coins up to and including the one-marked piece, all of which could be named by 76% of Bogotaig's 7-year-olds. With the coins and the standard of scoring used in the Stamwell Division, the test belongs well in year 6.

Test 6. Repeating 16 to 18 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 the instruction should be given as follows now listen i'm going to say something and after i am through i want you to say it over just like i do understand listen carefully and be sure to say exactly what i say then read the first sentence rather slowly in a distinct voice and with expression if the response is not too bad praise a change child's efforts. They proceed with the second and third sentences, prefacing each one with an exhortation to say exactly what I say. In this year and in the memory for sentences test of later years, it is not permissible to reread even the first sentence. The only reason for allowing a repetition of one of the sentences in the earlier test of this kind is to overcome the

child's timidity. With children of six years or upwards, we seldom encounter the timidity, which sometimes makes it so hard to secure responses in some of the tests of the earlier years. Scoring The test is passed if at least one sentence out of three is repeated without error or if two are repeated with not more than one error each. A single omission, insertion or transposition counts as an error. False of pronunciation are of course overlooked.

It is not sufficient that the thought be reproduced intact. The exact language must be repeated. The responses should be recorded about him. This is easily done if record blanks used for scoring have the sentences printed in full. Remarks In this test and in later tests of memory for sentences, it is interesting to ask out to each response, did you get it right? As in the test with digits, it is an unfavorable sign when the child is perfectly satisfied with a very poor response.

It is evident that tests of this type give opportunity for different degrees of failure. To repeat only a half or a third of each sentence is much more serious than to make but one error in each sentence, one word omitted, inserted or misplaced. It would be possible to use the same sentences at three or four different age levels, by its set, the appropriate standard for success at each age. If a standard is one sentence out of three repeated, with no more than two errors, the test belongs in year five. If we require two absolutely correct responses out of three, the test belongs at about year seven.

The shifting standard is rendered unnecessary, however, by the use of other tests of the same kind, easier ones in the lower years and more difficult ones in the upper. Sentences of 16 syllables found a place in Binet's 1908 scale and were correctly located in years 6, but later revisions, including that have been it, have omitted the test. Alternative test 4-noon and afternoon Procedure If it is morning, ask, is it morning or afternoon?

If it is afternoon, put the question in the reverse form. Is it afternoon or morning? This precaution is necessary because the tendency of some children to choose always the latter of two alternatives. Do not cross-question the child or give any suggestion they might afford a clue as to the correct answer. Scoring. The test is passed if the correct response is given with apparent assurance. If the child says he is not sure but thinks it forenoon or afternoon, as the case may be, we score the response at failure even if the answer happens to be correct. However, this type

response is not often encountered. Remarks. It is interesting to follow the child's development with regard to orientation in time. This development proceeds much more slowly than we are want to assume. Certain distinctions with regard to space as up and down come much earlier. As Bennett remarks, school sun-ups try to teach the events of natural history to children whose time orientation is so rudimentary that they do not even know morning from afternoon. The test has two rather serious faults. One, it gives too much plagiar chance. For since only two alternatives are offered, guesses alone would give about 50% of the correct responses. Two, we cannot be sure that the verbal distinctions between forenoon and afternoon always corresponds to the

actual temporal discrimination between the two divisions of the day. It is possible that the temporal discrimination precedes the formation of the correct verbal association. This test was included in Year 6 group of the 1908 scale, but was omitted in the 2011 revision. Nearly all the data except Bobatag's show that it's rather easy for year 6, though too difficult for year 5. Bobatag's figures would place this test in year 7. Possibly the corresponding German words are not as easy to learn as our morning and afternoon. End of Chapter 12 of the Measurement of Intelligence Read by Leon Harvey

Chapter 13 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman This is a Librevox recording All Librevox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer Please visit Librevox.org Recorded by Leon Harvey Chapter 13 Instructions for Year 7

Test 1 Giving the number of fingers Procedure How many fingers have you on one hand? How many on the other hand? How many on both hands together? If the child begins to count in response to any of the questions, say, no, don't count. Tell me without counting. Then repeat the question. Scoring. Past of all three questions are answered correctly and promptly without the necessity of counting. Some subjects do not understand the question to include the thumbs. We disregard this if the number of fingers exclusive of thumbs is given correctly. Remarks Like the two tests of counting pennies

This one also throws light on the child's spontaneous interest in numbers However, the mental processes it calls into play Are a little less simple than those required for mere counting If the child is able to give the number of fingers It is ordinarily because he has previously counted them And has remembered the result The memory would hardly be retained But for a certain interest in numbers as such

Middle grade embersyles of even adult age Saldon remember how many fingers they have However often they may have been told. They are not able to form accurate concepts of other than the simplest number of relationships, and numbers have little interest or meaning for them. Binet gave this test a place in U-7 of the 1908 series, but omitted it in the 2011 revision. Goddode admits it, while Coleman retains it in U-7, where according to her own figures, it unmistakably belongs. Bovetag finds it rather easy for U-7, though too difficult for U-6.

Outdata proved that this test fulfills the requirements of a good test. a rapid bet even rise from year 5 to year rate in the percent parsing, an agreement among the different testers is extraordinarily close, and it is relatively little influenced by training and social environment. For these reasons, and because it is so easy to give and score with uniformity, it well deserves a place in the scale. Test 2. Description of pictures.

Procedure. Use the same pictures as in U3, test 3, presenting them always in the following order. Dutch Home, River Scene, Post Office. The formula for the test in this year is somewhat different from that of year three. Say, what is this picture about? What is this a picture of? Use the double question and follow the formula exactly. It would ruin the test to say, tell me everything you see in this picture.

For this form of question tends to provoke the enumeration response even with intelligent children of this age. When there is no response, the question may be repeated as often as necessary to break the silence. Scoring. The test is passed if two of the three pictures are described or interpreted, interpretation, however, is seldom encountered at this age. Often the response consists of a mixture of enumeration and description. The rule is that the reaction to a picture should not be scored plus unless it is made up chiefly of description or interpretation. Study the following examples of satisfactory responses will give a fairly accurate idea of the requirements for satisfactory description.

Picture A. Satisfactory responses The little girl is crying. The mother is looking at her and there's 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's 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 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 a man They're 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're 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. Here's of the

Here's a little place of 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 of 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're 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 backyard and some cubs for hens. A man reading a paper, a man with eggs, A woman and a tree and another house.

That man has an apron on. This is the post office. Unsatisfactory responses are those made up entirely or mainly of enumeration. A phrase of two of description intermingled with a larger amount of enumeration in counts minus. Sometimes the description is satisfactory as far as it goes, but is exceedingly brief. In such cases, a little tactful urging, go ahead, etc., will extend the response sufficiently to reveal its true character. Remarks Description is better than enumeration

because it involves putting the elements of a picture together in a simple way or noting their qualities. This requires a higher type of mental association, combinative power, than mere enumeration. An unusually complete description indicates relative wealth of mental content and facility of association. Bennett placed this test in year 7

and it seemed to have been retained in this location in all revisions except Bogotags. However, the statistics of various workers, show much disagreement. Lack of agreement is easily accounted for by the fact that different investigators have used different series of pictures and Daubler's also different standards for success.

The pictures used by Bennett have little actional detail and are therefore rather difficult for a description. On the other hand, the Jinkleman Jack pictures used by Coleman represents such familiar situations and have so much action that even five or six year intelligence

seldom fails with them. The pictures we employ belong without question in New 7. No better proof than the above could be found to show how ability of the given kind does not make its appearance suddenly. There is no one time in the life of even a single child when the power to describe pictures suddenly develops.

On the contrary, pictures of a certain type will ordinarily provoke description rather than enumeration as early as five or six years, others not before seven or eight years or even later. Test three. Repeating five digits. Procedure. Use 317-59, 4-2-385, 9-8176

Tell the child to listen and to say after you just what you say Then read the first series of digits at a slightly faster rate than one per second In a distinct voice and with perfect uniform emphasis Avoid rhythm In previous tests with digits It was permissible to read the first series

If the child refused to respond In this year And in the digits test of later years This is not permissible Warning is not given As to the number of digits to be repeated Before reading each series get the child's attention. Do not stare at the child during the response, as this is disconcerting.

Look aside or at the record sheet. Scoring Passed if the child repeats correctly, after a single reading, one series out of the three series given. The order must be correct. Remarks Schologically, the repetition of digits differs from the repetition of sentences, mainly in the fact that digits have less meaning, fewer associations, than the words of a sentence. It is because they are not as well knit together in meaning.

meaning that three digits tax the memory as much as six syllables making up a sentence. Testing auditory memory for digits is one of the oldest of intelligence tests. It is easy to give and lends itself well to exact quantitative standardization. Its value is being questioned, however, on two grounds. One, that it is not a test of pure memory but depends largely on attention, and two, that the results are too much influenced by the child's type of imagery. As to the first objection, it is true that more than one mental function is brought into play by the test. by the test. The same may be said of every other test in the Bennett scale and for that matter of any test that could be devised.

It is impossible to isolate any function for separate testing. In fact, the functions called memory, attention, perception, judgment, etc. Never operate in isolation. There are no separate and special faculties corresponding to such terms, which are merely convenient names for characterising mental processes or various types. In any test, it is a general ability, which is operative, perhaps now chiefly in remembering, at another time, chiefly in sensory discrimination, again in reasoning, etc. The second objection, that the test is largely invalidated by the existence of imagery types, is not borne out by the facts. Experiments have shown that pure imagery types are exceedingly rare, and that children, especially, are characterized by mixed imagery. There are probably few subjects so lacking in auditory imagery as to be placed at a serious disadvantage in this test.

Lengthening a series by the addition of a single digit adds greatly to the difficulty. While four digits can usually be repeated by children of four years, five digits belongs in year seven and six in year ten. It is always interesting to note the type of errors made. The most common error is to omit one or more of the digits, usually in the first part of the series. If the child's ability is decidedly below the test, he may give only the last two or three out of the five or six herd. Substitutions are also quite frequent, and if so many substitutions are made as to keep, give a series quite unlike that which the child has heard, it is an unfavourable sign, indicating weakness of the critical sense which is so often found with low-level intelligence.

In case of extreme weakness of the power of auto-criticism, the child in response to the series 98176 may say, 1,2, 3, 456, or perhaps merely a couple of digits like 8-6, and still express complete satisfaction with his absurd response. After each series, therefore, the examiner should say, was it right? Very young subjects, however, have a tendency to answer yes to any question of this type, and it is therefore best not to call for criticism of a performance below the age of six or seven years. Digit series of a given length are not always of equal difficulty, and for this reason it is never wise to use series improvised at the moment of the experiment, or you must

avoid especially series of regularly ascending or descending value, repetition at regular intervals of a particular digit, and all the other peculiarities of arrangement which would favour the grouping of the digits for easier retention. It remains to mention two or three further cautions in regard to procedure. It is best to begin with a series about one digit below the child's expected ability. If the child has a probable intelligence of about six or seven years, we should begin with four digits. In case of probable 10-year intelligence, we begin with five digits, etc. On the other hand, we should avoid beginning too far down because then the result is too much more complicated by the effects of practice and fatigue.

It is not necessary, and often it is not a expedient to give the digit tests to all the different years in succession, that is, without other tests intervening. While this may be permissible with older children, in young children the power of sustained attention is so weak that no single kind of test should occupy more than two or three minutes. Children below six or seven years should ordinarily be given the test in the order in which they are listed in the record booklet. In his 1911 revision of the scale, Bennett unfortunately shifted this test from year seven to year eight. Goddard followed his example, but Coleman retains it in U-7. The data from more than a dozen leading investigations in America, England and Germany

agree in showing that the test should remain in U-7. Test 4 Tying a bow knot Procedure Prepare a shoestring tied with a bow knot around a stick The knife should be an ordinary dull bow with rings not over three or four inches long Make this ready in advance the experiment and show the child only the completed knot Place the model before the subject with the wings pointing to the right and left and say you know what kind of knot this is? Don't

you, it is a bow knot. I want you to take this other piece of string and tie the same kind of knot around my finger. At the same time give the child a piece of shoe string of the same length as that which is tied around the stick, and hold out a finger pointed towards a child in a convenient position for the operation. It is better to have the subject tie the string around the examiner's finger than around a pencil or other object because the latter often falls out of the string and is otherwise awkward to handle. Some children who assert that they do not know how to tie a bow knot are sometimes nevertheless successful when urged to try, It is always necessary, therefore, to secure an actual trial.

Scoring The test is passed for double bow knot, both ends folded in, is made in not more than a minute. A single bow knot, on the one end folded in, counts half credit. Because children are often accustomed to use a single bow altogether, the usual plain common knot which precedes the bow knot proper, must not be omitted if the response is to count as satisfactory. For without this preliminary plain knot, a bow knot will not hold, and it is of no value. To be satisfactory, the bow knot should also be drawn up, reasonably close, not left gaping.

Remarks. This test, which had not before been standardized, was suggested to the writer by the late Dr. Huey, who in a conversation once remarked upon the frequent inability of feeble-minded adults to perform the little motor tasks which are universally learned by normal persons in childhood. The test was therefore incorporated in the Stanford trial series in 1913-14 and tried to have 370 non-selected children within two months of the 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th birthday. It was expected that the test would probably be found to belong at about the eight-year level, but it proved to be easy enough for Year 7, where 69% of the children passed it. Only 35% of the 6-year-old succeeded, but after that age, the percent passing increased rapidly to 94% at 9 years.

This little experiment, simple as it is, seems to fulfill reasonably well the requirements of a good test. The main objection which might be brought against it is that it is much subject to the influence of training. If this were true, in any marked degree, the mentally retired chance, children of seven-year intelligence should be expected to succeed better with it than mentally advanced children of the same mental level, since the former would have had at least two or three years more in which to learn the task. A comparison of the two groups, however, shows no great difference. The factor of age, apart from mental age, affects the result so little that it is evident we have here a real test of intelligence.

It would, of course, be easy to imagine a child of seven years who had not had reasonable opportunity to make the equateence of bonots or to learn to tie them. But such children, are seldom encountered in the ages above six or seven. Of 68 seven-year-olds who were asked whether they had ever seen a bow-knot, a knot, and not like that, only to reply to the negative. It cannot be denied, however, that specific instruction and special stimulus to practice do play a certain part. This is suggested by the fact that girls excel the boys somewhat each age,

doubtless because bone-knotes play a larger role in feminine apparel. Social status affects results in only a moderate degree, though it might be supposed that poor ragamuffins on one hand, and children of the very rich on the other, would both make a pause showing in this test. The former because they're scanty apparel, the latter because they sometimes have servants to dress them. The following are probably the chief factors in determining success with this test. One, interest in common objective things.

Two, ability to form permanent associative connections between successive motor coordinations, memory for a series of acts. And three, skill in the acquisition of voluntary motor control. The last factor is probably much less important than the other two. Motor awkwardness often prolongs the time from the usual 10 or 15 seconds to 30 or 40 seconds, but it is rarely a cause of failure. The important thing is to be able to reproduce the appropriate succession of acts, acts which nearly all children of seven years under the joint stimulus of example and spontaneous interest

have before performed or tried to perform. Test 5. Giving differences from memory. Procedure. Say, what is the difference between a fly and a butterfly? If the child does not seem to understand, say, you know flies, do you not? You have seen flies and you know the butterflies. Now tell me the difference between a fly and a butterfly.

Proceed in the same way with stone and egg and wooden glass. A little coaxing is sometimes necessary to secure a response, but supplementary questions and suggestions of every kind are to be avoided. For example, it would not be permissible for the examiner to say, which is larger, a fly or a butterfly. This would give the child his cue, and he would immediately answer a butterfly. The child must be left to find a difference by himself. Sometimes a difference is given, but without any indication as to its direction.

As for example, one is bigger than the other for fly and butterfly. It is then permissible to ask which is bigger. Scoring Pass if a real difference is given in two out of three comparisons. It is not necessary, however, that an essential difference be given. The difference may be trivial, only it must be a real one. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses. Fly and Butterfly

Satisfactory Butterfly is larger Butterfly has bigger wings Fly is black and butterfly is not Butterfly is yellow or white etc and fly is black Fly bites you and butterflies don't Butterfly has powder on its wings

and flies do not Fly flies a stranger 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 the 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 colour or form. 12 were in terms of both form and colour, six in terms of colour alone, and the rest scattered among such responses as those mentioned above. Unsatisfactory. These are mostly misstatements of facts as fly is bigger, fly is 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.

Even in different responses 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 easier. 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 the comparisons made by children of six, seven, and eight 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 partially true and partially false. The error they contain renders them unacceptable.

Most of the failures are due to misdapments such to size, shape or colour, 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 a 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, wood is thick. Wood is made out of trees,

glass out of windows. There is no glass in wood. The two most frequent types of failures are misstatements regarding the color and thickness. The other failures are widely scattered. Remarks The test is one which all the critics agree in commending, largely because it is so little influenced by ordinary school experience. Its excellent lies mainly, however,

in the fact that it throws light upon the character of the child's higher thought processes, for thinking means essentially the association of ideas on the basis of differences or similarities. Nearly all thought processes from the most complex to the very simplest, evolve to a greater or less degree one or the other of these two types of association. They are involved in the simple judgments made by children, in the appreciation of puns, in mechanical inventions, in the creation of poetry, in the scientific classification of natural phenomena, and in the origination of the hypothesis of science or philosophy.

The ability to note differences precedes somewhat the ability to note resemblances, though the contrary has sometimes been asserted by logical psychologists. The difficulty of the test is greatly increased by the fact that the object to be compared are not present to the senses, which means that the free ideas must be called up for comparison and contrast. Failure may result either from weakness in the power of adiational representation of objects or from the inadequacy of the associations themselves or from both. Probably both factors are usually involved. Intellectual development is especially evident in increased ability to note essential differences in likenesses as contrasted with those which are trivial, superficial and accidental. To distinguish an egg from a stone on the basis of one being organic and the other inorganic matter requires far higher intelligence

than to distinguish them on the basis of shape, colour, factubility, etc. It is not till well towards the adult stage that the ability to give very essential likenesses and differences becomes prominent, and when we get a comparison of this type from a child of seven or eight years, it is a very favourable sign. It would be well worthwhile to standardise a new test of this kind for use in the upper use and especially adapted to display the ability to give essential likenesses and differences. At year seven, we must accept as satisfactory any real difference. One point remains.

In the tests of giving differences and similarities, it is well to make note of any tendency to stereotypy, but which has met the mechanical reappearance of the same eye. or element in successive responses. For example, the child begins by comparing fly and butterfly on the basis of size as a butterfly is bigger than a fly. So far, this is quite satisfactory, but the child with a tendency to stereotypy finds himself unable to get away from the dominating idea of size and continues to make it the basis of the other comparisons. A stone is larger than an egg, wood is larger than glass, etc. In case of stereotypy in all three responses, we should have to score the total response failure, even though the idea employed

happen to fit all three parts of the question. As a rule, it is encountered only with very young children or with older children who are mentally retarded. It is therefore an unfavorable sign. Although this test has been universally used in year 8, all the available statistics, with the exception of Bobautics and Blotches indicate that it's decidedly too easy for that year. Bennett himself says that nearly all seven-year-olds pass it. Goddard finds 97% passing at year 8 and downity 90% at year 6, with the standard of scoring given in the present revision and with the substitution of stone and egg instead of the more

difficult paper and cloth the test is unquestionably easy enough for use step test six copying a diamond procedure on a white cardboard draw in heavy black lines a diamond with the longer diagonal three inches and the short diagonal an inch and a half the specially prepared record booklet contains a diamond as well as many other conveniences place the model before the child with the longer diagonal pointing directly to and giving him pen and ink and paper say, I want you to draw one exactly like this. Give three trials, saying each time make it exactly like this one. In repeating the above formula, merely point to the model.

Do not pass the fingers around its edge. Unlike the test of copying a square in year of four, there is seldom any difficulty in getting the child to try this one. By the age of seven, the child has grown much less timid and has become more accustomed to the use of writing materials. Note whether the child draws each part carefully, looking at the model from time to time, or whether the strokes are made in a more or less haphazard manner with only an initial glance at the original.

After each trial say to the child, is it good? And after three copies have been made, say, which one is the best? Retarded children are sometimes entirely satisfied with the most nondescript drawings imaginable, but they are more likely, correctly, to pick out the best of three

than to render a correct judgment at the worth of each drawing separately. Scoring. The test is passed at two of the three drawings are at least as good as those marked satisfactory on the school card. The diamonds should be drawn approximately in the correct position, and the diagonals must not be reversed. Disregard departures from the model with respect to size. Remarks

The test is a good one. Age and training, apart from intelligence, affected only moderately. There are few adult emperciles of six-year intelligence who were able to pass it, while but a few subjects who have reached the eight-year level failant. This test was located in Year 7 on the 1908 scale, but were shifted to Year 6 in Binnis'11, The change was without justification, forbidden expressly states both in 1908 and 1911 that only half of the six-year-olds succeed with it. The large majority of investigations have given two lower proportion of successes as six years to warrant its location at that age, particularly if pen is required instead of pencil.

Location at year six would be warranted only on the condition that the use of pencil be permitted and only one success required in three trials. Test 1. Naming the days of the week. Procedure. Say, you know the days of the week, do you not? Name the days of the week for me. Sometimes the child begins by naming various annual holidays as Christmas, 4th of July, etc. Perhaps he has not comprehended the task. At any rate, we give him one more trial by stopping him and saying, no, that is not what I mean. I want you to name the days of the week. No supplementary questions are permissible, and we must be careful not to show approval or disapproval in our looks as the child is giving his response.

If the days have been named in correct order, we check up the response to see whether the real number of days is known or whether the names have only been repeated mechanically. This is done by asking the following questions. What day comes before Tuesday? What day comes before Thursday? What day comes before Friday? Scoring The test is passed if within 15 seconds the days of the week are all named in incorrect order

and did the child succeed in at least two of the three checked questions, we disregard the point of beginning. Remarks The test has been criticized as two depending on root memory. BobaTock says the child may pass it without having any adequate conception of week, yesterday, or day before yesterday, etc. This criticism holds if the test is given according to the older procedure, but is not apply with the procedure but recommended. The checking-up questions enable us at once to distinguish responses that have given. by rote and from those which rest upon actual knowledge. The test has been shown to be much more influenced by age, apart from intelligence than

most other tests of the scale. Notwithstanding this fault, it seemed desirable to keep the test, at least as an alternative, because it forms one of a group which may be designated as tests of time orientation. The others of this group are distinguishing four noon and afternoon, year six, giving the date, and naming the months. 9. It will be well if we had even more of this type, for interest in the passing of time and in the name names of time divisions is closely correlated with intelligence. One reason for the inferiority

of the dull and feeble-minded in tests of this type is that their mental associations are weaker and less numerous. The greater poverty of their associations bring it about that their remembered experiences are less definitely located in time, with reference to other events. The test was located in year 9 of 2008, but was omitted in the 2011 revision. Coleman also emits it Borgoldod Pleasant in year 8. The statistics from every American investigation, however, warrant its location in Year 7. It may be located near 8 only on the condition that the child be required to name the days backwards, and that within a rather low time limit. Alternative Test 2. Repeating three digits reversed. Procedure. The digits used are

283-427-596. The test should be given after, but not immediately after the tests are repeating digits forwards. Say to the child, listen carefully, I am going to read some numbers again, but this time I want you to say them backwards. For example, if I should say one to three, you should say three to one. Do you understand? When it is evident that the child has grasped the instructions, say, Ready, now listen carefully, and be sure to say the numbers backwards. Then read the series at the same rate and in the same manner as in the other digits tests.

It is not permissible to reread any of the series. If the first series is repeated forwards instead of backwards, the instructions must be repeated. Before each series exhort the child to listen carefully, and to be sure to repeat the numbers backwards. Scoring. The test is passed if one series out of three is repeated backwards without error. Remarks.

The test of repeating digits backwards was suggested by Bogotag in 1911, but appears not to have been used or standardized previews to the Stanford investigation. It is very much harder to repeat a series of digits backwards than in the direct order. Five digits can be given in the direct order at year two and six at year 10, reversing the order places three digits in U7, four in year 10, five in year 12 and six in average adult. Even intelligent adults sometimes have difficulty in repeating six digits backwards once in three trials. As a test of intelligence, this test is better than that of repeating digits in the direct order. It is less mechanical and makes a much heavier demand on attention.

The digits must be so firmly fixated in memory that they can be held there long enough to be told off one by one backwards. Feeble-minded children find this test especially difficult, perhaps mainly because of its element of novelty. School children are often asked to write numbers dictated by the teacher, and even the very dull acquire a certain proficiency in doing so, but the test of repeating digits backwards requires a certain facility in adjusting to a new task, exactly the sort of thing in which the feeble-minded are so markedly deficient. As a rule, the response consumes much more time than in the other digits tests. This is particularly true when the series to be repeated backwards contains four or more digits.

The chance of success is greatly increased if the subject first thinks the series it threw two or three times in the direct order before attempting the reverse order. The subject who responds immediately is likely to begin correctly but to give the first part of the original series in the direct order. For example, 6528 is given 8265. Sometimes the chart gives one or two numbers and then stops. having completely lost the rest of the series in the stress of adjusting to the novel and relatively difficult tasks of beginning with the final digit. In such cases, the feeble-minded are prone to fill in with any numbers they may happen to think of. A good method for the subject is to break the series up in groups and to give each group separately. Thus, 6528 is given 8-2, pause, 5-6.

As a rule, only the more intelligent subjects adopt this method. One 12-year-old attending high school was able to repeat eight digits backwards by the aid of this device. It would be well worthwhile to investigate the relation of this test to imagery type. Such a study would have to make use of the adult subjects trained in introspection. It would seem that success might be favoured by the ability to translate the auditory impression individual imagery, so that the remembered numbers could be read off as from a book, but this may or may not be the case. At any rate, success seems to depend largely upon the ability to manipulate mental imagery. The degree of certainty as to the correctness of the response is usually much less than in repeating digits forwards.

End of Chapter 13 of the Measurement of Intelligence. Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 14 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. This is a Librivox recording. All Librevox recordings are in the public domain. For more information on to volunteer, please visit Librevox.org. Read by Leon Harvey. Chapter 14. Instructions for Year 8 Test 1 The ball and field test.

Score to inferior plan. Procedure. Draw a circle about two and one half inches in diameter. Leave a small gap in the side next to the child. Say, let us suppose that your baseball has been lost in this round field. You have no idea what part of the field it is in. You don't know what direction it came from, how it got there, or with what force it came. All you know is that the ball is lost somewhere in the field.

Now take this pencil, a mark at a path, to show how you would hunt for the ball so as to be sure not to miss it. Begin at the gate and show me what path you would take. Give the instructions always as worded above. Avoid using an expression like, show me how we would walk around the field. The word around might suggest a circular path. Sometimes the child merely points or tells how we would go. It is then necessary to say,

No, you must mark out your path with a pencil so I can see it plainly. Other children trace a path only a little way and stop saying, Here it is. We then say, but suppose you have not found it yet. Which direction would you go next? In this way, the child must be kept tracing a path until it's evident whether any plan governs his procedure. Scoring The performances secured with this test are conveniently classified in four groups, representing progressively higher types.

The first two types represent failures. The third is satisfactory at year 8, the 4th at year 12. 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 a 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 that a search, but without any definite plan,

absence of plan is evident by the crossing and recrossing of paths or by breaks. A break means 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, a short haphazard dashes or curves, bear a suggestion of a fan or spiral. Type C, satisfactory at Year 8. A successful performance at Year 8 is characterized by the presence of a plan, but one ill-adapted to the purpose.

That some forethought is exercise is evident, one by fewer crossings, two, by a tendency either to make the lines more or less parallel, or else to give them some kind of symmetry, and three, by fewer breaks. The possibilities of type C are almost unlimited, and one is continuously meeting new forms. We have distinguished more than 20 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 are not intended to be parallel.

4. The wheel plan, shunning lines radiating from near the center of the field. towards the circumference. 5. The fan plan. Shearing a number of lines radiating, usually, from the gate and spreading out of the field. 6. Fan ellipses or fan spirals, radiating from the gate like the lines just described. 7. The leaf plan or rip plan or tree plan, with lines branching off from the trunk. 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. 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 12 performances of this type meet perfectly or almost perfectly the logical requirements of the problem the paths are almost all quite parallel and there are no intersections or breaks the possibilities of type D are fewer and embraced chiefly the following one a spiral perfect or almost perfect and beginning either at the gate or at the center of the field

2. Concentric circles. 3. Transverse lines, parallel, or almost so, and joined at the ends. Up to about 4 years, most children failed entirely to comprehend the task. By the age of 6 years, the task is usually understood, but the surge is conducted without plan. Type C is not attained by 2 thirds before the mental level of 8 years and score 3, ordinarily, not until 11 or 12 years. Grading presents some difficulties because of occasional borderline performances, which have a value almost midway between types B, and C or between C and D, frequent reference to the scoring card will enable the examiner after little experience to score nearly all the doubtful performance is satisfactory.

Remarks The ball and field problem may be called a test of practical judgment. Unlike a majority of the other tests, it gives a subject a chance to show how well he can meet the demands of a real rather than imagined situation. Tests like this involving practical adjustments are valuable in rounding out the scale, which, as left by Binet, placed rather excessive emphasis on Amstrand, reasoning and the comprehension of language. The test requires little time and always arouses the child's interest. Our analysis of the responses of nearly 1,500 subjects

shows the improvement with increasing mental age is steady and fairly rapid. Occasionally however, one meets a high-grade performance with children of six or seven years and a low-grade performance with adults of average intelligence. Like all the other tests of the scale, it is unreliable when used alone. Test 2. Counting backwards from 20 to 1. Procedure Say to the child, you can count backwards, can you not? I want you to count backwards for me from 20 to 1. Go ahead. In the great majority of cases, this is sufficient. The child comprehends the task and begins.

If he does not comprehend and is silent, or starts him perhaps to count forwards from 1 to or 20, say, No, I want you to count backwards from 20 to 1, like this. 20, 19, 18, and clear on down to 1. Now go ahead. Insist upon the child trying it, even though he is asserted. he cannot do it. In many such cases an effort is crowned with success. Say nothing about hurrying, as this confuses some subjects. Prompting is not permissible. Scoring. The test is passed if the child counts from 20 to 1 in not over 40 seconds and with not more than a single error, one

omission or one transposition. Errors which the child spontaneously corrects are not counted as errors. Remarks The statistics on this test agree remarkably well. It is a very much It is plainly too easy for year 9, and no one has found it easy enough for year 8. The main lack of uniformity has been in the adherence to a time limit. Bina required that the task be completed in 20 seconds, and Goddard and most others adhere rather strictly to this rule. Coleman, however, allows 30 seconds if there is no error, and 20 seconds if one error is committed.

We agree with Boobtag that, owing to the nature of this test, we should not be pedantic about the While a majority of children who are able to count backwards do the task in 20 seconds, there are some intelligent but deliberate subjects who require as much as 35 or 40 seconds. If the counting is done with assurance and without stumbling, there is no reason why we should not allow even 40 seconds. Beyond this, however, our generosity should not go, because of the chance it would give for the use of special devices, as counting forwards each time to the next number wanted. It may be said that counting backwards is a test of schooling and to a certain extent this is true. It is reasonable to suppose that special training would enable the child to pass the test

a little earlier than it would otherwise be able to do, though it is doubtful whether many children below seven years of age have had enough of such training to influence the performance very materially. On the other hand, when their child has reached an intelligence level of eight or at most nine years, He is ordinarily able to count from 20 to 1 whether he has ever tried it before or not. What psychological factors are involved in this test? It presupposes in the first place the ability to count from 1 to 20, but this alone does not guarantee success in counting backwards.

Something more is required than a mere wrote memory for the number names in their order from 1 up to 20. The quantitative relationships are the numbers must also be apprehended if the task is to be performed smoothly without a great deal of special training. In addition to being reasonably secure in his knowledge of the number of relationships involved, the child must be able to give sustained attention until the task is completed. His mental processes must be dominated by the guiding idea. Associations which do not harmonize with this aim, or which fail to further it, must be inhibited. Even momentary relaxation of attention means a loss of directive force in the guiding idea

and the dominance of better-known associations which may be suggested by the task, but are out of harmony with it. Thus, if a child momentarily loses sight of the end after counting backwards successfully from 20 to 14, he is likely to be overpowered by the law of habit and begin counting forwards, 14, 15, 16, 17, etc. We may regard the test, therefore, as a test of attention, or prolonged thought control. The ability to exercise unbroken vigilance for a period of 20 or 30 seconds is rarely found below the level of 7-8-year intelligence. Test 3. Comprehension.

3 DECRE. The questions for this year are A, what's the thing for you to do when you have broken something which belongs to someone else? B, what's the thing for you to do when you notice on your way to school that you're in danger of being tardy? C, what's the thing for you to do if a playmate hits you without meaning to do it? Their procedure is the same as in previous comprehension questions. Each question may be repeated once or twice, but its form must not be changed. No explanations are permissible.

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 meant it? Apologise. 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% 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 answer is not obviously Incorrect, nearly 95%

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 doing so the child might escape the danger of occurring an extreme penalty. When teachers inflict absurd penalties for an excuse tidiness, 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 in conveyed by the question. It is implied, of course, that something is to be done at once to avoid tidiness, but the subject of dull comprehension may suggest a suitable thing to do in case tiredness has been occurred. Hence the response, I would go to the principle 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 win.

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 him back. I would not hit him back, but I would get even with him some other way.

Tell him 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. We're not play with him. Tell my mama. I would ask him why he did it.

He would say excuse me and I'd say thank you. He should excuse me. He's supposed to say excuse me. Remarks. All three comprehension questions of this year were used by Bennett, Godard Huey and others in U.S. Two of them in the Easy series and one of the hard series. The Stanford data showed that they belong at the eight-year level on the standard of scoring above set fourth.

The three differ little among themselves in difficulty, but all of them are decidedly easier than the other five used by Binnet. It would be absurd to go on using the comprehension questions as Bennett bunched them, eight together, ranging in difficulty from one which is easy enough for six-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 the bad act done when one is angry, more excusable than the same act done when one is not, angry. Test four. Giving similarities two things. Procedure. See to the child, I'm going to name two things which are alike in some way, and I want you to tell me how they are alike. Wood and coal. In what way they're alike? Proceed in the same manner with an apple and a peach, iron

and silver, a ship and an automobile. After the first pair of the formula may be abbreviated to, in what way are, something and something alike. It is often necessary to insist a little if the child is silent or says he does not know, but in doing this we must avoid supplementary questions and suggestions. In giving the first pair, for example, it would not be permissible to ask such additional questions as, what do you use wood for, what do you use coal for, and now how I wooden coal alike. This is really putting the answer in the child's mouth. It is only permissible to repeat the original question in a persuasive tone of voice, and perhaps to add, I'm sure you can tell me how something in something are alike, or something to that

effect. A very common mistake which the child makes is to give differences instead of similarities. This tendency is particularly strong if test five, year seven, giving differences, has been given earlier in the sitting. But it happens often enough, in other cases also to suggest that finding differences is, to a much greater extent, than finding similarities, the child's preferred method of making a comparison. When a difference is given instead of a similarity, we say, no, I want you to tell me how they are alike, in what way are something and something alike. Unless the child is of rather a low intelligence level, this is sufficient, but the mentally retarded sometimes continue to give differences persistently in spite of repeated admonitions, or if they

cease to do so for one or two comparisons, they are likely to repeat the mistake in the latter part of the test. Scoring The test is passed if a likeness is given in two out of four comparisons. We accept as satisfactory any real likeness, whether it first. fundamental or superficial, though of course the more essential the resemblance, the better the indication it is of intelligence. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory answers. 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%, referred in one way or another combustibility. Unsatisfactory. Most frequent is a 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 colour. 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 colour when they are not ripe. Of 82 correct answers, 25% mentioned in colour. 25% form, 22% edibility, 20% having stem, seed, or skin, and 5% 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% of the failures are due to giving differences, and about 18% 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.

One, hardness. Two, origin from the ground. Three, heaviness. Four, 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 at the same you can't eat them of sixty failures thirty two were due to giving differences in fourteen 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 rock. About 45% of the answers are in terms of running or travel. 37% 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 in 14 to failure to reply. Remarks The test of finding similarities was suggested by Bodag. Our results show that it is fully as satisfactory as the test of giving differences.

The test reveals in a most interesting way one of the fundamental weaknesses of the feeble mind. Young normal children, say of seven or eight years, often fail to pass. But it is the feeble-minded who give the greatest number of absurd answers and who also find greatest difficulty in resisting the tendency to give differences. Test 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, Battleship Potato Store. Make no comments on the responses until all the words are being given. In case of silence or hesitation in answering, the question may be repeated with little encouragement, but supplementary questions are never in order. Ordinarily, there is no difficulty in securing your response to the definition test

of this year. The trouble comes in scoring the response. Scoring. The test is passed if two of the four words are defined in terms superior to use. Superior to use includes chiefly A, definitions which describe the object or tell something of its nature, form, size, color, appearance, etc. B, definitions which give the substance or the materials all pass composing it, and C, those which tell what class the objects belong to or what relation it bears to other classes of objects. It is possible to distinguish different grades of definitions in each of the above classes. A definition by description, type A may be brief and partial, mentioning only one or two qualities or characteristics, or it may be relatively rich and complete.

Likewise with definitions of type B, classifactory definitions, type C, are of particularly uneven value, the lowest order being those which subsumed the object to be defined and under a remote class and give few of any characteristics to distinguish it from other members of the same class, as for example, a football is a thing you can have fun with, or a soldier is a person. The best classifactory definitions are those which subsume the object under the next higher class and give the more essential traits. Perhaps a number of them, which distinguish the object from others of the class named. As for example, a tiger is a large animal like a cat. It lives in the jungle and eats man and other animals, or a soldier is a man who goes to war. These shades of distinction

give interesting and valuable clues to the maturity and richness of their perceptive processes, but for purposes of scoring, it is necessary merely to decide whether the definition is given in terms superior to use. The following are samples of satisfactory definitions, those for each word being arranged roughly in the order of their value, from excellent to barely passing. A. Balloon Satisfactory A balloon is a means of travel 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.

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 a 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 basketball. 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, go to war, it is a soldier, a soldier that marches. He fights, he shoots, what fights, etc. When you march and shoot.

Silence accounts for only a small proportion of the failures with children of 8, 9 and 10 years. Remarks The used definitions, sometimes given at this age, are usually of slightly better quality than those given in year five. Younger children more often use the infinitive form to play with doll, to drive, horse, to eat on, table, etc. Used definitions of this year more often begin with they or what, as they go up in it, balloon, they kick it, football, etc. Why, it may be asked, is the used definition regarded as inferior to the descriptive, or the classifactory definition. Is not the case to which an object may be put the most essential thing about it for the child at least?

Is not more important to know that a fork is to eat with, then to be able to name the material it is made of? Is not the use primary and does it not determine most of the physical characteristics of the object? The above questions may sound reasonable, but they are based on poor psychology. We must rest our case upon the facts. The first lesson which the student of child psychology must learn is that it is unsafe to set up. criteria of intelligence of maturity or of any other mental trait on the basis of theoretical considerations. Experiment teaches that normal children of five or six years, also older, feeble-minded

persons of the five-year intelligence level define objects in terms of use. Also that normal children of eight or nine years and older feeble-minded persons of this mental level have for the most part developed beyond the stage of use definitions into the descriptive or classifactory stage. An ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory. The test has usually been located in year 9, with the requirement of three successes out of five trials and with somewhat more rigid scoring of the individual definitions. When only two successes are required in four trials and when scored leniently, the test belongs at the year level. Test 6. Vocabulary. 20 definitions, 3,600 words.

Procedure Use the list of words given in the record booklet. Say to the child, I want to find out how many words you know. Listen, and when I say a word you tell me what it means. If the child can read, give him a printed copy of the word list and let him look at each word as you pronounce it. The words are arranged approximately, though not exactly, in the order of their difficulty, and it is best to begin with the easier words and proceed to the harder.

With children under 9 or 10 news begin with the first. Apparently normal children of 10 years may safely be credited with the first 10 words without being asked to define them. Apparently normal children of 12 may begin with word. 16 and 15 year olds with word 21. Except with subjects of almost adult intelligence, there is no need to give the last 10 or 15 words, as these are almost never correctly defined by schoolchildren. A safe rule to follow is to continue until 8 or 10 successive words have been missed and to score the remainder minus without giving them. The formula is as follows.

What is an orange? What is a bonfire? Roar. What does roar mean? Gown. What is a gown? What is a What does tap mean? What does scorch mean? What does a puddle, etc.? Some children first show a little hesitation about answering, thinking that a strictly formal definition is expected. In such cases a little encouragement is necessary as, You know what a bonfire is? You have seen a bonfire? Now, what is a bonfire? If the child still hesitates, say, just tell me in your own words. Say it any way you please.

All I want is to find out whether you know what a bonfire is. Do not torture the child, however, by undue insistence. If he persists in his refusal to define a word which he would ordinarily be expected to know, it is better to pass on to the next one and to return to the troublesome word later. Above all, avoid helping the child by illustrating the use of a word in a sentence. Addhear strictly to the formula given above. If the definition as given does not make it clear whether the child has the correct idea, say, explain, or, I don't understand, explain what you mean.

Encourage the child frequently by saying, That's fine, you are doing beautifully, you know lots of words, etc. Never tell the child his definition is not correct, and never ask for a different definition. Avoid saying anything which would suggest a model form of definition, as the type of definition which the child spontaneously chooses throws interesting light on the degree of maturity of the irreceptive processes. Record all definitions verbatim if possible,

or at least those which are exceptionally good, poor or doubtful. Scoring. Credit a response in full if it gives one incorrect meaning for the word, regardless of whether that meaning is the most common one, and regardless of whether it is the original or a derived meaning. Occasionally half credit may be given, but this should be avoided as far as possible. To find the entire vocabulary, multiply the number of words known by 180. This list is made up of 100 words, selected by rule from a dictionary containing 18,000 words. Thus, the child who defines 20 words correctly has a vocabulary of 20. times 180 equals 3,600 words.

50 correct definitions would mean a vocabulary of 9,000 words, etc. The following are the standards for different years as determined by the vocabulary reached by 60 to 65% of the subjects of the various mental levels. 8 years, 20 words, vocabulary 6,600, 10 years, 30 words, vocabulary 5,400, 12 years, 40 words, vocabulary 7,200, 12 years, 40 words, vocabulary 7,200. 14 years, 50 words. Vocabulary 9,000.

Average adult, 65 words, vocabulary 11,700. Superior adult, 75 words, vocabulary 13,500. Although the form of the definition is significant, it is not taken into consideration and scoring, the test is intended to explore the range of ideas rather than the evolution of thought forms. When it is evident that the child has one fairly correct meaning for a word, he is given full credit for it. However, poorly, the definition may have been stated.

While there is naturally some difficulty now and then in deciding whether a given definition is correct, this happens much less frequently than one would expect. In order to get a definite idea of the extent of error due to the individual differences among examiners, we have had the definitions of 25 subjects graded independently by 10 different persons. The result showed an average difference. below three in the number of definitions scored plus. Since these subjects attempted on an average about 60 words, the average number of doubtful definitions per subject was below 5% of the number attempted. An idea of the degree of leniency to be exercised may be had from the following

examples of definitions, which are mostly of low grade, but acceptable unless otherwise indicated. 1. Orange An orange is to eat. It is yellow and grows on a tree, both for 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 boars. You holler loud. Full credit. 4. Gown. Do sleep in. It's a 90. 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. A ruler, often called a rule by schoolchildren. All full credit. 11. A float. To float on the water. A ship floats. Both full credit. 12. I lash. If a 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. 7. 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. 21. Southern. If the answer is Southern states or Southern California say, what does Southern mean? Do not credit unless explanation is forthcoming.

26. Noticeable. You notice the 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. Rampal. To go about fast. Half credit. 38. nerve. Half credit if the slang use is defined. You've got nerve, etc. 41, majesty. What do 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. Contcientiousness. 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. Milk, sop. You sop up milk, failure. 73, harpy. A kind of bird.

Full credit. 80. Exaltation. You feel good, full credit. 85. Retroactive. Acting backward. Full credit.

92. Theosophy. A religion. Full credit. It is seen from the above examples that a very liberal standard has been used. Leniency in judging definitions is necessary because the child's power of expression legs further behind his understanding than is true of adults, and also because, for the young subject, the word has a relatively less unitary existence.

Remarics Our vocabulary test was derived by selecting the last word of every sixth column in a dictionary containing approximately 18,000 words. Presumably, the 18,000 most common words in the language. The test is based on the assumption that 100 words selected according to some arbitrary rule will be a large enough sampling to afford a fairly reliable index of a subject's entire vocabulary. Rather extensive experimentation with this list and others chosen in a similar manner has proved that the assumption is justified.

Tests are the same 75 individuals with five different vocabulary tests of this type show that the average difference between two sets of the same person was less than 5%. This means that any one of the five tests use is reliable enough for all practical purposes. It is of no special importance that a given child's vocabulary is 8,000. rather than 7,600. The significance lies in the fact that it is approximately 8,000 and not 4,000, 12,000, or some other widely different number. It may seem to the reader almost incredible that so small a sampling of words

would give a reliable index of an individual's vocabulary. That it does so is due to the operation of the ordinary laws of chance. It is negligless to predicting the results of an election when only a small proportion of the ballots have been counted. If it is known that a battle box contains 600 votes, and if when only 30 have been counted, it is found that they are divided between two candidates in the proportion of 20 and 10, it is safe to predict that a complete count will give the two candidates approximately 400 and 200, respectively.

In 1914, about 1 million votes were cast for Governor in California, and when only 10,000 votes are being counted, or a hundredth of all, it was announced and conceded that Governor Johnson had been re-elected by about 150,000 polarity. The complete account gave him 188,505 plurary. The error was less than 10% of the total vote. The vocabulary test is a far higher value than any other single test at the scale. Used with children of English-speaking parents, with children whose home language is not English, it is of course unreliable. It probably has a higher value than any three other tests in the scale.

Our statistics show that in a large majority of cases, the vocabulary test alone will give of us an intelligence quotients within 10% of that secured by the entire scale. Out of hundreds of English speaking children, we have not found one testing significantly above age who had a significantly low vocabulary, and correspondingly, those who test much below age never have a high vocabulary. Occasionally, however, a subject tests somewhat higher or lower in vocabulary than the mental age would lead us to expect. This is often the case with dull children in cultured homes and with very intelligent children

whose home environment has not stimulated language development. But even in these cases, we're not seriously misled, but the dull child of fortunate home surroundings shows his dullness in the quality of his definitions, if not in their quantity, while the bright child of illiterate parents shows his intelligence in the aptness and accuracy of his definitions. We have not worked out a satisfactory method

of scoring the quality of definitions in our vocabulary test, but these differences will be readily observed by the trained examiner, definitions in terms of use and definitions which are slightly inaccurate or hazy are quite characteristic of the lower mental ages. Children of the lower mental age have also a tendency to venture wild guesses at words they do not know. This is especially a characteristic of retarded subjects and is another example of their weakness of auto-criticism. One feeble-minded boy of 12 years, with a mental age of 8 years, glibly and confidently, gave definitions for every one of the 100 words. About 70 of the definitions were pure nonsense. The vocabulary

test was devised and partially standardized by Mr. H.G. Childs and the writer in 1911. Many experiments since then have proved its value as a test of intelligence. Alternative test one. Naming six coins. Procedure. Is exactly as in year six test five, naming four coins. The dollar should be shown before the half dollar. Scoring, all six coins must be correctly named. If a response is changed, the rule is to count the second answer and ignore the first. Remarks. Bennett used nine pieces and required knowledge of all at Year 10, 1908. But a year 9 in the 1911 revision, most other workers have used the same method,

with the tests located neither year 9 or year 10. Alternative Test 2. Writing from Dictation Procedure Give the child pen, ink and paper. Place him in a comfortable position for writing and say, I want you to write something for me as nicely as you can. Write these words. See the little boy.

Be sure to write it all. the little boy. Do not dictate the word separately, but give the sentence as a whole. Further repetition of the sentence is not permissible as ability to remember what has been dictated as part of the test. Copy of course must not be shown. Scoring. Past of the sentence is written legibly enough to be easily recognised. They have no word has been omitted. Ordinary mistakes of spelling are disregarded. The rule is that the mistake in spelling must not mutilate the word beyond easy recognition. The performance may be graded by the use of third. Dorn Dug's handwriting scale. The handwriting of eight-year-old children, who have been in school

not less than one year or more than two, usually falls between Quality 7 and Quality 9 on the scale. But we shall, perhaps, not be too liberal if we consider a performance satisfactory which does not grade below Quality 6, provided it is not seriously mutilated by errors, omissions, etc. Remarks This test found a place in Year 8 of Bennett's 908 scale, but has been omitted from all the other revisions, including Bennett's own. did not even regard the test as worthy of a trial. The universal criticism has been that it is a test of schooling rather than of intelligence, that the performance depends, in a certain sense, upon

special instruction is self-evident. Without such instruction, no child of eight years, however intelligent, would be able to pass the test. Nature does not give us a conventionalized language either written or spoken. It must be acquired. It is also true that a high-grade, feeble-minded child, say, eight years of age and of six-year intelligence, is sometimes, though not always, able to pass the test after two years of school instruction. It is exceedingly improbable, however, that a feeble-minded subject with less than six-year intelligence will ever be able to pass this test, however long he remains in school. The conclusions to be drawn from these facts are as follows.

One, inability to pass the test should not be counted against the child unless it is known that he has at least a full year of the usual school instruction. 2. Ability to pass the test after only two years of school instruction is almost certain proof that the child has reached a mental level of at least 6 years. 3. Failure to pass the test must be regarded as a grave symptom in the case of the child 9 or more years of age who is known to have attended school as much as 2 years. 4. For mental levels higher than 8 years, the test has hardly any diagnostic value,

since feeble-minded persons of eight or nine-year intelligence can usually be taught to write quite legibly. If the limitations above set forth are kept in mind, the test is by no means without value, and is always worth giving as a supplementary test. Learning to write simple sentences from dictation is no mean accomplishment. It demands in the first place a fairly complete mastery of rather difficult muscular coordination. Moreover, these coordinations must be fairly associated with the corresponding letters and words, for if the writing coordinations are not fairly automatic, so much attention will be required to carry them out that the child will not be able to remember what he has been told to write.

The necessity of remembering the passage acts as a distraction, and writing from dictation is therefore a more difficult task than writing from copy. End of Chapter 14 of the Measurement of Intelligence. Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 15 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. This is a Librivox recording. All Libravox recordings are in the public domain. For more information on to volunteer, please visit Libravox.org.

Read by Leon Harvey. Chapter 15. Instructions for Year 9 Test 1. Giving the date. Procedure. Ask the following questions in order. A. What day the week is it today? B, what month is it?

C. What day the month is it? D, what year is it? If the child misunderstands it gives us it. the day of the month or the day of the week or vice versa. We merely repeat the question with suitable emphasis but give no other help. Scoring. An error of three days in either direction is allowed for C, but A, B and D must all be given correctly. If the child makes an error and spontaneously corrects it, the change is allowed. But corrections must not be called for or suggested. Remarks. Bennett originally located this test in year 9, but

unfortunately moved it to year 8 in the 1911 revision. Goddard and Huey all retain it in year 9, where, according to our own data, it unquestionably belongs. With the exception of Binet's 1911 results, the statistics for the test are in remarkably close to agreement for children in France, Germany, England, and eastern and western United States. It seems that practically all children in civilized countries have ample opportunity to learn the divisions of the year, month and week, and to become oriented with respect to these divisions. Special instruction is doubtless capable of hastening time orientation to a certain degree, but not greatly. Binet tells of a French Ecole matronel,

attended by children four to six years of age, where instruction was given daily in regard to the date, and yet not a single one of the children was able to pass this test. This is a beautiful illustration of the futility of precocious teaching. In spite of well-meant instruction, it is not until the age of eight or nine years that children have enough comprehension of time periods and sufficient interest in them to keep very close track of the date. Failure to pass the test at the age of 10 or 11 years is a decidedly unfavorable sign unless the error is very slight. The fact that normal adults are occasionally unable to give the day of the month is no argument against the validity of the test, since the system of tests is so constructed as to allow for accidental

failures on any particular test. As a matter of fact, very nearly 100% a normal 12-year-old children pass this test. The unavoidable fault of the test is as lack of uniformity and difficulty at different dates. It is easier for school children to give the day of the week on Monday or Friday, then on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Mistakes in giving the day of the month are less likely to occur at any other time, while mistakes in naming the month are most likely to occur then. It is interesting to compare the four parts of this test to regard to difficulty. Benetton-Bubatag both state that the ability to name the year comes last, but they give no figures. Our own data show that the four parts of the test are of almost exactly the same difficulty, and that this is true of all ages. Test 2 Arranging 5 weights

Use the 5 weights 369, 12 and 15 grams Be sure that the weights are identical in appearance The weights may be made as described under Year 5 Test 1 Or they may be purchased of C.H Stollinger Code Chicago Illinois

If no weights are at hand One of the alternative tests may be substituted Procedure place the five boxes on the table in an irregular group before the child and say, see these boxes? They all look alike, don't they? But they are not alike. Some of them are heavy, some are not quite so heavy, and some are still lighter. No two weigh the same. Now I want you to find the heaviest one and place it here. Then find the one that is just a little lighter and put it here. Then put the next lighter one here and the next lighter one here,

and the lighters of all at this end, pointing each time at the appropriate. spot. Do you understand? Whatever the child answer is in order to make sure that he does understand, we repeat the instructions thus. Remember now, that no two weights are the same. Find the heaviest one and put it here. The next heaviest here, and lighter, lighter, until you have the very lightest here. Ready, go ahead. It is best to follow very closely the formula here given. Otherwise, there is danger of stating the directions so abstractly that the subject cannot comprehend them. A formula like, you to arrange the blocks in a gradually decreasing series according to weight would be

Greek to most children of 10 years. If the subject still seems at a loss to know what to do, the instructions may be again repeated, but no further help of any kind may be given. Do not tell the subject to take the blocks one at a time in the hand and try them, and do not illustrate by hefting the box yourself. It is a part of the test to let the subject find his own method. Give three trials, shuffling the boxes after each. Do not repeat the instructions before the second and third trials unless the subject has used in a insert procedure in the previous trial. Scoring

The test is passed at the blocks are arranged in the correct order twice out of three trials. Always record the order of arrangement and note the number and extent of displacement. Obviously an arrangement like 12-61539 is very much more serious than one like 1512-6-93. But we require that two trials be absolutely without error. Scoring is facilitated if the blocks are marked on the bottom

so that they may be easily identified. It is then necessary to exercise some care to see that the subject does not examine the bottom of the blocks for a clue as to the correct order. Remarks. Benet originally located this test in year 9, but in his 1911 revision changed it to year 8. Other revisions have retained it in year 9. The correct location depends upon the weights used and upon the procedure in scoring. Coleman uses weights of 3, 9, 18, 27, 36 and 45 grams, and this probably makes the test easier. Bobo Tag tried two sets of boxes, one set being of larger dimensions than the other. The larger gave decidedly the more errors. If we require only one success and three trials,

the test could be located a year or two lower in the scale, while three successes as a standard would require that it be moved upward possibly as much as two years. Much depends also on whether the child is left to find his own method, and on this there has been much difference or procedure. Common Bobatag and Welland illustrate the correct method of making the comparison by first hefting and arranging the weights while the subject looks on. We prefer to keep the tests in its original form, and with the procedure and scoring we have used it well located in year 9. While Ina carries his assistant still further by saying,

after the first block has been placed, now find the heaviest of the four, and after the second has been placed, now find the heaviest of the three, etc. Finally, when the arrangement has been made, he tells the subject to try them again to make sure the order is correct, allowing the subject to make whatever changes he thinks necessary. This procedure robs the test of its most valuable features. The experiment was not devised primarily as a test of sensory discrimination, for it has long been recognized that individuals who have developed as far as a nine or ten-year level of intelligence

are ordinarily but little below normal in sensory capacity. Psychologically, the test resembles that of comparing weights in Year 5, test one. Success depends in the first place, upon the correct comprehension of the task and the setting of a goal to be attained, secondly, upon the choice of a suitable method for realising the goal, and finally upon the ability to keep the end clearly in consciousness until all the steps necessary for its attainment have been gone through. Elementary as are the processes involved, they represent the prototype of all purposeful behavior. Their statesmen, the lawyer, the teacher, the physician, the carpenter, all in their own way and with their own materials are continually engaged in setting goals,

choosing means and inhibiting the multiduous appeals of irrelevant and distracting ideas. In this experiment, the subject may fail in any one of the three requirements of the test, or in all of them. One, he may not comprehend the instructions, and so be unable to set the goal. Two, though understanding what is expected of him, he may adopt an absurd method of carrying out the task, or three, he may lose sight of the end and begin to play with the blocks, stacking them on top of one another, building trains, tossing them about, etc. Sometimes a guiding idea is not completely lost, but is weakened or rendered only partially operating.

In such a case the subject may compare some of the blocks carefully, place others without trying them at all, but continue in his half-rational, half-irrational procedure until all the blocks have been arranged. It is essential, therefore, to supplement the mere record of success or failure by jotting down a brief but accurate description of the performance. Note any hesitation or inability to grasp the instructions. Note especially any absurd procedure, such as placing all the blocks without hefting any of them, comparing only some of them, holding them up and shaking them. and shaking them, hefting to it once in the same hand, etc. The ideal method, of course, is to try all the blocks carefully before placing any of them, and to make a tentative arrangement, and finally, to correct this tentative arrangement

by means of individual comparisons. A slight departure from this method does not always bring failure, but it renders success less probable. As a rule, it is only very intelligent children of ten years who think to test out their first arrangement by making a file and additional trial of each block in turn. to what might be supposed, success is slightly favoured by hefting the box successfully with one hand rather than by taking one in each hand for simultaneous comparison. But as the child cannot be expected to know this, we must regard the two methods as equally logical. The test of arranging weights has met universal praise.

Its special advantage is that it tests the subject's intelligence in the manipulation of things rather than his capacity for dealing with abstractions. It tests his ability to do something rather than his ability to express himself in language. It throws light upon certain factors of motor adaptation and practical judgment which play a great part in the everyday life of the average human being. It depends as little upon school perhaps as any other test of the scale, and it is readily usable with children of all nations without danger of being materially altered in translation. Moreover, it is always an interesting test for the child. Bobathe goes so far as to say that any eight or nine year old child who passes this test cannot possibly be feeble-minded. This may be true, but the converse is highly the case.

The failure of older children is by no means certain proof of mental retardation. The same observation, however, applies equally well to many other the Bennett tests, some of which correlate more closely with true mental age than this one. A rather considerable fraction of normal 12-year-olds fail on it, and it is in this fact somewhat less dependable on certain other tests if we wish to differentiate between nine-year and 11-year intelligence. But it is a test we could ill afford to eliminate. Test 3. Making change. Procedure. Ask the following question.

questions than the order you're given. A. If I were to buy 4 cents worth of candy and should give the storekeeper 10 cents, how much would I get back? B, if I bought 12 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 to help of pencil and paper. If the subject forgets the statement of the problem, it is permissible to repeat it once, but only once. The response should be made in 10 or 15 seconds for each problem.

Scoring The test is passed if 2 out of 3 problems are answered correctly in the allotted time. In case 2 answers are given to a problem, we follow the usual rule of counting the second ignoring the first. Remarks. Problems of this nature, when thoroughly standardized, are extremely valuable as tests of intelligence. The difficulty of the test, as we have used it, does not lie in the subtraction of 4 from 10,

12 from 15, etc. Such subtractions, when he given his problems in subtraction, are readily solved by practically all normal eight-year-olds who have attended school as much as two years. The problems of the test have a twofold difficulty. One, the statement of the problem must be comprehended and held in mind until the solution has been arrived at. Two, the problem is so stated that the subject must himself select the fundamental operation in which applies. The latter difficulty is somewhat the greater of the two. Addition is sometimes being employed instead of subtraction. It is just as such difficulties as this that proves so perplexing to the feeble-minded. High-grade defectives, although they require more than the usual amount of drill and are likely

to make occasional errors, are nevertheless capable of learning to add, subtract, multiply, and divide fairly well. The main trouble comes from deciding which of these operations are given problem cause for. They can master routine, but as regards initiative, judgment, and power to reason, they are little educable. The psychology and pedagogy of mental deficiency is epitomized in this statement. There has been little disagreement as to the proper location of the test of making change, but various procedures have been employed. Coins have generally been employed, in which case the subject is actually allowed to make the change. Most other revisions have also given only a single problem, usually four cents out of 20 cents, or four out of 25, or nine out of 25. It is evident that these

are not all of equal difficulty. There is general agreement, however, that normal children of nine years should be able to make simple change. Test 4. Repeating four digits reversed. The series are 6528-49-37-3629. Procedure and scoring, exactly as in Year 7, alternate test 2. Test 5. Using three words in a sentence. Procedure. The words used are A. Boy, Ball, River. Work, money, men. See, desert, rivers, lakes. Say, you know what a sentence is, of course? A sentence is made up of some words which say something. Now I'm going to give you three words, and you must make up a sentence that has all three words in it. The three words are, boy, ball, river. Go ahead and make up a sentence that has all three words in it.

The others are given in the same way. Note that the subject is not shown the three words written down, and that the reply is to be given orally. If the subject does not understand what is wanted, the instruction may be repeated, but it is not permissible to illustrate what a sentence is by giving one. There must be no preliminary practice. A curious misunderstanding, which is sometimes encountered, comes from assuming that the sentence must be constructed entirely of the three words given. If it appears that the subject is stumbling over this difficulty, we explain, the three words must be put with some other words so that all of them together will make a sentence. Nothing is said about hurrying, but if a sense, sentence is not given within one minute the rule is to count that part of the test a failure and to proceed to the next trio of words.

Give only one trial for each part of the test. Do not specially caution the child to avoid giving more than one sentence, as this is implied in the formula used and should be understood. Scoring The test is passed if two of the three sentences are satisfactory. In order to be satisfactory, a sentence must fulfill the following requirements. One, it must either be a simple sentence, or if compound must not contain more than two. distinct ideas, and two, it must not express that absurdity. Slight changes in one or more of the key words are disregarded, as river for rivers, etc. Scoring is difficult enough to justify rather extensive illustration. A. Boy Ball River. Satisfactory. An analysis of 128 satisfactory responses gave the following classification. One, simple sentence containing a simple subject

and a symbol 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% 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% of all were of this type.

3. A complex sentence containing a relative clause, 2% only, as the boy ran after his ball which was rolling toward the river. 4. A compound sentence containing two independent clauses, about 14% 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 emit one of the key words. 4. Silence. Due ordinarily to inability to comprehend the task. Group 1 includes 7.8% of the failures. Group 2, about 12% and group 3 and 4 about 5% 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 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% 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% of correct answers, as Men who work earn much money. It is easy for men to earn money if they're willing to work, etc. 3. A compound sentence with two independent coordinate clauses, 18% as men work and they earn money. Some men have money and they do not work.

Unsatisfactory. 1. 3 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. A mission 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% 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%, as, in the desert there was a river which flowed into a lake. 3. A compound sentence with two independent coordinate clauses. 11% as we went to the desert and had no rivers or lakes. 4. A compound complex sentence. 3% of all, as there was a desert and nearby there was a river that emptied into a lake. Unsatisfactory.

1. Sentences with three clauses, 40% of all failures, as a desert is dry, rivers are long, lakes are rough. 2. Sentences containing an absurdity 12% of all failures, as the desert, river and 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. A mission of one of the words, 40% of failures. 4. Inability to respond, 8%. Remarks The test of constructing a sentence containing given words was first used by Massalon and is known as the Massalon experiment. Newman, who used it in a rather extended experiment, finds it a good test of intelligence and a reliable index as to the richness, definiteness, and maturity of the associative processes.

As Muman shows, it is instructive to study the quantitative differences between the responses of bright and dull children, apart from questions of sentence structure. These differences are especially discernible in A, the logical question. qualities of the associations and B, the definiteness of statement. As regards A, bright children are much more likely to use the given words as keystones in the construction of a sentence which would be logically suggested by them. For example, donkey blows suggests some sentences the donkey receives blows because he is lazy. In the manner we have found that the words work money men usually suggest the more intelligent children a sentence like men work for their money or because they need money, etc.

While the dull child is more likely to give such a sentence as, the men have work and they don't have much money, that is, the sentence of the dull child, even though correct in structure and free from outright absurdity to satisfy the standard of scoring which we have set forth, is likely to express ideas which are more or less nondescript, ideas not logically suggested by the set of words given. The experiment is one of the many forms of the completion test,

or the combination method, as we have already noted. The power to combine more or less separate and isolated elements into a logical hole is one of the most essential features of intelligence. The ability to do in a given case depends, in the first place, upon the number and logical quality of the associations which have previously been made with each of the given elements separately, and in the second place, upon the readiness, with which these ideational stores yield up the particular associations necessary for weaving the given words into some kind of unity.

The child must pass from what is given to what is not given, but merely suggested. This requires a certain amount of invention. Scattered fragments must be conceived as a skeleton of a thought, and this skeleton, or partial skeleton, must be assembled and made whole. The task is analogous to that which confronts the paleontologist, who is able to reconstruct with a high degree of satinity, the entire skeleton of an extinct animal from the evidence furnished by three or four fragments of bones. It is no wonder, therefore, that subjects whose ideational stores are scanty and its associations are based upon accidental rather than logical connections, find the test one of peculiar difficulty. Invention thrives in a different soil. Binet located this test in year 10. Goddard and Coleman assigned at the same location, though their actual statistics agree closely with our own.

Our procedure makes the test somewhat easier than that of Binet, who gave only one trial and used the somewhat more difficult words, Paris River Fortune. Others have generally followed the Binet procedure, merely substituting for Paris the name of a city better known to the subject. Binet's requirement of a written response also makes the test harder. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to uniformity in the use of the test comes from the difficulty of scoring, particularly in deciding whether the sentence contains enough absurdity to disqualify it, and whether it expresses three separate ideas or only two. It is hoped that the rather large variety of sample responses which we have given will reduce these difficulties to a minimum. An additional word is necessary in regard to what constitutes an absurdity in B,

a sentence like, There are some rivers and lakes in the desert, is not an absurdity in certain parts. parts of western United States. In Professor Ordel's test at Reno, Nevada, many children whose intelligence was altogether above suspicion gave this reply. The statement is indeed perfectly true for the semi-arid region in the vicinity of Reno known as the desert. On the other hand, such sentences as, the desert is full of rivers and lakes, or, there are 40 rivers and lakes in the desert, can hardly be considered satisfactory. Similar difficulties are presented by sea, though not so frequently. Men who work do not have money expresses, unfortunately, more

truth than nonsense. Test 6. Finding rhymes. Procedure. Say to the child, you know what a rhyme is, of course. A rhyme is a word that sounds like another word. Two words rhyme if they end in the same sound, understand. Wherever the child says he understands or not, we proceed to illustrate what a rhyme is as follows. Take the two words, hat and cat. They sound alike, and so they make a rhyme. Hat, rat, cat, all rhyme with one another. That is, we first explain what a rhyme is, and then we give an illustration. A large majority of American children, who have reached the age of nine years, understand perfectly what a rhyme is without any illustration.

A few, however, think they understand, but do not, and in order to ensure that all are given equal advantage, it is necessary never to admit the illustration. After the illustration say, Now I am going to give you a word, and you will have one minute to find as many words as you can that rhyme with it. The word is day. Name all the words you can think of that rhyme with day. If the child fails with the first word, before giving the second, we repeat the explanation and give sample rhymes for day. Otherwise, we proceed without further explanation to Mill and Spring, saying,

Now you have another minute to name all the words you can think of that rhyme with Mill, etc. Apart from the mention of one minute, saying nothing to suggest hurrying as this tends to throw some children into mental confusion. Scoring Passed even two out of the three parts of the experiment, the child finds three words which rhyme with the word given. The time left for each series being one minute. Note that in each case there must be three words in addition to the word given. These must be real words, not meaning the syllables or made up words. However, we should be liberal enough to accept such words as ding from ding dong, for spring,

Jill, see Jack and Jill for Mill, Faye, girl's name, for day, etc. Remarks At first though at first though at seem that the demands made by this test upon intelligence could not be very great. Sound associations between words may be contrasted unfavorably with associations like those of cause and effect, part to whole, whole to part, opposites, etc. But when we pass from a priori considerations to an examination of the actual data, we find that the giving of rhymes

is closely correlated with general intelligence. The nine-year-olds who test that are above ten years nearly always do well in finding rhymes, while nine-year-olds who test is lower eight years seldom pass. When a test thus shows high correlation with the scale as a whole, we must either accept the test as valid or eject the scale altogether. While the people-minded do not do as well in this test as normal children of corresponding mental age, the percentage of success for them rises rapidly between mental age 8 and mental age 10 or 11. Closer psychological analysis of the processes involved will show why this is true. Define rhymes for a given word means that one must hunt out verbal associations under the direct direction of a guiding

idea. Every word has innumerable associations and many of these tend in greater or less degree to be aroused when this stimulus word is given. In order to succeed with the test, however, it is necessary to inhibit all associations which are not relevant to the desired end. The directing idea must be held so firmly in mind that it will really direct the thought associations. Besides acting to inhibit the irrelevant, it must create a sort of magnetic stress to borrow a figure from physics, which will give dominance to those associative tendencies pointing in the right direction. Even the feeble-minded child of imbecile grade has in his vocabulary a great many words which rhyme with day, Mill and Spring. He fails on the test because his verbal associations cannot be subjugated to the influence of a directing idea.

The end to be attained does not dominate consciousness sufficiently to create more than a faint stress. Instead of a single magnetic pole, there is a conflict of forces. The result is either chaos or partial success. Mill may suggest Hill, and then perhaps the directing idea becomes suddenly inoperative, and the child gives Mountain Valley or some other. irrelevant association. The lack of associations, however, is a more frequent cause of failure than inability to inhibit the irrelevant. If anyone supposes that finding rhymes does not draw upon the higher mental powers, let him try the experiment upon himself in various stages

of mental efficiency, say at 9 a.m., when mentally refreshed by a good night of sleep, and again when fatigued and sleepy. Poets questioned by Galton on this point all testified to the greater difficulty of finding rhymes when mentally fatigued. In this and in many other respects, the mental activities of the fatigued or sleepy individual approach the type of meditation which is normal to the feeble-minded. It is important to note that adults make a less favourable showing in this test than normal children of corresponding mental age. Mr. Noel learns hobos of 12-year intelligence doing hardly as well as school children of 10-year intelligence. Those who are habitually employed in school exercises probably acquire an adeptness in verbal associations,

which is latter gradually lost in the preoccupations of real life. There has been more disagreement as to the proper location of this test than any other test at the Bennett scale. Bennett placed it in Year 12 with the 1908 scale but shifted to Year 15 in 2011. Coleman retains it in Year 12 while Godd drops it down to Year 11. However, when we examine the actual statistics for normal children, we do not find any marked disagreement and such disagreement as is present can be largely accounted for by variations in procedure and by different conclusions drawn from identical data. In the first place, Bennett gave but one trial.

This of course makes the test much harder than when three trials are given and only two successes are required. To make one trial equal in difficulty to three trials, we should perhaps need to demand only two rhymes instead of three in the one trial. In the second place, the word used by Binet, obvious sense is much harder than one-syllable words like Day, Mill and Spring. Finally, the wide shift of the test from year 12 to year 15 was not justified by the statistics of Bennett himself. And the figures of Coleman and Goddard are really in

exceptionally close agreement with their own, norwithstanding the fact that Goddard required three successes instead of two. In four series of tests, considered together we have found 62% passing at year 9, 81% at year 10, 83% at year 11, and 94% at year 12. Alternative test 1. Naming the months. Procedure. Simply ask the subject to name all the months of the year. Do not start him off by naming one month. Give no look of approval or disapproval as the months have been named and make no suggestions or comments of any kind. When the months have been named, we check up the performance by asking what month comes before April, what month comes before July? What month comes before November? Scoring. Past if the months are named in about

15 or 20 seconds with no more than one error of omission, repetition or displacement. And if two out of three, check questions or answered correctly, disregard place of beginning. Remarks. Some are inclined to consider this test of little value because of its supposed dependence on accidental training. With this opinion we cannot fully agree. The argument is already given in favour of the retention of naming the days of the week, Year 7, apply equally well in the present case. It has been shown, however, that age, apart from intelligence, does have some effect on the ability to name the months. Defective adults of nine-year intelligence do about as well with it as normal children of 10-year intelligence. The test appears in Year 10 of Binets's 1908 scale and Year 9 of the 1911 revision.

Goddard places it correctly in Year 9 while Coleman and Bobatog have omitted it. Alternative Test 2. Counting the value of stamps. Procedure. Place before the subject, a cardboard which are pasted 3.1.3.3.2 cents arranged as follows. 1.1-2-2-2. Be sure to lay the card so that the stamps will be right side up for the child. say, You know, of course, how much a stamp like this costs, pointing to a one-cent stamp. And you know how much one like this costs, pointing to the two-cent stamp? Now, how much money would it take to buy all these stamps?

Do not tell the individual values of the stamps if these are not known, for it is part of the test to ascertain whether the child's spontaneous curiosity has led him to find out and remember their values. If the individual values are known, but the first answer is wrong, a second trial may be given. In such cases, however, it is necessary to be. be on guard against guessing. If the child merely names an incorrect sum without saying anything to indicate how he arrived at his answer, it is well to tell him to figure it up aloud.

Tell me how you got it. Scoring. Passed it the correct value is given in not over 15 seconds. Remarks. The value of this test may be a question on two grounds. One, that it has an ambiguous significance, since failure to pass it may result either from incorrect addition or from lack of knowledge of the individual values of the stamps. 2.

That familiarity with stamps and their value is so much a matter of accident and special instruction that the test is not fair. Both criticisms are in a measure valid. The first, however, applies equally well to a great many useful intelligence tests. In fact, it is only a minority in which success depends on but one factor. The other criticism has less weight than would it first appear. While it is, of course, not impossible for an intelligent child to arrive at the age of nine years without having had reasonable opportunity to learn the cost of the common postage stamps.

The fact is that a large majority have had the opportunity and that most of those of normal intelligence have taken advantage of it. It is necessary, once more, to emphasize the fact that in its method of locating a test, the Bennett system makes ample allowance for accidental failures. Like the tests of naming coins, repeating the names of the days of the week or the months of the year, giving the date, tying a bow knot, distinguishing right and left, naming the colors, etc. This one also throws light on the child's spontaneous interest in common objects.

It's mainly the children of division intellectual curiosity who do not take the trouble to learn these things at somewhere near the expected age. The test was located in year 8 at the Bennett scale. However, Binet used coins, three single and three double sous. Since we do not have either a half cent or a two cent coin, it has been necessary to substitute postage stamps. This changes the nature of the test and makes it much harder. It becomes less the test of ability to do a simple sum and more a test of knowledge as

to the value of the stamps used. That the test is easy enough for year rate, when it can be given in the original form is indicated by all the French, German and English statistics available, but four separate series of Stanford tests agree in finding it too hard for year eight when stamps are substituted and the tests carry out according to the procedure described above. End of Chapter 15 of the Measurement of Intelligence. Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 16 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Termin.

This is a Librevox recording, all Librevox recordings from the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Librivox.org. Recorded by Leon Harvey Chapter 16 Instructions for Year 10 Test 1 Vocabulary 30 definitions 5,400 words

Procedure and scoring as in Year 8, test 6 At year 10, 30 words should be correctly defined. Test 2. Detecting Absurdities Procedure See to the child I am going to read a sentence which has something foolish in it, some nonsense.

I want you to listen carefully and tell me what is foolish about it, then read the sentences, rather slowly and in a matter-of-fact voice, saying after each, what is foolish about that? The sentences used are the following. A, a man said, I know a road from my house to the city, which is downhill all the way to the city, and downhill all the way back home. B, an engineer said that the more cars he had in his train,

the faster he could go. C, yesterday, the police. police found a body of a girl cut into 18 pieces. They believe that she killed herself. D. There was a railroad accident yesterday, but it was not very serious. Only 48 people were killed. A bicycle rider, being thrown from his bicycle in an accident, struck his head against the 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 30 seconds. If the child is silent, the sentence should be repeated, but no other questions or suggestions of any kind are permissible.

questions as could the road be downhill both ways or do you think the girl could have killed herself would of course put the answer in the child's mouth. It is even best to avoid laughing as the sentence is read. Owing to the child's limited power of expression it is not always easy to judge from the answer given whether the absurdity has really been detected or not. In such cases ask him to explain himself using some such formula as I am not sure I know what you mean. Explain what you mean. Tell me what is foolish in this sentence I read. This usually brings a reply the correctness or incorrectness of which is more apparent,

while at the same time the formula is so general that it affords no hint as to the correct answer. Additional questions must be used with extreme caution. Scoring Passed if the absurdity is detected in four out of the five statements. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory answers. A. The road downhill. Satisfactory If it was downhill to the city, it would be uphill coming back.

It can't be downhill both directions. That could not be. That is foolish, explained, 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 you talk 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 would slip at the tongue. That's the way it would be if he was going downhill. Foolish, because the cars don't help port 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 18 pieces. She would have been dead before that. She might have cut two or three pieces off, but she couldn't have do the rest. Laughing. Well, she made a bit of. killed herself but if she did it it's a sure thing that someone else came long after

and chopped her up that policeman must have been a fool explain to think that she could chop herself into 18 pieces unsatisfactory think that she killed herself they know she did they can't be sure someone 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 let to know what you would call a serious accident.

It would say was not serious if two or three people were killed, but 48, that is serious. Unsatisfactory. It was a foolish mistake that made the accident. They couldn't help it. It wasn't an accident. It might have been worse. Nothing foolish. It's just sad.

C. The bicycled 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 to a graveyard. Unsatisfactory.

Foolish to fall off 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 could cure him if he isn't hurt very bad. There's nothing foolish in that.

Remarks. The detection of absurdities is one of the most ingenious and serviceable tests of the entire scale. It is little influenced by schooling, and it comes nearer than any other to being a test of that species of mother wit, which we call common sense. Like the comprehension questions, it may be called a test of judgment, using this term in the colloquial and not in the logical sense. The stupid person, whether depicted in literature, proverb, or the ephemeral joke column, is always, and justly, it would seem, characterized by a huge tolerance for absurd contradictions, and by blunt sensitivity for the fine points of a joke.

Intellectual discrimination and judgment are inferior. The ideas do not cross-slide each other but remain relatively isolated. Hence, the most absurd contradictions are swallowed, so to speak, without arousing the protest of the critical faculty. The latter indeed is only a name for the tendency of intellectually irreconcilable elements to clash. If there is no clash, if the elements remain apart, it goes without saying that there will be no power of criticism. The critical faculty begins its development in the early years

and strengthens Pari Paso with the growing wealth of interassociations among ideas, but in the average child it is not until the age of about 10 years that it becomes equal to tasks like those presented in this test. Eight-year intelligence hardly ever scores more than two or three correct answers out of five. By 12, the critical ability has so far developed that the test is nearly always passed. It is an invaluable test for the higher grades of mental deficiency. As a test of the critical power has been at first used trap questions. as, for example, is snow red or black? The results were disappointing, for it was found that owing to timidity, deference, and suggestibility,

normal children often failed on such questions. Deference is more marked in normal than in feeble-minded children, and it is because of the influence of this trait that it is necessary always to forewarn the subject that this sentence to be given contains nonsense. Bennett located the test in Year 11 of the 1908 scale, but changed it to U-10 in 1911. Goddard and Coleman retained it in year 11. The large majority of the statistics, including those of Goddard and Coleman, warrant the location of the test in the U-10.

Not all have used the same absurdities, and these have not been worded uniformly. Most have required three successes out of five, but Bobatag and Coleman require three out of four. Bobatag's procedure is also different in that he does not forewarn the child. than absurdity is to follow. The present form of the test is a result of three successive refinements. It will be noted that we've made two substitutions in Bennett's list of absurdities. Those emitted from the original scale are, I have three brothers, Paul, Ernest and myself.

And, if I were going to commit suicide, I will not choose Friday because Friday is an unlucky day and would bring me misfortune. The last has a puzzling feature which makes it too hard for year 10, and the other is objectionable with children who are accustomed to hear a foreign language, in which the form of expression used in an absurdity is idiomatically correct. The two we have substituted for these objectionable absurdities are, the road downhill and what the engineer said. The five we have used, though of nearly equal difficulty,

are here listed in the order from easiest to hardest. Our series as a whole is slightly easier than binnets. Test three. Drawing designs from memory. Procedure Use the designs shown on the accompanying printing. form. If copies are used, they must be exact in size and shape. Before showing the card, say, this card is two drawings on it. I'm going to show them to you for 10 seconds, then I will take the card away and let you draw for memory what you have seen. Examine both drawings

carefully and remember that you only have 10 seconds. Provide pencil and paper, and then show the card for 10 seconds, holding it at right angles to the child's line of vision and with the designs in the position given in the plate. Have the child draw the designs immediately after they are removed from sight. Scoring. The test is passed if one of the designs is reproduced correctly and the other about half correctly. Correctly means that the essential plan of the design has been grasped and reproduced. Ordinary irregularities to use a lacrimotor skill or to hasty execution are disregarded. Half correctly means that some essential part of the design has been omitted or misplaced or that parts have been added. The sample reproduction is shown on the scoring

card will serve as a guide. It will be noted that it will be noted that it is a an inverted design, or one whose right and left sides have been transposed, is counted only half correct, however perfect it may be in the other respects. Also, that design B is counted only half correct if the inner rectangle is not located off centre. Remarks. Binet states that the main factors involved in success are attention, visual memory, and a little analysis. The power of rapid analysis would seem to be the most important, for if the designs are analysed, they may be reproduce from a verbal memory of the analysis. Without some analysis, it would hardly be possible to remember the designs at all, as one of them contains 13 lines and the other 12. The memory span

for unrelated objects is far too limited to permit us to grasp and retain that number of unrelated impressions. Success is possible only by grouping the lines according to their relationships, so that several of them are given in unitary value and remembered as one. In this manner, the design to the right, which is composed of 12 lines, may be reduced to four elements. 1. The outer rectangle. 2. The inner rectangle. 3. The offstander position of the inner rectangle. 4. The joining of the angles. Of course the child does not ordinarily make an analysis as explicit as this, but analysis of some kind, even though it be unconscious, is necessary to success. Ability to pass the test indicates the presence, in a certain definite amount, of the tendency for the contents of consciousness to fuse into a meaningful whole.

failure indicates that the elements have maintained their unitary character or are fused inadequately. It is seen, therefore, that the test has a close kinship with the test of memory for sentences. The latter also permits the fusion or grouping of impressions, according to meaning, and the result that five or six times as many meaningful syllables as nonsense syllables or digits can be retained. Bennett had many more failures on design A than on design B. This was probably due to the fact that he showed the designs without B to the left. A majority of subjects, probably because of the influence of reading habits, examine the first figure to the left, and because the short time allowed for the inspection, are unable to devote

much time to the design at the right, where it placed the design of greater interesting difficulty at the left, with the result that the failures are almost equally divided between the two. Bennett used this test, in his unstandardised series of 1905, omitted it in 1908, but included it in the 2011 revision, locating it in year 10, except for Goddard, who recommends year 11, there is rather general agreement that the test belongs at year 10. Our own data show that it may be placed either at year 10 or year 11, according as the grading is rigid or lenient.

Test 4. Reading for 8 Memories Material We use Bennett selection slightly adapted as follows. New York, September 5th. A fire last night burned three houses near the centre of the city. It took some time to put it out. The loss was $50,000 and 17 families lost their homes. a girl who was asleep in bed, a fireman was burned on the hands.

The copy of the selection used by the subject should be printed in heavy type, and should not contain the bars dividing it into memories. The Stanford Record booklet contains the selection in two forms, one suitable for use in scoring, the other in heavy type to be read by the subject. Procedure. Hand the selection to the subject, who should be seated comfortably in a good light, and say, I want you to read this for me as nicely as you can. The subject must be read loud.

Pronounce all the words which the subject is enabled to make out, not allowing more than five seconds hesitation in such a case. Record all errors made in reading the selection and the exact time by error is meant the omission, substitution, transposition, or mispronunciation of one word. The subject is not warned in advance that he will be asked to report what he has read, but as soon as he has finished reading, put the selection out of sight and say, Very well done, now I want you to tell me what you read. begin at the first and tell me everything you can remember. After the subject has repeated everything you can recall and has stopped, say,

and what else? Can you remember it any more of it? Give no other aid of any kind. It is of course not permissible when the child stops to prompt him with such questions as, and what next. Where were the houses burned? What happened to the fireman, etc. The report must be spontaneous. Now and then, though not often, a subject hesitates or even refuses to try, saying he is unable to do it. Perhaps he has misunderstood the requests and he 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 or you can remember of it. Others misunderstand in a different way, and thinking they are expected to tell merely what the story is about. They say, it was about some houses that burned. In such cases, we repeat the instructions with special emphasis on the words all you can remember.

Scoring The test is passed if the same. selection is read in 35 seconds with not more than two errors, and if the report contains at least eight memories, by underscoring the memories correctly reproduced and by interrelations to show series departures from the text, the record can be made complete with the minimum of trouble. The main difficulty in scoring is to decide whether memory has been reproduced correctly enough to be counted.

Absolutely literal reproduction is not expected. The rule is to count all memories whose thought is reproduced with only a mind. a minor change in the wording. It took quite a while instead of it took some time. It's satisfactory. Likewise, got burnt for was burned, who was sleeping for who was asleep, are homeless for lost their homes, in the middle for near the centre, big fire for a fire, etc. Memories as badly mutilated as the following, however, are not counted. A lot of buildings for three houses, a man for a fireman, who was sick for who was asleep, etc. Occasionally we may give half credit, as in the case of was $17,000 for, was $50,000, and 15 families for, and 17 families, etc. Remarks Are we warranted in using it all as a measure of intelligence, a test which depends as much on instruction as this one does?

Many are inclined to answer this question in the negative. The test has been omitted from the revisions of Goddard, Coleman, and Bennett himself, as regards Bennett's earlier test of reading for two memories. there could hardly be any difference of opinion. The ability to read at that age depends so much on the accident of environment that the test is meaningless unless we know all about the conditions which have surrounded the child. The use of the test in year 10 however is a very different matter. There are comparatively few children of that age who will fail to pass it for lack of the requisite school

instruction. Children of 10 years who have attended school with reasonable regularity for three years are practically always able to read the selection in 35 seconds and without over two mistakes unless they are retarded almost to the borderline of mental deficiency. Of our 10-year-olds who failed to meet the test, only a fourth did so because of inability to meet the reading requirements as regards time or mistakes. The remaining failures were caused by inadequate report, and most of these subjects were of the distinctly retarded group. We may conclude, therefore, that given anything approaching normal educational advantages, the test is really a measure of intelligence. Used with due caution is perhaps as valuable as

any other test in the scale. It is only necessary in case of failure to ascertain the facts regarding the child's educational opportunities. Even this precaution is superfluous in case the subject tests as low as eight years by the remainder of the scale. A safe rule is to omit the test from the calculation of mental age if the subject has not attended school the equivalent of two or three years. It is being contended by some that tests of which success depends upon language mastery cannot be real tests of intelligence. By such critics, language tests have been set over against intelligence tests as contrasting opposites. It is easy to show, however, that this view is superficial and psychologically unsound. Everyone who has an acquaintance with the facts of mental

growth knows that language mastery of some degree is a sign qua non of conceptual thinking. Language growth, in fact, mirrors the entire mental development. There are a few more reliable indications of a subject's stage of intellectual maturity than his mastery of language. The rate of reading, for example, is a measure of the rate of association. Letters become associated together in certain combinations making words. Words into word groups and sentences. Recognition is for the most part an associative process. Rapid and accurate association will mean ready recognition of the printed form. Since language units, whether letters, words or word groups, have more or less preferred associations according to their habitual arrangement into larger units, it comes about than in the normal mind,

under normal conditions, these preferred sequences arouse the apersetive complex necessary to make a running recognition rapid and easy. It is reasonable to suppose that in the subnormal mind, the habitual common associations are less firmly fixed, thus diminishing the effectiveness of the ever-changing a-presetive expectancy. Reading is, therefore, largely dependent of what James calls the fringe of consciousness and the consciousness of meaning. In reading-connected matter, every unit is big with a massive tendencies. The smaller and more isolated the unit, the greater is a number of possibilities. Every added unit acts as a modifier limiting the number of tendencies until we have finally, in case of a large

mental unit, a fairly manageable whole. When the most logical and suitable these associations arise easily from subconsciousness to consciousness recognition is made easy, and their doing so will depend on whether their habitual relations of the elements have left permanent traces in the mind. The reading of the subnormal subject bears a close analogy to the reading of nonsense matter by the normal person. It has been ascertained by experiment that such reading requires about twice as much time

as the reading of connected matter. This is true for the reason that if thousands of associations possible with each word no particular association is favoured, their perceptive expectancy practically nil in the reading of nonsense material must be decidedly deficient in all poor reading. Furthermore, in the case of the ordinary

reader, there is a feeling of rightness or wrongness about the thought sequences. That less intelligent subjects have this sense of fitness to a much less degree is evident by their passing of words so mutilated in pronunciation as to deprive them of all meaning. The transposition of letters and words and the failure to observe marks of punctuation points to the same thing. In other words, all the reading of stupid subject is with material which to him is more and less nonsensical. A little observation will convince one that mentally retarded subjects, even when they

possess a reasonable degree of fluency in recognising printer words do not sense shades of meaning. Their reading is by small units. Words and phrases do not fuse into one mental content, but remain relatively unconnected. The expression is monotonous and the voice is more of their unnatural schoolroom pitch. They read more slowly, more often misplace the emphasis, and miscall more words. In short, one who is psychological insight and is acquainted with reading standards can easily detect the symptoms of intellectual inferiority by hearing a dull subject, reading, a brief selection. The giving of memories is also significant.

Feeble-minded adults, who have been well-schooled, are sometimes able to call the words of the text fairly fluently, but are usually unable to give more than a scanty report of what has been read. The scope of attention has been exhausted in the mere recognition and pronunciation of words. In general, the greater than mechanical difficulties which are subject encounters, the less adequate of his report of memories. The test has, however, one real fault. School children have a certain advantage in it over older persons of the same mental age whose school experience is less recent.

Adult subjects tend to give their report in less literal form. It is necessary, therefore, to give credit for the reproduction of the ideas of the passage, rather than for strictly literal memories. The selection we have used is, with minor changes, the same as Bennett's. His selection was divided into 19 memories. One here given has 21 memories. Bennett used the test both in Year 8 and Year 9, requiring, two memories at year eight and six memories at year nine. When we require eight memories,

as we have done, the test becomes difficult enough for non-selected school children of 10 years. Location in year 10 seems preferable because it ensures that the child will almost certainly have had the schooling requisites for learning to read a selection of this difficulty, even if he has started to school at a later age than is customary. Naturally, placing the test high in the scale makes it more a test of a report unless a test of ability to recognize and pronounce printed words. Test 5. Comprehension, fourth degree. The questions for this year are, A, what ought you to say when someone asks your opinion

about a person you don't know very well? B, what ought you to do before undertaking, beginning, something very important? C. Why should we judge a person more by his actions than by his words? The procedure is the same as for the previous comprehension tests. Each question may be repeated, but its form must not be changed. It is not permissible to make any explanation whatever as to the meaning of the question, except a substitute beginning for undertaking when B seems not to be comprehended. Scoring Two out of the three questions must be answered satisfactorily.

Study of the following classified responses should make schooling very easy in most cases. A. When someone asks your opinion. Satisfactory I would say I don't know him very well. 42% of correct answers. Tell him what I know and know more. 34% of correct answers.

I would say that I'd rather not express any opinion about him. 20% of the correct answers. Tell him to ask someone else. I would not express any opinion. Unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory responses are due either to failure to grasp the important 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 not 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 going to say, I'm going to 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 someone 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 proprietary of doing it. Think whether it would be best to do it. see whether it would be possible. About 65% of the correct responses belong either to group 1 or 2, about 20% group 3 and most of the remainder in group 4.

Unsatisfactory responses are of the following types. 1. Due to mistaking the import of the question, A.G., ask for it, or to say please, ask who it is. Replites of this kind can be newly 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 would 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 buys words. Satisfactory responses fall into the following classes. One, words and deeds both mention and contrasted in reliability, has actions speak louder than words. This in 8% of successes. You can tell more he buys actions than buys 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 why you do that counts. Talk is cheap. When he does a thing, you can believe it. People don't do everything they say. man might still, but talk like a nice man. Over 45% of all correct responses belong to group 1. 2. Acts are 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% 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. contains 15% 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% of the correct responses. Unsatisfactory responses are usually due to inability to comprehend the meaning of the question.

If there is 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 simple 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 who 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 afterwards, be sorry for it, etc. The last four are nearer correct than the others, but they four just showed at expressing the essential contrast. Remarks. For discussion of the comprehension questions, as a test of intelligence, see page 158. Bennett used eight questions. Three easy and five difficult, and required that five out of eight be answered correctly in

year 10. The eight were as follows. One, what do you do when you have missed your train? Two, when you have been struck by playmate, etc. Three, when you have broken something, etc. Four, when about to be late for school. Five, 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 someone 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 you 10. Question 6 is hard enough for year 12. We have admitted it because it was not needed and is not entirely satisfactory. Test 6. Naming 60 words Procedure. Say, now I want to see how many different words you can name in three minutes. When I say ready, you must begin and name the words as fast as you can, and I will count them.

Do you understand? Be sure to do your very best, and remember that just any words will do, like clouds, dog, chair, happy. Ready, go ahead. The instructions may be repeated if the subject does not understand what is wanted. As a rule, the task is comprehended instantly and entered into with grace. Do not stare at the child and do not say anything as the test proceeds unless there is a pause of 15 seconds. In this event say, go ahead as fast as you can. Any words will do. Repeat this urging after every pause of 15 seconds. Some subjects, usually rather intelligent ones, hit upon the device of counting or putting words together in sentences.

We then break in with counting or sentences as the case may be not allowed. You must name separate words, go ahead. record the individual words if possible and mark the end of each half minute. If the words are named so rapidly that they cannot be taken down, it is easy to keep the count by making a pencil stroke for each word. If the latter method is employed, repeated words may be indicated by making a cross instead of a single stroke. Always make record of repetitions. Scoring The test is passed if 60 words, exclusive or repetitions are named in three minutes. It is not

allowable to accept 20 words in one minute or 40 words in two minutes as an equivalent of the expected score. Only real words are counted. Remarks. Scoring, as we have seen, takes account only of the number of words. It is instructive, however, to note the kind of words given. Some subjects, more often those of the eight or nine year intelligence level, give mainly isolated, detached words. As well stated by Binnet, little children exhaust an idea in naming it. They say, for example, hat, then pass on to another word without noticing that hats differ in color, in form, that various parts, different uses and accessories, and that enumerating all these, they could find a large number of words. Others quickly take advantage of such relationships, and name many parts

of an object before leaving it, or name a number of other objects belonging to the same class. Hat, for example, suggests cap, hood, coat, shirt, shoes, stockings, etc. Pencil suggests book, slate, paper, desk, ink, map, schoolyard, teacher, etc. Responses of this type may be made up of ten or a dozen plainly distinct word groups. Another type of response consists in naming only objects present, or words which present objects immediately suggest. It is unfortunate that this occurs since rooms in which testing has done varies so much with respect to furnishings. The subject who chooses this method is obviously handicapped at the room. room is relatively bare. One way to avoid this influence is to have all subjects name the words

with eyes closed, but the distraction thus caused is sometimes rather disturbing. It is perhaps best for the present to adhere to the original procedure and to follow the rule of making tests in room containing few furnishings in addition to the necessary table and chairs. A fourth type response is that including a large proportion of unusual or abstract words. This is the best of all, and is hardly ever found except with subjects who are above the 11-year intelligence level. It goes without saying that a response need not belong entirely to any one of the above types. Most responses, in fact, are characterized by a mixture of two or three of the types, one of them perhaps being dominant.

Though not without its shortcomings, the test is interesting and valuable. Success in it does not, as one might suppose, depends solely upon the size of vocabulary. Even eight-year-olds ordinarily know the meaning of more than 3,000 words, and by ten years the vocabulary usually exceeds five thousand words, or eighty times as many as the child is expected to name in three minutes. The main factors in success are two. One, richness and variety of previously made associations with common words, and two, the readiness of these associations to reinstate themselves. The young or the retarded subjects fishes in the ocean of his vocabulary with a single hook, so to speak. He brings up each time only one word.

The subject endowed with superior intelligence employees, Annette, the idea of a class, for example, and brings up half-dozen words or more. The latter accomplishes a greater amount and with less effort, but it requires intelligence and willpower to avoid wasting time with detached words. One is again and again astonished at the poverty of associations which this test discloses with retarded subjects. For 20 or 30 seconds, such children may be unable to think of a single word. It would be interesting if at such periods we could get. get a glimpse into the subject's consciousness. There must be some kind of mental content, but it seems too vague to be crystallized in words. The ready association of thoughts with definite words connotes a relatively high degree of intellectual advancement.

Language forms are the shorthanded thought. Without facile command of language, thinking is vague, clumsy, and ineffective. Conversely, vague mental content entails language shortage. Occasionally a child of 11 or 12 year intelligence will make a pause showing in this test. When this happens, it is usually due either to excessive embarrassment or to a strange persistence in running down all the words of a given class before launching out upon a new series. Occasionally, too, an intelligent subject wastes time in thinking up a beautiful list of big or unusual words. As stated by a bugle tag, success is favoured by a certain amount of intellectual non-challance, a willingness to ignore sense and a readiness to break away from a train of associations as soon as the point of diminishing returns has been reached.

This doubtless explains why adults sometimes make such a surprisingly poor showing in the test. They have less intellectual nonchalance than children, are less willing to subordinate as such considerations as completeness and logical connection to the demands of speed. No one's unemployed men of 12 to 13 year intelligence succeeded no better than school children of the 10-year level. We do not believe, however, that this fault is serious enough to warrant the elimination of the test. The fact is that in a large majority of the, cases the score which it yields agrees fairly closely with the results of the scale as a whole. Subjects more than a year or two below the mental age of 10 years seldom succeed.

Those more than a year or two above the 10 year level seldom fail. There is another reason why the test should be retained. It often has significance beyond that which appears in the mere number of words given. The naming of unusual and abstract words is an instance of this. An unusually large number of repetitions has symptomatic significance in the other. direction. It indicates a tendency to mental stereotypy so frequently encountered in testing the feeble-minded. The proportion of repetitions made by normal children of the 10 or 11-year intelligence level rarely exceeds 2 or 3% of the total number of words named. Those of older

retired children of the same level occasionally reach 6 or 8%. It is conceivable, of course, that a more satisfactory test of this general nature could be devised, such, for example, as having the subject name all the words he can of a given class. footed animals things to eat, articles of household furniture, trees, birds, etc. The main objection to this form of the test is that the performance would in all probability be more influenced by environment and formal instruction than in the case with the test of naming 60 words. One of the matter remains to be mentioned, namely the relative number of words named in the half-minute periods. As would be expected, the rate of naming words decreases as the test proceeds.

In the case of the 10-year-molds, we find the average number of words for the six successive half minutes to be as follows. 18, 12.5, 10 and a half, 9, 8.5, 7. Some subjects maintain an almost constant range throughout the test. Others rapidly exhaust themselves, while the very few make a bad beginning and improve as they go. As of all, it is only the very intelligent to improve after the first half-minute. On the other hand, mentally retarded subjects and very young normals exhaust themselves so quickly that only a few words are named in the last minute. Bennett first located this test in year 11, but shifted to year 12 in 1911.

Goddard and Coleman retained it in year 11, though Goddard statistics suggest year 10 as the proper location, and Coleman even suggests year 9. Coleman, however, accepts 50 words as satisfactory in case the response contains a considerable proportion of abstract or unusual words. All the American statistics except Rose agree in showing that the test is easy enough for year 10. Alternative test 1. Repeating six digits. The digit series used are 374-859 and 521-746.

The procedure and scoring are the same as in Year 7, test 3, except that only two trials are given, one of which must be correct. The test is somewhat too easy for year 10 when three trials are given. The test repeating six digits did not appear in the BIT scale and seems not to have been standardized until inserted in the Stanford series. Alternative test two, repeating 20 to 22 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 1 o'clock.

The house is very quiet and the cat is 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 Year 6 Test 6. Remarks It is interesting to note that five years of mental growth are required to pass from the ability to repeat 16 or 18 syllables, year 6, to the ability to repeat 20 to 22 syllables. Similarly, in memory for digits, five digits are almost as easy at year 7 as 6 at Year 10. Two explanations are available. One.

The increased difficulty may be accounted for by a relatively slow growth of memory power after the age of six or seven years. Or two, the increase in difficulty may be real expressed an inner law as to the behaviour of the memory span in dealing with material of increasing length. Both factors are probably involved. This is another of Stanford additions to the scale. Average children of 10 years ordinarily pass it, but older, retired children of 10-year mental age make a poorer showing. In the case of mentally retarded, adults especially, the verbal memory is less exact than that of school children of the same mental age. Alternative Test 3 Constructing a puzzle, Helion Fernholt

Material Use the form board pictures on page 279. This may be purchased of C.H. Stirling and Co., Chicago, Illinois. A homemade one will do as well if care is taken to get the dimensions exact. Quarter inch wood should be used. The inside of the frame should be 3 by 4 inches, the dimensions of the blocks should be as follows. 1 inch and 3 inch 16th by 3, 1 by 1.5, 1 by 2 and 3 1 by 1 1.5, 1 and 1 1⁄2. Procedure. Place the frame on the table before the subject,

the short side nearest him. The blocks are placed in an irregular position on the side of the frame away from the subject. Take care that the board with the blocks in the place is not exposed to view in advance of the experiment. Say, I want you to put these points in the subject. blocks in this frame so that all the space will be filled up. If you do it rightly, they will all fit in and there will be no space left over. Go ahead. Do not tell the subject to see how quickly you can do it. Say nothing that would even suggest hurrying, for this tends to call forth the trial and error procedure, even with intelligent subjects. Scoring. The test is passed that the child succeeded in fitting the blocks into place three times in a total of five minutes for the three

trials. The method of procedure is fully as important as the time, but is not so easily scored in quantitative terms. Nevertheless, the examiner should always take observations on the method employed, noting especially any tendency to make and to repeat moves which lead to obvious impossibilities, i.e. moves which leave a space obviously unfitted to any of the remaining pieces. Some subjects repeat an absurd move many times over. Others make an absurd move, but promptly correct it. Others, and these are usually the bright ones, look far enough ahead to avoid error altogether. Remarks

This test was devised by Professor Freeman, was adapted slightly by Helium Phrenald, and was first standardized by Dr. Coleman. Miss Gertrude Hall has also standardized it, but on a different procedure from that described above. The test has a lower correlation with intelligence than most of the tests at the scale. Many bright children of 10-year intelligence adopt the trial and error method and have little success. While retired older children of only eight-year intelligence sometimes succeed. Age, apart from intelligence, seems to play an important part in determining the nature of the performance. A favorable feature of the test, however, is the fact that it makes no demand

on language ability, and that it brings to play an aspect of intelligence which is relatively neglected by the remainder of the scale. For this reason, it is at least worth keeping as an alternative test. End of Chapter 16 of the Measurement of Intelligence. Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 17 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Termin. This is a Librivox recording. All Libby Vox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibreFox.org.

Recorded by Leon Harvey. Chapter 17. Instructions for Year 12 Test 1. Vocabulary, 40 definitions, 7,200 words. Procedure and scoring. As in previous vocabulary tests, in this case 40 words must be defined. Test 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 you mean by pity? And so on with the other words. If the meaning of the response is not clear, ask the subject to explain what he means. If the definition is in terms of the word itself, as pity someone, revenge is it to take

revenge, etc. is then necessary to say, yes, but what does it mean to pity someone? Or, what does it mean to take revenge, etc. Only supplementary questions of this kind are permissible. Scoring. The test is passed if three of the five words are satisfactorily defined. The definition need not be strictly logical, nor the language elegant. It is sufficient if the definition shows that the meaning of the word is known. Definitions which are defined by means of an illustration are acceptable. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses. A. Pity. Satisfactory.

3. To be sorry for someone. To feel compassion. To have sympathy for a person. To feel bad for someone. 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 trap and give him something to eat. If someone is in trouble and you know how it is, how it feels to be in that condition, you pity him. You see something that's wrong and have your feeling aroused. Of 180 correct responses, 85 or 65% defined pity as to feel sorry for someone, or words to that effect, less than 10% 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 someone. 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 a 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% of 120 correct answers, to pay it back, or to do something back in 20%, to get back on him in 17%. About 8% were illustrations. Unsatisfactory. To be mad, you try to hurt them, to fight, to hate a person, to kill them. It means

hateful, to try again, to think evil of someone, to hate someone who is done your wrong, to let a person off, to go away from something. Inability to reply accounts for a little over 40% 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 incorrect replies, 72% were worded substantially like the first or second given above.

Unsatisfactory. A person who helped you. 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, 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. means love, is also minus if the statement cannot be further explained and is merely wrote memory of the passage in the 13th chapter of the 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 someone who is something you want. It's the way you feel when you see someone with something nicer than you have. It's when a poor girl sees a rich girl with nice dresses and things. You You hate someone 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. Do hate someone or simply to hate. You don't like them.

Bad feeling towards anyone. To be a great man or woman. not to be nice to people. What we do are to our enemies. Inability to respond accounts for 55% 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, that everyone have what's coming to him. To do the right thing. thing by anyone. If two people do the same thing and they let one go without punishment, that is not

justice. Approximately 38% of 102 correct responses referred to treating everybody the same way, 25% doing the square thing, 12% were concrete illustrations, and 4% 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 less 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 should be urged to explain further what he means. To do right includes nearly 12% of all answers, and is given by the very brightest children.

Most of these are able, when urged, to complete the definition in a satisfactory manner. Remarks The reader may be surprised that the ability to define common abstract words should develop so late. Most children who have had anything like ordinary home or school environment, how doubtless heard all of these words countless times before the age of 12 years. Nevertheless, the statistics from the test show unmistakably that before this age such words have but limited and vague meaning. Other vocabulary studies confirm this fact so completely that we may say there is hardly any trait

in which 12 to 14 year intelligence more uniformly excels that of the nine or or 10-year level. This is readily understandable when we consider the nature of abstract meanings and the intellectual processes by which we arrive at them. Unlike such words as tree, house, etc. The ideas they contain are not the immediate result of perceptual processes, in which even childish intelligence is adept, but are a refined and secondary product of relationships between other ideas.

They require the logical processes of comparison, abstraction, and generalization. One cannot see justice, for example, but one is often confined. with situations in which justice or injustice is an element and give a certain degree of abstraction and generalization. Out of such situations, the idea of justice will gradually be evolved. The formation and use of abstract ideas of one kind of another represent par excellence, the higher thought processes. It is not without significance that delinquents who test near the borderline of mental deficiency shows such inferior ability in arriving at correct generalizations regarding matters of social, and moral relationships.

We cannot expect a mind of defective generalising ability to form very definite or correct notions about justice, law, fairness, ownership rights, etc. And if the ideas themselves are not fairly clear, the rules of conduct based upon them cannot make a very powerful appeal. Bennett used the words charity, justice and kindness, and required two successes. In the 1911 revision, he shifted the test from Year 11 to Year 12, where it more than nearly belongs. Goddard also places it in year 12 and uses Bennett's words, translating bont, however, as goodness instead of kindness. Coleman retains the test in year 11 and

has bravery and revenge, requiring three correct definitions out of five. Boba Tag uses pity, envy and justice, requires two correct definitions, and finds the test just hard enough for year 12. After using the words goodness and kindness in two series of tests, we have discarded them as objectionable in that they give rise to so many doubtful definitions. Even intelligent children often say, goodness means to do something good, kindness means to be kind to someone, etc. These definitions in a circle occur less than half as often with pity, revenge and envy, which are also superior to charity and justice in this respect. The relative difficulty of how five words is indicated by the order of which we have listed them in the test, i.e. beginning with the easiest and ending with the

hardest. On the standard of three correct definitions, these words fit very accurately in year 12. Test 3. The ball and field test superior plan. Procedure, as in year age, test 1. Scoring. Score 3 or superior plan is required for passing in year 12. Test 4. Dissected sentences. The following disarranged sentences are used. For the started and we, country, early. at hour. 2 asked, paper, my, teacher, correct, I, my. A. defends dog, good, his, bravely, master. These should be printed in type like that used above.

The Stanford record booklet contains the sentences in convenient form. It is not permissible to substitute written words or printed script, as that would make the test harder. All the words should be printed in caps in order that no clue shall be given as to the first word in a sentence. For a similar reason, the period is omitted. Procedure. Say, here is a sentence that has the words all mixed up so that they don't make any sense. If the words were changed around in the right order, they would make a good sentence. Look carefully and see if you can tell me how the sentence ought to read. Give the sentences in the order in which they listed in the

record booklet. Do not tell the sidetrack to see how quickly he can do it, because with this test, any suggestion of hurrying is likely to produce a kind of mental paralysis. If the subject has no success with the first sentence in one minute, read it off correctly for him, somewhat slowly, and pointing to each word as it is spoken. Then proceed to the second and third, allowing one minute for each. Give no further help. It is not permissible in case an incorrect response is given to ask the subject to try again, or to say, Are you sure that it is right? Are you sure you have not left out any words, etc.?

Instead, maintain absolute silence. However, the subject is permitted to make his many changes in his responses he sees fit, provided he makes them spontaneously and within the allotted time. Record the entire response. Once in a great while, the subject misunderstands the task and thinks the only requirement is to use all the words given, and that it is permitted to add as many other words as he likes. It is then necessary to repeat the instructions and to allow a new trial. Scoring

Two sentences out of the three must be correctly given within the minute of the line. lotter to each. It is understood, of course, that if the first sentence has to be read for the subject, both the other responses must be given correctly. A sentence is not counter-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 objectional as regards sentence structure, or else fail to give the exact meaning intended. These are given half-credit. Full credit on one and half-credit on each of the other two is satisfactory, that following our samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses. A. Satisfactory. We started for the country

at an early hour. At an early hour we started for the country. We started at an early hour for the country. Unsatisfactory. We started early at an hour for the country. Early at an hour we started for the country. We started early for the country. Half credit. For the country at an early hour we started. For the country we started at an early hour. B. Satisfactory. I asked my teacher to correct my paper. Unsatisfactory. My teacher asked to correct my paper. To correct my paper, I asked my teacher.

Half credit. My teacher I asked to correct my paper. C. Satisfactory. A good dog defends his master bravely. A good dog bravely defense his master. Unsatisfactory. A dog defense is master bravely. A bravely dog defense his master.

A good dog defense his bravely master. A good brave dog. defends his master. Half credit. A dog defends his good master bravely. A dog bravely defends his good master. A good master bravely defends his dog. Remarks. This is an excellent test. It involves no knowledge which may not be presupposed at the age in which it is given, and success therefore depends very little on experience. The worse that can be urged against it is that it may possibly be influenced to a certain extent by the amount of reading the subject has done, but this This has not been demonstrated.

At any rate, the test satisfies the most important requirement of a test of intelligence, namely, the percentage of successes increases rapidly and steadily from the lower to the higher levels of mental age. This experiment can be regarded as a variation of the completion test. Bennett tells us in fact that it was directly suggested by the experiment of Eppingos. As will readily be observed, however, it differs to a certain extent from the Ebinger's completion test. Ebbingals omits part of a sentence and requires the subject to supply the

emissions. In this test, we give all the parts and require the formation of a sentence by rearrangement. The two experiments are psychologically similar in that they require the subject to relate given fragments into a meaningful whole. Success depends upon the ability of intelligence to utilize hints or clues, and this in turn depends on the logical integrity of the associated processes. All by the highest grade of the feeble-minded fail with this test. This test is found in Year 11 of Binance's 1908 series, and year two years. 12 of his 1911 revisions. Goddard and Coleman retain it in the original location. That it is better placed in year 12 is indicated by all the available statistics with normal children except those of Goddard.

With the exception, the results of various investigators for year 12 are in remarkably close agreement as to the following figures will show. Percent passing at year 12. Binet 66. Colman 68. Bobatag, 78. Doherty, 64. Strong, 72. Le Vista Moral, Semeny, Stanford Series 1911, 62, Stanford series 1913, 57, Stanford series 1914, 62, Princeton Data 61. This agreement is noteworthy, considering that no two experiments seem to have used exactly the same arrangement of words, and that some have presented the words of a sentence in a single line, others in two or three lines. A single line would appear to be somewhat easier.

Test 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 into a deep rush. 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 your oxen.

Then he went away and left the driver. B. The milkmaid and her plants. A milkmaid was carrying her pail of milk on her head and was thinking to herself thus. The money for this milk will buy four hens. The hens will lay at least 100 eggs. The eggs will produce at least 75 chicks, and with the money with which the chicks will bring I will buy a new dress to wear instead of the ragged one I have on.

At this moment she looked down to herself trying to think how she would look in a 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 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 stalk A farmer set some traps to catch cranes Which had been eating his seed With them he caught a stalk

The stalk which had not really been stealing Baked the farmer to spare his life Saying that he was a bird of excellent character That he was not like all the cranes And that the farmer should have pity on him But the farmer said I've 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 neighbouring 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 foot when one of them might be riding? The old man hearing this made his son get on the donkey while 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 doggy himself. Father 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 them jumped to the ground, got some ropes, tied the donkey's legs to a pole, and tried to carry him. But as they crossed the bridge the donkey became frightened, kicked loose, and fell into the stream. Procedure. Present the fables in the order in which they are given above. The method is to say to the subject, You know what a fable is? You have heard fables? Whatever the answer, proceed to explain a fable as follows.

A fable, you know, is a little story, and is meant to teach us a lesson. Now I'm going to read a fable to you. Listen carefully, and when I am through, I will ask you to tell me what lesson the fable teaches us. Ready, listen. After reading the fable say, What lesson does that teach us? Record the response for BADM and proceed with the next as follows. Here is another. Listen again and tell me what lesson this fable teaches us, etc.

As far as possible, avoid comment or commendation until all the fables have been given. If the first answer is of an inferior type and we express too much satisfaction with it, we thereby encourage the subject to continue in his error. On the other hand, never expressed his satisfaction with a response, however absurd or malab proboscis it may be. Many subjects are anxious to know how well they are doing and continuously ask, did I get that one right? It is sufficient to say you were getting along nicely or something to that effect. Often no comments, suggestions or questions which might put the subject on the right track. This much self-control is necessary if we would make the

conditions of the test uniform for all subjects. The only occasion when a supplementary question is permissible is in the case of a response whose meaning is not clear. Even And then we must be cautious and restrict ourselves to some such question as, What do you mean or explain? I don't quite understand what you mean. The scoring of Fables is somewhat difficult at best, and this additional question is often sufficient to place a response very definitely in the right or wrong column. Scoring Give score two, i.e. two points, for a correct answer, and one for an answer which deserves

half credit. The test is passed in year 12 if four points are earned, that is if two responses are correct, or if one is correct and two deserve half credit. Score two means that the fable has been correctly interpreted and that the lesson it teaches has been stated in general terms. There are two types of responses which may be given half credit. They include, one, the interpretations which are stated in general terms and are fairly plausible, but are not exactly correct,

and two, those which are perfectly correct as to substance, but are not generalized. We overlook ordinary faults of expression and regard merely the essential meaning of the response. The only way to explain the method is by giving copious illustrations. If the following sample responses are carefully studied, a reasonable degree of expertness in scoring fables may be acquired with only a limited amount of actual practice. The sampling may appear to the reader needlessly prolicks, but experiences taught us that in giving directions for the scoring of tests error always lies on the side of taking too much for granted.

A. Hercules and the Wagoner. Full credit, score 2. God helps those who help themselves. Do not depend on others. Help yourself before calling for help. It teaches that we should rely on ourselves. The following are not quite so good, but it nevertheless considers 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 one. This is most often given for the respect. bonds 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 zero. Failures are mainly of five varieties. One, generalised interpretation. which entirely missed the point. Two, crude interpretations, which not only missed the point, but also stated in terms of the concrete situation.

Three, irrelevant or incoherent remarks. Four, efforts to repeat the story and five, inability to respond. Simple 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 to 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 interpretation 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 anyone who was stuck in the mud, taught Hercules to help the horses along and not to 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 anyone 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. Ebbets to repeat the story and type 5. inability to respond

B The maid and the eggs Full credit score 2 teaches us not to build air carsels Don't count your chins 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 Until you have done the first Half credit score 1 It teaches us not to have our minds on the future When we can carry milk on the head She was building air castles and she lost her milk. She was planning too far ahead. The response has just given our 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 of what we are doing. Don't cross a bridge till you come to it. Don't count your eggs before they are had. Not to be wanting things. Learn to wait. Not to imagine, go ahead and do it. Unsatisfactory score zero. Type 1. Entirely incoherent 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. Teachers 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 a better look out for people who brag on us. Half credit, scored a one. Correct idea in concrete terms. McCrow was so proud of herself that she lost all she had.

McCrow 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 zero. 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, teach his honesty, not to covert, think for yourself, teach as wisdom. Never listen to advice. Never let anyone 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 have just shaken her head. It served the crow right for stealing the meat. The fox wanted the meat. And just told her. with the crow that to get it. Foolishness. Guess us 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 stalk. Full credit score 2. You are judged by the company you keep. Teaches us to keep out of bad company. Birds of a feather flocked together. If you go with bad people, you were counted like them. We should choose our friends carefully. Don't go with bad people.

teaches us to avoid the appearance of evil. Half credits, score 1. The stalk 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 zero. Type 1. In 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 two very crude interpretations in concrete terms taught the stalk to look where it's step and not walk into a trap taught the stalk 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 stalk right. He was stealing too. He should try to help the stalk 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 everyone'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 anyone'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 generalised. They were fools to listen to everybody.

They should have walked or rode just as they thought best, without listening to other people. Unsatisfactory is 40, type 1. Incorrect generalisation. 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. Do have sympathy for beasts of burden, to be good-natured, not 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 interpretation stated in concrete terms. Not to try to carry the donkey, that walking is better than riding, the people should have be 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 were to have stayed on And they would not have fallen into the stream It teaches about a man And he lost his donkey Type 4

Efforts to repeat the story Type 5 inability to respond Remarks The Fable Test or the Test of Generalization As it may aptly be named Was used by the writer in a study of the intellectual processes of Brighton Doll Boys in 1905. It was further standardized by the writer and Mr. Childs in 1911.

It has proved its worth in a number of investigations. It has been necessary, however, to simplify the rather elaborate method of scoring, which was proposed in 1911, not because of any logical fault of the method, but because of the difficulty in teaching examiners, the use of the system correctly. The method explained above is somewhat coarser, but it has the advantage of being much easier to learn. The generalization test presents for interpretation situations which are closely paralleled in the everyday social experience of human beings. It tests the subject's ability to understand motives underlying acts or attitudes, gives a clue to the status of the social consciousness.

This is highly important in the diagnosis of the upper range of mental defectiveness. The criterion of the subnormal's fitness for life outside an institution is his ability to understand social relations and to adjust himself to them. Failure of a subnormal to meet this criterion may lead him to break common conventions and to appear disrespectful, sulky, stupin, or in some other way queer and exceptional. He is likely to be misunderstood, because he so easily misunderstands others. The skein of human motives is too complex for his limited intelligence to untangle. Ethnological studies have shown in an interesting way the social origin of the moral judgment. The rectitude of the moral life, therefore, depends on the accuracy of the social judgment. It would be interesting to know what proportion of offenders have transgressed moral codes

because of continued failure to grasp the essential lessons presented by human situations. For the intelligent child, even the common incidents of life carry an endless succession of lessons in right conduct. On the average school playground, not an hour passes without some happening, which is fought with a moral hint to those who have intelligence enough to generalize the situation. A boy plays unfairly and is barred from the game. One bullies his weak companion and arouses the anger and scorn of all his fellows. Another vince is brigadicchio and feels at once the withering scorn of those who listen. Laziness, selfishness, meanness, dishonesty, ingratitude, inconstancy, inordinate pride,

and the countless other faults all have their social penalties. The child of normal intelligence sees the point. draws the appropriate lesson and provided emotions and will are also normal applies it more or less effectively as a guide to his own conduct to the feeble-minded child all but lacking in the power of abstraction and generalization this situation conveys no such lesson but it is a muddle of concrete events without general significance or even if its meaning is vaguely apprehended the powers of inhibition are insufficient to guarantee that right action will follow It is for this reason that the generalization test is so valuable in the mental examinations of delinquents. It presents a moral situation, imagined, to be sure, but nonetheless real to the individual of normal comprehension. It tells us quickly whether the subject tested is able to see beyond the incidence of the given situation and to grasp their wider relations, whether he is able to generalize the concrete. The following responses made by feeble-minded delinquents from 16 to 21 years of age demonstrate sufficiently their inner

inability to comprehend the moral situation. Hercules and the wagoner teaches you to look where you were going, not to help anyone 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. Teach us the stork to look where he steps. Not to be cruel like the farmer. Not to tell lies. Not to button other people's things.

To be kind to birds. Teach us how to get rid of troubles and people. Never go with anything else. The following are responses of an 18-year-old delinquent intelligence level 10 years to the five fables. Maiden eggs. She was thinking about getting the dress and spilled the milk. teaches selfishness.

Hercules and the waggoner. He wanted to help the oxen out. Fox and crow. Guess it's whether fox got his name, old Foxy. Don't teach us anything. Farmer and Stork. Try and help the stalk out of the field. Miller, son and donkey.

They was all big fools and mean to the donkey. One does not require a very profound psychological insight to see that a person of this degree of comprehension is not promising material for moral education. His weakness in the ability to generalize, a moral situation is not due to lack of instruction, but is inherent in the nature of his mental processes, all of which have the infatile quality of average nine or ten-year intelligence. Well-instructioned, normal children of ten years ordinarily succeed no better.

The ability to draw the correct lesson from a social situation is little developed below the mental level of 12-13 years. The test is also valuable because it throws light on the subject's ability to appreciate the finer shades of meaning. The mentally retarded often showing marked in the subject. inferiority in this respect. They sense perhaps, in a general way, the trend of the story, but they fail to comprehend much that to us seems clearly expressed. They do not get what is left for the reader to infer because they are insensible to the thought fringes. It is these

which give meaning to the fable. The dull subject may be able to image the objects and activities described, but taken in the rough such imagery gets him nowhere. Finally, the test is almost free from the danger of coaching. The subject who has been given a number of fables along with 25 or 30 other tests can, as a rule, give only hazy and inaccurate testimony as to what he has been put through. Moreover, we have found that, even if a subject has previously heard a fable, that fact does not materially increase his chances of giving our correct interpretation. If the situation depicted in the fable is beyond the subject's power of comprehension, even explicit instruction, has little effect upon the quality of the response. Incidentally,

This observation raises a question, whether the use of proverbs, motos, fables, poetry, etc., in the moral instruction of children may not often be futile because the material is not fitted at the child's power of comprehension. Much of the school's instruction in history and literature has a moral purpose, but there is reason to suspect that in this field schools often make precarious attempts in generalizing exercises. Test 6. Repeating 5 digits reversed.

The series are 3187. 9, 69482, 52961, procedure and scoring, exactly as in year 7 and 9. Test 7. Interpretation of Pictures Procedure Use the same pictures as in Year 3 Test 1 and Year 7 Test 2 and the additional picture D. Present in the same order. The formula to begin with is identical with that in year 7, 2. Tell me what this picture is about. What is this a picture of? This formula is chosen

because it does not suggest specifically either description or interpretation, and is therefore adapted to show the child's spontaneous or natural motive of perception. However, in case this formula fails to bring spontaneous interpretation for three of the four pictures, we then return to those pictures on which the subject has failed and give a second trial with the formula explain this picture. A good many subjects who fail to interpret the picture spontaneously do so without difficulty when the more specific formula is used. If the response is so brief as to be difficult to classify, the subject should be urged to amplify by some such injunctions as go ahead or explain what you mean. One more caution. It is necessary to refrain from

voicing a single word of commendation or approval until all the pictures have been responded to. A moment's thought will reveal the absolute necessity of adhering to this rule. Often the subject will begin by giving an inferior type of response, description say, to the first picture, but with the second picture adjusts better to the task and response satisfactorily. If in such a case the first unsatisfactory response was created with an approval, that's fine you were doing splendidly, the likelihood of any improvement taking place as the test proceeds will be greatly lessened. Scoring Three pictures out of four must be satisfactorily interpreted.

Satisfactory means that the interpretation given should be reasonably plausible, not necessarily the exact one the artist had in mind, yet not absurd. The following classified responses will serve as a fairly secure guide for scoring. A Dutch home. Satisfactory Child has spilled something and is getting a scolding. The baby has hurt herself and the mother is comforting her. The baby is crying because she is hungry and the mother has nothing to give her.

The little girl has been naughty and is about to be. 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 mama 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 the mama 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 are loping 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 are 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 were 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 the 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 love or event quarrelled 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 pitch to show how people dress 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. Doub 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 rubs are reading about a circus that's going to come. D. Napoleon leaving his wife. Sometimes these imaginative responses are given by very bright subjects under the impression that they are asked to make up a story based on the pictures. We may score them plus, provided they are not too much out of harmony with the situation and actions represented in the picture. Interpretation so gratuitous as to have little or no bearing upon the scene depicted should be scored minus.

Remarks The test of pictures interpretation has been variously located from 12 to 15 years. It cannot be too strongly emphasized at that everything depends on the nature of the pictures' use. used, the form in which the question is put, and the standard of scoring. The Jingleman Jack pitchers used by Coleman are as easy to interpret at 10 years as the Stanford pitches at 12. Bontaneous interpretation, what is this a picture of, or what do you see in this picture, comes to more readily at 14 years than provoked interpretation, explain this picture at 12.

The standard of scoring is no less important. If with the Stanford pitchers, we require three satisfactory responses out of four, the test belongs at the 12-year level. But the standard of two correct out of four can be met a year or two earlier. Even after we have agreed upon a given series of pictures, the formula for giving the test, and upon the requisite number of passes, there remains still the questions as to the proper degree of liberality in deciding what constitutes interpretation. There is no single point in mental development where the ability to interpret pictures

sweeps in with a rush. Like the development of most other abilities, it comes by in slow degrees, beginning even as early as six years. The question is therefore to decide whether a given response contains as much and as good interpretation as we have a right to expect at the age level where the test has been placed. It is imperative for anyone who would use the scale correctly to acquaint himself thoroughly with the procedure and standards described above. Test 8.

Giving similarities 3 things. Procedure The procedure is the same as in Year 8, Test 4, but with the following words. A. Snake, cow, sparrow. B. Book, teacher, newspaper. C. Wool, cotton, leather. D. Knife blade, penny, piece of wire. E. Rose potato, tree. As before, a little tactful urging is occasionally necessary in order to secure a response. Scoring Three satisfactory responses out of five are necessary for success. Any real similarities

is acceptable, whether fundamental or superficial, although the giving of fundamental likenesses is especially symptomatic of good intelligence. Failures may be classified into four heads. One, leaving one of the words out of consideration. Two, giving a difference instead of a similarity. Three, giving a similarity that is not real or that is too bizarre or far-fetched. And four, inability to respond. Types 1, 3 and 4 are almost equally numerous, while type 2 is not often encountered at this

level of intelligence. This test provokes doubtful responses, somewhat oftener than the earlier test of giving similarities. Those giving greatest difficulty are the indefinite statements like, all are useful, all are made of the same material, etc. Fortunately, in most of these cases, an additional question is sufficient to determine whether the subject has in mind a real similarity. suitable for this purpose are, explain what you mean. In what respect, are they all useful? What material do you mean, etc.? Of course, it is only permissible to make use of supplementary

questions of this kind when they are necessary in order to clarify a response which has already been made. While the amateur examiner is likely to have more or less trouble in deciding upon scores, this difficulty rapidly disappears with the experience. The following samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses will serve as a fairly adequate guide in dealing with doubtful cases. A. Snake, cow, sparrow. Satisfactory. All are animals, or creatures, etc. All live on 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 blood. All get about the same way.

All walk on the ground. All can bite. All hollow. 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.

Or 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, or read. All use the alphabet. See? Wool, cotton, leather. Satisfactory. All used for clothing. We wear them all.

All grow. Plus if subject can explain. All have to be sent at the factory to be made into things. All are useful. Plus, if subject can give a use which they will 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 material. 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. 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 that are useful is minus unless a subject can give a use which they have in common, which in this case he is not lucky to do. Bizarre uses are also minus as all are good for a watchfob. Can use all for paperweights, 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 colours. Unsatisfactory. All are pretty.

All bear fruit. All have pretty flowers. All grow on bushes. All are valuable or useful. They grow close to a house. All are ornamental. All are shrubbery. Remarks

The words of each series lend themselves readily to classification into a next higher class. This is the best type of response, but with most of the series it accounts for less than two-thirds of the success among subjects of 12-year intelligence. Their proportion is less than one-third for subjects of 10-year intelligence and nearly three-fourths at the 14-year level. It would be possible and very desirable to devise and standardize an additional test of this kind, but requiring the giving of an essential resemblance or class-year level. satisfactory similarity.

For discussion of the psychological factors involved in similarity's test, see Year 8, test 4. End of Chapter 17 of the Measurement of Intelligence, read by Leon Harvey. Chapter 18 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. This is a Librivox recording. All Libbyvox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Librevox.org. Recorded by Leon Harvey. Chapter 18. Instructions for Year 14.

Test 1. Vocabulary. 50 definitions, 9,000 words. Procedure and scoring. As in year 8, year 10 and year 12. At year 14, 50 words must be correctly defined. Test 2. Induction test, finding a rule. Procedure. Provide 6 sheets of thin black blackboard. paper, say 8.5 by 11 inches. Take the first sheet and telling the subject to watch what you do, fold it once. And in the middle of the folded edge, tear out or cut out a small notch,

then ask the subject to tell you how many holes there will be in the paper when it is unfolded. The correct answer, 1, is nearly always given without hesitation, but whatever the answer, unfold the paper and hold it up broadside for the subject's inspection. Next, take another sheet. Fold it once as before and say, Now, when we folded it this way and tore out a piece, you remember it made one hole in the paper. This time we will give the paper another fold

and see how many holes we shall have. Then proceed to fold the paper again, this time in the other direction, and tear out a piece from the folded side and ask how many holes there will be when the paper is unfolded. After recording the answer, unfold the paper.

holds it up before the subject so as to let him see the result. The answer is often incorrect, and the unfolded sheet is greeted with the exclamation of surprise. The governing principle is seldom made out at this stage of the experiment, but regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the first and second answers, proceed with the third sheet. Fold it once and say, When we folded it this way, there was one hole. Then fold it again and say,

And when we folded it this way, there were two holes. At this point, fold the paper a third hole. third time and say, now I'm folding it again. How many holes will it have this time when I unfold it? Record the answer and again unfold the paper while the subject looks on. Continue in the same manner with sheets four of five and six, adding one fold each time. In folding each sheet, recapitulate the results with the previous sheets, saying with six, for example, when we folded it this way, there was one hole. When we folded again, there were two. When we folded it again, there were four, when we folded it again, there were eight.

When we folded it again, there were 16. Now tell me how many holes there will be if we folded once more. In the recapitulation, avoid the expression, when we folded it once, twice, three times, etc. As this often leads the subject to double the numeral herd instead of doubling the number of holes in the previously folded sheet, after the answer is given, do not fail to unfold the paper and let the subject view the result.

scoring the test is passed if the rule is grasped by the time the sixth sheet is reached that is the subject may pass another five incorrect responses provided the six is correct and the governing rule can then be given it is not permissible to ask for the rule until all six parts the experiment have been given nothing must be said which could even suggest the operation of a rule often however the subject grasped the principle after two or three steps and gives it spontaneously in this case it is unnecessary to proceed with the remaining steps. Remarks. This test was first used by the writer in a comparative study of the intellectual processes of Brighton Dull Boys in 1905, but it was not standardized until 1914. Rather extensive data indicate that it is a genuine test of intelligence. Of 14-year-old school children testing between 96 and 105 IQ, 59% passed this test, of 14-year-olds testing below 96 IQ, 41% passed. Of Most testing above 105, 71% passed, that is, the test agrees well with the results obtained by the scale as a whole.

Of average adults, only 10% fail. Of the superior adults, fewer than 5%. As a rule, the higher the grade of intelligence, the few are the steps necessary for grasping the rule. Of the superior adults, only 35% fail to get the rule as early as he ended the fourth step. The test is little affected by schooling, and apart from differences in individuals in intelligence, it is little influenced by age. Other advantages of the test are the keen interest it always arouses and its independence of language ability. It is being used successfully with

immigrant subjects who had been in this country but a few months. We have named the experiment the induction test. It might be supposed that the solution would ordinarily be arrived at by deduction, or by an a-priority logical analysis of the principle involved. This, however, is rarely the case. Not one average adult out of 10 reasons out the situation in this purely logical manner. It is ordinarily only after one or more mistakes have been made and have been exposed by the examiner holding up the unfolded paper to view that the correct principle is grasped. In the absence of deductive reasoning, the subject must note that each unfolded sheet contains twice as many holes as the previous one and must infer that following the paper again will again double the number.

The ability tested is the ability to generalize from particulars where the common element of the particulars can be discerned only by the selective action of attention. In this case, attention to the fact that each number is the double of its predecessor. Test 3. Giving differences between a president and a king. Procedure. Say, there are three main differences between a president of a king. What are they? If the subject stops after one difference is given, we urge him on, if possible, until three are given. Scoring The three differences relate to power, tenure, and manner of ascension. Only these differences are considered correct, and the successful response must include at least two of the three.

We disregard crudities of expression and note merely whether the subject has the essential idea. As regards power, for example, any of the following responses are satisfactory. The king is absolute and the president is not. The king rules by himself, but the president rules with the help of the people. kings can have things their own way more than presidents can, etc. It may be objected that the reverse of this is sometimes true, that the king today often has less power than the average president. Sometimes subjects mention this fact,

and when they do, we credit them with this part of the test. As a matter of fact, however, the answer is seldom given. Sometimes the subject does not stop until he is given a half dozen of more differences, and in such cases the first three differences may be trivial and some of the latter ones essential. The question then arises whether we should disregard the errors and pass the subject on his later correct responses. The rule in such cases is to ask the subject to pick out the three main differences. Sometimes ascension and tenure are given in the form of a single contrast as the president is elected but the king inherits his throne in rules for life. This answer entitles the subject to credit for both

sentient tenure, the contrast of regards tenure being plainly implied. Unsatisfactory contrasts are of many kinds and are often amusing. Some of the most common are the following. A king wears a crown. A king has jewels. A king sits on a throne. A king sets on a thorn, as one fable-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 in 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 laws. Everybody works for a king. It is surprising to see how often trivial differences like the above are given. About 30 average adults out of 100, including high school students, give at least one unsatisfactory contrast. The test has been criticized as depending too much on schooling.

The criticism is to a certain extent valid when the test is used with young subjects, say of 10 or 12 years. It is not valid, however, if the use of the test is confined to all the subjects. With the latter, it is not a test of knowledge, but of the discriminative capacity to deal with knowledge already in the position of the subject. It would be difficult to find an adult, not actually feeble-minded, who is ignorant of the facts called for, that the king inherits his throne. while the president is elected, that the tenure of the kings for life and the president for

a term of years. Their kings ordinarily have, or are supposed to have more power. Even the relatively stupid adult knows this, but he also knows that kings are different from presidents, in having crowns, thrones, palaces, robes, courtiers, larger pay, etc. And he makes no discrimination as regards the relative importance of these differences. The test is psychologically related to that of giving differences in Year 8. And to the two tests are finding similarities, but it differs from these in requiring a comparison based on fundamental, rather than accidental distinctions. The idea is good and should be worked out in additional tests of the same type.

The test first appeared in the Binet-Rovice scale of 1911. Cullman emits it, and besides our own there are a few statistics bearing on it. Our results show that if two essential differences are required, the test belongs where we have placed it, but if only one essential difference is required, the test is easy enough for year 12. Test 4. Problem questions Procedure

Say to the subject, listen and see if you can understand what I read. Then read the following three problems, rather slowly and with expression, pausing after each long enough for the subject to find an answer. A. A man who was walking in the woods near his 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 blank. A what?

B. My neighbour has been having queer visitors. First the doctor came to his house, then a lawyer, then a minister, preacher or priest. What do you think happened there? C. An Indian who would come to town for the first time in his life saw a white man riding along the street. As a white man rode by, Indian said, The white man is lazy. He walks sitting down.

What was the white man writing on that cause you need to say he walks sitting down? Do not ask questions calculated to draw out the correct response, but wait in silence for the subject's spontaneous answer. It is permissible, however, to reread the passage if the subject requests it. Scoring. Two responses out of three must be satisfactory. The following explanations and examples will make clear the requirements of the test. 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 is 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 is, 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 bird, an eagle, a bird's nest, a hornet's nest, a leaf, a swig, 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. Someone 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 the damages, and then he died

and the preacher came for the funeral. Or, a man died, the lawyer came to help the widows 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 enlightened young eugenists. A marriage? The doctor came to examine them and see them.

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, a 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 count of four in this way, while only six are due to inability to state the part played by the minister. The most common incorrect responses are a baby born accounting for five 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, and entertainment, some friends came to chat, etc. In 20 failures out of 66, marriage was incorrectly connected with the 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 are still more logical interpretation But so far fetched That it is doubtful whether they should count his 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 someone 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 streetcar were mentioned in 14 out of 71 failures. Bizarre replies are a cripple in a wheelchair, a person riding on someone's back, etc. Remarks The experiment is a form of the completion test Elements of the situation are given out of which the entire situation is to be constructed

This phase of intelligence has already been discussed While it is generally admitted that the underlying idea of this test is good Some have criticised been its selection of problems Mewman thinks the lawyer element of the second is so unfamiliar to children As to render that part of the test unfair Several armchair critics have mentioned the danger of nervous shock from the first problem.

Bogotag throws out the test entirely and substitutes a completion test modeled after that of Eppinghorse. Our own results are altogether favourable to the test. It is used in year 14, human's objection hardly holds. For American children of that age do ordinarily know something about making wheels. As for the danger of shock from the first problem, we've never once found the slightest evidence of this much-feared result. The subject always understands that the situation depicted is hypothetical, and so answers either in a matter-of-fact manner or with a laugh. The bicycle problem is our own invention. Been at use the other two and required both to be answered correctly.

The test was located in year 12 of the 1908 scale and in year 15 of the 1911-11 and 2011 revision. Goddard and Coleman retained it in the original location. The Stanford results of 1911, 1912, 1914 and 1915, agreeing in it. in showing the test too difficult for year 12, even when only two out of the three correct responses are required. If the original form of the experiment is used, it is exceedingly difficult for year 15, as here given it fits well at year 14. Test 5. Arithmetic Reasoning Procedure The following problems, printed in clear type, are shown one at a time to the subject, who reads each problem aloud, and, with a printed problem still before him,

finds the answer without the use of pencil or paper. A, if a man's salary is $20 a week, and he spends $14 a week, how long will it take him to save $300? B, if two pencils cost $5, how many pencils can you buy for 50 cents? C, at 15 cents a yard, how much well 7 feet of cloth cost? Only one minute is allowed for each problem, but nothing is said about hurrying. While one problem is being solved, the other should be hidden from view. It is not permissible if the subject gives an incorrect answer, to ask him to solve the problem again. The following exception, however, is made to this rule.

If the answer given to the third problem indicates that the word yard has been read as feet, the subject is asked to read the problem through again carefully, aloud, and to tell how he solved it. No further help of any kind may be given. Scoring Two of the three problems must be solved correctly within the minute allotted to each. No credit is allowed for correct method if the answer is wrong. Remarks We have selected these problems from the list used by Bonzer in his study of the reasoning ability of children in the fourth, fifth and sixth school grades.

Our tests of 279 at-age children between 12 and 15 years. reveal the surprising fact that the test has here used and scored is not passed by much over half of the children of any age in the grades below the high school age. Of the high school pupils, 19% failed to pass, 21% of ordinary successful businessmen, and 27% of Nolan's unemployed men testing up to the average adult level. Defined average intelligence cutting, such a sorry figure, raises the question whether the ancient definition of a man as the rational animal is justified by the facts. The truth is, average intelligence does not do a great deal of abstract logical reasoning, and the little it does is done usually under the whip of necessity. At first thought, these

problems will doubtless appear to the reader to be mere tests of schooling. It is true, of course, that in solving them the subject makes use of knowledge which is ordinarily obtained in school, but this knowledge, that is, knowledge of reading and of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, is possessed by practically all adults who are not feeble-minded. And, by many who are. Success, therefore, depends upon the ability to apply this knowledge readily and accurately to the problems given. Precisely the kind of ability in which a deficiency cannot be made good by school training. We can teach even morons how to read problems and how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide with a fair degree of accuracy. The trouble comes when they

try to decide which of these processes the problems call for. This may require intelligence of higher or low order according to the difficulty of the problem. As for the present test, where you've shown that almost totally unschooled men of average adult intelligence pass this test as frequently as high school seniors of the same mental level. Test 6. Reversing hands of clock. Procedure. Say to the subject, suppose it is 622 o'clock, that is, 22 minutes after 6.

Can you see your mind where the large hand would be and where the small hand would be? Subjects of 12 to 14 year intelligence practically always answer this in the affirmative. affirmative. Then continue. Now suppose the two hands of the clock were to trade places, so that the large hand takes the place where the small hand was, and the small hand takes the place where the large hand was. What time would it then be? Repeat the test with the hands at 810, 10 minutes after 8, and again with the hands at 246, 14 minutes before 3. The subject is not allowed to look at the clock or watch, or to aid himself by drawing, but must work out the problem mentally. As a rule, the answer is given within a few seconds or not at all. If an answer

is not forthcoming within two minutes, the score is failure. Scoring. The test is passed if two of the three problems are solved within the following ranges of accuracy. The first solution is considered correct if the answer falls between 430 and 435, inclusive. The second of the answer falls between 140 and 145, and the third if the answer falls between 910 and 915. Remarks It appears that success in the test chiefly depends upon voluntary control over constructive visual imagery. Weakness of visual imagery may account for the failure of a considerable percentage of adults to pass the test. Visual imagery, however, is not absolutely necessary to success.

One eight-year-old prodigy, who had 12-year intelligence, arrived in 40 seconds at a strictly mathematical solution for the second problem, as follows. If it is 246, and the hands trade places, then the little hand, hand has gone one-fifth a distance from 9 o'clock to 10 o'clock, one-fifth of 60 minutes is 12 minutes, and so the time would be 12 minutes after 9 o'clock. Such a solution is certainly possible by the use of verbal imagery of any type. The test shows a high correlation with mental age, but more than most others it is subject to the influence of cribbing. For this reason, other positions of the clock hands should be tried out for the purpose of fighting substitute experiments of equal difficulty. Until such experiments have been made, it will be

necessary to confine the experiment to the three positions here presented. Schooling seems to have no influence whatever on a percentage of passes. This test was first used by Bennett in 1905, but was not included in either a 1908 or 1911 series. Goddard and Coleman both include the test in their revisions, placing it in year 15. They give only two problems, our A and C, and required that both be answered correctly. Neither Goddard nor Coleman, however, indicates the degree of error permitted. Something depends upon an original position of the hands, been at U-620 and 246.

For some reason, the 246 arrangement is much more difficult than either 8-10 or 622, yielding almost twice as many failures as either of the other positions. Alternative tests, repeating seven digits. This time as in year 10, only two series are given, one of which must be repeated without error. The two series are 2-18-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3. 3439 and 972-8475. Note that in none of the tests of repeating digits it is permissible to warn the subject of the number to be given. Remarks

Bennett originally placed this test in year 12, giving three trials but later moved it to year 15. Goddard and Com and retained it in year 12. Our data show that when three trials are given, the test is too easy for year 14, but that it fits this age when only two trials are allowed. that after the age of 12 or 14 years, memory for relatively meaningless material like digits or nonsense syllables improves but little, and at above this level, it does not correlate very closely with intelligence. End of Chapter 18 of the Measurement of Intelligence Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 19 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman

This is the Librivox recording. All Librevox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit Librevox.org Read by Leon Harvey Chapter 19 Instructions for Average Adult Test 1 Vocabulary 65 definitions 11,700 words

Procedure and Scoring As in previous vocabulary tests At the average adult level 65 words should be correctly defined Test 2 Interpretation of Fables, score 8 Procedure As in year 12, test 6, use the same fables

Scoring The method of scoring is the same as for year 12 But the total score must be 8 points to satisfy the requirements at this level Remarks For discussion of test, see Year 12, Test 5 Test 3 Differences between Absterect terms. Procedure. Say, what is the difference between? A. laziness and oldenance. B. Evolution and Revolution.

C. Poverty and Misery. D. D. Character and Reputation. Scoring. Three correct contrasting definitions that of four are necessary for a pass. It is not sufficient merely to give a correct meaning for each word of a pair. The subject must point out a difference between the two words, so as to make a real contrast. For example, if the subject defines evolution as growth or a gradual change, and revolution as the turning of a wheel on its axis, the experimenter should say, yes, but I want you to tell me the difference between evolution and revolution. If the contrast is not then forthcoming, the response is marked minus. The following are sample definitions, which may be considered acceptable.

A. Latiness and Adelness 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. Laciness means you don't want to work. Idleness means you are not doing anything just now. Idol 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. Laisiness comes from within, idleness may be forced upon one. Laisiness is aversion to activity. Ardleness is simply the state of inactivity. Laziness is idleness from choice or preference. Ardleness 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 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 a 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

evolution 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 sicker 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 riched 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 will 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 unnecessary for the correct grading of responses to this test. Subjects are often so clumsy in expressing that their responses are anything but clear. It is then necessary to ask them to explain what they mean. Further questioning, however, is not permissible.

For uniformity in scoring, it is necessary to bear in mind that the definitions given must, in order be satisfactory, express the essential distinction between the two words. Remarks What we have said regarding the psychological significance of test two, year 12, applies equally well here. The test on the whole is a valuable one. Our statistics show that it is not, as some critics have thought, mainly a test of schooling. The main criticism to be made is that it imposes a somewhat difficult task upon the power of language expression. For this reason, it is necessary in scoring to disregard clumpiness of expression and look only to the essential correctness or incorrectness of the thought.

This test first appeared in year 13 of minutes 1908 scale. The terms used were happiness and honor, evolution and revolution, event and advent, poverty and misery, pride and pretension. In the 1911 revision, happiness and honour and pride and pretension were dropped, and the other three pairs were moved up to the adult group. Two out of three successes been required for a pass. Coleman places it in year 15, using happiness and honour instead of character and reputation, and requires three successes out of five. Test four. Problem of the enclosed boxes Procedure

Show the subject a cardboard box about one inch on a side and say, You see this box? It is two smaller boxes inside of it. And each one in the smaller boxes contains a little tiny box. How many boxes are there altogether, counting the big one? To be sure that the subject understands, repeat the statement of the problem. First a large box, then two smaller ones. Each of the smaller ones contains a little tiny box.

Record the response, and showing a number. another box say, this box has two smaller boxes inside, and each of the smaller boxes contains two tiny boxes. How many all together? Remember, first the large box, then two smaller ones, and each smaller one contains two tiny boxes. The third problem, which is given in the same way, states that there are three smaller boxes, each of which contains three tiny boxes.

In the fourth problem, there are four smaller boxes, each containing four tiny boxes. The problem must be given orally and the solution must be found without the aid of pencil or paper. Only one half minute is allowed for each problem. Note that each problem is stated twice. A correction is permitted, providing it is offered spontaneously and is not seen to be the result of guessing. Guessing can be checked up by asking the subject to explain the solution. Scoring Three of the four problems must be solved correctly within the half minute allotted to each.

Remarks. Success depends in the first place upon ability to comprehend the statement of the problem and to hold its conditions in mind. Subjects much below the 12-year level of telling us are often unable to do this. Granting that the problem has been comprehended, success seems to depend chiefly upon the facility with which the constructive imagination manipulates concrete visual imagery. In this respect, it resembles the problem or reversing the hands of a clock. With some subjects, however, verbal imagery alone is operative.

Tactile imagery would, of course, serve the purpose as well. This is as good as place as any to emphasize the fact that the introspective study of mental imagery has little to contribute to the measurement of intelligence. Intelligence tests are concerned with the total result of the thought process, rather than with the imagery supports that process. Thought may be carried on almost equally well by various kinds of imagery. As Galton showed, a person can be taught to carry on arithmetical processes by the use of smell imagery. The kind of imagery employed in this product of slight innate preferences complicated by the more or less accidental effects of habit.

We may say that imagery is to thinking what a scaffolding is to architecture. The important thing is to completed building rather than the nature of the scaffolding employed in erecting it. No one thinks of blaming the old construction of a building upon the construction. kind of scaffolding used. For if the architect and builder are competent, satisfactory scaffolding will be found. Just as little are deficiencies or peculiarities of imagery, the real cause of low-order intelligence. We cannot increase intelligence by formal drill in the use of supposedly important kinds of mental imagery. Any more than we can transform a plain carpenter into a Michelangelo by instructing him in the use of scaffolding materials such as were employed in the construction of St. Peter's Cathedral.

This test is of our own invention and has been brought to its present form only after a good deal of preliminary experimentation. It correlates fairly well with mental age as determined by the scale as a whole. It was passed by 55% of high school pupils and by 65% of unschooled businessmen. Success in it thus seems not to depend upon schooling. Test 5 Repeating 6 digits reversed The series used are 4-7-1-9-5-2

583-294 and 752-638 Procedure in scoring As in Year 7 Alternative 2 Remarks The test is passed by approximately half of average adults And by 3-fourth of superior adults It shows no effect of schooling

The uneducated businessmen Even surpassing our high school students For the higher levels of intelligence, especially, the test is superior to that of repeating digits in the direct order. It is less mechanical and makes heavy demands upon higher intelligence. Test 6. Using a code. Procedure Show the subject the code given on the accompanying form. Say, see these diagrams here?

Look and you will see that they contain all the letters of the alphabet. Now examine the arrangement of the letters. They go, pointing, A, B, C, D, E F, H-I-J-K, L-M-N-A-P, Q-R-S-T-U-V-W-X-Y-Z. You see the letters in the first two diagrams are arranged in the up and down order, pointing again, and the letters in the other two diagrams run in just the opposite way from the hands of a clock, pointing. Look again, and you will see that the second diagram is drawn, just like the first, except that each letter has a dot with it, and that the last diagram is,

is like the third except that here also each letter has a dot. Now all of this represents a code, that is a secret language. It is a real code, one that was used in the Civil War for sending secret messages. This is the way it works. We draw the lines which hold a letter, but leave out the letter. Here, for example, is the way we would write spy. Then write the word spy, pointing out carefully where each letter comes from and emphasising the fact that the dot must be used in addition to the lines in writing any letter in the second or fourth diagram.

Illustrate also with war. Then add, I'm going to have you write something for me. Remember now how the letters go. First, pointing as before. And don't forget the dots for the letters in this diagram and this one pointing. At this point, take away the diagrams and tell the subject to write the words, Come quickly. Say nothing about hurrying. The subject is given a pencil, but is allowed to draw only the symbols for the words come quickly. He is not permitted to reproduce the entire code, and then to copy the code letters from his reproduction.

Scoring The test is passed at the words are written in six minutes, and without more than two errors. Emissions of a dot counts as only a half error. Remarks It is not easy to analyze the mental functions which contribute to success in the code test. Contrary to what be supposed,

success does not necessarily depend upon getting and retaining a visual picture of the diagrams. Kinesthetic imagery will answer the purpose just as well, or the original visual impression may even be translated at once into auditory verbal imagery. and remembered as such. The significance of the test must be expressed in other terms and their kind of imagery it may happen to bring into play. Healy and Phonald describe the task of writing a code sentence without copy as one which requires close attention and steadiness of purpose. They also emphasize

the fact that the intention must be directed inward, since there is no object of interest before the senses, and since no special stimulus to attention is offered by the experimenter. observations we have made on subjects during the test confirmed this view as to the factors involved. That inability to remember the code as a whole is not a common cause of failure, is shown by the fact that subjects above 12-year intelligence, who have failed on the test, are nearly always able to reproduce the diagrams and insert the letters in their proper places. To give the code form of a given letter without copy, however, makes how much happier demand it on attention. Nearly all subjects find it necessary to trace the code form in imagination from the beginning

up to each letter whose code form is sought. Subjects of superior intelligence, however, sometimes hit upon the device of remembering the position of individual key letters, e.g., the first letter of each figure, from which, as a base, any desired letter, form may quickly sort out. The test correlates well with mental age, but for some reason not apparent it is passed by a larger percentage of high school pupils than unschooled adults of the same mental level. The code test was first described by Helian Fonald in their test for practical mental classification. The authors gave no data, however, which would indicate the mental level to which the test

belongs. Dr. Goddard, incorporated in year 15 of his revision of the Bennett scale, but also fails to give statistics. The location given the test in the Stanford revision is based on tests of nearly 500 individuals, ranging from a mental level of 12 years to that of superior adult. It appears that the test is considerably more difficult than most had thought it to be. Alternative test 1. Repeating 28 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 U6 test 6, emphasize that the sentence must be repeated without a single change of any sort. Get attention before giving each sentence. Scoring Passed if one sentence is repeated without a single error. In year 6 and year 10, we score the response as satisfactory if one sentence was repeated without error, or if two were repeated with not more than one error each. Remarks. The test of repeating sentences is not as satisfactory in the higher intelligence levels as in the lower. It is too mechanical to tax very heavily the higher thought processes. It does, however, have a certain correlation with intelligence. Contrary to what one might have expected, uneducated adults of average adult intelligence surpass how high school students at the same mental level.

Beno located this test in year 12, the 1908 series, but shifted it to year 15 in 1911. The American versions of the Bennett scale have usually retained it in year 12, though Goddard admits that the sentences are somewhat too difficult for that year. Coleman puts the test in year 12, but reduces the sentences to 24 syllables and permits one rereading. We give only two trials, and our sentences are considerably more difficult. With the procedure and scoring we have used, the test is rather easy for the average adult group, but a little too hard for year 14.

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 6 or 8 inches long. Above it an inch or two draw a short horizontal line about an inch long and parallel to the first. Tell the subject that the long line represents the perfectly level ground of a field and that the short line represents a cannon. Explain that the cannon is pointed horizontal. horizontally, on a level, and is fired across this perfectly level field.

After it is clear that these conditions of the problem are comprehended, we add, now suppose that this cannon is fired off and that the ball comes to the ground at this point here, pointing to the farther in the line, which represents the field. Take this pencil and draw a line which will show what path the cannon ball will take from the time it leaves the mouth of the cannon till it strikes the ground. Scoring. There are four types of responses. A straight diagonal line is drawn from the cannon's mouth to the point where the ball strikes.

2. A straight line is drawn from the cannon's mouth running horizontally until almost directly over the goal, at which point the line drops almost or quite vertically. 3. The path from the canons mouth first rises considerably from the horizontal, at an angle perhaps of between 10 to 45 degrees, and finally describes a gradual curve downwards to the goal. 4. The line begins almost to. on a level and drops more rapidly towards the end of its course. Only the last is satisfactory. Of course, nothing like a mathematically accurate solution of the problem is expected.

It is sufficient to the response belongs to the fourth type above, instead of being absurd, as the other types described are. Anyone who has ever thrown stones should have the data for such an approximate solution. Not a day of schooling is necessary. B. Problem as to the weight of a fish. in water. Procedure. Say to the subject, you know of course that water holds up a fish that is placed in it. Well, here is a problem. Suppose we have a bucket which is partially full of water. We place the bucket on the scales and find that with the water in it, it

weighs exactly 45 pounds. Then we put a five pound fish into the bucket of water. Now what will the whole thing weigh? Scoring. Many subjects even as low as 9 or 10 year intelligence will answer promptly, why 45 pounds and 5 pounds makes 50 pounds, of course. But this is not sufficient. We proceed to ask with serious demeanor, how this can be corrected since the water itself holds up the fish. If the young subject who is answered so glibly now laughs sheepishly and apologises for his error, saying that he answered without thinking, etc., this response to scored failure without further questioning. Other subjects, mostly above the 14-year level, adhere to the answer,

50 pounds. However strongly we urge the argument that the water holding up the fish. In response to our question, how can that be the case? It is sufficient if the subject replies that the weight is there just the same. The scales have to hold up the bucket and the bucket has to hold up the water, or words of that effect. Only some such response as this is satisfactory. If the subject keeps changing his answer, or says that he thinks the weight would be 50 pounds, but it's not certain the score is failure. C. difficulty of hitting a distant mark. Procedure. Say to the subject, you know, you do not know what it means when they say a gun carries 100 yards. It means that the bullet goes that far before it drops to amount to anything. All boys and most girls,

more than a dozen years old, understand this readily. If the subject does not understand, we explain again what is meant for a gun to carry a given distance. When this part is clear, we proceed as follows. Now suppose a man is shooting at a mark about the size of a quart can. His rifle carries perfectly more than 100 yards. With such a gun, is it any harder to hit the mark at 100 yards that it is at 50 yards? After the response is given, we ask the subject to explain. Scoring.

Simply to say that it would be easier at 50 yards is not sufficient, nor can we pass a response which merely states that it is easier to aim at 50 yards. The correct principle must be given, one which shows the subject has appreciated the fact that a small deviation from the bull's eye at 50 yards due to incorrect aim becomes a larger deviation at 100 yards. However, the subject is not required to know that the deviation at 100 yards is exactly twice as great as at 50 yards. A certain amount of questioning is often necessary before we can decide whether the subject

has the correct principle in mind. Scoring the entire test. two of the three problems must be solved in such a way as to satisfy the requirements above set forth. Remarks These problems were devised by the writer. They yield interesting results, when properly given, but are not without their faults. Sometimes a very superior subject fails, while occasionally an inferior subject unexpectedly succeeds. On the whole, however, the test correlates fairly well with mental age,

At the 14-year level, less than 50% pass of average adults from 60, 75% are successful. Few superior adults fail. The test, as here, is little influenced by the formal instruction given in the grades or the high school. In fact, 80% of our uneducated businessman has contrasted with 65% of high school juniors and seniors pass the test. Success properly depends in the main upon previous interests in physical relationships and upon the ability to understand phenomena of this kind which the subject has had opportunity to observe. It would be interesting to standardise

a longer series of problems designed to test a subject's comprehension of common physical relationships. In the first few months of life, a normal child learns that objects unsupported fall to the ground. Lady learns that fire burns, that birds fly in the air, that fish do not sink in the water, that water does not run uphill,

that it is easy to lift a leg or arm as one lies prone in the water. That wind is thrown from a rotating wheel, but always in the same direction. That a stone which is flying through the air swiftly is more dangerous than one which is moving slowly. That is more dangerous to be run over by a train than by a buggy. That is hard to run against a strong wind. That cyclones blow down trees and houses. That a rapidly moving train creates a stronger wind than a slower train.

That a feather falls through the air with less speed than a stone. That a falling object gains momentum, that a heavy moving object is harder to stop than a light object moving at the same rate. That freezing water bursts pipes. That sounds sometimes give echoes. That rainbows cannot be approached. That a lamp seems dim by daylight. That by day the stars are not visible. And the moon is only barely visible.

That the headlights of an approaching automobile or train are blinding, that if the room in which we are reading is badly lighted, we must hold the book near it to the eyes. That running makes the heartbeat faster and increases the rate of breathing. That if we are cold, we can get warm by running. That whirling rapidly makes us dizzy. That heat or exercise will cause perspiration, etc. Although the causes of some of these phenomena are not understood even by intelligent adults, without some instruction, the facts themselves are learned by the normal individual from his own experience.

The higher the mental level and the greater the curiosity, the more observant one is about such matters and the more one learns. Many items of knowledge, such as we have mentioned, could and should be standardized for various mental levels. In devising tests of this kind, we should of course have to look out for the influences of formal instruction. End of Chapter 19 of the Measurement of Intelligence, read by Leon Harvey. Chapter 20 of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman. This is a Librivox recording. recordings are in the public domain for more information on to volunteer please visit librivox.org read by Leon Harvey chapter 20 instructions for superior

adult test 1 vocabulary 75 definitions 13,500 words procedure and scoring as in previous vocabulary tests at the superior adult level 75 words should be known the test is passed by only one-third of those at the average adult level, but by about 90% of the superior adults. Ability to pass the test is relatively dependent of the number of years the subject has attended school, our businessmen showing even higher percentage of passes in high school pupils. Test 2. Binets' paper cutting test. Procedure Take a piece of paper about since inches square and say, watch carefully what I do. See, if I fold the paper this way, folding it once over the middle, then I fold it this way,

folding it again in the middle, but at right angles to the first fold. Now I will cut it out a notch right here, indicating. At this point, take scissors and cut out a small knot from the middle of the side which presents but one edge. Throw the fragment of which is being cut out into the waste paper basket or under the table. Leave the folded paper exposed to view, but press flat against the table. Then give the subject a pencil, and a a second sheet of paper, like the one already used and say, take this piece of paper and make a drawing to show how the other sheet of paper would look if it were unfolded. Draw lines to show the creases in the paper and show what results from the cutting. The subject is not permitted

to fold the second sheet, but must solve the problems by imagination in unaged. Note that we do not say, draw the holes, and this would inform the subject than more than one hole is expected. The test is passed if the creases in the paper are properly represented. If the holes are drawn in the correct number, and if they are located correctly, that is, both in the same crease and each about half-way between the center of the paper and the side, the shape of the holes is disregarded. Failure may be due to error as regards the creases or the number on location of the holes, or it may involve any combination of the above errors.

Remarks Success seems to depend upon constructive visual imagination. The subject must first be able to construct in imagination the creases which result from the folding, and secondly, to picture the effects of the cutting as regards numbers of holes in their location. It appears that a solution is seldom arrived at, even in the case of college students by logical mathematical thinking. Our unschooled subjects even succeeded somewhat better than high school and in college

students of the same mental level. Then it placed this test in year 13 of the 1908 scale by shifted it to the adult group in the 1911 revision. Goddard retains it in the adult group while common places it in year 15. There have also been certain variations in the procedure employed. As given in the Stanford revision, the test is passed by hardly any subjects below the 14 year level by about one third of average adults and by the large majority of superior adults.

3. Repeating 8 digits. Procedure and scoring. The same as in previous tests, we have digits reversed. The series used are 7-2-5-3-4896, 498-5-7-76, 498-5-7-6-2, and 837-9-45482. Go out against rhythm and grouping and reading the digits and do not give warning as to the number to be given. The test is passed by about one-third of average adults and by over two-thirds of superior adults. The test shows no marked difference between educated and uneducated subjects of the same mental level. Test 4. Repeating thought of passage. Procedure. Say, I'm going to read a little section of about 6 or 8 lines. When I am through, I will ask you to repeat as much of it as you can. It doesn't make any difference whether you remember the exact words or not, but you must listen carefully so that you

can tell me everything it says. Then read the following sections, pausing after each, for the subject's report, which should be recorded verbatim. A, tests such as we are now making are a value both to 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. Many opinions have been given on the value of life.

Some call it good, others call it bad. It would be nearer corrects to say that it is mediocre. Or, on the other 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. Is this mediocrity of life which prevents it from being radically unjust? Sometimes the subject hesitates to begin thinking in spite of our wording of the instructions that a perfect reproduction is expected. Others fall into the opposite misunderstanding and think that they are prohibited from using

the words of the text and must give the thought entirely in their own language. In cases of hesitation, we should urge the subject a little and remind him that he is to express the thought of the selection in whatever he provides. that the main thing is to tell what the selection says. Scoring. The test is passed if the subject is able to repeat in reasonably consecutive order the main thoughts of at least one of the selections. Neither elegance of expression nor verbatim repetition is expected.

We merely want to know whether the leading thoughts in the selection have been grasped and remembered. All grades of accuracy are found, both in the comprehension of the selection and in the recall, and it is not always easy to draw the line between satisfactory and unseen. satisfactory responses, the following sample performances will serve as a guide. Selection A. Satisfactory The tests which we are making are given for the advancement of science and for the information of the person tested.

By scientific means, we will be able to separate characteristics derived from heterology and environment and to treat each class separately. By doing so we can more accurately correct defects. 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 differences between your hereditary and environment. These tests are given to see if we can separate hereditary and environment and to see where you 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 have 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 respect we differ from others and why if they do this they will be able to guide us in the right channel and bring success instead of failure. Unsatisfactory. Tests such as we are now making are a 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 hereditary and environment. It is 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 a scientist and it gives information to the people. Tests are being given to pupils today 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 test show that environment doesn't count, for if you're all right, you'll 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 here is many different judgments of life. Some call it good, some call it bad. It brings unhappiness and 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 a ill feeling towards the value of life and it should not be unjust, anyone. Honesty is the best policy. People who are unjust are more likely to be injured by their

enemies. Note invention. Remarks. Contrary to what the subject is led to expect, the test is less a test of memory than of ability to comprehend the drift of an abstract passage. A subject who fully grasps the meaning of the selection as it is read is not likely to fail because of poor memory. Mere verbal memory improves but little after the age of 14 or 15 years, as is shown by the fact that our adults do little better than eight-grade children in repeating sentences of 28 syllables. On the other hand, adult intelligence is vastly superior in the comprehension and retention of a logically presented group of abstract ideas. There is nothing in which stupid persons cut a poorer figure than in grappling with the abstract.

Their thinking clings tenaciously to the concrete. Their concepts are vague or inaccurate. The interrelations among their concepts are scanty in the extreme. and such poor mental stores as they have a little available for better use. A few critics have objected to the use of tests demanding abstract thinking, on the ground that abstract thought is a very special aspect of intelligence, and that facility in it depends almost entirely on occupational habits, and the accidents of education.

Some have even gone so far as to say that we are not justified on the basis of any number of such tests in pronouncing a subject backward or defective. It is supposed that a subject who has no capacity in the use of abstract ideas may nevertheless have excellent intelligence along other lines. In such cases, it is said, we should not penalize the subject for his failure in handling abstractions, but substitute, instead, tests requiring motor coordination and the manipulation of things, tests in which the supposedly dull child often succeeds fairly well. From the psychological point of view, such a proposal is navely un-psychological.

It is in the very essence of the high thought processes to be conceptual and abstract. What the above proposal amounts to is that, if the subject is not capable of the more complex and strictly human type of thinking, we should ignore this fact and estimate his intelligence entirely on the ability he displays to carry on mental operations of a more simple and primitive kind. This would be like asking the physician to ignore the diseased parts of the patient's body and to base his diagnosis on examination of the organs which are sound. The present test throws light in an interesting way on the integrity of the critical faculty.

Some subjects are unwilling to extend the report in the least beyond what they know to be approximately correct, while others with defective powers of auto-criticism, manufacture a report which draws heavily on the imagination, perhaps continuing in garrulous fashion as long as they can think of anything having the remotest connection with any thought in the selection. We have included, for each selection, on illustration of this type, and the simple failures given above. The worst fault of the test is its suspectability to the influence of schooling. Our uneducated adults of even superior adult intelligence often fail, while about two-thirds of high school pupils succeed.

The unschooled adults have a marked tendency either to give a summary which is inadequate because of its extreme brevity or else to give a criticism of the thought which the passage contains. This test first appeared in its 1911 revision, in the adult group. Bennett used only selection B, and in a slightly more difficult form than we have given above,

Goddode gives a test like Bennett and retains it in the adult group. Coleman locates it in year 15, using only selection A. On the basis of over 300 tests of adults, we find the test too difficult for the average adult level, even on the basis of only one success in two trials, and when scored on the rather liberal standard above set forth.

Test 5. Repeating 7 digits reversed. Procedure and scoring. The same as in previous tests of this kind. The series are 4162-593-382-675 and 945-2837. We have collected fewer data on this test than any other of the others, as was added later to the test series. As far as we have used it, we have found. few average adults who pass, while about half of the superior adults do so. Test 6. Ingenuity Test. Procedure Problem A is stated as follows. A mother sent a boy to the river, and told him to bring back exactly seven pints of water. She gave him a three-pint vessel and a five-pint vessel.

Show me how the boy can measure out exactly seven pints of water, using nothing but these two vessels, and not guessing at the amount. You should begin by filling the five-pint vessel first. Remember, you have a three-pint vessel and a five-pint vessel, and he must bring back exactly seven pints. The problem is given orally, but may be repeated if necessary. The subject is not allowed pencil or paper, and is requested to give his solution orally as he works it out. It is then possible to make a complete record of the method employed. The subject is likely to resort to some such method as, and to fill the three-pint vessel two-thirds full, or I would mark the inside of the five-pint vessel so as to show where four pins come to, etc.

We inform the subject that such a method is not allowable, that this would be guessing, since he could not be sure whether the three-pint vessel was two-thirds full, or whether he had marked off his five-pint vessel accurately. Tell him he must measure out the water without any guesswork. Explain also that it is a fair problem, not a catch. say nothing about pouring from one vessel to another, but if the subject asks whether this is permissible, the answer is yes. The time limit for each problem is five minutes. If the subject fails on the first problem, we explain the solution in four and then proceed to the next. The second problem is like the first, except that a five-pin vessel and a seven-pin vessel are given. To get eight pins, the subject being told to begin by filling the five-pin vessel.

In the third problem, 4 and 9 are given. To get 7, the instruction begin to begin by filling the 4-pin vessel. Note that in each problem we instruct the subject how to begin. This is necessary in order to secure uniformity of conditions. It is possible to solve all the problems by beginning with either of the two vessels, but the solution is made very much more difficult if we begin in the direction opposite from that recommended. Give no further aid. It is necessary to refrain from comment of every kind.

Scoring Two of three problems must be solved correctly within the five minutes allotted to each. Remarks We have called this a test of ingenuity. The subject who is given the problem finds himself involved in a difficulty from which he must extricate himself. Means must be found to overcome an obstacle. This requires practical judgment and a certain amount of inventive ingenuity.

Various possibilities must be explored and either accepted for trial or rejected. If the amount of invention called for seems to the reader inconsiderable, let it be remembered that the important inventions of history have not as a rule had a manoeuvre of birth, but instead have developed by successive stages, each involving but a small step in advance. It is unnecessary to emphasise at length the function of invention in the higher thought processes. In one form or another, it is present in all intellectual activity, in the creation and use of language, in art, in social adjustments, in religion, and in philosophy, as truly as in the domains of science and practical affairs. Certainly, this is true if we accept Mason's board definition

of invention as including every change in human activity made designedly and systematically. From the psychological point of view, perhaps, Mason is justified in looking upon the great inventor as an epitome of the genius of the world to develop a craig jorgerson from a bow and arrow a velvet tipped lucifer match from the primitive fire stick or a modern piano from the first crude

stringed musical instrument has involved much the same intellectual processes as have been operative in transforming fetism and magic into religion and philosophy or scattered fragments of knowledge into science psychologically

invention depends upon the construction imagination, that is, upon the ability to abstract from what is immediately present to the senses and to picture new situations with their possibilities and consequences. Images are united in order to form new combinations. As we have several times emphasized, the decisive intellectual differences among human beings are not greatly dependent upon mere sense discrimination or native retentiveness. Far more important than the raw mass of sense data is the correct shooting together of the sense elements in memory and imagination. This is but another name for invention. It is a synthetic

or a perceptive activity of the mind that gives the seven-league boots to genius. It is, however, a kind of ability which is possessed by all minds to a greater or less degree. Any test has its value which gives a clue, as this test does to the subject's ability in this direction. The test was devised by the writer and used in 1905 in a study of the intellectual processes of bright and boys. But it was not at the time standardized. It has been found to belong at a much higher mental level than was at first supposed. Only an insignificant number passed a test below the mental age of 14 years, and about two-thirds of average adults fail. Of our superior adults, somewhat more than 75% succeed. Formal education influences the test little or not at all,

the unschooled businessmen making a somewhat better showing than the high school students. of Chapter 20 of the Measurement of Intelligence and the End of the Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Terman, read by Leon Harvey.