The Measurement of Intelligence Part 22

_Unsatisfactory._ These are mostly misstatements of facts; as: "Fly is bigger." "Fly has legs and b.u.t.terfly hasn't." "b.u.t.terfly has no feet and fly has." "b.u.t.terfly makes b.u.t.ter." "Fly is a fly and a b.u.t.terfly is not." Failures due to misstatement of fact are of endless variety. If an indefinite response is given, like "The fly is different," or "They don't look alike," we ask, "_How is it different?_" or, "_Why don't they look alike?_" It is satisfactory if the child then gives a correct answer.

_Stone and egg_

_Satisfactory._ "Stone is harder." "Egg is softer." "Egg breaks easier." "Egg breaks and stone doesn't." "Stone is heavier."

"Egg is white and stone is not." "Egg has a sh.e.l.l and stone does not." "Eggs have a white and a yellow in them." "You put eggs in a pudding." "An egg is rounder than a stone." We may also accept statements which are only qualifiedly true; as, "You can break an egg, but not a stone." Likewise double but incomplete comparisons are satisfactory; as, "An egg you fry and a stone you throw," "A stone is tough and an egg you eat," etc.

A little over three fourths of the comparisons made by children of 6, 7, and 8 years are in terms of hardness. The other responses are widely scattered.

_Unsatisfactory._ "A stone is bigger (or smaller) than an egg."

"A stone is square and an egg is round." "An egg is yellow and a stone is white." "Stones are red (or black, etc.) and eggs are white." "An egg is to eat and a stone is to plant." "An egg is round and a stone is sometimes round."

It will be noted that the above responses are partly true and partly false. The error they contain renders them unacceptable.

Most of the failures are due to misstatements as to size, shape, or color, but occasionally one meets a bizarre answer.

_Wood and gla.s.s_

_Satisfactory._ "Gla.s.s breaks easier than wood." "Gla.s.s breaks and wood does not." "Wood is stronger than gla.s.s." "Gla.s.s you can see through and wood you can't." "Gla.s.s cuts you and wood doesn't." "You get splinters from wood and you don't from gla.s.s." "Gla.s.s melts and wood doesn't." "Wood burns and gla.s.s doesn't." "Wood has bark and gla.s.s hasn't." "Wood grows and gla.s.s doesn't." "Gla.s.s is heavier than wood." "Gla.s.s glistens in the sun and wood does not."

An incomplete double comparison is also counted satisfactory; as, "Wood you can burn and gla.s.s you can see through."

_Unsatisfactory._ "Wood is black and gla.s.s is white." (Color differences are always unsatisfactory in this comparison unless transparency is also mentioned.) "Gla.s.s is square and wood is round." "Gla.s.s is bigger than wood" (or _vice versa_). "Wood is oblong and gla.s.s is square." "Gla.s.s is thin and wood is thick."

"Wood is made out of trees and gla.s.s out of windows." "There is no gla.s.s in wood."

The two most frequent types of failures are misstatements regarding color and thickness. The other failures are widely scattered.

REMARKS. The test is one which all the critics agree in commending, largely because it is so little influenced by ordinary school experience. Its excellence lies mainly, however, in the fact that it throws light upon the character of the child's higher thought processes, for thinking means essentially the a.s.sociation of ideas on the basis of differences or similarities. Nearly all thought processes, from the most complex to the very simplest, involve to a greater or less degree one or the other of these two types of a.s.sociation. 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 cla.s.sification of natural phenomena, and in the origination of the hypotheses of science or philosophy.

The ability to note differences precedes somewhat the ability to note resemblances, though the contrary has sometimes been a.s.serted by logician-psychologists. The difficulty of the test is greatly increased by the fact that the objects to be compared are not present to the senses, which means that the free ideas must be called up for comparison and contrast. Failure may result either from weakness in the power of ideational representation of objects, or from the inadequacy of the a.s.sociations themselves, or from both. Probably both factors are usually involved.

Intellectual development is especially evident in increased ability to note _essential_ differences and likenesses, as contrasted with those which are trivial, superficial, and accidental. To distinguish an egg from a stone on the basis of one being organic, the other inorganic matter requires far higher intelligence than to distinguish them on the basis of shape, color, fragibility, etc. It is not till well toward the adult stage that the ability to give very essential likenesses and differences becomes prominent, and when we get a comparison of this type from a child of 7 or 8 years it is a very favorable sign.

It would be well worth while to standardize a new test of this kind for use in the upper years and especially adapted to display the ability to give essential likenesses and differences. At year VII we must accept as satisfactory any real difference.

One point remains. In the tests of giving differences and similarities, it is well to make note of any tendency to _stereotypy_, by which is meant the mechanical reappearance of the same idea, or element, in successive responses. For example, the child begins by comparing fly and b.u.t.terfly on the basis of size; as, "A b.u.t.terfly 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 gla.s.s," etc. In case of stereotypy in all three responses, we should have to score the total response failure even though the idea employed happened to fit all three parts of the question. As a rule it is encountered only with very young children or with older children who are mentally r.e.t.a.r.ded. It is therefore an unfavorable sign.

Although this test has been universally used in year VIII, all the available statistics, with the exception of Bobertag's and Bloch's, indicate that it is decidedly too easy for that year. Binet himself says that nearly all 7-year-olds pa.s.s it. G.o.ddard finds 97 per cent pa.s.sing at year VIII, and Dougherty 90 per cent at year VI. With the standard of scoring given in the present revision, and with the subst.i.tution of _stone and egg_ instead of the more difficult _paper and cloth_, the test is unquestionably easy enough for year VII.

VII, 6. COPYING A DIAMOND

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

Place the model before the child with the longer diagonal pointing directly toward him, and giving him _pen and ink_ and paper, say: "_I want you to draw one exactly like this._" Give three trials, saying each time: "_Make it exactly like this one._" In repeating the above formula, merely point to the model; do not pa.s.s the fingers around its edge.

Unlike the test of copying a square in year IV, there is seldom any difficulty in getting the child to try this one. By the age of 7 the child has grown much less timid and has become more accustomed to the use of writing materials.

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

After each trial, say to the child: "_Is it good?_" And after the three copies have been made say: "_Which one is the best?_" r.e.t.a.r.ded children are sometimes entirely satisfied with the most nondescript drawings imaginable, but they are more likely correctly to pick out the best of three than to render a correct judgment about the worth of each drawing separately.

SCORING. The test is pa.s.sed if _two of the three_ drawings are at least as good as those marked satisfactory on the score card. The diamond should be drawn approximately in the correct position, and the diagonals must not be reversed. Disregard departures from the model with respect to size.

REMARKS. The test is a good one. Age and training, apart from intelligence, affect it only moderately. There are few adult imbeciles of 6-year intelligence who are able to pa.s.s it, while but few subjects who have reached the 8-year level fail on it.[55]

[55] For further discussion of drawing tests, see V, 1, and X, 3.

This test was located in year VII of the 1908 scale, but was s.h.i.+fted to year VI in Binet's 1911 revision. The change was without justification, for Binet expressly states, both in 1908 and 1911, that only half of the 6-year-olds succeed with it. The large majority of investigations have given too low a proportion of successes at 6 years to warrant its location at that age, particularly if pen is required instead of pencil.

Location at year VI would be warranted only on the condition that the use of pencil be permitted and only one success required in three trials.

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

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

If the days have been named in correct order, we check up the response to see whether the real order of days is known or whether the names have only been repeated mechanically. This is done by asking the following questions: "_What day comes before Tuesday?_" "_What day comes before Thursday?_" "_What day comes before Friday?_"

SCORING. The test is pa.s.sed if, within _fifteen seconds_, the days of the week are _all named in correct order_, and if the child succeeds in at least _two of the three check questions_. We disregard the point of beginning.

REMARKS. The test has been criticized as too dependent on rote memory.

Bobertag says a child may pa.s.s it without having any adequate conception of "week," "yesterday," "day before yesterday," etc. This criticism holds if the test is given according to the older procedure, but does not apply with the procedure above recommended. The "checking-up"

questions enable us at once to distinguish responses that are given by rote from those which rest upon actual knowledge.

The test has been shown to be much more influenced by age, apart from intelligence, than most other tests of the scale. Notwithstanding this fault, it seems desirable to keep the test, at least as an alternative, because it forms one of a group which may be designated as tests of time orientation. The others of this group are: "_Distinguis.h.i.+ng forenoon and afternoon_" (VI), "_Giving the date_" and "_Naming the months_" (IX). It would be well if we had even more of this type, for interest in the pa.s.sing of time and in the names of time divisions is closely correlated with intelligence. One reason for the inferiority of the dull and feeble-minded in tests of this type is that their mental a.s.sociations are weaker and less numerous. The greater poverty of their a.s.sociations brings it about that their remembered experiences are less definitely located in time with reference to other events.

The test was located in year IX of the 1908 scale, but was omitted from the 1911 revision. Kuhlmann also omits it, while G.o.ddard places it in year VIII. The statistics from every American investigation, however, warrant its location in year VII. It may be located in year VIII only on the condition that the child be required to name the days backwards, and that within a rather low time limit.

VII, ALTERNATIVE TEST 2: REPEATING THREE DIGITS REVERSED

PROCEDURE. The digits used are: 2-8-3; 4-2-7; 5-9-6. The test should be given after, but not immediately after, the tests of repeating digits forwards.

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

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

SCORING. The test is pa.s.sed if _one series out of three_ is repeated backwards without error.

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

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

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

Feeble-minded children find this test especially difficult, perhaps mainly because of its element of novelty. School children are often asked to write numbers dictated by the teacher, and even the very dull acquire a certain proficiency in doing so; but the test of repeating digits backwards requires a certain facility in adjusting to a new task, exactly the sort of thing in which the feeble-minded are so markedly deficient.

As a rule the response consumes much more time than in the other digits test. This is particularly true when the series to be repeated backwards contains four or more digits. The chance of success is greatly increased if the subject first thinks the series through two or three times in the direct order before attempting the reverse order. The subject who responds immediately is likely to begin correctly, but to give the first part of the original series in the direct order. For example, 6-5-2-8 is given 8-2-6-5.