The child’s intelligence is to be judged by his success in the performance of certain tasks. These tasks may appear to the examiner to be very easy, indeed; but we must bear in mind that they are often anything but easy for the child. Real effort and attention are necessary for his success, and occasionally even his best efforts fall short of the desired result. If the tests are to display the child’s real intellectual ability it will be necessary, therefore, to avoid as nearly as possible every disturbing factor which would divide his attention or in any other way injure the quality of his responses. To insure this it will be necessary to consider somewhat in detail a number of factors which influence effort, such as degree of quiet, the nature of surroundings, presence or absence of others, means of gaining the child’s confidence, the avoidance of embarrassment, fatigue, etc. One should not expect, however, to secure an absolutely equal degree of attention from all subjects. The power to give sustained attention to a difficult task is characteristically weak in dull and feeble-minded children. What we should labor to secure is the maximum attention of which the child is capable, and if this is unsatisfactory without external cause, we are to regard the fact as symptomatic of inferior mental ability, not as an extenuating factor or an excuse for lack of success in the tests. Attention, of course, cannot be normal if any acute |
Children | 3–5 | years old | 25–30minutes |
" | 6–8 | " " | 30–40 " |
" | 9–12 | " " | 40–50 " |
" | 13–15 | " " | 50–60 " |
Adults | 60–90 " |
This allowance ordinarily includes the time necessary for getting into rapport with the child, in addition to that actually consumed in the tests. But the examiner need not expect to hold fast to any schedule. Some subjects respond in a lively manner, others are exasperatingly slow. It is more often the mentally retarded child who answers slowly, but exceptions to this rule are not uncommon. One 8-year-old
It is permissible to hurry the child by an occasional “that’s fine; now, quickly,” etc., but in doing this caution must be exercised, or the child’s mental process may be blocked. The appearance of nagging must be carefully avoided. If the test goes so slowly that it cannot be completed in the above limits of time, it is usually best to stop and complete the examination at another time. When this is not possible, it is advisable to take a ten-minute intermission and a little walk out of doors.
Time can be saved by having all the necessary materials close at hand and conveniently arranged. The coins should be kept in a separate purse, and the pictures, colors, stamps, and designs for drawing should be mounted on stiff cardboard which may be punched and kept in a notebook cover. The series of sentences, digits, comprehension questions, fables, etc., should either be mounted in similar fashion, or else printed in full on the record sheets used in the tests. The latter is more convenient.
Besides saving valuable time, a little methodical foresight of this kind adds to the success of the test. If the child is kept waiting, the test loses its interest and attention
Inexperienced examiners sometimes waste time foolishly by stopping to instruct the child on his failures. This is doubly bad, for besides losing time it makes the child conscious of the imperfection of his responses and creates embarrassment. Adhere to the purpose of the test, which is to ascertain the child’s intellectual level, not to instruct him.
Desirable range of testing.
There are two considerations here of equal importance. It is necessary to make the examination thorough, but in the pursuit of thoroughness we must be careful not to produce fatigue or ennui. Unless there is reason to suspect mental retardation, it is usually best to begin with the group of tests just below the child’s age. However, if there is a failure in the tests of that group, it is necessary to go back and try all the tests of the previous group. In like manner the examination should be carried up the scale, until a test group has been found in which all the tests are failed.
It must be admitted, however, that because of time limitations and fatigue, it is not always practicable to adhere to this ideal of thoroughness. In testing normal children, little error will result if we go back no farther than the year which yielded only one failure, and if we stop with the year in which there was only one success. This is the lowest permissible limit of thoroughness. Defectives are more uneven mentally than normal children, and therefore scatter their successes and failures over a wider range. With such subjects it is absolutely imperative that the test be thorough.
In the case of defectives it is sometimes necessary to begin with random testing, until a rough idea is gained of the mental level. But the skilled observer soon becomes able to utilize symptoms in the child’s conversation and conduct and to dispense with most of this preliminary exploration.
Order of giving the tests.
The child’s efforts in the tests are sometimes markedly influenced by the order in which they are given. If language tests or memory tests are given first, the child is likely to be embarrassed. More suitable to begin with are those which test knowledge or judgment about objective things, such as the pictures, weights, stamps, bow-knot, colors, coins, counting pennies, number of fingers, right and left, time orientation, ball and field, paper-folding, etc. Tests like naming sixty words, finding rhymes, giving differences or similarities, making sentences, repeating sentences, and drawing are especially unsuitable because they tend to provoke self-consciousness.
The tests as arranged in this revision are in the order which it is usually best to follow, but one should not hesitate to depart from the order given when it seems best in a given case to do so. It is necessary to be constantly alert so that when the child shows a tendency to balk at a given type of test, such as those of memory, language, numbers, drawing, “comprehension,” etc., the work can be shifted to more agreeable tasks. When the child is at his ease again, it is usually possible to return to the troublesome tests with better success. In the case of 8-year-old D.C., who is a speech defective but otherwise above normal, it was quite impossible at the first sitting to give such tests as sentence-making, naming sixty words, reading, repeating sentences, giving definitions, etc.; at each test of this type the child’s voice broke and he was ready to cry, due, no doubt, to sensitiveness regarding his speech defect. Others do everything willingly except the drawing and copying. The younger children sometimes refuse to repeat the sentences or digits. In all such cases it is best to pass on to something else. After a few minutes the rejected task may be done willingly.
Coaxing to be avoided.
Although we should always
Adhering to formula.
It cannot be too strongly emphasized that unless we follow a standardized procedure the tests lose their significance. The danger is chiefly that of unintentionally and unconsciously introducing variations which will affect the meaning of the test. One who has not had a thorough training in the methods of mental testing cannot appreciate how numerous are the opportunities for the unconscious transformation of a test. Many of these are pointed out in the description of the individual tests, but it would be folly to undertake to warn the experimenter against every possible error of this kind. Sometimes the omission or the addition of a single phrase in giving the test will alter materially the significance of the response. Only the trained psychologist can vary the formula without risk of invalidating the result, and even he must be on his guard. All sorts of misunderstandings regarding the correct placing of tests and regarding their accuracy or inaccuracy have come about through the failure of different investigators to follow the same procedure.
One who would use the tests for any serious purpose, therefore, must study the procedure for each and every
The instructions hitherto available are at fault in not defining the procedure with sufficient definiteness, and it is the purpose of this volume to make good this deficiency as far as possible.
It is too much, however, to suppose that the instructions can be made “fool-proof.” With whatever definiteness they may be set forth, situations are sure to arise which the examiner cannot be formally prepared for. There is no limit to the multitude of misunderstandings possible. After testing hundreds of children one still finds new examples of misapprehension. In a few such cases the instruction may be repeated, if there is reason to think the child’s hearing was at fault or if some extraordinary distraction has occurred. But unless otherwise stated in the directions, the repetition of a question is ordinarily to be avoided. Supplementary explanations are hardly ever permissible.
In short, numberless situations may arise in the use of a test which may injure the validity of the response, events which cannot always be dealt with by preconceived rule. Accordingly, although we must urge unceasingly the importance of following the standard procedure, it is not to be supposed that formulas are an adequate substitute either for scientific judgment or for common sense.
Scoring.
The exact method of scoring the individual tests is set forth in the following chapters. Reference to the record booklet for use in testing will show that the records are to be kept in detail. Each subdivision of a test should be scored separately, in order that the clinical picture
Recording responses.
Plus and minus signs alone are not usually sufficient. Whenever possible the entire response should be recorded. If the test results are to be used by any other person than the examiner, this is absolutely essential. Any other standard of completeness opens the door to carelessness and inaccuracy. In nearly all the tests, except that of naming sixty words, the examiner will find it possible by the liberal use of abbreviations to record practically the entire response verbatim. In doing so, however, one must be careful to avoid keeping the child waiting. Occasionally it is necessary to leave off recording altogether because of the embarrassment sometimes aroused in the child by seeing his answer written down. The writer has met the latter difficulty several times. When for any reason it is not feasible to record anything more than score marks, success may be indicated by the sign +, failure by , and half credit by ½. An exceptionally good response may be indicated by ++ and an exceptionally poor response by . If there is a slight doubt about a success or failure the sign? may be added to the + or . In general, however, score the response either + or , avoiding half credit as far as it is possible to do so.
If the entire response is not recorded it is necessary to record at least the score mark for each test when the test is given. It must be borne in mind that the scoring is not a purely mechanical affair. Instead, the judgment of the examiner must come into play with every record made.
Scattering of successes.
It is sometimes a source of concern to the untrained examiner that the successes and failures should be scattered over quite an extensive range of years. Why, it may be asked, should not a child who has 10-year intelligence answer correctly all the tests up to and including groupX, and fail on all the tests beyond? There are two reasons why such is almost never the case. In the first place, the intelligence of an individual is ordinarily not even. There are many different kinds of intelligence, and in some of these the subject is better endowed than in others. A second reason lies in the fact that no test can be purely and simply a test of native intelligence. Given a certain degree of intelligence, accidents of experience and training bring it about that this intelligence will work more successfully with some kinds of material than with others. For both of these reasons there results a scattering of successes and failures over three or four years. The subject fails first in one or two tests of a group, then in two or three tests of the following group, the number of failures increasing until there are no successes at all. Success “tapers off” from 100percent to 0. Once in a great while a child fails on several of the tests of a given year and succeeds with a majority of those in the next higher year. This is only an extreme instance of uneven intelligence or of specialized experience, and does not necessarily reflect upon the reliability of the tests for children in general. The method of calculation given above strikes
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:—
- Social status (very superior, superior, average, inferior, or very inferior).
- The teacher’s estimate of the child’s intelligence (very superior, superior, average, inferior, or very inferior).
- School opportunities, including years of attendance, regularity, retardation or acceleration, etc.
- Quality of school work (very superior, superior, average, inferior, or very inferior).
- Physical handicaps, if any (adenoids, diseased tonsils, partial deafness, imperfect vision, malnutrition, etc.).
In addition, the examiner will need to take account of the general attitude of the child during the examination. This is provided for in the record blanks under the heading “comments.” The comments should describe as fully as possible the conduct and attitude of the child during the examination, with emphasis upon such disturbing factors as fear, timidity, unwillingness to answer, overconfidence, carelessness, lack of attention, etc. Sometimes, also, it is desirable to verify the child’s age and to make record of the verification.
Alternative tests.
The tests designated as “alternative tests” are not intended for regular use. Inasmuch as they have been standardized and belong in the year group where they are placed, they may be used as substitute tests on certain occasions. Sometimes one of the regular tests is spoiled in giving it, or the requisite material for it may not be at hand. Sometimes there may be reason to suspect that the subject has become acquainted with some of the tests. In such cases it is a great convenience to have a few substitutes available.
It is necessary, however, to warn against a possible misuse of alternative tests. It is not permissible to count success in an alternative test as offsetting failure in a regular test. This would give the subject too much leeway of failure. There are very exceptional cases, however, when it is legitimate to break this rule; namely, when one of the regular tests would be obviously unfair to the subject being tested. In yearX, for example, one of the three alternative tests should be substituted for the reading test (X,4) in case we are testing a subject who has not had the equivalent of at least two years of school work. In yearVIII, it would be permissible to substitute the alternative test of naming six coins, instead of the vocabulary test, in the case of a subject who came from a home where English was not spoken. In VII, it would perhaps not be unfair to substitute the alternative test, in place of the test of copying a diamond, in the case of a subject who, because of timidity or embarrassment, refused to attempt the diamond. But it would be going entirely too far to substitute an alternative
Certain tests have been made alternatives because of their inferior value, some because the presence of other tests of similar nature in the same year rendered them less necessary.
Finding mental age.
As there are six tests in each age group from III to X, each test in this part of the scale counts 2months toward mental age. There are eight tests in groupXII, which, because of the omission of the 11-year group, have a combined value of 24months, or 3months each. Similarly, each of the six tests in XIV has a value of 4months (24÷6=4). The tests of the “average adult” group are given a value of 5months each, and those of the “superior adult” group a value of 6months each. These values are in a sense arbitrary, but they are justified in the fact that they are such as to cause ordinary adults to test at the “average adult” level.
The calculation of mental age is therefore simplicity itself. The rule is: (1) Credit the subject with all the tests below the point where the examination begins (remembering that the examination goes back until a year group has been found in which all the tests are passed); and (2) add to this basal credit 2months for each test passed successfully up to and including yearX, 3months for each test passed in XII, 4months for each test passed in XIV, 5months for each success in “average adult,” and 6months for each success in “superior adult.”
For example, let us suppose that a child passes all the tests in VI, five of the six tests in VII, three in VIII, two in IX, and one in X. The total credit earned is as follows:—
Years | Months | |
---|---|---|
Credit presupposed, years I to V | 5 | |
Credit earned in VI, 6tests passed, 2months each | 1 | |
Credit earned in VII, 5tests passed, 2months each | 10 | |
Credit earned in VIII, 3tests passed, 2months each | 6 | |
Credit earned in IX, 2tests passed, 2months each | 4 | |
Credit earned in X, 1test passed, 2months | 2 | |
Total credit | 7 | 10 |
Taking a subject who tests higher, let us suppose the following tests are passed: All in X, six of the eight in XII, two of the six in XIV, and one of the six in “average adult.” The total credit is as follows:—
Years | Months | |
---|---|---|
Credit presupposed, years I to IX | 9 | |
Credit earned in X, 6tests passed, 2months each | 1 | |
Credit earned in XII, 6tests passed, 3months each | 1 | 6 |
Credit earned in XIV, 2tests passed, 4months each | 0 | 8 |
Credit earned in “average adult,” 1success, 5months | 5 | |
Total credit | 12 | 7 |
One other point: If one or more tests of a year group have been omitted, as sometimes happens either from oversight or lack of time, the question arises how the tests which were given in such a year group should be evaluated. Suppose, for example, a subject has been given only four of the six tests in a given year, and that he passes two, or half of those given. In such a case the probability would be that had all six tests been given, three would have been passed; that is, one half of all. It is evident, therefore, that when a test has been omitted, a proportionately larger value should be assigned to each of those given.
If all six tests are given in any year group below XII, each has a value of 2months. If only four are given, each has a value of 3months (12÷4=3). If five tests only
For example, let us suppose that a subject has been tested as follows: All the six tests in X were given and all were passed; only six of the eight in XII were given and five were passed; five of the six in XIV were given and three were passed; five of the six in “average adult” were given and one was passed; five were given in “superior adult” and no credit earned. The result would be as follows:—
Years | Months | |
---|---|---|
Credit presupposed, years I to IX | 9 | |
Credit earned in X, 6given, 6successes | 1 | |
Credit earned in XII, 6given, 5passed. Unit value of each test given is 24÷6=4. Total value of the 5tests passed is 5×4 or | 1 | 8 |
Credit earned in XIV, 5tests given, 3passed. Unit value of each of the 5 given is 24÷5=4.8. Value of the 3 passed is 3×4.8, or | 0 | 14+ |
Credit earned in “average adult,” 5tests given, 1passed. Unit value of the 5tests given is 30÷5=6. Value of the 1success | 0 | 6 |
Credit earned in “superior adult” | 0 | 0 |
Total credit | 13 | 4+ |
The calculation of mental age is really simpler than our verbal illustrations make it appear. After the operation
The use of the intelligence quotient.
As elsewhere explained, the mental age alone does not tell us what we want to know about a child’s intelligence status. The significance of a given number of years of retardation or acceleration depends upon the age of the child. A 3-year-old child who is retarded one year is ordinarily feeble-minded; a 10-year-old retarded one year is only a little below normal. The child who at 3years of age is retarded one year will probably be retarded two years at the age of 6, three years at the age of 9, and four years at the age of 12.
What we want to know, therefore, is the ratio existing between mental age and real age. This is the intelligence quotient, or IQ. To find it we simply divide mental age (expressed in years and months) by real age (also expressed in years and months). The process is easier if we express each age in terms of months alone before dividing. The division can, of course, be performed almost instantaneously and with much less danger of error by the use of a slide rule or a division table. One who has to calculate many intelligence quotients should by all means use some kind of mechanical help.
How to find the IQ of adult subjects.
Native intelligence, in so far as it can be measured by tests now available, appears to improve but little after the age of 15or16years. 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 16years. Accordingly, any person over 16years of age, however old, is for purposes of calculating
The significance of various values of the IQ is set forth elsewhere.
Material for use in testing.
It is strongly recommended that in testing by the Stanford revision the regular Stanford record booklets be used. These are so arranged as to make testing accurate, rapid, and convenient. They contain square, diamond, round field, vocabulary list, fables, sentences, digits, and selections for memory tests, the reading selection barred for scoring, the dissected sentences, arithmetical problems, etc. One is required for each child tested.
This is all the material required for the use of the Stanford revision, except the five weights for IX,2, and V,1, and the Healy-Fernald Construction Puzzle for X. These may be purchased of C.H. Stoelting & Co., 3037 Carroll Avenue, Chicago. It is not necessary, however, to have the weights and the Construction Puzzle, as the presence of one or more alternative tests in each year makes it possible to substitute other tests instead of those requiring these materials. This saves considerable expense. Apart from these, which may either be made at home (see pages 278, 279) or dispensed with, the only necessary equipment for using the Stanford revision is a copy of this book with the accompanying set of printed matter, and the record booklets. The record booklets are supplied only in packages of 25.