CHAPTER XIV. QUANTITATIVE DEFINITIONS OF THE BORDERLINE

On the basis of the detailed conception of the developmental curves and

distributions of ability at different ages, which we have been

considering, we can now compare the percentage method with other

quantitative methods of describing the borderline on developmental test

scales.

A. DIFFERENT FORMS OF QUANTITATIVE DEFINITIONS

The earliest form of the quantitative description of the borderline on a

scale of tests, was in terms of a fixed unit of years of retardation.

This was taken over apparently from the rough method of selecting school

children to be examined for segregation in special classes by choosing

those who were two or three grades behind the common position for

children of their ages. As this amount of school retardation was greater

for older children, an additional year of retardation was required after

the child had reached 9 years of age. I believe that nobody would

seriously defend a practice of making an abrupt turning point of this

kind, except on grounds of practical convenience. The theory of stating

the borderline in terms of a fixed absolute unit of retardation is so

crude that it has now been generally superseded by methods which make

the amount of retardation a function of the age.

In order to relate the definition to the age of the child, at least

during the period of growth, Stern suggested the “intelligence

quotient,” consisting of the tested age divided by the life-age (_188_).

This has been adopted by Kuhlmann with his revision of the Binet scale

(_139_) and by Terman with the new Stanford scale (_197_). With the

Point scale Yerkes utilized a similar ratio method for stating

borderlines by what he calls a “coefficient of intelligence.” He defines

it as “the ratio of an individual's point-scale score to the expected

score, or norm” (_226_, p. 595). Haines also uses these coefficients,

dividing the individual's score on the Point scale by the average number

of points scored by those of his age (_26_). The difference between the

“quotient” and the “coefficient” seems to be mainly empirical since they

are theoretically alike in principle provided the scales by which they

are determined are composed of equal units. Empirically, however, the

units of the point scale would have to be compared with the 0.1 year

units of the Binet scale to determine which showed the greater

uniformity within its own scale. The coefficient has an advantage over

the quotient in that the scale norms for the different ages would

automatically become readjusted with additional data, and that

physiological age norms could be more readily stated if they were ever

available.

The suggestion of defining the borderline of tested deficiency in terms

of a multiple of the standard deviation of ability of children who are

efficient in school was made by Pearson in 1914. Tested inefficients did

not with him include all inefficients, as he recognized other sources of

deficiency. He had previously suggested a scale of mental ability in

units called “mentaces”, 100 of which were equivalent to a unit of the

standard deviation of all ability assumed to be normally distributed. On

this scale of mentaces the imbeciles were 300 mentaces or more below

average ability and would be expected to occur once among 1000

individuals chosen at random. Very dull, including some mentally

defective individuals, were also to be found from 208 to 300 mentaces

below the average (_166_, p. 109). Defining the borderline in terms of

the deviation of a normal population was definitely forecasted by

Norsworthy, although she did not specifically discuss the problem of the

borderline. She indicated that if children tested below -5 P.E., they

might be regarded as outside the normal group.

The following quotation from Pearson will make the method of stating the

borderline in terms of a multiple of the deviation clearer:

“Now the question is, what we mean by a 'special or differentiated

race': I should define it to mean that we could not obtain it by any

selection from the large mass of the normal material. Now in the

case of the mentally defective, we could easily obtain children of

their height, weight, and temperature among the normals. We could,

out of 50,000 normal children, obtain children practically with the

same powers of perception and memory as the feeble-minded, as judged

by Norsworthy's data. But not out of 50,000, nor out of 100,000

normal children, could we obtain children with the same defect of

intelligence as some 50% of the feeble-minded children. In other

words, when the deviation of a so-called feeble-minded child from

the average intelligence of a normal-minded child is six times the

quartile or probable deviation of the group of normal children of

the same age, it falls practically outside the risk of being an

extreme variation of the normal population. Now six times the

quartile variation is almost exactly four times the standard

deviation or the variability in intelligence of the normal child,

and in the next material I am going to discuss [Jaederholm's], we

have shown that the standard deviation in intelligence of the normal

child is just about one year of mental growth” (_164_, p. 35).

With the Jaederholm data obtained in testing children in the regular and

in the special classes in Stockholm by a modified form of the Binet

scale, Pearson found that a year of excess or defect in intelligence was

practically a uniform unit from 7 to 12 years of age and was about

equivalent to the standard deviation of normal children measured in

these year units. He, therefore, uses a year unit and the standard

deviation as interchangeable for these data. He does not, however,

always make it clear whether he means that the equivalence of the year

units is determined by the standard deviation of the children of all

these ages grouped together in one distribution, as it is in determining

the regression lines, or by the equivalence of the standard deviations

of the separate ages, especially when these two deviations are not equal

in terms of the year units on the scale. I shall assume, however, that

he would use the deviations of the separate years in case of such an

inequality of the two concepts.

The quotation from Pearson, which we have given above, indicates that he

would determine the borderline on the scale by the standard deviation of

'normal' children. In his case he actually used children who were

efficient in school, as contrasted with those in special classes. On the

other hand, he argues at length that all mental ability, including that

of the social inefficients, is distributed in the form of the normal

curve (_167_). Under this assumption it is, therefore, little

theoretical change in his position to suppose that the borderline might

be described in terms of the standard deviation of a random sample of

the population. Defining the borderline in terms of a multiple of the

deviation of a random sample at each age thus becomes directly

comparable with the other forms of the quantitative definition,

supposing that all refer to conditions to be found in a completely

random sample. It is in this sense that I shall refer to the method of

defining the borderline in terms of a multiple of the deviation.

The percentage method of defining the borderline seems to have been the

spontaneous natural working out of the problem in the minds of several

investigators. At the same time that I suggested this method in a paper

before the American Psychological Association (_151_) Pintner and

Paterson had prepared a paper suggesting a percentage definition of

feeble-mindedness (_44_) and Terman had worked out his use of the

quotient so that the borderline in terms of the quotient was given

equivalent form in terms of percentage. Nobody, however, seems to have

attempted to work out the details of the method as in the present

monograph.

As a point of detail it is to be remembered that in translating

percentages into terms of the deviation, the size of the group for

which the percentages are determined is important if the groups are

small, since the same percentage lies above slightly different

multiples of the standard deviation with different sized groups. On

this point the reader may see a paper by Cajori and the references

cited there (_86_).

B. COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF QUANTITATIVE DEFINITIONS

In distinction from qualitative methods of describing the mentally

deficient, all quantitative definitions assume that those of deficient

mentality do not represent a different species of mind; but that they

are only the extreme representatives of a condition of mental ability

which grades up gradually to medium ability. The deficient are not an

anomalous group such as we find with some mental diseases. Except for

the comparatively rare cases of traumatic or febrile origin, the

deficient individual is a healthy individual so far as his nervous

system is concerned, even though his capacity for brain activity is

below that of those who socially survive. They are not as a group

abnormal in the sense of diseased, but only unusual in the sense of

being extreme variations from medium ability in a distribution which is

uninterrupted in continuity. This distinction has been fully discussed

by Goring in his work on _The English Convict_, which those who are

interested in a full mathematical discussion of the significance of

mental deficiency are urged to read.

Schmidt urges that the deficients are qualitatively different in

being “unable to plan”, and then suggests tests which most markedly

bring out this distinction between deficient and normal children

(_178_). As I have said before, however, this seems rather to be a

failure to recognize that such an attempt to find tests which

“qualitatively” distinguish the two groups is only an effort to pick

those tests which best make measurable the differences between

individuals at the extreme of mental ability. As such it is a

valuable contribution to this problem. If it is intended as an

attempt to set up a qualitative distinction in a mathematical or

biological sense, between deficient and passable ability, it seems

to me wholly to fail. As I take it, a “qualitative” distinction with

Schmidt is only a bigger quantitative distinction and is intended

only to mean this.

None of those who advocate quantitative definitions would contend, I

believe, as some of their opponents seem to think, that such definitions

afford a final diagnosis for particular cases. In attempting to place

the borderlines on a scale of tests, this is always done with the clear

recognition that such borders are _only symptomatic of deficiency_. The

diagnosis of “social inefficiency,” to use Pearson's term, rests upon

many facts among which the test result is only one, albeit the most

important.

Other characteristics which each of the above quantitative definitions,

except that of a constant absolute amount of deficiency, have in common,

or might easily have if they were stated in their best forms, include

the possibility of adaptation to any developmental scale, the suggestion

of borderlines for both the mature and immature, the distinction of a

group which might be regarded as presumably deficient from one that was

of better but doubtful ability and of this from a still better group

which was presumably socially efficient.

Perhaps the most curious and important thing about these definitions is

that they are all substantially identical, except in their terminology

so long as general mental capacity is found to distribute in the form of

the normal probability curve and to extend to absolute zero ability at

each age. This can easily be seen by comparing the distribution curves

in Fig. 3. The position of the percentage borderline would always

represent the same distance from the average in terms of the standard

deviation of each age and the same ratio when the life-age of arrest of

development had been determined as the largest divisor. Under these

conditions, therefore, these main statements of the quantitative

definition agree in supposing that the same proportion of the

individuals of each life-age would test deficient. Those who advocate

any of these quantitative definitions logically commit themselves to

assuming that the percentage of deficients at each age is practically

constant, unless they suppose the symmetry of distribution varies or

does not extend to the same zero point.

If the distributions do not extend to the same zero points of lowest

ability on an objective scale (see Fig. 5), the ratio is clearly at a

disadvantage compared with either of the other methods, since it assumes

that the same percentage of average ability is an equivalent measure.

This does not hold when the lowest ability at different ages is not at

the same point on the scale of objective units. For example, .7 of an

average 100 units above 0 is not equivalent to .7 of an average 150

points above a zero ability of 30 points on the objective scale. The

idea of regarding percentages of averages as equivalent is therefore

generally avoided in mental measurement. In case the position of the

absolute zero points of ability may be different, the distance from the

average should be stated in terms of the deviation. In this respect the

method of the deviation or the lowest percentage are equally good so

long as the form of distribution does not change.

C. PRACTICAL ADVANTAGES OF THE PERCENTAGE METHOD

1. With the percentages fixed at the lowest 0.5% as presumably deficient

and the next 1.0% doubtful, these borderlines for tested deficiency have

the advantage of being more conservative than those at present

advocated. On the basis of our empirical knowledge this is an important

reason for urging borderlines on the scales at least as low as those

suggested herein. Disregarding the extremely high borderlines which have

fallen into disuse, we still find that social deficiency is often

presumed for those testing above the lowest 1%. With the new Stanford

scale, Terman presumes “definite feeble-mindedness” below an

Intelligence Quotient of .70, below which he finds that 1% of 1000

unselected children fell. I Q's from .70 to .80 would include his

uncertain group, which he describes as “border-line deficiency,

sometimes classified as dullness, often as feeble-mindedness” (_57_, p.

79). His tables show 5% below an I Q of .78. We have no results with a

_random_ group of adults by which to judge how many would be below these

borders. When the I Q has been applied to scores with other scales a

larger percentage has often been found to be excluded. Fernald has shown

that Haines' suggestion of a coefficient of .75 with the Point scale

would exclude 16% of 100 Cincinnati girls selected at random from among

those who left school at 14 years to go to work (_16_).

Unless the examiner wishes to assume that social inefficiency is more

frequent than it has been demonstrated by the practical tests of life,

the success of those who have low quotients should make him exceedingly

cautious about accepting the various borderlines which have been

suggested by those who have not tested their criteria by the percentage

method. It is not merely that the borderlines should be lowered, but

that they should be lowered under some consistent plan so that we should

know as much as is possible about their significance in the prediction

of ultimate social inefficiency, and that we should be able to readjust

them on the basis of new data or to new scales.

With the Point scale Yerkes and Wood say regarding “the coefficient of

intelligence .70, which we accept as the upper limit of intellectual

inadequacy or inferiority”: “Our data indicate that grades of

intellectual ability measured by the coefficient .70 or less are

socially burdensome, ineffective, and usually a menace to racial

welfare” (_226_). With the most reliable part of their data, that for

children from 8-13, this coefficient excludes the lowest 8.39%.

Moreover, the lowest group for which they suggest a borderline, the

dependents, falls at .50 or below and includes 1.05%.

2. A second practical advantage of the percentage borderlines on the

scale is that they make no assumption as to the uniformity of the norms

for the different ages. Except for the Stanford and the Jaederholm

scales, there is little evidence that the age norms exclude equivalent

portions of the children at the different life ages.

Goddard's Table I gives the data from which the following percentages of

those who pass the norm are calculated, not counting those above 11

years, since the older groups are clearly affected by selection:—5 yrs.,

88%; 6 yrs., 79%; 7 yrs., 81%; 8 yrs., 51%; 9 yrs., 60%; 10 yrs., 73%;

11 yrs., 44%. Kuhlmann's figures when using his own revised scale with

public school children including the seventh grade, are:—6 yrs., 100%; 7

yrs., 95%; 8 yrs., 90%; 9 yrs., 87%; 10 yrs., 81%; 11 yrs., 80%; 12

yrs., 57%. It is clear that any change in the test norm from age to age

must disturb the quotient which is based on these norms, although it

would not affect the intelligence coefficient with the Point scale.

3. A third advantage of the percentage method arises from the fact that

we cannot presume that the same ratio in terms of the scale units will

exclude the same degrees of ability at different ages even when the

norms for these ages are properly adjusted. The earlier results with the

Stanford revision show a large variation as to the percentage excluded

by the same I Q at different ages. For example, an I Q of .76 would have

shut out 1% of 117 non-selected 6-year-olds, 2% of 113 9-year-olds and

7% of 98 13-year-olds. The lowest 1% of the last group was below a

borderline of .66 (_197_).

With widely varying norms of the other scales, the I Q borderlines show

much greater variation. In a recent review of the evidence, including

Descoudres' report (_96_) on retesting the same children for several

years Stern recognizes that an I Q index is not constant after 12 years

(_187_). Doll records decided changes in quotients for the same

individual at different ages (_99_). So far as the 1908 scale is

concerned, using Goddard's data, our Table V shows that at five years of

age the lowest 1.8% would fall at or below a quotient of .40, at eight

years the lowest 1.9% would show a quotient of .62 or less, and at 15

years the lowest 2.8% fall below a quotient of .75. The rough tentative

approximation of scale limits which I have suggested for the lowest 1.5%

shows that a series of quotients for children from 5 to 15 years of age

would be below .75 at every age and below .65 for half of these ages.

For the presumably deficient group the quotients would be still lower in

order to be as conservative as the borderlines that I have suggested

with the Binet scale as at present standardized.

With the coefficient of intelligence and the Point scale, the Yerkes and

Wood data show that their borderline of .70 excluded 13% of 196 children

8 and 9 years of age, while it excluded only 5% of each of the next two

groups of double ages. With the group of 237 18-year-old Cincinnati

working girls it excluded only 3% (_226_).

The data at present available thus indicate that we should not expect to

find the same ratio at different ages excluding similar percentages. If

the ratios have a value for comparing individuals of different ages,

they seem to fluctuate so decidedly from age to age that they can hardly

be trusted for stating the borderlines of deficiency without empirical

confirmation for each age.

Pearson found that the children of the older ages in the special classes

were more and more deficient, measured in terms of the standard

deviation of the normal group. This shift on the average was four months

of mental age downward for each year of life during the period 7-14

which he studied. It makes uncertain the definition of the borderline in

terms of a constant multiple of the deviation or of a constant quotient,

unless this shift is shown to be due to imperfections of the tests which

can be corrected, or to changes in the selection of the tested groups at

advanced ages.

Pearson's suggestion of -4 S. D. as a borderline with the Jaederholm

data gives some very curious results with the group of children in the

special schools at Stockholm. Under his interpretation at life-ages 8-11

from 0 to 5.2% of the pupils in these classes would be regarded as

deficient, while for life-ages 12-14, 15.2% to 44.4% are beyond -4 S. D.

In passing it is to be noted that if one accepted Pearson's suggestion

that the borderline should be fixed at -4 S. D., in case the

distribution of mental capacity were strictly normal, only four children

in 100,000 would be found deficient, according to the probability

tables.

With the method of the standard deviation it would be necessary either

to show that the deviation was constant in terms of the year units or

else to restate the borderline for different ages in terms of the scale

units. The irregularity of the norms with the Binet scale could also be

allowed for, of course, by stating different quotients for the different

ages, but when this readjustment is required for either the ratio or the

deviation in terms of the scale units, these methods lose all their

advantage of simplicity. Instead of one ratio or one multiple of the

years of deviation, we might have a different statement for each

life-age. With the percentage method there would be only one statement

of the borderline for all ages in terms of percentage, although the

scale positions change which shut out the same lowest percentage.

4. All the quotient methods of defining the borderline encounter a

serious practical difficulty in fixing the borderline for the mature, so

that it will be equivalent to that for the immature. With the Stanford

scale in calculating the quotient for adults, no divisor is used over 16

years. Yerkes and Bridges also think that this is about the time that

the development of capacity ceases. Kuhlmann and others use 15 as the

highest divisor. Wallin objects to either of these ages being used as

the age of arrest of mental development (_15_, p. 67). Both the methods

of the standard deviation and percentage have a similar difficulty, in

that the borderline for the mature has to be empirically determined on a

test scale. In this dilemma, however, the data collected with the random

group of 15-year-olds in Minneapolis and published in the present study,

places the borderline for the mature on either the 1908 or 1911 Binet

scale in a much safer position, so far as empirical data is concerned,

than the borderline for the mature for any other scale. This is true

whether that borderline be then stated in terms of either the quotient

or percentage methods. Translated into terms of the quotient, our

percentage borderlines for the mature with these scales, below X for

presumably deficient and below XI for the uncertain, would amount to

quotients .60 and .66 on the basis of our findings with this random

group of children who have presumably about reached adult development.

Pearson does not attempt to define any borderline for the adults on the

basis of the deviation, since Jaederholm tested only children. Moreover,

this is not possible empirically with our group of 15-year-olds, since

we tested only the lower extreme of this group.

Unfortunately, the borderlines of the mature for the Stanford and other

scales depend upon empirical results obtained not with random groups,

but upon a composite of selected groups of adults built up by the

investigator on an estimate that this combined group represents a random

selection among those with a typical advance in development, an almost

superhuman task. Fortunately the empirical determination of this

borderline for the mature might be improved later by obtaining data on

less selected groups. The clearer significance of the empirical data for

the borderline for the mature which I have presented for the Binet 1908

and 1911 scales from a random group of 15-year-olds seems to be an

important practical advantage. It provides an empirical basis for

judging the implication of test results with adults. It gives adults the

benefit of the doubt if they improve after 15 years of age.

5. Compared as to their popular significance, there is no doubt that the

lowest 0.5% of the individuals of a particular age has very much more

significance to those not familiar with detailed statistical practise

than a coefficient or a multiple of the standard deviation. A statement

that an adult has only the tested ability of a child of 7 years is

certainly much more impressive than his score in other quantitative

terms. It will probably always be desirable, therefore, to supplement

any other method of scoring by a statement of the individual's test age.

D. THEORETICAL ADVANTAGE OF THE PERCENTAGE METHOD WITH CHANGES IN THE

FORM OF THE DISTRIBUTIONS

With our present series of tests, the percentage method will best

provide a concept of the equivalence of the borderlines at different

ages provided the form of the distribution does not remain uniform. I

discussed this question briefly in connection with units of measurement.

In considering curves of development, I assembled some of the evidence

which makes the assumption of normal distribution or even of a constant

skewness at least uncertain. In my opinion the weight of the evidence is

against the hypothesis that the distributions retain a constant form

during the period of development. If this were clearly demonstrated,

both the ratio methods and deviation would fail to express equivalent

borderlines for the different ages with the Binet scales. A fixed

multiple of the standard deviation or a fixed quotient would exclude

different percentages of the population at each age when the skewness

varied. By reference to Figures 3 and 5, it can be seen that, if our

physical units in which we expressed the measurement were uniform and

ability always extended to the same absolute zero point, it is true that

.01 of the physical units reached by the best at each age would be the

same relative amount of ability of the best at each age, stated in

physical units, _regardless of the form of the distributions_. Such a

concept, however, has an unknown biological or social significance so

far as I can see, except for a constant form of distribution. The same

relative physical score compared with the highest at each age,

theoretically might exclude the lowest 40% of one age group, for

example, and only 10% of another group provided the distribution varied

enough in form. The concept of the same relative amount of ability

measured in physical units, so soon as the form of distribution varies

from age to age, thus loses significance in terms of the struggle for

existence. In that struggle, a vital question is—do the individuals at

different ages have to struggle to overcome the same relative number of

opponents of better ability at their age? If they do, the individuals

might properly be regarded as in equivalent positions in the struggle

for social survival, disregarding how far the next better individual is

above them on the objective scale. This is the concept accepted by the

percentage definition of the borderline as the best available under

uncertain forms of distribution.

The recent rapid perfection of objective scales to measure educational

products, like ability in handwriting, etc., in equal units running to

an absolute zero of ability, suggests that it might be possible

ultimately to state the borderline of deficiency in terms of the same

relative objective distance between the best and zero ability at each

age on a scale of general ability. This ideal could be approached, for

example, with the Sylvester form-board test in which the units are

seconds required to complete the same task, if we could agree upon a

maximum number of seconds without success which should mean no ability,

and if this zero should remain the same at each age. It would only be

necessary to take, for example, the best position or the median or the

upper quartile at each age as the other point of reference. We could

then say that a borderline in physical units was always, for example,

.01 of the median record at each age above zero. Such a method would

provide relatively equal objective borderlines at each age and it would

afford a measure which would take into account the ability of the

individuals to be competed against instead of merely counting them as

the percentage method must. It would be better than a description in

units of the standard deviation in that its significance would be more

easily understood if the form of distribution varied with age.

To demonstrate its worth, however, this method of defining the

borderline in terms of _the same proportion of the physical difference

between zero and the median at each age_, would also have to provide a

better prediction of ultimate social failure. It would have to be shown

that individuals below the relative objective borderline at maturity

were below the same relative objective borderline during immaturity.

Moreover, it would have to be shown that this relationship was closer

than it would be with percentile records. It is a form of this relative

objective measurement which Otis advocates in his “absolute intelligence

quotient,” which he proposes as logically the best measure of ability.

It consists of the ratio of the score of the individual measured in

equal absolute units of intelligence, divided by his age (_163_).

While a relative objective borderline might under certain circumstances

afford a better criterion than the same lowest percentage of

individuals, there are two very serious practical difficulties which at

present make it impossible. In the first place, with the exception of a

few motor tests, there are no test results with children of different

ages measured in terms of equal objective units for the same task. Even

if the Binet year units are equal, as applied to the same task, there is

no accurate means of dividing the year units into smaller physical units

on the basis of scores with the tests. This makes the use of the Binet

scale impossible and we should be forced back upon such tests as the

form-board, the ergograph, etc., for which we should have to agree upon

an absolute zero of ability. Moreover, mental tests do not lend

themselves to measurement in terms merely of rapidity in doing the same

task or in terms of other equal physical units since the quality of the

work also has to be evaluated and this is usually done in units assumed

arbitrarily to measure equivalent degrees of perfection.

The second practical difficulty which at present makes a relative

objective borderline impossible is that we know nothing as to the

prediction of social failure and success from relative positions on the

objective scale used even with the few isolated tests that might be made

available. Until we have data on this question, as well as scales of

tests for native ability that are measurable to zero ability in

objective terms, the percentage method affords the only available way of

stating equivalent borderlines when the form of distribution changes.

If the age of arrest of development shifts either earlier or later with

different degrees of capacity, then there seems to be no logical escape

from a change in the form of distribution. Stern recognized this when he

concluded that idiots reach an arrest of development earlier than those

better endowed, so he stated that his quotient would not hold for them.

He said:

“The feeble-minded child, it must be remembered, not only has a

slower rate of development than the normal child, but also reaches a

stage of arrest at an age when the normal child's intelligence is

still pushing forward in its development. At this time, then, the

cleft between the two will be markedly widened.

“From this consideration it follows that the mental quotient can

hold good as an index of feeble-mindedness only during that period

when the development of the feeble-minded individual is still in

progress. It is for this reason that there is no use in calculating

the quotient for idiots, because, in their case the stage of

arrested development has been entered upon long before the ages at

which they are being subjected to examination” (_188_).

Perhaps the most interesting characteristic of the percentage method is

that it automatically adjusts itself to any form of distribution. In

case the distributions of ability turn out to be normal for each age and

the arrests of development for different degrees of ability distribute

alike, then the borderline fixed by the percentage method becomes

identical with the corresponding borderlines by the quotient, deviation,

or relative objective distance. It can be directly translated into a

quotient or a multiple of the standard deviation. This fact affords a

good check upon the empirical borderlines fixed by the percentage method

for different ages. If the distribution is normal, the lowest 1.5% and

0.5% would be identical with -2.17 S. D. and -2.575 S. D. in samples of

10,000 cases. We may check these percentage borderlines by Goddard's

results for ages 5-11 tested with the 1908 Binet scale. I have given the

standard deviation for the ages 5-11 with this data in Chap. XIII a, 2.

Applying the criterion of 2.575 S. D. to these deviations, we find that

to be in the lowest 0.5%, if the distribution were normal, would be

about a year less of deficiency than we have suggested, while Pearson's

borderline of -4 S. D. would be close to that we suggest. The empirical

data thus suggest that the assumption of a normal distribution is faulty

at the borderline or else Goddard's data is incorrect for fixing the

limits on the scales. I have already given the evidence for supposing

that the distribution is skewed during the years of growth.

When approximately random samples are not available, a multiple of the

deviation of an efficient group such as -4 S. D. at the particular age

seems to afford a practical way of discovering a tentative borderline

until a random sample can be measured. The serious theoretical

objections to such a procedure as a regular method is that the efficient

group would be selected by the subjective standard of somebody's opinion

and that the form of distribution of ability may vary from age to age.

Recalling the practical advantages of the percentage method which we

enumerated in the preceding section, we can now better understand the

value of a method that is not disturbed by the form of distribution of

mental capacity which may ultimately be found to prevail at different

ages. It is safer at present to assume that the distributions do change

enough in form at the lower end seriously to affect the borderlines of

deficiency as defined by other methods. If, however, the form of

distribution remains uniform, it would first be necessary for those

advocating the use of any of the other quantitative definitions to show

that the units of their scales are equal under some reasonable

hypothesis. A ratio or a deviation statable only in scale units which

are not demonstrably equal is a hazard, with the chances badly weighted

against its reliability. So far as both the Binet and the Point scales

are concerned we have found that the units are not equal. A quotient or

coefficient arrived at by assuming their equality is sure to mean

seriously erroneous fluctuations in the borderlines.

Referring to the percentage method, Yerkes and Wood say: “Frequency of

occurrence is unquestionably a useful datum, which should be presented,

if not instead of, then in addition to, certain other statistical

indices which possess greater scientific value” (_226_). These other

indices require both equal scale units and uniform distributions from

age to age. The ratio and deviation methods fail at present in both of

these particulars, so that it seems necessary to depend upon the

percentage definition of tested deficiency, incomplete as that may be.

This leaves us in the unfortunate situation that the borderline

positions on the scale will have to be stated separately for each age

and will have to be found empirically. Moreover, we shall need to

determine more accurately in what lowest percentage an individual must

test in order reasonably to predict that he will require social care for

the good of himself and society.

As soon as anybody can discover a means of defining the borderline,

which is equally accurate and significant, and which, in addition to

counting the proportion of better individuals to be met in the

competition of life, will also evaluate the distance they are above the

borderline, we all shall be eager to accept this better criterion of

deficiency. A form which it might take is that of relative objective

distance between zero and median ability. If measurable in equal

objective units, this would be independent of the form of distribution

and would improve the quantitative description of equivalent deficiency,

provided that it also forecasted future social failure as well as the

percentage method.

What form of stating the borderline of tested deficiency may ultimately

meet with approval, a verbal definition of feeble-mindedness will never

remain an ideal scientific statement until it finds expression in

quantitative terms.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ON TESTED DELINQUENTS[34]

1. BALDWIN, BIRD T. _The Learning of Delinquent Adolescent Girls as

shown by a Substitution Test._ J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, =4=, 317-332.

2. BLUMEL, C. S. _Binet Tests on the Two Hundred Juvenile Delinquents._

Training School Bull., 1915, =12=, 187-193.

3. BRIDGMAN, OLGA LOUISE. _An Experimental Study of Abnormal Children

with Special Reference to the Problems of Delinquency and Dependency._

Announcement of Examination for Ph.D., Stanford University, Calif.

4. BRIDGMAN, OLGA LOUISE. _Delinquency and Mental Deficiency._ Survey,

1914, =32=, 302.

5. BRIDGMAN, OLGA LOUISE. _Mental Deficiency and Delinquency._ J. of

Amer. Med. Assoc., 1913, =62=, 471-472.

6. BRONNER, AUGUSTA F. _A Comparative Study of the Intelligence of

Delinquent Girls._ Columbia Contrib. to Educ. 1914, No. 68, pp. v + 95.

7. BRONNER, AUGUSTA F. _A Research on the Proportion of Mental

Defectives Among Delinquents._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., Nov. 1914.

8. CHICAGO MUNICIPAL COURT. _The Psychopathic Laboratory Eighth and

Ninth Annual Reports for the years Dec. 1, 1913, to Dec. 5, 1915,

inclusive_, pp. 34-48.

9. CRAFTS, L. W. _Bibliography of Feeble-Mindedness in its Social

Aspects._ Monog. Sup., J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1916, 1, No. 3, pp. 72.

_A Bibliography on the Relations of Crime and Feeble-Mindedness._ J. of

Crim. Law and Criminol., 1916, 7, 544-555.

10. CRAMER, A. _Bericht an das Landesdirektorium ueber die

psychiatrisch-neurologische Untersuchung der F. Z. in dem Stephansstift

bei Hannover_, u. s. w., Klin. Jahrb., Jena, 1907, =18=.

11. DAVIS, KATHERINE BEMENT. _Feeble-minded Women in Reformatory

Institutions._ Survey, 1912, =27=, 1849-1851.

12. DOLL, E. A. _Supplementary Analysis of H. B. Hickman's Study of

Delinquents._ The Training School, 1915, =11=, 165-168.

13. DOSAI-RÉVÉSZ, FRAU. _Experimenteller Beitrag zu Psychologie der

moralisch verkommenen Kinder._ Zsch. f. angew. Psychol., 1911, =5=,

272-330.

14. EASTMAN, FREDERIC C. AND ROSANOFF, A. J. _Association in

Feeble-Minded and Delinquent Children._ Amer. J. of Insanity, 1912,

=69=, 125-141.

15. FERNALD, GUY G. _The Defective Delinquent Class: Differentiating

Tests._ Amer. J. of Insanity, 1912, =68=, 523-594.

16. FERNALD, MABEL R. _Practical Applications of Psychology to the

Problems of a Clearing House._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1917, =7=,

722-731.

17. GIFFORD, MRS. E. G. AND GODDARD, HENRY H. _Defective Children in the

Juvenile Court._ The Training School, 1912, =9=, 132-134.

18. GODDARD, HENRY H. _The Criminal Imbecile._ Macmillan, New York,

1915, p. 157.

19. GODDARD, HENRY H. _The Responsibility of Children in Juvenile

Court._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1912, =3=, No. 3.

20. GORING, CHARLES. _The English Convict._ A Statistical Study. Wyman &

Sons, Ltd., London, 1913, pp. 440.

21. GRABE, E. VON. _Prostitution, Kriminalität, und Psychopathie._

Archiv. für kriminal Anthropologie und Kriminalistik, 1912, 48 ff.

22. GREEN, E. F. _Report of Physician and Psychologist on the

Reformatory Population of St. Cloud, Minn._ J. of Crim. Law and

Criminol., 1913, =4=, 420-421.

23. GREEN, E. F. _The Defective Delinquents._ Minnesota State

Reformatory, St. Cloud, 1913, pp. 7.

24. HAINES, THOMAS H. _Feeble-Mindedness Among Adult Delinquents._ J. of

Crim. Law and Criminol., 1917, =7=, 702-721.

25. HAINES, THOMAS H. _Point Scale Ratings of Delinquent Boys and

Girls._ Psychol. Rev., 1915, =22=, 104-109.

26. HAINES, THOMAS H. _Relative Value of Point Scale and Year-Scale

Measurements of One Thousand Minor Delinquents._ J. of Exper. Psychol.,

1916, =1=, 51-82.

27. HEALY, WILLIAM. _The Individual Delinquent._ Little, Brown & Co.,

Boston, 1915, pp. xvii + 830.

28. HICKMAN, H. B. _Delinquent and Criminal Boys Tested by the Binet

Scale._ The Training-School Bull., 1915, =11=, 159-164.

29. HICKSON, WILLIAM J. _The Defective Delinquent._ J. of Crim. Law and

Criminol., 1914, =5=, 397-403.

30. HILL, HELEN F. AND GODDARD, H. H. _Delinquent Girls Tested by the

Binet Scale._ The Training School, 1911, =8=, 50-56.

31. JENNINGS, H. M. AND HALLOCK, A. L. _Binet-Simon Tests at the George

Junior Republic._ J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, =4=, 471-475.

32. JONES, ARTHUR M. _The Relation of the Psychiatrist to the Juvenile

Court._ Wis. Med. J., 1914, =13=, August.

33. KOHS, SAMUEL C. _The Practicability of the Binet Scale and the

Question of the Borderline Case._ Bull. No. 23, 1915, Research Dep't.,

Chicago House of Correction, pp. 23.

34. KRAMER, FRANZ. _Intelligenzprüfungen an abnormen Kindern._

Monatschrift für Psychiatrie and Neurologie, 1913, =33=, 500-519.

35. MCCORD, CLINTON P. _One Hundred Female Offenders._ J. of Crim. Law

and Criminol., 1915, =6=, 385-407.

36. _Massachusetts._ _Report of the Commission for the Investigation of

the White Slave Traffic._ House Report No. 2281, 1914, pp. 86.

37. _Michigan._ _Report of the Commission to Investigate the Extent of

Feeble-mindedness, Epilepsy and Insanity and other Conditions of Mental

Defectiveness in Michigan_, 1916, State Printers, Lansing, pp. 175.

38. MOORE, FRANK. _Mentally Defective Delinquents._ Proc. of Nat. Conf.

of Char. and Cor., 1911, 65-68.

39. MORROW, LOUISE, AND BRIDGMAN, OLGA. _Delinquent Girls Tested by the

Binet-Scale._ The Training School, 1912, =9=, May.

40. _New Hampshire._ _Children's Commission Report to the Governor and

Legislature of New Hampshire._ Concord, 1914, pp. 136.

41. ORDAHL, GEORGE. _A Study of 341 Delinquent Boys._ J. of Delinquency,

1916, =1=, 72-86.

42. ORTON, G. L. AND MOORE, FRANK. _The Procreative Regulation of

Defectives and Delinquents._ J. of Amer. Med. Assoc., 1912, =58=, No.

26.

43. OTIS, MARGARET. _The Binet Tests Applied to Delinquent Girls._

Psychol. Clinic, 1913, =7=, 127-134.

44. PINTNER, RUDOLF, AND PATERSON, DONALD G. _A Psychological Basis for

the Diagnosis of Feeble-mindedness._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol.,

1916, =7=, 32-55.

45. PORTEUS, S. D. _Mental Tests with Delinquents and Australian

Aboriginal Children._ Psychol. Rev., 1917, =24=, 32-42.

46. PYLE, W. H. _A Study of Delinquent Girls._ Psychol. Clinic, 1914,

=8=, 143-148.

47. RENZ, EMILE. _A Study of the Intelligence of Delinquents and the

Eugenic Significance of Mental Defect._ The Training School Bull., 1914,

=11=, 37-39.

48. ROSSY, C. S. _Report on the First Three Hundred Cases Examined at

the Massachusetts State Prison._ Bull. No. 17 of the Mass. State Brd. of

Insanity, 1915.

49. ROWLAND, ELEANOR. _Report of Experiments at the State Reformatory

for Women at Bedford, N. Y._ Psychol. Rev. 1913, =20=, 244-249.

50. SCHLAPP, MAX G., AND HOLLINGWORTH, LETTA STETTER. _The Mentally

Defectives as Cases in the Courts of New York City._ Bull. of U. S. Bur.

of Educ., 1915, No. 50, 150-157; N. Y. Med. Rec., Feb. 27, 1915.

51. SMEDLEY, FRED. W. _Child Study Reports No. 2 and No. 3, 1901, 1902._

Chicago Public Schools.

52. SMITH, M. H. _The Binet-Simon Method and the Intelligence of Adult

Prisoners._ Lancet, 1915, =17=, 120.

53. SMITH, STEVENSON. _First Annual Report of the Bailey and Babette

Gatzert Foundation for Child Welfare._ Bull. of the Univ. of Wash. No.

60, 1912.

54. STENQUIST, J. L.; THORNDIKE, E. L.; TRABUE, M. R. _The Intellectual

Status of Children who are Public Charges._ Archiv. of Psychol., 1915,

No. 33, pp. 52.

55. STORER, MARY. _The Defective Delinquent Girl._ J. of

Psycho-Asthenics, 1914, =19=, 23-30.

56. SULLIVAN, W. C. _La mesure de developpement intellectual chez les

jeunes delinquantes._ L'année psychol., 1912, =18=, 341-361.

57. TERMAN, LEWIS M. _The Measurement of Intelligence. An Explanation of

and a Complete Guide for the use of the Stanford Revision and Extension

of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale._ Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1916,

pp. xviii + 362.

58. _Virginia. State Board of Charities and Corrections._ _A Special

Report to the General Assembly of 1916 on Weak-Mindedness in the State

of Virginia; together with a Plan for the Training, Segregation, and

Prevention of the Procreation of the Feeble-Minded._ Richmond, Va.,

1916, pp. 128.

59. WEIDENSALL, JEAN. _Psychol. Tests as Applied to Criminal Women._

Psychol. Rev., 1914, =21=, 370-375.

60. WEIDENSALL, JEAN. _The Mentality of the Criminal Woman._ Educ.

Psychol. Monog., Warwick & York, Baltimore, 1916, pp. xx + 322.

61. WILLIAMS, J. HAROLD. _A Study of 150 Delinquent Boys._ Bull. No. 1.

Research Laboratory of the Buckel Foundation, Stanford University, Cal.,

Feb. 1915, pp. 15.

62. WILLIAMS, J. HAROLD. _Intelligence and Delinquency._ A Study of Two

Hundred and Fifteen Cases. J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1916, =6=,

696-705.

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

63. ABELSON, A. R. _The Measurement of Mental Ability of Backward

Children._ Brit. J. of Psychol., 1911, =4=, 268-314.

64. _American Association for the Study of the Feeble-Minded._ _Report

of Committee on Classification of Feeble-Minded._ Chippewa Falls, 1909.

J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1910, =15=, 61.

65. ANDERSON, V. V. _The Laboratory in the Study and Treatment of

Crime._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1915, =5=, 840-850.

66. ANONYMOUS. _Recommendations on the Binet._ Ungraded, 1915, =1=, 7.

67. ANTON, G. _Das moralische Fühlen und Begreifen bei Imbezilen und bei

kriminellen Degenerierten_, Hermann, Juristisch-psychiatrische

Grenzfragen, 1912, =8=, Heft. 4, 5.

68. ASCHAFFENBURG, GUSTAV. _Crime and Its Repression._ Translated by

Adalbert Albrecht. _Modern Crim. Sci. Series._ Little, Brown & Co.,

Boston, 1913, pp. xxviii + 331.

69. AUDEN, GEORGE A. _Feeble-Mindedness and Juvenile Crime._ J. of Crim.

Law. and Criminol., =2=, 228-238.

70. _Australian Minister of Public Instruction._ _Report for 1911-12._

Albert J. Mullett, Melbourne, 1913.

71. AYRES, LEONARD P. _Laggards in Our Schools._ Russell Sage

Foundation, New York, 1909, pp. xii + 236.

72. BACHMAN, FRANK P. _Supplementary Report on Overage and the Method of

Determining Overage._ New York.

73. BALDWIN, BIRD T. _Individual Differences in the Correlation of

Physical Growth of Elementary and High School Pupils._ J. of Educ.

Psychol., =2=, 315-341.

74. BALDWIN, BIRD T. _Physical Growth and School Progress._ Bull. U. S.

Bur. of Educ., 1914, No. 10.

75. BALDWIN, BIRD T. _The Normal Child. Its Physical Growth and Mental

Development._ Pop. Sci. Mo., 1914, =75=, 550-567.

76. BINET, ALFRED. _Application of the New Methods to the Diagnosis of

the Intellectual Level Among Normal and Subnormal Children in

Institutions and in the Primary Schools._ L'année psychol., 1905,

245-236. Translated by Elizabeth S. Kite in The Development of

Intelligence in Children. The Training School, Vineland, N. J., 1916,

pp. 336.

77. BINET, ALFRED, AND SIMON, TH. _Mentally Defective Children._

Translated by Drummond, W. B. Longmans Green & Co., London, 1914, pp.

viii + 180.

78. BINET, A. AND SIMON, TH. _Method of Measuring the Development of the

Intelligence of Young Children._ Translated by Clara H. Town. Courier,

Lincoln, Ill., 1913.

79. BINET, ALFRED, AND SIMON, TH. _The Development of Intelligence in

Children._ Translated by Elizabeth S. Kite. The Training School,

Vineland, N. J., 1916, pp. 329.

80. BOAS, FRANZ. Growth, Monroe Cyclop. of Educ.

81. BOBERTAG, OTTO. _Ueber Intelligenz Prüfungen (nach der Methode von

Binet und Simon)._ Zsch. f. Angew. Psychol., 1916, =6=, 531 ff.

82. BRECKENRIDGE, SOPHONISBA P., AND ABBOTT, EDITH. _The Delinquent

Child and the Home._ Charities Publication Committee, New York, 1912,

pp. 355.

83. _British Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the

Feeble-Minded._ _Report of the Commission._ Wyman and Sons, Ltd. London,

1908, =8= vols.

84. BURT, CYRIL. _Experimental Tests of General Intelligence._ Brit. J.

of Psychol., 1910, =3=, 94-177.

85. BURT, CYRIL. _The Measurement of Intelligence by the Binet Tests._

Eugenics Rev., 1914, =6=, 36-50, 140-152.

86. CAJORI, FLORIAN. _A New Marking System and Means of Measuring

Mathematical Abilities._ Science, 1915, =39=, 874-881.

87. CARPENTER, D. F. _Mental Age Tests._ J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913,

=4=, 538-544.

88. _Children's Bureau of the U. S. Department of Labor._ _Mental

Defectives in the District of Columbia._ Children's Bull., 1915, No. 13,

pp. 39.

89. CHOTZEN, F. _Die Bedeutung der Intelligenzprüfungsmethode von Binet

und Simon für die Hilfsschule._ Hilfsschule, 1915, =5=, 153-162.

90. CHOTZEN, F. _Die Intelligenzprüfungsmethode von Binet-Simon bei

Schwachsinnigen Kindern._ Zsch. für angew. Psychol., 1912, =6=, 411-494.

91. CIMBAL, W. _Taschenbuch zur Untersuchung nerväser und psychischer

Krankheit under Krankheits-ver-dachtiger Zustädige._ J. Springer,

Berlin, 1909.

92. CLARK, TALIAFERRO; COLLINS, GEORGE L.; AND TREADWAY, W. L. _Rural

School Sanitation Including Physical and Mental Status of School

Children in Porter County, Indiana._ U. S. Public Health Bull., 1916,

No. 77, pp. 125.

93. CORNELL, WALTER S. _Health and Medical Inspection of School

Children._ F. A. Davis Co., Phila., 1912, pp. xiv + 614.

94. COULTER, ERNEST K. _Mentally Defective Delinquents and the Law._

Proc. Nat. Conf. Char. and Cor., 1911.

95. DAVENPORT, C. B.; CASTLE, WM. ERNEST; COULTER, JOHN MERLE; EAST,

EDWARD MURRAY; AND TOWER, WM. LAWRENCE. _Heredity and Eugenics._ Univ.

of Chicago Press, 1912.

96. DESCOUDRES, A. _Les tests de Binet-Simon comme mesure du

developpement des enfants anormaux._ Archiv. de psychol., 1915, =15=,

225-254.

97. _Detroit Board of Education._ _Seventy-Second Annual Report for the

year ending June 30, 1915._

98. DOLL, E. A. _Anthropometry as an aid to Mental Diagnosis._ Pub. of

the Research Dept. The Training School, Vineland, N. J., 1916, No. 8,

pp. 91.

99. DOLL, E. A. _Note on the “Intelligence Quotient.”_ The Training

School, Vineland, No. 7, Jan. 1916.

100. DOLL, E. A. _Preliminary Note on the Diagnosis of Potential

Feeble-Mindedness._ Training School Bull., 1916, May.

101. DRUCKER, A. P. _A Study of One Hundred Juvenile Adult Offenders in

the Cook County Jail._ Chicago, Ill. J. of Crim. Law and Criminol.,

1913, =4=, 47-57.

102. FARRELL, ELIZABETH E. _A Preliminary Report on the Careers of Three

Hundred Fifty Children Who Have Left Ungraded Classes._ J. of

Psycho-Asthenics, 1915, =20=, Nos. 1 and 2.

103. FERNALD, GUY G. _The Recidivist._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol.,

=3=, 866-875.

104. FERNALD, WALTER E. _The Imbecile with Criminal Instincts._ Amer. J.

of Insanity, 1909, =65=, No. 4.

105. FINKLE, KATE T. _Significant Figures from the Juvenile Court of

Hennepin County._ Proc. Minn. Acad. of Soc. Sci., 1910.

106. GAULT, ROBERT H. _Editorial._ J. of Crim. Law and Crimol., 1913,

=4=, 322.

107. GAULT, ROBERT H. _Preventives of Delinquency._ J. of Crim. Law and

Criminol., 1914, =4=, 637.

108. GILBERT, J. ALLEN. _Researches on the Mental and Physical

Development of School-Children._ Stud. from the Yale Psychol. Lab.,

1894, =2=, 40-100.

109. GLUECK, BERNARD. _The Mentally Defective Immigrant._ N. Y. Medical

J., 1913, =98=, 760-796.

110. GODDARD, HENRY H. _Binet's Measuring Scale for Intelligence._ The

Training School, 1910, =6=, No. 11.

111. GODDARD, HENRY H. _Discussion of Degree of Mental Deficiency in

Children as Expressed by the Relation of Age to Mental Age._ J. of

Psycho-Asthenics, 1913, =17=, 143 ff.

112. GODDARD, HENRY H. _Feeble-mindedness: Its Causes and Consequences._

Macmillan, N. Y., 1914, pp. xii + 599.

113. GODDARD, HENRY H. _Four Hundred Feeble-Minded Children Classified

by the Binet Method._ J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1910, =15=, 28.

114. GODDARD, HENRY H. _School Training of Defective Children._ World

Book Co., New York, 1914, pp. xi + 97.

115. GODDARD, HENRY H. _The Binet-Simon Measuring Scale for

Intelligence._ Revised Edition, 1911. Department of Psychological

Research, The Training School, Vineland, N. J.

116. GODDARD, HENRY H. _The Diagnosis of Feeble-Mindedness._ Illinois

Med. J., Sept. 1913.

117. GODDARD, HENRY H. _The Improvability of Feeble-Minded Children._ J.

of Psycho-Asthenics, 1913, =17=, 121-131.

118. GODDARD, HENRY H. _The Prevention of Feeble-Mindedness._

Transactions of the 15th Internat. Cong. of Hygiene and Demography.

119. GODDARD, HENRY H. _Two Thousand Normal Children Measured by the

Binet Measuring Scale for Intelligence._ Ped. Sem., 1911, =18=, 232-259.

120. GORING, CHARLES. _On the Inheritance of the Diatheses of Phthisis

and Insanity. A Statistical Study based upon the Family History of 1,500

Criminals._ Biometric Laboratory Pub., Drapers' Co. Research Memoirs,

Biometric Series No. V.

121. GRUHLE, HANS W. _Die Ursachen der jugendlichen Verwahlosung and

Kriminalität._ J. Springer, Berlin, 1912, pp. iv + 454. Reviewed by J.

B. Miner in J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., March, 1913.

122. HAINES, THOMAS H. _Diagnostic Values of Some Performance Tests._

Psychol. Rev., 1915, =22=, 299-305.

123. HART, B. AND SPEARMAN, C. _Mental Tests of Dementia._ J. of Abnorm.

Psychol., 1914, =9=, 217-264.

124. HEALY, WILLIAM. _Mental Defects and Delinquency._ Proc. of the Nat.

Confer. Char. and Cor., 1911, =38=, 59-63.

125. HEALY, WILLIAM AND FERNALD, GRACE M. _Tests for Practical Mental

Classification._ Psychol. Monog., 1911, No. 54, p. 53.

126. HERON, DAVID. _A First Study of the Statistics of Insanity and the

Inheritance of the Insane Diathesis._ Eugenics Laboratory Publications,

Memoir Series No. 11. Dulau & Co., Ltd.

127. HERON, DAVID. _Mendelism and the Problem of Mental Defect. A

Criticism of Recent American Work._ Questions of the Day and Fray 1914,

No. XII, p. 51.

128. HINCKLEY, ALICE C. _The Binet Tests Applied to Individuals Over

Twelve Years of Age._ J. of Educ. Psychol., 1915, =6=, 43-58.

129. HUEY, EDMUND BURKE. _Backward and Feeble-Minded Children._ Educ.

Psychol. Monog. Warwick and York, 1912.

130. KELLEY, TRUMAN LEE. _Educational Guidance._ Columbia Contributions

to Educ., 1914, No. 71, pp. xi + 116.

131. KEY, WILHELMINE E. _Feeble-Minded Citizens in Pennsylvania._ Public

Charities Assoc. of Penn., 1915, Pub. No. 16, pp. 63.

132. KINBERG, OLAF. _Obligatory Psychiatric Examination of Certain

Classes of Accused Persons._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1912, =2=,

858-867.

133. KNEELAND, G. J. _Commercialized Prostitution in New York City._

Century Co., 1913.

134. KNOX, HOWARD A. _Alien Mental Defectives, A Collection of Papers._

C. H. Stoelting Co., Chicago.

135. KUHLMANN, F. _A Revision of the Binet-Simon System of Measuring the

Intelligence of Children._ Monog. Sup. to J. of Psycho-Asthenics, =1=,

No. 1, pp. 41.

136. KUHLMANN, F. _Binet and Simon's System for Measuring the

Intelligence of Children._ J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1911, =15=, Nos. 3

and 4.

137. KUHLMANN, F. _Degree of Mental Deficiency in Children as Expressed

by the Relation of Age to Mental Age._ J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1913,

=17=, 132-144.

138. KUHLMANN, F. _Some Results of Examining a Thousand Public School

Children with a Revision of the Binet-Simon Tests of Intelligence by

Untrained Examiners._ Jour. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1914, =18=, 150-179,

233-269.

139. KUHLMANN, F. _The Binet and Simon Tests of Intelligence in Grading

Feeble-Minded Children._ J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1912, =16=, 173-193.

140. KUHLMANN, F. _What Constitutes Feeble-Mindedness?_ J. of

Psycho-Asthenics, 1915, =19=, 214-236.

141. LAPAGE, C. PAGET. _Feeble-mindedness in Children of School Age._

Manchester Univ. Press, 1911, pp. viii + 359.

142. LINDSAY, S. M. _Juvenile Delinquency._ Monroe's Cyclopedia of

Education.

143. _London County Council._ _Annual Report, 1909-10._

144. _London County Council._ _Annual Report, 1912, Chap. XLI. Special

Schools, Industrial and Reformatory Schools and Places of Detention.

Also Board of Education, Statistics of Public Educ. in Eng. and Wales_,

Part 1, Educ. Statistics, 1912-13.

145. MCKINNIE, ADELE E. _The Feeble-Minded in One Michigan County._ J.

of Psycho-Asthenics, 1914, =18=, 142-146.

146. MACMILLAN, D. P. _The Physical and Mental Examination of Public

School Pupils in Chicago._ Charities, Dec. 22, 1906.

147. _Manheim._ _Bericht ueber den stand der dem Volksschulrektorat

unterstellten Stadtischen Schulern in Manheim in den Schuljahren

1909-10, 1910-11, 1911-12._

148. MERRILL, LILBURN. _The Clinical Classification of Delinquent

Children According to Causative Pathology._ Seattle, Wash., 1913.

149. MERRILL, MAUD. _A Chart of Mental Examinations._ Quarterly,

Representing the Minnesota Educational Philanthropic Correctional and

Penal Institutions. State Board of Control, St. Paul, Nov., 1915, pp.

78.

150. MEUMANN, ERNST. _Vorlesungen zur Einjuehrung in die experimentelle

Paedagogik and ihre psychologishen Grundlagen._, 1913, =2= vol.

151. MINER, JAMES BURT. _A Percentage Definition of Intellectual

Deficiency._ Psychol. Bull., 1916, =13=, 89-90.

152. MINER, JAMES BURT. _The Discovery of Capacity in Backward

Children._ Proceedings of the Twentieth Minnesota State Conference of

Charities and Correction, 1911, 150 ff.

153. MINER, JAMES BURT. _The Scientific Study of Juvenile Delinquents in

Minneapolis._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1913, =3=, 781-782.

154. _Minnesota State School for Feeble-Minded._ _Biennial Report for

1912._

155. MONROE, WILL S. _Feeble-Minded Children in Public Schools._

Proceedings of the Assoc. of Med'l. Officers of Amer. Institutions for

Idiotic and Feeble-Minded Persons, at Fort Wayne, Ind., May, 1894, pp.

11.

156. MOORE, ANNE. _The Feeble-Minded in New York._ A Report Prepared for

the Public Education Association of New York, United Charities Building,

N. Y. City, 1911, pp. iii + 57.

157. _New Orleans._ _Public School Alliance._ Report of the Committee on

Exceptional Children in the Public Schools of New Orleans, March, 1913.

158. _New York State Board of Charities._ _Eleven Mental Tests

Standardized._ Eugenics and Social Welfare, 1915. Bull. No. 5, Albany,

pp. 87.

159. NORSWORTHY, NAOMI. _Psychology of Mentally Deficient Children._

Archives of Psychol., 1906, No. 1.

160. NORSWORTHY, NAOMI. _The A Test with the Feeble-Minded._ The

Training School, June, 1913, =10=, No. 4.

161. OLSON, HARRY. _A Constructive Policy Whereby the Social Evil May Be

Reduced._ Barnard and Miller, Chicago, 1913.

162. ORDAHL, LOUISE ELLISON, AND ORDAHL, GEORGE. _Qualitative

Differences Between Levels of Intelligence in Feeble-Minded Children._

J. of Psycho-Asthenics. Monog. Sup., 1915, =1=, No. 2, pp. 50.

163. OTIS, ARTHUR S. _Some Logical Aspects of the Binet Scale._ Psychol.

Rev., 1916, =23=, 129-152, 165-179.

164. PEARSON, KARL. _Mendelism and the Problem of Mental Defect. III. On

the Graduated Character of Mental Defect and on the Need for

Standardizing Judgments as to the Grade of Social Inefficiency Which

Shall Involve Segregation._ Questions of the Day and Fray, 1914, No. IX.

165. PEARSON, KARL. _On Certain Errors with Regard to Multiple

Correlation Occasionally made by those who have not Adequately Studied

this Subject._ Biometrika, 1914, =10=, 181-187.

166. PEARSON, KARL. _On the Relationship of Intelligence to Size and

Shape of Head and to other Physical and Mental Characters._ Biometrika,

1906, =5=, 105-146.

167. PEARSON, KARL, AND JAEDERHOLM, GUSTAV A. _Mendelism and the Problem

of Mental Defect. II. On the Continuity of Mental Defect._ Questions of

the Day and Fray, 1914, No. VIII.

168. _Philadelphia Department of Public Health and Charities._ _The

Number of the Feeble-Minded_, 1910.

169. PORTER, LANGLEY; HUFFAKER, A.; AND RETTER, A. _Physical Survey of

Supposedly Normal Children._ J. of Amer. Med. Assoc., 1915, =45=,

675-678.

170. REED, MRS. FREDERICK W. _Research Work in the Minneapolis Juvenile

Court._ Amer. Rev. of Rev., Aug., 1913, =48=, 214-217.

171. RHOADES, MABEL CARTER. _A Case Study of Delinquent Boys in the

Juvenile Court of Chicago._ Univ. of Chicago Press, 1907, pp. 25.

172. ROGERS, A. C. _Classification of the Feeble-Minded Based on Mental

Age._ Bull. of Amer. Acad. of Med., 1912. =13=.

173. ROGERS, A. C. _Discussion of the Mentally Defective and the

Courts._ J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1910, =15=, 58.

174. ROSANOFF, ISABEL R. AND ROSANOFF, A. J. _A Study of Association in

Children._ Psychol. Rev., 1913, =20=, 43-89.

175. ROSSOLIMO, G. _Die psychologischen Profile, zur Methodik der

quantitativen Untersuchung der psychischen Vorgänze in normalen und

pathologischen Fällen._ Klinik f. psychische u. nevöse Krankeiten, 1911,

=6=, Heft. 2.

176. RYBAKOW, TH. _Atlas zur psychologischen Untersuchungen auf gesund

und geistes Kranken._

177. SCHAEFER, H. _Allgemeine gerichtliche Psychiatrie für Juristen,

Mediziner und Pädogogen._ Ernst Hoffman, Berlin, 1910.

178. SCHMIDT, CLARA. _Standardization of Tests for Defective Children._

Psychol. Monog., 1915, =19=, No. 3.

179. SCHMIDT, CLARA. _The Binet-Simon Tests of Mental Ability,

Discussion and Criticism._ Ped. Sem., 1912, =19=, 186-200.

180. SCHWEGLER, RAYMOND A. _A Teacher's Manual for the use of the

Binet-Simon Scale of Intelligence._ Kansas State Printing Office,

Topeka, 1914, pp. 56.

181. SHUTTLEWORTH, G. E. AND POTTS, W. A. _Mentally Deficient Children._

3rd Ed. Blakistons Son & Co., 1910, pp. 236.

182. SIMON, TH. _Measurement of Intelligence._ Eugenics. Rev., 1915,

=6=, 291-307.

183. SPAULDING, EDITH R. _The Results of Mental and Physical

Examinations of Four Hundred Women Offenders, with Particular Reference

to their Treatment during Commitment._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol.,

1915, =5=, 704-717.

184. SPEARMAN, C. _The Heredity of Abilities._ Eugenics Review, 1914,

=6=, 219-237.

185. SPEARMAN, C. _The Theory of Two Factors._ Psychol. Rev., 1914,

=21=, 101-115.

186. STARCH, DANIEL. _The Measurement of Efficiency in Spelling and the

Overlapping of Grades in Combined Measurements of Reading, Writing and

Spelling._ J. of Educ. Psychol., 1915, =6=, 167-186.

187. STERN, WILLIAM. _Der Intelligenz quotient als Mass der kindlichen

Intelligenz, inbesondere der unter normalen._ Zsch. f. angew Psychol.,

1916, =11=, 1-18.

188. STERN, WILLIAM. _Psychological Methods of Testing Intelligence._

Trans. by G. M. Whipple. Psychol. Monographs, Warwick and York,

Baltimore, 1914.

189. STRAYER, GEORGE DRAYTON. _Age and Grade Census of Schools and

Colleges._ Bull. of the U. S. Bureau of Educ., 1911, No. 5, pp. 144.

190. STRONG, ALICE C. _Three Hundred Fifty White and Colored Children

Measured by the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence. A

Comparative Study._ Ped. Sem., 1913, =20=, 485-515.

191. SYLVESTER, REUEL HALL. _The Form Board Test._ Psychol. Monog.,

1913, No. 65, pp. 56.

192. TERMAN, LEWIS M. _The Binet Scale and the Diagnosis of

Feeble-Mindedness._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1916, =4=, 530-543.

193. TERMAN, LEWIS M. _The Mental Hygiene of Exceptional Children._ Ped.

Sem., 1915, =22=, 537-539.

194. TERMAN, LEWIS M. _The Significance of Intelligence Tests for Mental

Hygiene._ J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1914, =18=, 119-127.

195. TERMAN, LEWIS M. AND CHILDS, H. G. _A Tentative Revision and

Extension of the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence._ J. of

Educ. Psychol., 1912, =3=, 61-74, 133-143, 198-208, 277-289.

196. TERMAN, LEWIS M. AND KNOLLIN, H. E. _Some Problems Relating to the

Detection of Borderline Cases of Mental Deficiency._ J. of

Psycho-Asthenics, 1915, =20=, 1-15.

197. TERMAN, LEWIS M.; LYMAN, GRACE; ORDAHL, GEORGE; GALBREATH, NEVA;

AND TALBERT, WILFORD. _The Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon Scale,

and Some Results from its Application to One Thousand Non-Selected

Children._ J. of Educ. Psychol., 1915, =6=, 551-564.

198. THORNDIKE, EDWARD L. _Educational Psychology._ Revised Edition.

Columbia, Teachers' College, N. Y. City, 1914, pp. x + 408.

199. THORNDIKE, EDWARD L. _Measurement of Twins._ Archives of Psychol.,

1905, No. 1, pp. 64.

200. THORNDIKE, EDWARD L. _The Significance of the Binet Mental Ages._

Psychol. Clinic, 1914, =8=, 185-189.

201. TOWNE, CLARA H. _Mental Types of Juvenile Delinquents, Considered

in Relation to Treatment._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1913, =4=,

83-89.

202. TRAVIS, THOMAS. _The Young Malefactor._ N. Y., 1908.

203. TREADWAY, WALTER L. _Care of Mental Defectives, the Insane, and

Alcoholics in Springfield, Illinois._ The Springfield Survey, No. VIII,

1914, pp. ix + 46.

204. TREDGOLD, A. F. _Mental Deficiency (Amentia)._ 2nd Ed. Revised and

Enlarged. Bailliere, Tindall & Cox, London, 1914, pp. xv + 491.

205. _United States Bureau of Census, Dept. of Commerce._ _Insane and

Feeble-Minded in Institutions in 1910_, 1914.

206. _United States Bureau of Census, Dept. of Commerce._ _U. S. Special

Report of Census Office on Mortality._ Government Printing Office, 1916.

207. _United States Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce._ _United

States Life Tables, 1910._ Prepared under the Supervision of James W.

Glover, Government Printing Office, 1916.

208. _United States Commissioner of Education._ _Annual Report_, 1914.

209. VAN SICKLE, JAMES H.; WITMER, LIGHTNER; AYRES, LEONARD P.

_Provisions for Exceptional Children in Public Schools._ Bull. of U. S.

Bur. of Educ., 1911, No. 14, pp. 92.

210. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE. _Eight Months of Psycho-Clinical Research at

the New Jersey State Village for Epileptics, with Some Results for the

Binet-Simon Testing._ Trans. of the Nat. Assoc. for the Study of

Epilepsy, 1911, 29-43.

211. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE. _Mental Health of the School Child._ Yale

Univ. Press, 1914, pp. 463 + ix.

212. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE. _Psycho-Motor Norms for Practical

Diagnosis._ Psychol. Monog., 1916, =22=, No. 2, pp. 102.

213. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE. _Re-Averments Respecting Psycho-Clinical

Norms and Scales of Development._ Psycho. Clinic, 1913, =7=, 89-97.

214. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE. _Who is Feeble-Minded?_ J. of Crim. Law and

Criminol., 1915, =6=, 706-716.

215. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE. _Who is Feeble-Minded? A Reply to Mr. Kohs._

J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1916, =7=, 56-78.

216. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE, AND KOHS, SAMUEL C. _Who is Feeble-Minded? A

Rejoinder and a Rebuttal._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., =7=, 219-226.

217. WEBB, E. _Character and Intelligence._ Brit. J. of Psychol., Monog.

Sup., 1915, =3=, pp. ix + 99.

218. WEIDENSELL, JEAN. _Criminology and Delinquency._ Annual Summary,

Psychol. Bull., 1913, =10=, 230-236.

219. WEYANDT, PROF. DR. _Ein Schwachsinns-Prüfungskasten von Prof. Dr.

Weyandt._ Zsch. f. Erforschung and Behandlung des jugendlichen

Schwachsinns, 1910, =4=, Reprint by P. Johannes Muller, Charlottenburg

5.

220. WHIPPLE, GUY MONTROSE. _Manual of Mental and Physical Tests._

Warwick and York, Baltimore, 1915, =2= vols.

221. WITMER, LIGHTNER. _Children With Mental Defect Distinguished from

Mentally Defective Children._ The Psychol. Clinic., 1913, =7=, 175-182.

222. WOOLLEY, HELEN THOMPSON. _A New Scale of Mental and Physical

Measurements for Adolescents and Some of its Uses._ J. of Educ.

Psychol., 1915, =6=, 521-550.

223. WOOLLEY, HELEN THOMPSON AND FISCHER, CHARLOTTE R. _Mental and

Physical Measurements of Working Children._ Psychol. Monog., 1914, =18=,

No. 1.

224. WYATT, STANLEY. _The Quantitative Investigation of Higher Mental

Processes._ Brit. J. of Psychol., 1913, =6=, 104-133.

225. YERKES, ROBERT M.; BRIDGES, JAMES W.; AND HARDWICK, ROSE S. _A

Point Scale for Measuring Mental Ability._ Warwick and York, Baltimore,

1915, pp. viii + 218.

226. YERKES, ROBERT M., AND WOOD, LOUISE. _Methods of Expressing Results

of Measurements of Intelligence. Coefficient of Intelligence._ J. of

Educ. Psychol., 1916, =7=, 593-606.

227. YOUNG, HERMAN H. _The Witmer Formboard._ Psychol. Clinic, 1916,

=10=, 93-111.

228. YULE, J. UDNY. _An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics._

Charles Griffen and Co., London, 1911, pp. xiii + 376.

-----

Footnote 34:

Additional references on tested delinquents will be found as footnotes

in Chapter VI.

APPENDIX I

TABLE XXI.

TEST RECORDS WITH RANDOM FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLDS

───┬───┬───┬─────┬─────┬──────────────────┬─────┬──────────────────┬──────

No.│Sex│Age│Grade│ │Kuhlmann 1911, all│1911 │Other Kuhlmann or │ 1908

│ │Mo.│ │ │ passed in lowest │Score│Goddard 1908 tests│Score

│ │ │ │ │ age given │ │ passed │

───┼───┼───┼─────┼─────┼──────────────────┼─────┼──────────────────┼──────

1│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.4│XI 2. XIII 1 │XIII ⅔

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,5 │ │ │

2│ M │ 1│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5 │XI.8 │None │XII.0

3│ M │ 10│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.4│XIII 1 │XIII ⅔

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4 │ │ │

4│ M │ 5│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.2│None │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 3,5 │ │ │

5│ M │ 8│ 8 A │IX, │X 2,3,4. XI │XI.4 │IX 2,3,4,5. X │XII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. XII │ │ 1,2,4. XI 2 │

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. XV 4 │ │ │

6│ F │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4. XV 3 │XI.4 │None │XII.2

7│ M │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4. XV 1,3 │XII.0│XIII 1 │XIII

8│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.4│XIII 1 │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 3,4 │ │ │

9│ M │ 9│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 1,3 │XII.0│XI 2, XII 3. XIII │XI.6

│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1 │

10│ M │ 10│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4. XIII 1 │XI.8 │XI 2. XII 3 │XII.0

11│ F │ 0│ 5 B │IX, │X 2,3,4. XI 2,3. │X.8 │IX 2,3,4,5. X │XII.0

│ │ │ │ │ XII 1,2,4,5 │ │ 1,2,4. XI 2 │

12│ M │ 11│ 6 B │VIII,│IX 2,3,4,5. X 2,4.│IX.6 │VIII 1,5. IX │X.0

│ │ │ │ │ XI 3. XII 1 │ │ 2,3,4,5. X 1. XI│

│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 2 │

13│ F │ 10│ 7 A │XI, │XII 2,3,4. XV 2? │XI.9 │XI 2. XV 1? │XII.2

14│ M │ 11│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4 │XII.0│XI 2. XV 1? │XII.0

15│ F │ 4│ 7 A │XII, │XV 2,3 │XII.6│XV 1. │XIII.0

16│ M │ 8│ 7 A │XII, │XV 1 │XII.2│None │XII.0

17│ F │ 8│ 8 B │X, │XI 2,3,4. XII │XI.4 │X 1.2,4. XI 2 │XII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4 │ │ │

18│ M │ 3│ 8 B │IX, │X 2,3,4. XI │XI.0 │VIII 1,5. IX │XI.4

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. XII │ │ 2,3,4. X 1,2,4. │

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,5 │ │ XI 2 │

19│ M │ 10│ 8 B │XII, │XV 1,4,5? │XII.5│None │XII.2

20│ F │ 3│ 8 B │XII, │XV 5 │XII.2│None │XII.0

21│ F │ 3│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4

22│ F │ 11│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,4,5 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4

23│ F │ 1│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5. XV 3 │XII.4│X 1. XI 2 │XII.2

24│ M │ 2│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV 3 │XII.0│XI 2 │XII.2

25│ F │ 3│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.4│XII 3 │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3,5 │ │ │

26│ M │ 2│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4

27│ M │ 11│ 6 A │X, │XI 2,3,4,5. XII │XI.4 │VIII 1,3,5. IX │XI.4

│ │ │ │ │ 2,4,5 │ │ 2,3,5. X 1,2,4. │

│ │ │ │ │ │ │ XI 2 │

28│ F │ 8│ 6 A │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.4

29│ M │ 4│ 7 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XII.0

30│ F │ 1│ 7 B │XI, │XII 2,4. XV 1,3 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.6

31│ M │ 7│ 7 B │XI, │XII 1,2,5. XV 3 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.6

32│ F │ 4│ 7 A │X, │XI 3,4,5. XII 1,4.│XI.2 │X 1.2,4. XI 2 │XI.0

│ │ │ │ │ XV 1 │ │ │

33│ F │ 0│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,5. XV 1 │XI.8 │IX 2. X 1,2,4. XI │XI.4

│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 2 │

34│ F │ 0│ 8 B │X, │XI I,2,3,4. XII │XI.6 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4. XV 3 │ │ │

35│ F │ 9│ 8 A │X, │XI 2?,3,4. XII │XI.3 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XI.1

│ │ │ │ │ 2,3,5 │ │ │

36│ F │ 8│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 3,4 │ │ │

37│ M │ 2│ 8 A │XII, │XVI │XII.2│XIII 3 │XII.0

38│ F │ 6│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2. XV 3? │XII.2│None │XII.0

39│ M │ 2│ 8 A │XII, │XV 3,4 │XII.4│None │XII.2

40│ F │ 0│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,3,5 │XII.6│XII 3. XIII 1 │XIII.0

41│ F │ 7│ 8 B │XII, │XV 2,3,5 │XII.6│None │XIII.0

42│ M │ 11│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4, XV │XII.4│XI 2 │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,5 │ │ │

43│ F │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │ │XI.0 │XI 2 │XI.0

44│ F │ 1│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4 │XII.0│XI 2 │XII.2

45│ M │ 5│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,5 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.4

46│ F │ 7│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 3 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.6

47│ F │ 1│ 8 B │XII, │XV 5 │XII.2│None │XII.0

48│ M │ 7│ 8 B │XII, │XV 1,3 │XII.4│XII 3 │XIII.0

49│ F │ 8│ 7 B │VIII,│IX 2,3,4,5. X │X.0 │VIII 1,5. IX │IX.8

│ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4,5. XI 2,5 │ │ 2,3,5. X 1 │

50│ F │ 0│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 1 │XII.0│XIII 1 │XI.6

51│ M │ 11│ 7 A │XI, │XII 2,3,4. XV 2,3 │XII.0│XI 2 │XIII.0

52│ F │ 11│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2,5. XV 5? │XI.5 │XI 2 │XI.2

53│ M │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,5. XV 4,5 │XII.0│XI 2 │XI.6

54│ M │ 11│ 8 B │XII, │XV 5 │XII.2│None │XII.0

55│ F │ 3│ 7 A │VII, │VIII 2,4,5. IX │IX.4 │VI 2,6. VII3,7. │X.8

│ │ │ │ │ 2,4. X 2,4,5. XI│ │ VIII1,3,5. IX2. │

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2. XII 1,2 │ │ X4, XI2 │

56│ M │ 1│ 8 A │XI │XII 1,2. XV 2,3,5 │XII.0│XI 2 │XI.8

57│ M │ 10│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,2 │XII.4│XII 2 │XII.2

58│ M │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2,3. XV 1,3 │XI.8 │XI 2. XII 3. XIII │XI.8

│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1 │

59│ M │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4. XV 5 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XII.2

60│ M │ 11│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV 2 │XII.0│None │XII.2

61│ M │ 0│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,2,3,4 │XII.8│XI 2. XIII 1 │XIII.0

62│ M │ 0│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.4│XI 2 │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4 │ │ │

63│ F │ 10│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,4,5. XV 1 │XI.8 │XI 2. XIII 1 │XI.6

64│ F │ 0│ 7 A │XII, │XV 3 │XII.4│None │XII.2

65│ F │ 9│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.4│XI 2. XIII 1 │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3 │ │ │

66│ F │ 7│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,5. XV │XII.6│XI 2. XIII 1 │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4,5 │ │ │

67│ M │ 3│ 8 B │XII, │XV 2,3,4? │XII.5│None │XIII.0

68│ M │ 4│ 8 A │XII, │XV 2 │XII.2│None │XII.2

69│ M │ 2│ 8 A │XII, │XV 2,3?,4 │XII.5│None │XII.2

70│ M │ 0│ 7 A │XII, │XV 2,4 │XII.4│None │XII.2

71│ F │ 6│ 8 A │X, │XI 1,2,3,4. XII │XI.4 │XIII 1 │XI.6

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2. XV 3 │ │ │

72│ F │ 2│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 3,4 │ │ │

73│ F │ 10│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,3,4,5 │XII.8│XIII 1 │XIII.0

74│ F │ 7│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.6

75│ F │ 4│ 7 B │XI, │XII 1,2 │XI.4 │XI 2 │XI.4

76│ F │ 2│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3 │XI.6 │X2. XI 2 │XII.0

77│ F │ 11│ 7 B │X, │XII 1,4,5 │XI.2 │IX 5. X 4. XI 1 │XI.4

78│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XII, │XV 2,3 │XII.4│None │XIII.0

79│ F │ 8│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2,4. XV 3,4 │XI.8 │None │XI.6

80│ F │ 1│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,5 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.4

81│ M │ 9│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XII.0

82│ F │ 5│ 8 A │XII, │XV 3,4 │XII.4│XII 3 │XII.2

83│ F │ 5│ 8 A │XI, │XV 3,4? │XII.3│None │XII.2

84│ F │ 1│ 6 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV 2 │XII.0│XI 2 │XII.2

85│ M │ 3│ 8 A │XV, │ │XV.0 │XIII 1 │XIII.0

86│ M │ 4│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,5. XV │XII.2│XI 2. XII 3. XIIII│XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2 │ │ │

87│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1 │XI.2 │XI 2 │XI.2

88│ F │ 5│ 8 A │X, │XI 2,3,4,5. XII │XI.8 │VIII 1,3,5. IX │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2 │ │ 2,3,5. X 1,2,4. │

│ │ │ │ │ │ │ XI 2. XII 3 │

89│ M │ 0│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,5. XV 1,3,5 │XII.0│XII 3 │XI.4

90│ F │ 0│ 7 A │X, │XI 2,3. XII │XI.9 │IX 2,3,5. X 1,2,4.│XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4,5. XV │ │ XI 2. XII 3 │

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4? │ │ │

91│ F │ 6│ 7 A │VIII,│IX 2,3,4,5. X │X.4 │VIII 1,3,5. IX │XI.4

│ │ │ │ │ 2,4,5. XI 1,2,3.│ │ 2,5. X 1,4 │

│ │ │ │ │ XII 1,2 │ │ │

92│ F │ 11│ 8 A │X, │XI 2,3,4. XII 2. │XI.0 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XI.4

│ │ │ │ │ XV 3 │ │ │

93│ F │ 0│ 7 B │IX, │X 2,3,4,5. XI 1,5.│X.8 │IX 2,3,4,5. X 1,2.│X.6

│ │ │ │ │ XII 2,3,5 │ │ XI 2 │

94│ F │ 9│ 6 A │IX, │X 2,3,4,5. XI │XI.3 │IX 2,3,4,5. X │XII.1

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4,5. XII │ │ 1,2,4. XI 2 │

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4. XV 3? │ │ │

95│ M │ 6│ 8 A │X, │XI 1,2,4,5. XII │XII.0│X 1,2,4 XI 2 │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3. XV 2,3,4.│ │ │

96│ M │ 10│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4. XV │XII.2│None │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3,5 │ │ │

97│ F │ 6│ 7 B │X, │XI 4,5. XII 2,5 │X.8 │IX 2,3,4,5. X 1,2.│X.6

│ │ │ │ │ │ │ XI 2 │

98│ M │ 1│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.2│None │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 3,4 │ │ │

99│ F │ 1│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2. XV 2,3 │XI.8 │None │XIII.0

100│ M │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5. XV │XII.4│None │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3 │ │ │

101│ F │ 3│ 6 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3?,4?,5. │XII.4│None │XI.7

│ │ │ │ │ XV 1,3,4 │ │ │

102│ F │ 3│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5 │XI.8 │None │XII.0

103│ F │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,5. XV 1,3 │XII.0│XIII 1 │XI.6

104│ M │ 0│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4. XV 3 │XI.8 │None │XII.2

105│ F │ 10│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV 4 │XII.0│XII 3 │XII.0

106│ F │ 3│ 6 A │XII, │XV 1,3,4,5 │XII.8│XIII 1 │XIII.0

107│ F │ 1│ 8 A │IX, │X 2,4,5. XI │XI.4 │IX 1. X 1,2 │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4,5. XII │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3. XV 2,3 │ │ │

108│ F │ 8│ 8 A │IX, │X 2,3,4,5. XI │XI.2 │IX 2,3,5. X 1,2,4 │XI.2

│ │ │ │ │ 3,4,5. XII │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,5. XV 3 │ │ │

109│ F │ 2│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV 1 │XII.0│None │XII.0

110│ F │ 6│ 7 B │IX, │X 2,3?,5. XI │X.9 │IX 2,3,5. X 2,4. │X.8

│ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4. XII 1,3. │ │ XII 3 │

│ │ │ │ │ XV 1,3 │ │ │

111│ F │ 2│ 6 A │XII, │XV 1,3,4,5 │XII.8│XII 3. XIII 1 │XIII.0

112│ M │ 1│ 5 A │IX, │X 1,2,3,5. XI │X.6 │IX 2,3,4?,5. X │X.5

│ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4. XII 2 │ │ 1,2,4? │

113│ F │ 0│ 6 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XI.6

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4 │ │ │

114│ M │ 8│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,3,5 │XII.6│XIII 1 │XIII.0

115│ F │ 8│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV 3 │XII.0│XIII 1 │XII.2

116│ M │ 2│ 7 B │XI, │XII 2,3,5 │XI.6 │XI 2. XII 3 │XI.4

117│ F │ 5│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5 │XI.8 │XIII 1 │XI.6

118│ M │ 0│ 7 A │XII, │XV 1,2 │XII.2│None │XII.2

119│ F │ 9│ 8 A │XV │ │XV.0 │None │XIII.0

120│ F │ 9│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV 3 │XII.0│XI 2 │XII.2

121│ M │ 4│ 7 B │XII, │XV 1,5 │XII.2│XII 3 │XII.4

122│ F │ 3│ 8 A │XII, │XV 4,5 │XII.4│None │XII.0

123│ M │ 5│ 8 B │XII, │ │XII.0│None │XII.0

124│ M │ 1│ 8 A │XII, │XV 3,4 │XII.0│None │XII.0

125│ M │ 8│ 6 A │X, │XI 1,2,3,4. XII │XII.4│None │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 2,4 │ │ │

126│ M │ 8│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2,4. XV 2,3,4 │XI.2 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XIII.0

127│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2,4. XV 3,4 │XII.0│XI 2 │XI.8

128│ F │ 9│ 8 A │X, │XI 1,3,4,5. XII │XI.8 │X 1,2,4. XI 2. XII│XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. XV 3 │ │ 3? │

129│ F │ 10│ 7 A │XI, │XII1,2,3,5. XV 3,5│XII.2│XI 2 │XI.6

130│ F │ 4│ 7 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 3 │XI.8 │None │XI.6

131│ M │ 3│ 7 A │VII, │VIII 1,3,5. IX │X.5 │VII 3,4,7. VIII │XI.4

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. X │ │ 1,3,5. IX │

│ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4,5. XI │ │ 2,3,4,5. X 2,4. │

│ │ │ │ │ 1,4,5. XII │ │ XIII 1 │

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3. XV 4? │ │ │

132│ F │ 3│ 7 B │VIII,│IX 1,2,3?,4,5. X │XI.2 │IX 1,2. X 2,1,4. │XII.

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4?,5. XI │ │ XI 2? XII 3 │

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4,5. XII │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4 │ │ │

133│ M │ 7│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,5 │XI.8 │None │XI.6

134│ M │ 1│ 8 B │VIII,│IX 1,2,3,4. X │XI.6 │IX 2,3,4,5. X │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. XI │ │ 1,2,4. XI 2 │

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,5. XII │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4. XV 2,3 │ │ │

135│ F │ 1│ 8 A │X, │XI 2,3,4,5. XII │XII.0│X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4. XV 3,4,5 │ │ │

136│ F │ 5│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4?. XV │XII.5│XI 1. XII 3. XIII │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4,5 │ │ 1 │

137│ M │ 6│ 8 I │XI, │XII 2. XV 2 │XI.4 │XI 2 │XI.4

138│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,4,5. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XI.6

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4 │ │ │

139│ M │ 3│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,3 │XII.4│None │XII.2

140│ M │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 3 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.6

141│ F │ 7│ 7 A │X, │XI 2,3,4,5. XII │XI.6 │X 4. XI 2 │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 2,5. XV 2,3 │ │ │

142│ M │ 0│ 8 A │XII, │XV 3,4,5 │XII.6│None │XII.2

143│ F │ 2│ 5 A │X, │XI I,2,3. XII 5 │X.8 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XI.0

144│ M │ 8│ 8 A │XII, │XV 2,3,5 │XII.6│None │XIII.0

145│ F │ 11│ 8 B │XII, │XV 3 │XII.2│None │XII.2

146│ M │ 10│ 8 A │XV │ │XV.0 │XIII 1 │XIII.0

147│ F │ 2│ 7 B │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 3,5 │ │ │

148│ F │ 7│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,5. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XI.6

│ │ │ │ │ 3,5 │ │ │

149│ M │ 0│ 8 B │XII │ │XII.0│None │XII.0

150│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2. XV 3,5 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4

151│ F │ 7│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV 3 │XII.0│XI 2 │XII.2

152│ F │ 5│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5. XV │XII.2│XI 2. XIII 1 │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3 │ │ │

153│ M │ 2│ 8 A │XII, │XV 2,3,4,5 │XII.8│None │XIII.0

154│ F │ 0│ 4 B │VIII,│IX 2,3,4,5. X 1 │IX.0 │VII 3,4,7. VIII │IX.0

│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1,3. IX 2,5. X 4│

155│ M │ 7│ 7 A │XI, │XII 2,5 │XI.4 │XI 2 │XI.2

156│ M │ 6│ 8 B │XII, │XV 3 │XII.2│None │XII.2

157│ F │ 0│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,3 │XII.4│XII 3. XIII 1 │XIII.0

158│ M │ 2│ 8 B │XII, │XV 1,2,3,4 │XII.8│XII 3 │XIII.5

159│ F │ 1│ 7 B │X, │XI 1,2,3,4. XII │XI.6 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4 │ │ │

160│ F │ 6│ 8 B │XII, │XV 3,5 │XII.4│None │XII.2

161│ M │ 1│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1 │XII.2│XII 3. XIII 1 │XII.2

162│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XII │ │XII.4│XII 3?. XIII 1 │XII.2

163│ F │ 6│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.2│None │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 3,4 │ │ │

164│ F │ 10│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,5 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4

165│ M │ 8│ 8 A │X, │XI 1,2,3. XII │XI.4 │VIII 1,3,5. IX │XI.4

│ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4,5 │ │ 2,3,4,5. X 1,4. │

│ │ │ │ │ │ │ XI 2 │

166│ F │ 1│ 7 A │X, │XI 3,4,5. XII │XI.8 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. XV 1,3 │ │ │

167│ M │ 8│ 6 B │XI, │XII 2,3 │XI.8 │XI 2. XII 3 │XI.6

168│ M │ 10│ 6 A │X, │XI 1,3,4,5. XII │XII.0│X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XI.6

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,5. XV 2,5 │ │ │

169│ M │ 10│ 6 B │XI, │XII 1,4?,5. XV 2? │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4

170│ M │ 10│ 8 A │XI, │XII 3,4,5. XV 5 │XI.8 │None │XI.4

171│ M │ 1│ 8 A │XII, │XV 2,4 │XII.4│None │XII.2

172│ M │ 3│ 8 A │X, │XI 2,3,4. XI │XI.4 │X 1,2,4 │XII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4 │ │ │

173│ F │ 4│ 8 A │X, │XI 1,3,4,5. XII │XII.2│X 1,2,4. XIII 1 │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4,5. XV │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │ 1,4,5 │ │ │

174│ F │ 2│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.2│XII 3. XIII 1 │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3 │ │ │

175│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4. XV 1 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XII.2

176│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.2│XI 1 │XII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,4 │ │ │

177│ M │ 3│ 8 A │X, │XI 1,2,3,4. XII │XI.6 │X 1,2,4. XI 1 │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4. XV 3 │ │ │

178│ M │ 6│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,3 │XII.4│XI 2. XII 3?. XIII│XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1 │

179│ F │ 2│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 3 │XII.2│None │XII.2

180│ F │ 2│ 8 B │XII, │XV 1,3 │XII.4│None │XII.2

181│ F │ 2│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 3,4 │ │ │

182│ F │ 6│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV 3 │XII.0│XI 2 │XII.2

183│ F │ 0│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5. XV │XII.2│None │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 2,3 │ │ │

184│ M │ 5│ 7 A │XI, │XII 4,5 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4

185│ M │ 2│ 7 A │XI, │XII 2,3,4. XV 1 │XI.4 │XI 2 │XI.8

186│ F │ 9│ 7 B │XI, │XII 2,3. XV │XII.1│XI 2 │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4? │ │ │

187│ M │ 8│ 7 A │XII, │XV 3 │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2

188│ M │ 2│ 7 B │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.4│XI 2 │XIII.0

│ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3 │ │ │

189│ M │ 4│ 7 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.4

190│ M │ 2│ 6 B │XI, │XII 4,5 │XI.4 │IX 2,3,4,5. X │XI.2

│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4. XI 2 │

191│ F │ 1│ 7 B │IX, │X 1,2,3,4. XI 3,5.│X.6 │IX 2,3,5. X 1,2,4.│X.6

│ │ │ │ │ XII 4,5 │ │ XI 2 │

192│ F │ 1│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3 │ │ │

193│ M │ 10│ 8 B │X, │XI 1,2,5. XII │XI.2 │IX 2,3,4,5. X │XI.0

│ │ │ │ │ 2,4,5 │ │ 1,2,4. XI 2 │

194│ M │ 8│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2

│ │ │ │ │ 1,3 │ │ │

195│ M │ 3│ 7 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 1 │XI.8 │XI 2. XII 3 │XI.6

196│ F │ 2│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2 │XI.2 │XI 2 │XI.2

───┴───┴───┴─────┴─────┴──────────────────┴─────┴──────────────────┴──────

APPENDIX II

TABLE XXII.

RECORDS OF THE DELINQUENTS AT THE GLEN LAKE FARM SCHOOL OF HENNEPIN

COUNTY, MINN.

───────┬─────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┬──────────────────────────

│Life-Age │ │ Basal │ School │

│ │ │ │ Grade │

No. │Yr. │Mo. │Test-Age│Test-Age│Sept. 1 │ Offense

│ │ │ │ │ of │

│ │ │ │ │Life-Age│

───────┼────┼────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼──────────────────────────

1│ 9│ 10│VIII.8 │VIII[35]│ 3 B│Truancy

[36]2│ 16│ 7│XIII │XIII │ 12 A│Grand larceny

3│ 10│ 1│X.8 │IX[35] │ 3 A│Truancy

4│ 12│ 4│XII │XII │ 4 A│Truancy

5│ 14│ 3│XII.2 │XII │ 7 A│Petit larceny

[36]6│ 14│ 8│XIII │XIII[35]│ 9 B│Assault & battery

7│ 16│ 3│XIII │XIII │ 9 B│Check, no funds

8│ 15│ 7│XIII │XIII │ 7 A│Burglary

[36]9│ 15│ 0│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 8 B│Petit larceny

[36]10│ 9│ 9│IX.2 │VIII │ 2 B│Truancy

[36]11│ 14│ 5│XII │XII │ 9 B│Petit larceny

12│ 12│ 2│XI.2 │XI │ 4 A│Incorrigibility

[36]13│ 16│ 0│XIII │XIII[35]│ 8 A│Petit larceny

14│ 13│ 8│IX.6 │VIII[35]│ 4 B│Breaking & entering

[36]15│ 15│ 10│X.6 plus│X │ 4 A│Incorrigibility

[36]16│ 15│ 9│X.6 │IX[35] │ 5 B│Breaking & entering

[36]17│ 11│ 1│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 5 B│Incorrigibility

[36]18│ 14│ 10│XII.2 │XII │ 5 A│Indecent conduct

[36]19│ 15│ 11│XIII │XIII │ 8 A│Truancy

20│ 13│ 2│VIII.4 │VII │ 3 B│Grand larceny

21│ 14│ 1│XIII │XIII │ 8 B│Petit larceny

[36]22│ 13│ 9│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 6 B│Petit larceny

23│ 11│ 0│XI.2 │XI │ 4 B│Incorrigibility

24│ 16│ 11│XI.6 │XI │ 7 A│Petit larceny

25│ 12│ 6│XI.2 │XI[35] │ 7 B│Truancy

[36]26│ 12│ 9│XI.2 │X │ 4 B│Incorrigibility

───────┼────┴────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼──────────────────────────

│Life-Age │ │ Basal │ School │

No. │Yr. │Mo. │Test-Age│Test-Age│ Grade │ Offense

───────┼────┼────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼──────────────────────────

[36]27│ 11│ 0│X.4 │X │ 5 A│Petit larceny

[36]28│ 15│ 7│XIII │XIII │ 8 A│Truancy

29│ 14│ 9│XII │XII │ 5 A│Truancy

[36]30│ 11│ 11│XII │XII │ 6 B│Truancy

[36]31│ 11│ 4│IX.8 │IX[35] │ 4 B│Truancy

[36]32│ 15│ 7│XII │XII │ 7 │Vagrancy

[36]33│ 13│ 9│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 5 │Grand larceny

[36]34│ 13│ 8│X.8 │X │ 5 A│Petit larceny

35│ 16│ 6│XII.2 │XII │ 8 A│Burglary

[36]36│ 10│ 8│IX.8 │VIII[35]│ 3 B│Incorrigibility

[36]37│ 14│ 10│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 7 B│Grand larceny

[36]38│ 13│ 8│XIII.0 │XIII │ 8 B│Disorderly conduct

[36]39│ 14│ 1│X.8 │X[35] │ 4 B│Truancy

40│ 15│ 2│XI.6 │XI │ 7 B│Petit larceny

[36]41│ 9│ 9│X.2 │X │ 4 B│Truancy

42│ 11│ 5│XI.4 │XI │ 5 B│Incorrigibility

[36]43│ 7│ 8│VII.6 │VII │ 2 B│Petit larceny

[36]44│ 13│ 11│XI.6 │XI │ 8 B│Grand larceny

[36]45│ 15│ 1│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 9 B│Burglary

46│ 13│ 10│XII │XII │ 5 B│Incorrigibility

[36]47│ 10│ 6│IX.2 │IX[35] │ 5 B│Truancy

48│ 14│ 1│X.2 │X[35] │ 6 B│Burglary

49│ 14│ 3│XIII │XIII[35]│ 8 B│Burglary

50│ 14│ 7│XII.2 │XII[35] │ 8 B│Burglary

[36]51│ 13│ 2│XII.2 │XII │ 8 B│Malicious destruction of

│ │ │ │ │ │ property

52│ 13│ 6│X.2 │X │ 7 B│Petit larceny

[36]53│ 13│ 7│XI.6 │XI │ 6 A│Burglary

54│ 14│ 3│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 5 A│Incorrigibility

55│ 6│ 0│VII.8 │VII[35] │ 1 B│Petit larceny

56│ 15│ 0│XII.2 │XII │ 8 B│Incorrigibility

[36]57│ 12│ 0│XI │XI │ 6 A│Petit larceny

[36]58│ 15│ 0│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 7 A│Petit larceny

59│ 15│ 9│X.4 │X[35] │ 6 B│Petit larceny

60│ 15│ 1│XIII │XIII │ 7 A│Petit larceny

[36]61│ 11│ 3│XI.4 │XI │ 4 A│Truancy

62│ 12│ 0│XI │X │ 3 A│Truancy

[36]63│ 15│ 3│XIII │XII I │ 8 B│Petit larceny

[36]64│ 16│ 1│VIII.8 │VIII │ 5 B│Trespass

65│ 16│ 4│XII │XII │ 6 B│Incorrigibility

[36]66│ 15│ 0│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 6 B│Trespass

[36]67│ 14│ 5│IX.9 │IX[35] │ 3 A│Incorrigibility

68│ 16│ 0│XI.4 │XI │ 9 B│Disorderly conduct

[36]69│ 16│ 0│XIII │XIII │ 8 B│Grand larceny

[36]70│ 15│ 7│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 7 B│Jumping on train

71│ 15│ 8│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 6 A│Disorderly conduct

72│ 16│ 7│XIII │XIII[35]│ 10 │Taking auto.

[36]73│ 15│ 11│XII.2 │XII │ 6 A│Truancy

[36]74│ 13│ 1│X.4 │X[35] │ 3 A│Truancy

[36]75│ 14│ 10│XI.6 │XI │ 5 A│Truancy

[36]76│ 11│ 4│VIII.8 │VIII │ 3 A│Incorrigibility

[36]77│ 10│ 3│XI │XI │ 4 A│Petit larceny

[36]78│ 13│ 4│X.8 │X[35] │ 4 A│Petit larceny

79│ 15│ 5│XII │XII │ 7 A│Indecent Conduct

[36]80│ 15│ 4│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 5 A│Furnishing Liquor

[36]81│ 11│ 0│XII │XII │ 5 B│Malicious destruction of

│ │ │ │ │ │ property

[36]82│ 12│ 5│IX.8 │IX[35] │ 4 B│Petit larceny

[36]83│ 11│ 7│XI.4 │XI │ 4 A│Truancy

84│ 13│ 8│XI │XI[35] │ 6 B│Incorrigibility

85│ 16│ 4│XII │XII │ 11 A│Petit larceny

86│ 11│ 4│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 5 A│Malicious destruction of

│ │ │ │ │ │ property

[36]87│ 13│ 9│XI.4 │XI │ 6 B│Petit larceny

[36]88│ 14│ 0│XI.2 │XI │ 8 A│Burglary

89│ 16│ 5│X │X │ 5 B│Taking auto plug

90│ 14│ 9│XIII │XIII │ 6 A│Petit larceny

91│ 13│ 10│X.4 │X │ 4 B│Carrying dangerous weapons

[36]92│ 15│ 4│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 6 B│Truancy

93│ 15│ 11│XIII │XIII │ 8 B│Truancy

94│ 12│ 10│XII │XII │ 4 B│Incorrigibility

[36]95│ 10│ 10│IX.2 │VIII[35]│ 3 A│Petit larceny

[36]96│ 12│ 4│XII.2 │XII │ 7 B│Petit larceny

[36]97│ 15│ 7│XIII │XIII │ 9 A│Burglary

98│ 14│ 9│XII │XII │ 8 B│Incorrigibility

[36]99│ 11│ 0│XI.2 │XI[35] │ 5 B│Incorrigibility

100│ 13│ 7│X.2 │X │ 5 B│Petit larceny

101│ 10│ 9│VIII │VII │ 3 B│Breaking & entering

[36]102│ 15│ 1│XIII │XIII │ 7 A│Truancy

103│ 15│ 5│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 10 B│Incorrigibility

104│ 9│ 7│IX │VIII[35]│ 4 B│Incorrigibility

105│ 15│ 10│XI.6 │XI │ 7 A│Receiving stolen property

106│ 15│ 10│XII.2 │XII │ 5 B│Incorrigibility

107│ 12│ 2│XII.2 │XII │ 7 B│Vagrancy

108│ 13│ 1│X.8 │X │ 5 B│Truancy

[36]109│ 13│ 9│X.6 │X[35] │ 5 B│Petit larceny

[36]110│ 15│ 10│XI.4 │XI │ 6 A│Malicious destruction of

│ │ │ │ │ │ property

[36]111│ 12│ 6│XI.2 │XI │ 5 B│Petit larceny

112│ 10│ 9│XII │XII │ 4 A│Sweeping grain car

113│ 15│ 2│XIII │XIII │ 9 B│Trespass

114│ 12│ 10│XII.2 │XII │ 5 B│Incorrigibility

115│ 14│ 7│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 7 B│Incorrigibility

[36]116│ 15│ 10│XI.4 │XI │ 7 A│Incorrigibility

[36]117│ 13│ 9│XII │XII │ 4 A│Incorrigibility

[36]118│ 9│ 1│XI.2 │XI[35] │ 5 B│Incorrigibility

[36]119│ 16│ 11│XI │X[35] │ 7 B│Disorderly conduct

[36]120│ 13│ 3│XII.2 │XII │ 6 B│Truancy

[36]121│ 9│ 9│IX.6 │VIII[35]│ 4 B│Sweeping grain car

[36]122│ 11│ 9│X.8 │X │ 3 B│Sweeping grain car

[36]123│ 10│ 3│X.2 │X │ 4 A│Truancy

───────┴────┴────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴──────────────────────────

-----

Footnote 35:

Passed all tests at the basal age. The others passed all but one test

at the basal age.

Footnote 36:

Repeater.

INDEX

Ability of the feeble-minded, 74, 92, 197

Arrest of development, see maturity

Average curves, 280 ff

Binet Scale, 7, 172

Year units of, 260 ff

Borderline of deficiency, 5, 13, 304 ff

For the mature, 82-95, 240, 315

For the immature, 104-110

Causes of delinquency, 203 ff, 210 ff

Method of studying, 218, 224 ff, 231 ff, 244

City jails, 148

Coefficient of intelligence, 305, 313

Conative cases, 15, 18, 24-30, 34-40, 239, 248

Convicts deficient, 142

Correlation: of degree of deficiency with delinquency, 217

Of deficiency and criminality, 220

Significance of coefficients of, 219

Of deficiency and juvenile delinquency, 220

County institutions, 134, 148

Crimes by the feeble-minded, 212, 214

Criminal diathesis, 234

Death rates, 30

Deficiency, nature of, 21, 211 ff, 239

See feeble, frequency, correlation, etc.

Deficient delinquents, 158, 190, 199, 211 ff, 239, 246

Delinquency, see frequency of, causes of, correlation, etc.

Delinquents: first offenders, 165, 167

Repeaters, 168

Delinquents, tested: female, 128-141

Male, 141-157

Development curves, 252 ff., 279 ff

Diagnosis, 6, 11, 14, 52, 90, 107, 172-176, 194, 197, 201, 241-244

Distribution curves, 267-275, 317-323

Doubtful cases, 18

Employment of feeble-minded, 74-80

Environment, 42, 225 ff

Estimating deficiency by schooling, 190, 199

Expert court advice, 243

Family resemblance versus heredity, 231

Feeble-minded not detected by tests, 14, 34-40

Feeble-mindedness, 10, 17, 18, 20, 239

See deficiency.

Frequency of deficiency, 23, 47 ff., 80, 158 ff

Effect of local conditions, 147, 152, 161, 163

Frequency of delinquency among deficients, 211-218

General ability, 34, 45, 282 ff

Glen Lake Farm School, 122, 177

Goddard's Scale, borderlines, 89, 106, 111, 313

Goring's study of criminals, 218 ff., 231 ff

Gruhle's method, 229

Heredity, 229 ff., 236, 244

Individual differences, 41, 280

Inert cases, 15

Instability, 15, 23

Institutional care, 242, 246, 248

Intellectual deficiency, 10, 17, 20

Intelligence quotient, 304, 313

Juvenile delinquency and deficiency, 220-223

Juvenile delinquents, 162

Kuhlmann's Scale, borderlines, 87-90, 111, 118

Legal responsibility, 244

Maturity of mind, 83, 282, 290

Later for deficients, 294 ff., 230

Measurement units, 254 ff., 275 ff., 317

Mental deficiency, 11, 20

See feeble.

Mental development, 279 ff

Minneapolis: delinquents tested, 125

School retardation, 177-185, 199

Juvenile deficient delinquents, 220-223

Minneapolis, school group tested, 85-91

Morons: chances of delinquency, 217

Danger to society, 237, 246

Normal distribution, 256, 267

Observation home, 242

Offenses, 168

Percentage definition of deficiency, 5, 13, 20, 65, 75, 80, 240, 304

ff., 307

Advantages, 311 ff.

Percentage feeble-minded, 47 ff.

Percentiles as units, 276

Point Scale, borderlines, 114, 313

Prostitutes, 78, 129, 140, 158

Schooling, 186

Quantitative definitions, 21, 304 ff.

Effect of uncertain forms of distribution, 317 ff.

Ranks as units, 276

Rates of development, 290 ff.

Recidivism, 168, 235

Reformatories, 128, 143

Responsibility of deficients, 244

School test of deficiency, 177, 189 ff.

School maladjustment, 203-209, 247

School retardation of delinquents, 177-188, 190-194, 199

Skewed distributions, 267, 300

Social care, 47-52, 80, 158 ff., 212-214, 216, 237, 242-251

Social deficiency, 10, 15, 74, 239

Special ability, 34, 45

Special classes, 62 ff., 74-80

Standard deviation, 256, 306, 314

Stanford Scale, borderlines, 101, 112, 313

State prisons, 128, 141

State Training Schools, 131, 145

Sterilization, 245

Test by school retardation, 177, 189

Tested deficiency, 13

Tests, mental, 170 ff.

See also Binet, Goddard, Kuhlmann, Point, and Stanford Scales.

Thorn Hill Detention Home, 151

Training for deficients, 205

Units of measurement, 254, 275, 317

Vagrancy, 158

Variability, 41-46, 280 ff.

Year units, 260-266

* * * * * *

Transcriber's note:

1. Changed the total column in Table X on p. 151 for the life-age 8 row

to 1 and the Totals row to 124.

2. In TABLE XIII. on p. 179 the GIRLS Percentages columns on the

Ordinary Pupils row only adds up to 99%.

3. Silently corrected typographical errors.

4. Retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed.