INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR V
V, 1. COMPARISON OF WEIGHTS
MATERIALS. It is necessary to have two weights, identical in shape,
size, and appearance, weighing respectively 3 and 15 grams.[50] If
manufactured weights are not at hand, it is easy to make satisfactory
substitutes by taking stiff cardboard pill-boxes, about 1¼ inches in
diameter, and filling them with cotton and shot to the desired weight.
The shot must be embedded in the center of the cotton so as to prevent
rattling. After the box has been loaded to the exact weight, the lid
should be glued on firmly. If one does not have access to laboratory
scales, it is always possible to secure the help of a druggist in the
rather delicate task of weighing the boxes accurately. A set of pill-box
weights will last through hundreds of tests, if handled carefully, but
they will not stand rough usage. The manufactured blocks are more
durable, and so more satisfactory in the long run. If the weights are
not at hand, the alternative test may be substituted.
[50] The weights required for this test, and also for IX, 2, may be
purchased of C. H. Stoelting & Co., 3037 Carroll Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois.
PROCEDURE. Place the 3- and 15-gram weights on the table before the
child some two or three inches apart. Say: "_You see these blocks. They
look just alike, but one of them is heavy and one is light. Try them and
tell me which one is heavier._" If the child does not respond, repeat
the instructions, saying this time, "_Tell me which one is the
heaviest._" (Many American children have heard only the superlative form
of the adjective used in the comparison of two objects.)
Sometimes the child merely points to one of the boxes or picks up one at
random and hands it to the examiner, thinking he is asked to _guess_
which is heaviest. We then say: "_No, that is not the way. You must take
the boxes in your hands and try them, like this_" (illustrating by
lifting with one hand, first one box and then the other, a few inches
from the table). Most children of 5 years are then able to make the
comparison correctly. Very young subjects, however, or older ones who
are retarded, sometimes adopt the rather questionable method of lifting
both weights in the same hand at once. This is always an unfavorable
sign, especially if one of the blocks is placed in the hand on top of
the other block.
After the first trial, the weights are shuffled and again presented for
comparison as before, _this time with the positions reversed_. The third
trial follows with the blocks in the same position as in the first
trial. Some children have a tendency to stereotyped behavior, which in
this test shows itself by choosing always the block on a certain
side. Hence the necessity of alternating the positions.[51] Reserve
commendation until all three trials have been given.
[51] For discussion of "stereotypy" see p. 203.
SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ comparisons are
correct. If there is reason to suspect that the successful responses
were due to lucky guesses, the test should be entirely repeated.
REMARKS. This test is decidedly more difficult than that of comparing
lines (IV, 1). It is doubtful, however, if we can regard the difference
as one due primarily to the relative difficulty of visual discrimination
and muscular discrimination. In fact, the test with weights hardly taxes
sensory discrimination at all when used with children of 5-year
intelligence. Success depends, in the first place, on the ability to
understand the instructions; and in the second place, on the power to
hold the instructions in mind long enough to guide the process of making
the comparison. The test presupposes, in elementary form, a power which
is operative in all the higher independent processes of thought, the
power to neglect the manifold distractions of irrelevant sensations and
ideas and to drive direct toward a goal. Here the goal is furnished by
the instruction, "Try them and see which is heavier." This must be held
firmly enough in mind to control the steps necessary for making the
comparison. Ideas of piling the blocks on top of one another, throwing
them, etc., must be inhibited. Sometimes the low-grade imbecile starts
off in a very promising way, then apparently forgets the instructions
(loses sight of the goal), and begins to play with the boxes in a random
way. His mental processes are not consecutive, stable, or controlled. He
is blown about at the mercy of every gust of momentary interest.
There is very general agreement in the assignment of this test to
year V.
V, 2. NAMING COLORS
MATERIALS. Use saturated red, yellow, blue, and green papers, about
2 × 1 inch in size, pasted one half inch apart on white or gray
cardboard. For sake of uniformity it is best to match the colors
manufactured especially for this test.[52]
[52] Printed cards showing these colors are included in the set of
material furnished by the publishers of this book.
PROCEDURE. Point to the colors in the order, red, yellow, blue, green.
Bring the finger close to the color designated, in order that there may
be no mistake as to which one is meant, and say: "_What is the name of
that color?_" Do not say: "_What color is that?_" or, "_What kind of a
color is that?_" Such a formula might bring the answer, "The first
color"; or, "A pretty color." Still less would it do to say: "_Show me
the red_," "_Show me the yellow_," etc. This would make it an entirely
different test, one that would probably be passed a year earlier than
the Binet form of the experiment. Nor is it permissible, after a color
has been miscalled, to return to it and again ask its name.
SCORING. The test is passed only if _all_ the colors are named correctly
and without marked uncertainty. However, prefixing the adjective "dark,"
or "light," before the name of a color is overlooked.
REMARKS. Naming colors is not a test of color discrimination, for that
capacity is well developed years below the level at which this test is
used. All 5-year-olds who are not color blind discriminate among the
four primary colors here used as readily as adults do. As stated by
Binet, it is a test of the "verbalization of color perception." It tells
us whether the child has associated the names of the four primary colors
with his perceptual imagery of those colors.
The _ability_ to make simple associations between a sense impression and
a name is certainly present in normal children some time before the
above color associations are actually made. Many objects of experience
are correctly named two or three years earlier, and it may seem at
first a little strange that color names are learned so late. But it must
be remembered that the child does not have numerous opportunities to
observe and hear the names of several colors at once, nor does the
designation of colors by their names ordinarily have much practical
value for the young child. When he finally learns their names, it is
more because of his spontaneous interest in the world of sense. Lack of
such spontaneous interest is always an unfavorable sign, and it is not
surprising, therefore, that imbecile intelligence has ordinarily never
taken the trouble to associate colors with their names. Girls are
somewhat superior to boys in this test, due probably to a greater
natural interest in colors.
Binet originally placed this test in year VIII, changing it to year VII
in the 1911 scale. Goddard places it in year VII, while Kuhlmann omits
it altogether. With a single exception, all the actual statistics with
normal children justify the location of the test in year V. Bobertag's
figures are the exception, opposed to which are Rowe, Winch, Dumville,
Dougherty, Brigham, and all three of the Stanford investigations.
The test is probably more subject to the influence of home environment
than most of the other tests of the scale, and if the social status of
the child is low, failure would not be especially significant until
after the age of 6 years. On the whole it is an excellent test.
V, 3. ÆSTHETIC COMPARISON
Use the three pairs of faces supplied with the printed forms. It goes
without saying that improvised drawings may not be substituted for
Binet's until they have first been standardized.
PROCEDURE. Show the pairs in order from top to bottom. Say: "_Which of
these two pictures is the prettiest?_" Use both the comparative and the
superlative forms of the adjective. Do not use the question, "Which face
is the uglier (ugliest)?" unless there is some difficulty in getting the
child to respond. It is not permitted, in case of an incorrect response,
to give that part of the test again and to allow the child a chance to
correct his answer; or, in case this is done, we must consider only the
original response in scoring.
SCORING. The test is passed only if all _three_ comparisons are made
correctly. Any marked uncertainty is failure. Sometimes the child
laughingly designates the ugly picture as the prettier, yet shows by his
amused expression that he is probably conscious of its peculiarity or
absurdity. In such cases "pretty" seems to be given the meaning of
"funny" or "amusing." Nevertheless, we score this response as failure,
since it betokens a rather infantile tolerance of ugliness.
REMARKS. From the psychological point of view this is a most interesting
test. One might suppose that æsthetic judgment would be relatively
independent of intelligence. Certainly no one could have known in
advance of experience that intellectual retardation would reveal itself
in weakness of the æsthetic sense about as unmistakably as in memory,
practical judgment, or the comprehension of language. But such is the
case. The development of the æsthetic sense parallels general mental
growth rather closely. The imbecile of 4-year intelligence, even though
he may have lived forty years, has no more chance of passing this test
than any other test in year V. It would be profitable to devise and
standardize a set of pictures of the same general type which would
measure a less primitive stage of æsthetic development.
The present test was located by Binet in year VI and has been retained
in that year in other revisions; but three separate Stanford
investigations, as well as the statistics of Winch, Dumville, Brigham,
Rowe, and Dougherty, warrant its location in year V.
V, 4. GIVING DEFINITIONS IN TERMS OF USE
PROCEDURE. Use the words: _Chair_, _horse_, _fork_, _doll_, _pencil_,
and _table_. Say: "_You have seen a chair. You know what a chair is.
Tell me, what is a chair?_" And so on with the other words, always in
the order in which they are named above.
Occasionally there is difficulty in getting a response, which is
sometimes due merely to the child's unwillingness to express his
thoughts in sentences. The earlier tests require only words and phrases.
In other cases silence is due to the rather indefinite form of the
question. The child could answer, but is not quite sure what is expected
of him. Whatever the cause, a little tactful urging is nearly always
sufficient to bring a response. In this test we have not found the
difficulty of overcoming silence nearly as great as others have stated
it to be. In consecutive tests of 150 5- and 6-year-old children we
encountered unbreakable silence with 8 words out of the total 900
(150 × 6). This is less than 1 per cent. But tactful encouragement is
sometimes necessary, and it is best to take the precaution of not giving
the test until _rapport_ has been well established.
The urging should take the following form: "_I'm sure you know what a
... is. You have seen a .... Now, tell me, what is a ... ?_" That is, we
merely repeat the question with a word of encouragement and in a
coaxing tone of voice. It would not at all do to introduce other
questions, like, "_What does a ... look like?_" or, "_What is a ...
for?_" "_What do people do with a ... ?_"
Sometimes, instead of attempting a definition (of _doll_, for example),
the child begins to talk in a more or less irrelevant way, as "I have a
great big doll. Auntie gave it to me for Christmas," etc. In such cases
we repeat the question and say, "_Yes, but tell me; what is a doll?_"
This is usually sufficient to bring the little chatter-box back to the
task.
Unless it is absolutely necessary to give the child lavish
encouragement, it is best to withhold approval or disapproval until the
test has been finished. If the first response is a poor one and we
pronounce it "fine" or "very good," we tempt the child to persist in his
low-grade type of definition. By withholding comment until the last word
has been defined, we give greater play to spontaneity and initiative.
SCORING. As a rule, children of 5 and 6 years define an object in terms
of use, stating what it does, what it is for, what people do with it,
etc. Definitions by description, by telling what substance it is made
of, and by giving the class to which it belongs are grouped together as
"definitions superior to use." It is not before 8 years that two thirds
of the children spontaneously give a large proportion of definitions in
terms superior to use.
The test is passed in year V if _four words out of the six_ are defined
in terms of use (or better than use). The following are examples of
satisfactory responses:--
_Chair_: "To sit on." "You sit on it." "It is made of wood and
has legs and back," etc.
_Horse_: "To drive." "To ride." "What people drive." "To pull
the wagon." "It is big and has four legs," etc.
_Fork_: "To eat with." "To stick meat with." "It is hard and has
three sharp things," etc.
_Doll_: "To play with." "What you dress and put to bed." "To
rock," etc.
_Pencil_: "To write with." "To draw." "They write with it." "It
is sharp and makes a black mark."
_Table_: "To eat on." "What you put the dinner on." "Where you
write." "It is made of wood and has legs."
Examples of failure are such responses as the following: "A chair is a
chair"; "There is a chair"; or simply, "There" (pointing to a chair). We
record such responses without pressing for a further definition. About
the only other type of failure is silence.
REMARKS. It is not the purpose of this test to find out whether the
child knows the meaning of the words he is asked to define. Words have
purposely been chosen which are perfectly familiar to all normal
children of 5 years. But with young children there is a difference
between knowing a word and giving a definition of it. Besides, we desire
to find out how the child apperceives the word, or rather the object for
which it stands; whether the thing is thought of in terms of use,
appearance (shape, size, color, etc.), material composing it, or class
relationships.
This test, because it throws such interesting light on the maturity of
the child's apperceptive processes, is one of the most valuable of all.
It is possible to differentiate at least a half-dozen degrees of
excellence in definitions, according to the intellectual maturity of the
subject. A volume, indeed, could be written on the development of word
definitions and the growth of meanings; but we will postpone further
discussion until VIII, 5. Our concern at present is to know that
children of 5 years should at least be able to define four of these six
words in terms of use.
Binet placed the test in year VI, but our own figures and those of
nearly all the other investigations indicate that it is better located
in year V.
V, 5. THE GAME OF PATIENCE
MATERIAL. Prepare two rectangular cards, each 2 × 3 inches, and divide
one of them into two triangles by cutting it along one of its diagonals.
PROCEDURE. Place the uncut card on the table with one of its longer
sides to the child. By the side of this card, a little nearer the child
and a few inches apart, lay the two halves of the divided rectangle with
their hypothenuses turned from each other as follows:
[Illustration]
Then say to the child: "_I want you to take these two pieces_ (touching
the two triangles) _and put them together so they will look exactly like
this_" (pointing to the uncut card). If the child hesitates, we repeat
the instructions with a little urging. Say nothing about hurrying, as
this is likely to cause confusion. Give three trials, of one minute
each. If only one trial is given, success is too often a result of
chance moves; but luck is not likely to bring two successes in three
trials. If the first trial is a failure, move the cut halves back to
their original position and say: "_No; put them together so they will
look like this_" (pointing to the uncut card). Make no other comment of
approval or disapproval. Disregard in silence the inquiring looks of the
child who tries to read his success or failure in your face.
If one of the pieces is turned over, the task becomes impossible, and it
is then necessary to turn the piece back to its original position and
begin over, not counting this trial. Have the under side of the pieces
marked so as to avoid the risk of presenting one of them to the child
wrong side up.
SCORING. There must be _two successes in three trials_. About the only
difficulty in scoring is that of deciding what constitutes a trial. We
count it a trial when the child brings the pieces together and (after
few or many changes) leaves them in some position. Whether he succeeds
after many moves, or leaves the pieces with approval in some absurd
position, or gives up and says he cannot do it, his effort counts as one
trial. A single trial may involve a number of unsuccessful changes of
position in the two cards, but these changes may not consume altogether
more than one minute.
REMARKS. As aptly described by Binet, the operation has the following
elements: "(1) To keep in mind the end to be attained, that is to say,
the figure to be formed. It is necessary to comprehend this end and not
to lose sight of it. (2) To try different combinations under the
influence of this directing idea, which guides the efforts of the child
even though he be unconscious of the fact. (3) To judge the formed
combination, compare it with the model, and decide whether it is the
correct one."
It may be classed, therefore, as one of the many forms of the
"combination method." Elements must be combined into some kind of whole
under the guidance of a directing idea. In this respect it has something
in common with the form-board test, the Ebbinghaus test, and the test
with dissected sentences (XII, 4). Binet designates it a "test of
patience," because success in it depends upon a certain willingness to
persist in a line of action under the control of an idea.
Not all failures in this test are equally significant. A bright child of
5 years sometimes fails, but usually not without many trial combinations
which he rejects one after another as unsatisfactory. A dull child of
the same age often stops after he has brought the pieces into any sort
of juxtaposition, however absurd, and may be quite satisfied with his
foolish effort. His mind is not fruitful and he lacks the power of
auto-criticism.
It would be well worth while to work out a new and somewhat more
difficult "test of patience," but with special care to avoid the
puzzling features of the usual games of anagrams. The one given us by
Binet is rather easy for year V, though plainly somewhat too difficult
for year IV.
V, 6. THREE COMMISSIONS
PROCEDURE. After getting up from the chair and moving with the child to
the center of the room, say: "_Now, I want you to do something for me.
Here's a key. I want you to put it on that chair over there; then I want
you to shut (or open) that door, and then bring me the box which you see
over there_ (pointing in turn to the objects designated). _Do you
understand? Be sure to get it right. First, put the key on the chair,
then shut_ (open) _the door, then bring me the box_ (again pointing).
_Go ahead._" Stress the words _first_ and _then_ so as to emphasize the
order in which the commissions are to be executed.
Give the commissions always in the above order. Do not repeat the
instructions again or give any further aid whatever, even by the
direction of the gaze. If the child stops or hesitates it is never
permissible to say: "_What next?_" Have the self-control to leave the
child alone with his task.
SCORING. _All three commissions must be executed and in the proper
order._ Failure may result, therefore, either from leaving out one or
more of the commands or from changing the order. The former is more
often the case.
REMARKS. Success depends first on the ability to comprehend the
commands, and secondly, on the ability to hold them in mind. It is
therefore a test of memory, though of a somewhat different kind from
that involved in repeating digits or sentences. It is an excellent test,
for it throws light on a kind of intelligence which is demanded in all
occupations and in everyday life. A more difficult test of the same type
ought to be worked out for a higher age level.
Binet originally located this test in year VI, but in 1911 changed it to
year VII. This is unfortunate, for the three Stanford investigations, as
well as the statistics of all other investigators, show conclusively
that it is easy enough for year V.
V. ALTERNATIVE TEST: GIVING AGE
PROCEDURE. The formula is simply, "_How old are you?_" The child of this
age is, of course, not expected to know the date of his birthday, but
merely how many years old he is.
SCORING. About the only danger in scoring is in the failure to verify
the child's response. Some children give an incorrect answer with
perfect assurance, and it is therefore always necessary to verify.
REMARKS. Inability to give the age may or may not be significant. If the
child has arrived at the age of 7 or 8 years and has had anything like a
normal social environment, failure in the test is an extremely
unfavorable sign. But if the child is an orphan or has grown up in
neglect, ignorance of age has little significance for intelligence.
About all we can say is that if a child gives his age correctly, it is
because he has had sufficient interest and intelligence to remember
verbal statements which have been made concerning him in his presence.
He may even pass the test without attaching any definite meaning to the
word "year." On the other hand, if he has lived seven or eight years in
a normal environment, it is safe to assume that he has heard his age
given many times, and failure to remember it would then indicate either
a weak memory or a grave inferiority of spontaneous interests, or both.
Normal children have a natural interest in the things they hear said
about themselves, while the middle-grade imbecile of even 40 years may
fail to remember his age, however often he may have heard it stated.
Binet placed the test in year VI of the 1908 series, but omitted it
altogether in 1911. Kuhlmann and Goddard also omit it, perhaps wisely.
Nevertheless, it is always interesting to give as a supplementary test.
Children from good homes acquire the knowledge about a year earlier than
those from less favorable surroundings. Unselected children of
California ordinarily pass the test at 5 years.