INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR VII
VII, 1. GIVING THE NUMBER OF FINGERS
PROCEDURE. "_How many fingers have you on one hand?_" "_How many on the
other hand?_" "_How many on both hands together?_" If the child begins
to count in response to any of the questions, say: "_No, don't count.
Tell me without counting._" Then repeat the question.
SCORING. Passed _if all three questions are answered correctly and
promptly_ without the necessity of counting. Some subjects do not
understand the question to include the thumbs. We disregard this if the
number of fingers exclusive of thumbs is given correctly.
REMARKS. Like the two tests of counting pennies, this one, also, throws
light on the child's spontaneous interest in numbers. However, the
mental processes it calls into play are a little less simple than those
required for mere counting. If the child is able to give the number of
fingers, it is ordinarily because he has previously counted them and has
remembered the result. The memory would hardly be retained but for a
certain interest in numbers as such. Middle-grade imbeciles of even
adult age seldom remember how many fingers they have, however often
they may have been told. They are not able to form accurate concepts of
other than the simplest number relationships, and numbers have little
interest or meaning for them.
Binet gave this test a place in year VII of the 1908 series, but omitted
it in the 1911 revision. Goddard omits it, while Kuhlmann retains it in
year VII, where, according to our own figures, it unmistakably belongs.
Bobertag finds it rather easy for year VII, though too difficult for
year VI.
Our data prove that this test fulfills the requirements of a good test.
It shows a rapid but even rise from year V to year VIII in the per cent
passing, the agreement among the different testers is extraordinarily
close, and it is relatively little influenced by training and social
environment. For these reasons, and because it is so easy to give and
score with uniformity, it well deserves a place in the scale.
VII, 2. DESCRIPTION OF PICTURES
PROCEDURE. Use the same pictures as in III, 3, presenting them always in
the following order: Dutch Home, River Scene, Post-Office. The formula
for the test in this year is somewhat different from that of year III.
Say: "_What is this picture about? What is this a picture of?_" Use the
double question, and follow the formula exactly. It would ruin the test
to say: "_Tell me everything you see in this picture_," for this form of
question tends to provoke the enumeration response even with intelligent
children of this age.
When there is no response, the question may be repeated as often as is
necessary to break the silence.
SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ pictures are described
or interpreted. Interpretation, however, is seldom encountered at this
age. Often the response consists of a mixture of enumeration and
description. The rule is that the reaction to a picture should not
be scored _plus_ unless it is made up chiefly of description (or
interpretation).
Study of the following samples of satisfactory responses will give a
fairly definite idea of the requirements for satisfactory description:--
_Picture (a): satisfactory responses_
"The little girl is crying. The mother is looking at her and
there is a little kitten on the floor."
"The mother is watching the baby, and the cat is looking at a
hole in the floor, and there is a lamp and a table so I guess
it's a dining room."
"The little girl has wooden shoes. Her mother is sitting in a
chair and has a funny cap on her head. The cat is sitting on the
floor and there is a basket by the mother and a table with
something on it."
"It's about Holland. The little Dutch girl is crying and the
mother is sitting down."
"A little Dutch girl and her mother and that's a kitten, and the
little girl has her hand up as if she was doing something to her
forehead. She has shoes that curve up in front."
"Dutch lady, and the little baby doesn't want to come to her
mother and the cat is looking for some mice."
"The mother is sitting down and the little one has her hands up
over her eyes. There's a pail by the mother and a chair with
some clothes on it and a table with dishes. And here's a lamp
and here's some curtains."
_Picture (b): satisfactory responses_
"Some people in a boat. The water is high and if they don't look
out the boat will tip over."
"Some Indians and a lady and man. They are in a boat on the
river and the boat is about to upset, and there are some dead
trees going to fall."
"There's a lot of water coming up to drown the people. There are
two people in the boat and the boat is sinking."
"There's some people sailing in a canoe and the woman is leaning
over on the man because she is afraid."
"There's an Indian and some white people in the boat. I suppose
they are out for a ride in a canoe."
"Picture about some man and lady in a canoe and going down to
the sea."
"They are taking a boat ride on the ocean and the water is up so
high that one of them is scared. Here are some trees and two of
them are going to fall down. Here's a little place or bridge you
can stand on. The man is touching this one's head and this one
has his hand on the cover."
"The water is splashing all over. There's trees on this bank and
there's a rock and some trees falling down. The people have a
blanket over them."
_Picture (c): satisfactory responses_
"A man selling eggs and two men reading the paper together and
two men watching."
"A few men reading a newspaper and one has a basket of eggs and
this one has been fishing."
"There's a man with a basket of eggs and another is reading the
paper and a woman is hanging out clothes. There's a house near."
"There's a man trying to read the paper and the others want to
read it too. Here's a lady walking up to the barn. There are
houses over there and one man has a basket."
"There's a big brick house and five men by it and a man with a
basket of eggs and a post-office sign and a lady going home."
"They are all looking at the paper. He is looking over the other
man's shoulder and this one is looking at the back of the paper.
There's a woman cleaning up her back yard and some coops for
hens."
"A man reading a paper, a man with eggs, a woman and a tree and
another house. That man has an apron on. This is the
post-office."
Unsatisfactory responses are those made up entirely or mainly of
enumeration. A phrase or two of description intermingled with a larger
amount of enumeration counts _minus_. Sometimes the description is
satisfactory as far as it goes, but is exceedingly brief. In such cases
a little tactful urging ("_Go ahead_," etc.) will extend the response
sufficiently to reveal its true character.
REMARKS. Description is better than enumeration because it involves
putting the elements of a picture together in a simple way or noting
their qualities. This requires a higher type of mental association
(combinative power) than mere enumeration. An unusually complete
description indicates relative wealth of mental content and facility of
association.
Binet placed this test in year VII, and it seems to have been retained
in this location in all revisions except Bobertag's. However, the
statistics of various workers show much disagreement. Lack of agreement
is easily accounted for by the fact that different investigators have
used different series of pictures and doubtless also different standards
for success. The pictures used by Binet have little action or detail and
are therefore rather difficult for description. On the other hand, the
Jingleman-Jack pictures used by Kuhlmann represent such familiar
situations and have so much action that even 5- or 6-year intelligence
seldom fails with them. The pictures we employ belong without question
in year VII.
No better proof than the above could be found to show how ability of a
given kind does not make its appearance suddenly. There is no one time
in the life of even a single child when the power to describe pictures
suddenly develops. On the contrary, pictures of a certain type will
ordinarily provoke description, rather than enumeration, as early as
5 or 6 years; others not before 7 or 8 years, or even later.
VII, 3. REPEATING FIVE DIGITS
PROCEDURE. Use: 3-1-7-5-9; 4-2-3-8-5; 9-8-1-7-6. Tell the child to
listen and to say after you just what you say. Then read the first
series of digits at a slightly faster rate than one per second, in a
distinct voice, and with perfectly uniform emphasis. _Avoid rhythm._
In previous tests with digits, it was permissible to re-read the first
series if the child refused to respond. In this year, and in the digits
tests of later years, this is not permissible. Warning is not given as
to the number of digits to be repeated. Before reading each series, get
the child's attention. Do not stare at the child during the response, as
this is disconcerting. Look aside or at the record sheet.
SCORING. Passed if the child repeats correctly, after a single reading,
_one series out of the three_ series given. The order must be correct.
REMARKS. Psychologically the repetition of digits differs from the
repetition of sentences mainly in the fact that digits have less meaning
(fewer associations) than the words of a sentence. It is because they
are not as well knit together in meaning that three digits tax the
memory as much as six syllables making up a sentence.
Testing auditory memory for digits is one of the oldest of intelligence
tests. It is easy to give and lends itself well to exact quantitative
standardization. Its value has been questioned, however, on two grounds:
(1) That it is not a test of pure memory, but depends largely on
attention; and (2) that the results are too much influenced by the
child's type of imagery. As to the first objection, it is true that more
than one mental function is brought into play by the test. The same may
be said of every other test in the Binet scale and for that matter of
any test that could be devised. It is impossible to isolate any function
for separate testing. In fact, the functions called memory, attention,
perception, judgment, etc., never operate in isolation. There are no
separate and special "faculties" corresponding to such terms, which are
merely convenient names for characterizing mental processes of various
types. In any test it is "general ability" which is operative, perhaps
now _chiefly_ in remembering, at another time _chiefly_ in sensory
discrimination, again in reasoning, etc.
The second objection, that the test is largely invalidated by the
existence of imagery types, is not borne out by the facts. Experiments
have shown that pure imagery types are exceedingly rare, and that
children, especially, are characterized by "mixed" imagery. There are
probably few subjects so lacking in auditory imagery as to be placed at
a serious disadvantage in this test.
Lengthening a series by the addition of a single digit adds greatly to
the difficulty. While four digits can usually be repeated by children of
4 years, five digits belong in year VII and six in year X.
It is always interesting to note the type of errors made. The most
common error is to omit one or more of the digits, usually in the first
part of the series. If the child's ability is decidedly below the test
he may give only the last two or three out of the five or six heard.
Substitutions are also quite frequent, and if so many substitutions are
made as to give a series quite unlike that which the child has heard, it
is an unfavorable sign, indicating weakness of the critical sense which
is so often found with low-level intelligence. In case of extreme
weakness of the power of auto-criticism, the child in response to the
series 9-8-1-7-6-, may say 1-2-3-4-5-6, or perhaps merely a couple of
digits like 8-6, and still express complete satisfaction with his absurd
response. After each series, therefore, the examiner should say, "_Was
it right?_"[54] Very young subjects, however, have a tendency to answer
"yes" to any question of this type, and it is therefore best not to call
for criticism of a performance below the age of 6 or 7 years.
[54] "_Was it wrong?_" is not an equivalent question and should not be
used.
Digit series of a given length are not always of equal difficulty, and
for this reason it is never wise to use series improvised at the moment
of the experiment. We must avoid especially series of regularly
ascending or descending value, the repetition at regular intervals of a
particular digit, and all other peculiarities of arrangement which would
favor the grouping of the digits for easier retention.
It remains to mention two or three further cautions in regard to
procedure. It is best to begin with a series about one digit below the
child's expected ability. If the child has a probable intelligence of
about 6 or 7 years, we should begin with four digits; in case of
probable 10-year intelligence we begin with five digits, etc. On the
other hand, we should avoid beginning too far down, because then the
result is too much complicated by the effects of practice and fatigue.
It is not necessary, and often it is not expedient, to give the digits
tests of all the different years in succession; that is, without other
tests intervening. While this may be permissible with older children, in
young children the power of sustained attention is so weak that no
single kind of test should occupy more than two or three minutes.
Children below 6 or 7 years should ordinarily be given the tests in the
order in which they are listed in the record booklet.
In his 1911 revision of the scale Binet unfortunately shifted this test
from year VII to year VIII. Goddard follows his example, but Kuhlmann
retains it in year VII. The data from more than a dozen leading
investigations in America, England, and Germany agree in showing that
the test should remain in year VII.
VII, 4. TYING A BOW-KNOT
PROCEDURE. Prepare a shoestring tied in a bow-knot around a stick. The
knot should be an ordinary "double bow," with wings not over three or
four inches long. Make this ready in advance of the experiment and show
the child only the completed knot.
Place the model before the subject with the wings pointing to the right
and left, and say: "_You know what kind of knot this is, don't you? It
is a bow-knot. I want you to take this other piece of string and tie the
same kind of knot around my finger._" At the same time give the child a
piece of shoestring, of the same length as that which is tied around the
stick, and hold out a finger pointed toward the child and in convenient
position for the operation. It is better to have the subject tie the
string around the examiner's finger than around a pencil or other object
because the latter often falls out of the string and is otherwise
awkward to handle.
Some children who assert that they do not know how to tie a bow-knot are
sometimes nevertheless successful when urged to try. It is always
necessary, therefore, to secure an actual trial.
SCORING. The test is passed if a double bow-knot (both ends folded in)
is made _in not more than a minute_. A single bow-knot (only one end
folded in) counts half credit, because children are often accustomed to
use the single bow altogether. The usual plain common knot, which
precedes the bow-knot proper, must not be omitted if the response is to
count as satisfactory, for without this preliminary plain knot a
bow-knot will not hold and is of no value. To be satisfactory the knot
should also be drawn up reasonably close, not left gaping.
REMARKS. This test, which had not before been standardized, was
suggested to the writer by the late Dr. Huey, who in a conversation
once remarked upon the frequent inability of feeble-minded adults to
perform the little motor tasks which are universally learned by normal
persons in childhood. The test was therefore incorporated in the
Stanford trial series of 1913-14 and tried with 370 non-selected
children within two months of the 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th birthday. It was
expected that the test would probably be found to belong at about the
8-year level, but it proved to be easy enough for year VII, where
69 per cent of the children passed it. Only 35 per cent of the
6-year-olds succeeded, but after that age the per cent passing increased
rapidly to 94 per cent at 9 years.
This little experiment, simple as it is, seems to fulfill reasonably
well the requirements of a good test. The main objection which might be
brought against it is that it is much subject to the influence of
training. If this were true in any marked degree, the mentally retarded
children of 7-year intelligence should be expected to succeed better
with it than mentally advanced children of the same mental level, since
the former would have had at least two or three years more in which to
learn the task. A comparison of the two groups, however, shows no great
difference. The factor of age, apart from mental age, affects the
results so little that it is evident we have here a real test of
intelligence.
It would, of course, be easy to imagine a child of 7 years who had not
had reasonable opportunity to make the acquaintance of bow-knots or to
learn to tie them. But such children are seldom encountered in the ages
above 6 or 7. Of 68 7-year-olds who were asked whether they had ever
seen a bow-knot ("a knot like that") only two replied in the negative.
It cannot be denied, however, that specific instruction and special
stimulus to practice do play a certain part. This is suggested by the
fact that girls excel the boys somewhat at each age, doubtless because
bow-knots play a larger rôle in feminine apparel. Social status affects
the results in only a moderate degree, though it might be supposed that
poor ragamuffins, on the one hand, and children of the very rich, on the
other, would both make a poor showing in this test; the former because
of their scanty apparel, the latter because they sometimes have servants
to dress them.
The following are probably the chief factors determining success with
this test: (1) Interest in common objective things; (2) ability to form
permanent associative connections between successive motor coördinations
(memory for a series of acts); and (3) skill in the acquisition of
voluntary motor control. The last factor is probably much less important
than the other two. Motor awkwardness often prolongs the time from the
usual ten or fifteen seconds to thirty or forty seconds, but it is
rarely a cause of a failure. The important thing is to be able to
reproduce the appropriate succession of acts, acts which nearly all
children of 7 years, under the joint stimulus of example and spontaneous
interest, have before performed or tried to perform.
VII, 5. GIVING DIFFERENCES FROM MEMORY
PROCEDURE. Say: "_What is the difference between a fly and a
butterfly?_" If the child does not seem to understand, say: "_You know
flies, do you not? You have seen flies? And you know the butterflies!
Now, tell me the difference between a fly and a butterfly._" Proceed in
the same way with _stone and egg_, and _wood and glass_. A little
coaxing is sometimes necessary to secure a response, but supplementary
questions and suggestions of every kind are to be avoided. For example,
it would not be permissible for the examiner to say: "_Which is larger,
a fly or a butterfly?_" This would give the child his cue and he would
immediately answer, "A butterfly." The child must be left to find a
difference by himself. Sometimes a difference is given, but without any
indication as to its direction, as, for example, "One is bigger than the
other" (for fly and butterfly). It is then permissible to ask: "_Which
is bigger?_"
SCORING. Passed if a real difference is given in _two out of three
comparisons_. It is not necessary, however, that an _essential_
difference be given; the difference may be trivial, only it must be a
real one. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory
responses:--
_Fly and butterfly_
_Satisfactory._ "Butterfly is larger." "Butterfly has bigger
wings." "Fly is black and a butterfly is not." "Butterfly is
yellow (or white, etc.) and fly is black." "Fly bites you and
butterfly don't." "Butterfly has powder on its wings, fly does
not." "Fly flies straighter." "Butterfly is outdoors and a fly
is in the house." "Flies are more dangerous to our health."
"Flies haven't anything to sip honey with." "Butterfly doesn't
live as long as a fly." "Butterfly comes from a caterpillar."
Sometimes a double contrast is meant, but not fully expressed;
as, "A fly is small and a butterfly is pretty." Here the thought
is probably correct, only the language is awkward.
Of 102 correct responses, 70 were in terms of size, or size plus
color or form; 12 were in terms of both form and color; 6 in
terms of color alone; and the rest scattered among such
responses as those mentioned above.
_Unsatisfactory._ These are mostly misstatements of facts; as:
"Fly is bigger." "Fly has legs and butterfly hasn't." "Butterfly
has no feet and fly has." "Butterfly makes butter." "Fly is a
fly and a butterfly is not." Failures due to misstatement of
fact are of endless variety. If an indefinite response is given,
like "The fly is different," or "They don't look alike," we ask,
"_How is it different?_" or, "_Why don't they look alike?_" It
is satisfactory if the child then gives a correct answer.
_Stone and egg_
_Satisfactory._ "Stone is harder." "Egg is softer." "Egg breaks
easier." "Egg breaks and stone doesn't." "Stone is heavier."
"Egg is white and stone is not." "Egg has a shell and stone does
not." "Eggs have a white and a yellow in them." "You put eggs in
a pudding." "An egg is rounder than a stone." We may also accept
statements which are only qualifiedly true; as, "You can break
an egg, but not a stone." Likewise double but incomplete
comparisons are satisfactory; as, "An egg you fry and a stone
you throw," "A stone is tough and an egg you eat," etc.
A little over three fourths of the comparisons made by children
of 6, 7, and 8 years are in terms of hardness. The other
responses are widely scattered.
_Unsatisfactory._ "A stone is bigger (or smaller) than an egg."
"A stone is square and an egg is round." "An egg is yellow and a
stone is white." "Stones are red (or black, etc.) and eggs are
white." "An egg is to eat and a stone is to plant." "An egg is
round and a stone is sometimes round."
It will be noted that the above responses are partly true and
partly false. The error they contain renders them unacceptable.
Most of the failures are due to misstatements as to size, shape,
or color, but occasionally one meets a bizarre answer.
_Wood and glass_
_Satisfactory._ "Glass breaks easier than wood." "Glass breaks
and wood does not." "Wood is stronger than glass." "Glass you
can see through and wood you can't." "Glass cuts you and wood
doesn't." "You get splinters from wood and you don't from
glass." "Glass melts and wood doesn't." "Wood burns and glass
doesn't." "Wood has bark and glass hasn't." "Wood grows and
glass doesn't." "Glass is heavier than wood." "Glass glistens in
the sun and wood does not."
An incomplete double comparison is also counted satisfactory;
as, "Wood you can burn and glass you can see through."
_Unsatisfactory._ "Wood is black and glass is white." (Color
differences are always unsatisfactory in this comparison unless
transparency is also mentioned.) "Glass is square and wood is
round." "Glass is bigger than wood" (or _vice versa_). "Wood is
oblong and glass is square." "Glass is thin and wood is thick."
"Wood is made out of trees and glass out of windows." "There is
no glass in wood."
The two most frequent types of failures are misstatements
regarding color and thickness. The other failures are widely
scattered.
REMARKS. The test is one which all the critics agree in commending,
largely because it is so little influenced by ordinary school
experience. Its excellence lies mainly, however, in the fact that it
throws light upon the character of the child's higher thought processes,
for thinking means essentially the association of ideas on the basis of
differences or similarities. Nearly all thought processes, from the most
complex to the very simplest, involve to a greater or less degree one or
the other of these two types of association. They are involved in the
simple judgments made by children, in the appreciation of puns, in
mechanical inventions, in the creation of poetry, in the scientific
classification of natural phenomena, and in the origination of the
hypotheses of science or philosophy.
The ability to note differences precedes somewhat the ability to note
resemblances, though the contrary has sometimes been asserted by
logician-psychologists. The difficulty of the test is greatly increased
by the fact that the objects to be compared are not present to the
senses, which means that the free ideas must be called up for comparison
and contrast. Failure may result either from weakness in the power of
ideational representation of objects, or from the inadequacy of the
associations themselves, or from both. Probably both factors are usually
involved.
Intellectual development is especially evident in increased ability to
note _essential_ differences and likenesses, as contrasted with those
which are trivial, superficial, and accidental. To distinguish an egg
from a stone on the basis of one being organic, the other inorganic
matter requires far higher intelligence than to distinguish them on the
basis of shape, color, fragibility, etc. It is not till well toward the
adult stage that the ability to give very essential likenesses and
differences becomes prominent, and when we get a comparison of this type
from a child of 7 or 8 years it is a very favorable sign.
It would be well worth while to standardize a new test of this kind for
use in the upper years and especially adapted to display the ability to
give essential likenesses and differences. At year VII we must accept as
satisfactory any real difference.
One point remains. In the tests of giving differences and similarities,
it is well to make note of any tendency to _stereotypy_, by which is
meant the mechanical reappearance of the same idea, or element, in
successive responses. For example, the child begins by comparing fly and
butterfly on the basis of size; as, "A butterfly is bigger than a fly."
So far, this is quite satisfactory; but the child with a tendency to
stereotypy finds himself unable to get away from the dominating idea of
size and continues to make it the basis of the other comparisons: "A
stone is larger than an egg," "Wood is larger than glass," etc. In case
of stereotypy in all three responses, we should have to score the total
response failure even though the idea employed happened to fit all three
parts of the question. As a rule it is encountered only with very young
children or with older children who are mentally retarded. It is
therefore an unfavorable sign.
Although this test has been universally used in year VIII, all the
available statistics, with the exception of Bobertag's and Bloch's,
indicate that it is decidedly too easy for that year. Binet himself says
that nearly all 7-year-olds pass it. Goddard finds 97 per cent passing
at year VIII, and Dougherty 90 per cent at year VI. With the standard of
scoring given in the present revision, and with the substitution of
_stone and egg_ instead of the more difficult _paper and cloth_, the
test is unquestionably easy enough for year VII.
VII, 6. COPYING A DIAMOND
PROCEDURE. On a white cardboard draw in heavy black lines a diamond with
the longer diagonal three inches and the shorter diagonal an inch and a
half. The specially prepared record booklet contains the diamond as well
as many other conveniences.
Place the model before the child with the longer diagonal pointing
directly toward him, and giving him _pen and ink_ and paper, say: "_I
want you to draw one exactly like this._" Give three trials, saying each
time: "_Make it exactly like this one._" In repeating the above formula,
merely point to the model; do not pass the fingers around its edge.
Unlike the test of copying a square in year IV, there is seldom any
difficulty in getting the child to try this one. By the age of 7 the
child has grown much less timid and has become more accustomed to the
use of writing materials.
Note whether the child draws each part carefully, looking at the model
from time to time, or whether the strokes are made in a more or less
haphazard manner with only an initial glance at the original.
After each trial, say to the child: "_Is it good?_" And after the three
copies have been made say: "_Which one is the best?_" Retarded children
are sometimes entirely satisfied with the most nondescript drawings
imaginable, but they are more likely correctly to pick out the best of
three than to render a correct judgment about the worth of each drawing
separately.
SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ drawings are at least
as good as those marked satisfactory on the score card. The diamond
should be drawn approximately in the correct position, and the diagonals
must not be reversed. Disregard departures from the model with respect
to size.
REMARKS. The test is a good one. Age and training, apart from
intelligence, affect it only moderately. There are few adult imbeciles
of 6-year intelligence who are able to pass it, while but few subjects
who have reached the 8-year level fail on it.[55]
[55] For further discussion of drawing tests, see V, 1, and X, 3.
This test was located in year VII of the 1908 scale, but was shifted to
year VI in Binet's 1911 revision. The change was without justification,
for Binet expressly states, both in 1908 and 1911, that only half of the
6-year-olds succeed with it. The large majority of investigations have
given too low a proportion of successes at 6 years to warrant its
location at that age, particularly if pen is required instead of pencil.
Location at year VI would be warranted only on the condition that the
use of pencil be permitted and only one success required in three
trials.
VII, ALTERNATIVE TEST 1: NAMING THE DAYS OF THE WEEK
PROCEDURE. Say: "_You know the days of the week, do you not? Name the
days of the week for me._" Sometimes the child begins by naming various
annual holidays, as Christmas, Fourth of July, etc. Perhaps he has not
comprehended the task; at any rate, we give him one more trial by
stopping him and saying: "_No; that is not what I mean. I want you to
name the days of the week._" No supplementary questions are permissible,
and we must be careful not to show approval or disapproval in our looks
as the child is giving his response.
If the days have been named in correct order, we check up the response
to see whether the real order of days is known or whether the names have
only been repeated mechanically. This is done by asking the following
questions: "_What day comes before Tuesday?_" "_What day comes before
Thursday?_" "_What day comes before Friday?_"
SCORING. The test is passed if, within _fifteen seconds_, the days of
the week are _all named in correct order_, and if the child succeeds in
at least _two of the three check questions_. We disregard the point of
beginning.
REMARKS. The test has been criticized as too dependent on rote memory.
Bobertag says a child may pass it without having any adequate conception
of "week," "yesterday," "day before yesterday," etc. This criticism
holds if the test is given according to the older procedure, but does
not apply with the procedure above recommended. The "checking-up"
questions enable us at once to distinguish responses that are given by
rote from those which rest upon actual knowledge.
The test has been shown to be much more influenced by age, apart from
intelligence, than most other tests of the scale. Notwithstanding this
fault, it seems desirable to keep the test, at least as an alternative,
because it forms one of a group which may be designated as tests of time
orientation. The others of this group are: "_Distinguishing forenoon and
afternoon_" (VI), "_Giving the date_" and "_Naming the months_" (IX). It
would be well if we had even more of this type, for interest in the
passing of time and in the names of time divisions is closely correlated
with intelligence. One reason for the inferiority of the dull and
feeble-minded in tests of this type is that their mental associations
are weaker and less numerous. The greater poverty of their associations
brings it about that their remembered experiences are less definitely
located in time with reference to other events.
The test was located in year IX of the 1908 scale, but was omitted from
the 1911 revision. Kuhlmann also omits it, while Goddard places it in
year VIII. The statistics from every American investigation, however,
warrant its location in year VII. It may be located in year VIII only on
the condition that the child be required to name the days backwards, and
that within a rather low time limit.
VII, ALTERNATIVE TEST 2: REPEATING THREE DIGITS REVERSED
PROCEDURE. The digits used are: 2-8-3; 4-2-7; 5-9-6. The test should be
given after, but not immediately after, the tests of repeating digits
forwards.
Say to the child: "_Listen carefully. I am going to read some numbers
again, but this time I want you to say them backwards. For example, if I
should say 1-2-3, you would say 3-2-1. Do you understand?_" When it is
evident that the child has grasped the instructions, say: "_Ready now;
listen carefully, and be sure to say the numbers backwards._" Then read
the series at the same rate and in the same manner as in the other
digits tests. It is not permissible to re-read any of the series.
If the first series is repeated forwards instead of backwards series
exhort the child to listen carefully and to be sure to repeat the
numbers backwards.
SCORING. The test is passed if _one series out of three_ is repeated
backwards without error.
REMARKS. The test of repeating digits backwards was suggested by
Bobertag in 1911, but appears not to have been used or standardized
previous to the Stanford investigation.
It is very much harder to repeat a series of digits backwards in the
direct order at year VII, and six at year X. Reversing the order places
three digits in year VII, four in year X, five in year XII, and six in
"average adult." Even intelligent adults sometimes have difficulty in
repeating six digits backwards, once in three trials.
As a test of intelligence this test is better than that of repeating
digits in the direct order. It is less mechanical and makes a much
heavier demand on attention. The digits must be so firmly fixated in
memory that they can be held there long enough to be told off, one by
one, backwards.
Feeble-minded children find this test especially difficult, perhaps
mainly because of its element of novelty. School children are often
asked to write numbers dictated by the teacher, and even the very dull
acquire a certain proficiency in doing so; but the test of repeating
digits backwards requires a certain facility in adjusting to a new task,
exactly the sort of thing in which the feeble-minded are so markedly
deficient.
As a rule the response consumes much more time than in the other digits
test. This is particularly true when the series to be repeated backwards
contains four or more digits. The chance of success is greatly increased
if the subject first thinks the series through two or three times in the
direct order before attempting the reverse order. The subject who
responds immediately is likely to begin correctly, but to give the first
part of the original series in the direct order. For example, 6-5-2-8 is
given 8-2-6-5.
Sometimes the child gives one or two numbers and then stops, having
completely lost the rest of the series in the stress of adjusting to the
novel and relatively difficult task of beginning with the final digit.
In such cases the feeble-minded are prone to fill in with any numbers
they may happen to think of. A good method for the subject is to break
the series up into groups and to give each group separately. Thus,
6-5-2-8 is given 8-2 (pause) 5-6. As a rule only the more intelligent
subjects adopt this method. One 12-year-old girl attending high school
was able to repeat eight digits backwards by the aid of this device.
It would be well worth while to investigate the relation of this test to
imagery type. Such a study would have to make use of adult subjects
trained in introspection. It would seem that success might be favored by
the ability to translate the auditory impression into visual imagery, so
that the remembered numbers could be read off as from a book; but this
may or may not be the case. At any rate, success seems to depend largely
upon the ability to manipulate mental imagery.
The degree of certainty as to the correctness of the response is usually
much less than in repeating digits forwards.