INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR VIII
VIII, 1. THE BALL-AND-FIELD TEST (SCORE 2, INFERIOR PLAN)
PROCEDURE. Draw a circle about two and one half inches in diameter,
leaving a small gap in the side next the child. Say: "_Let us suppose
that your baseball has been lost in this round field. You have no idea
what part of the field it is in. You don't know what direction it came
from, how it got there, or with what force it came. All you know is
that the ball is lost somewhere in the field. Now, take this pencil and
mark out a path to show me how you would hunt for the ball so as to be
sure not to miss it. Begin at the gate and show me what path you would
take._"[56]
[56] The Stanford record booklet contains the circle ready for use.
Give the instructions always as worded above. Avoid using an expression
like, "_Show me how you would walk around in the field_"; the word
_around_ might suggest a circular path.
Sometimes the child merely points or tells how he would go. It is then
necessary to say: "_No; you must mark out your path with the pencil so I
can see it plainly._" Other children trace a path only a little way and
stop, saying: "Here it is." We then say: "_But suppose you have not
found it yet. Which direction would you go next?_" In this way the child
must be kept tracing a path until it is evident whether any plan governs
his procedure.
SCORING. The performances secured with this test are conveniently
classified into four groups, representing progressively higher types.
The first two types represent failures; the third is satisfactory at
year VIII, the fourth at year XII. They may be described as follows:--
_Type a_ (failure). The child fails to comprehend the
instructions and either does nothing at all or else, perhaps,
takes the pencil and makes a few random strokes which could not
be said to constitute a search.
_Type b_ (also failure). The child comprehends the instructions
and carries out a search, but without any definite plan. Absence
of plan is evidenced by the crossing and re-crossing of paths,
or by "breaks." A break means that the pencil is lifted up and
set down in another part of the field. Sometimes only two or
three fragments of paths are drawn, but more usually the field
is pretty well filled up with random meanderings which cross
each other again and again. Other illustrations of type _b_ are:
A single straight or curved line going direct to the ball, short
haphazard dashes or curves, bare suggestion of a fan or spiral.
_Type c_ (satisfactory at year VIII). A successful performance
at year VIII is characterized by the presence of a plan, but one
ill-adapted to the purpose. That some forethought is exercised
is evidenced, (1) by fewer crossings, (2) by a tendency either
to make the lines more or less parallel or else to give them
some kind of symmetry, and (3) by fewer breaks. The
possibilities of type _c_ are almost unlimited, and one is
continually meeting new forms. We have distinguished more than
twenty of these, the most common of which may be described as
follows:--
1. Very rough or zigzag circles or similarly imperfect spirals.
2. Segments of curves joined in a more or less symmetrical fashion.
3. Lines going back and forth across the field, joined at the ends
and not intended to be parallel.
4. The "wheel plan," showing lines radiating from near the center
of the field toward the circumference.
5. The "fan plan," showing a number of lines radiating (usually)
from the gate and spreading out over the field.
6. "Fan ellipses" or "fan spirals" radiating from the gate like the
lines just described.
7. The "leaf plan," "rib plan," or "tree plan," with lines branching
off from a trunk line like ribs, veins of a leaf, or branches of
a tree.
8. Parallel lines which cross at right angles and mark off the field
like a checkerboard.
9. Paths making one or more fairly symmetrical geometrical figures,
like a square, a diamond, a star, a hexagon, etc.
10. A combination of two or more of the above plans.
_Type d_ (satisfactory at year XII). Performances of this type
meet perfectly, or almost perfectly, the logical requirements of
the problem. The paths are almost or quite parallel, and there
are no intersections or breaks. The possibilities of type _d_
are fewer and embrace chiefly the following:--
1. A spiral, perfect or almost perfect, and beginning either at
the gate or at the center of the field. 2. Concentric circles.
3. Transverse lines, parallel or almost so, and joined at the
ends.
Up to about 4 years most children failed entirely to comprehend the
task. By the age of 6 years the task is usually understood, but the
search is conducted without plan. Type _c_ is not attained by two
thirds before the mental level of 8 years, and score 3 ordinarily not
until 11 or 12 years.
Grading presents some difficulties because of occasional border-line
performances which have a value almost midway between the types _b_ and
_c_ or between _c_ and _d_. Frequent reference to the scoring card will
enable the examiner, after a little experience, to score nearly all the
doubtful performances satisfactorily.
REMARKS. The ball-and-field problem may be called a test of practical
judgment. Unlike a majority of the other tests, it gives the subject a
chance to show how well he can meet the demands of a real, rather
than an imagined, situation. Tests like this, involving practical
adjustments, are valuable in rounding out the scale, which, as left by
Binet, placed rather excessive emphasis on abstract reasoning and the
comprehension of language. The test requires little time and always
arouses the child's interest.
Our analysis of the responses of nearly 1500 subjects shows that
improvement with increasing mental age is steady and fairly rapid.
Occasionally, however, one meets a high-grade performance with children
of 6 or 7 years, and a low-grade performance with adults of average
intelligence. Like all the other tests of the scale, it is unreliable
when used alone.
VIII, 2. COUNTING BACKWARDS FROM 20 TO 1
PROCEDURE. Say to the child: "_You can count backwards, can you not? I
want you to count backwards for me from 20 to 1. Go ahead._" In the
great majority of cases this is sufficient; the child comprehends the
task and begins. If he does not comprehend, and is silent, or starts in,
perhaps, to count forwards from 1 or 20, say: "_No; I want you to count
backwards from 20 to 1, like this: 20-19-18, and clear on down to 1.
Now, go ahead._"
Insist upon the child trying it even though he asserts he cannot do it.
In many such cases an effort is crowned with success. Say nothing about
hurrying, as this confuses some subjects. Prompting is not permissible.
SCORING. The test is passed if the child counts from 20 to 1 _in not
over forty seconds and with not more than a single error_ (one omission
or one transposition). Errors which the child spontaneously corrects are
not counted as errors.
REMARKS. The statistics on this test agree remarkably well. It is
plainly too easy for year IX, and no one has found it easy enough for
year VII. The main lack of uniformity has been in the adherence to a
time limit. Binet required that the task be completed in twenty seconds,
and Goddard and most others adhere rather strictly to this rule.
Kuhlmann, however, allows thirty seconds if there is no error and twenty
seconds if one error is committed. We agree with Bobertag that owing to
the nature of this test we should not be pedantic about the time. While
a majority of children who are able to count backwards do the task in
twenty seconds, there are some intelligent but deliberate subjects who
require as much as thirty-five or forty seconds. If the counting is done
with assurance and without stumbling, there is no reason why we should
not allow even forty seconds. Beyond this, however, our generosity
should not go, because of the chance it would give for the use of
special devices such as counting forwards each time to the next number
wanted.
It may be said that counting backwards is a test of schooling, and to a
certain extent this is true. It is reasonable to suppose that special
training would enable the child to pass the test a little earlier than
he would otherwise be able to do, though it is doubtful whether many
children below 7 years of age have had enough of such training to
influence the performance very materially. On the other hand, when the
child has reached an intelligence level of 8 or at most 9 years, he is
ordinarily able to count from 20 to 1 whether he has ever tried it
before or not.
What psychological factors are involved in this test? It presupposes, in
the first place, the ability to count from 1 to 20. But this alone does
not guarantee success in counting backwards. Something more is required
than a mere rote memory for the number names in their order from 1 up to
20. The quantitative relationships of the numbers must also be
apprehended if the task is to be performed smoothly without a great deal
of special training. In addition to being reasonably secure in his
knowledge of the number relationships involved, the child must be able
to give sustained attention until the task is completed. His mental
processes must be dominated by the guiding idea, "count backwards."
Associations which do not harmonize with this aim, or which fail to
further it, must be inhibited. Even momentary relaxation of attention
means a loss of directive force in the guiding idea and the dominance of
better known associations which may be suggested by the task, but are
out of harmony with it. Thus, if a child momentarily loses sight of the
end after counting backwards successfully from 20 to 14, he is likely to
be overpowered by the law of habit and begin counting forwards,
14-15-16-17, etc. We may regard the test, therefore, as a test of
attention, or prolonged thought control. The ability to exercise
unbroken vigilance for a period of twenty or thirty seconds is rarely
found below the level of 7- or 8-year intelligence.
VIII, 3. COMPREHENSION, THIRD DEGREE
The questions for this year are:--
(a) "_What's the thing for you to do when you have broken
something which belongs to some one else?_"
(b) "_What's the thing for you to do when you notice on your way
to school that you are in danger of being tardy?_"
(c) "_What's the thing for you to do if a playmate hits you
without meaning to do it?_"
The procedure is the same as in previous comprehension questions.[57]
Each question may be repeated once or twice, but its form must not be
changed. No explanations are permissible.
[57] See IV, 5, and VI, 4.
SCORING:--
_Question a (If you have broken something)_
_Satisfactory responses_ are those suggesting either restitution
or apology, or both. Confession is not satisfactory unless
accompanied by apology. The following are satisfactory: "Buy a
new one." "Pay for it." "Give them something instead of it."
"Have my father mend it." "Apologize." "Tell them I'm sorry,
that I did not mean to break it," etc. Of 92 correct answers, 76
suggested restitution, while 16 suggested apology, or apology
and restitution.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Tell them I did it." "Go tell my mother."
"Feel sorry." "Be ashamed." "Pick it up," etc. Mere confession
accounts for over 20 per cent of all failures.
_Question b (In danger of being tardy)_
_Satisfactory._ The expected response is, "Hurry," "Walk
faster," or something to that effect. One bright city boy said
he would take a car. Of the answers not obviously incorrect,
nearly 95 per cent suggest hurrying. The rule ordinarily
recommended is to grade all other responses _minus_. But this
rule is too sweeping to be followed blindly. One who would use
intelligence tests must learn to discriminate. "I would go back
home and not go to school that day" is a good answer in those
cases (fortunately rare) in which children are forbidden by the
teacher to enter the schoolroom if tardy. "Go back home and get
mother to write an excuse" would be good policy if by so doing
the child might escape the danger of incurring an extreme
penalty. When teachers inflict absurd penalties for unexcused
tardiness, it is the part of wisdom for children to incur no
risks! When such a response is given, it is well to inquire into
the school's method of dealing with tardiness and to score the
response accordingly.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Go to the principal." "Tell the teacher I
couldn't help it." "Have to get an excuse." "Go to school
anyway." "Get punished." "Not do it again." "Not play hooky."
"Start earlier next time," etc.
Lack of success results oftenest from failure to get the exact
shade of meaning conveyed by the question. It is implied, of
course, that something is to be done at once to avoid tardiness;
but the subject of dull comprehension may suggest a suitable
thing to do in case tardiness has been incurred. Hence the
response, "I would go to the principal and explain." Answers of
this type are always unsatisfactory.
_Question c (Playmate hits you)_
_Satisfactory responses_ are only those which suggest either
excusing or overlooking the act. These ideas are variously
expressed as follows: "I would excuse him" (about half of all
the correct answers). "I would say 'yes' if he asked my pardon."
"I would say it was all right." "I would take it for a joke." "I
would just be nice to him." "I would go right on playing." "I
would take it kind-hearted." "I would not fight or run and tell
on him." "I would not blame him for it." "Ask him to be more
careful," etc.
_Unsatisfactory responses_ are all those not of the above two
types; as: "I would hit them back." "I would not hit them back,
but I would get even some other way." "Tell them not to do it
again." "Tell them to 'cut it out.'" "Tell him it's a wrong
thing to do." "Make him excuse himself." "Make him say he's
sorry." "Would not play with him." "Tell my mamma." "I would ask
him why he did it." "He'd say 'excuse me' and I'd say 'thank
you.'" "He should excuse me." "He is supposed to say 'excuse
me.'"
REMARKS. All three comprehension questions of this year were used by
Binet, Goddard, Huey, and others in year X; two of them in the "easy
series" and one in the "hard series." The Stanford data show that they
belong at the 8-year level on the standard of scoring above set forth.
The three differ little among themselves in difficulty, but all of them
are decidedly easier than the other five used by Binet. It would be
absurd to go on using the comprehension questions as Binet bunched them,
eight together, ranging in difficulty from one which is easy enough for
6-year intelligence ("What's the thing to do if you miss your train?")
to one which is hard for the 12-year level ("Why is a bad act done when
one is angry more excusable than the same act done when one is not
angry?").
VIII, 4. GIVING SIMILARITIES; TWO THINGS
PROCEDURE. Say to the child: "_I am going to name two things which are
alike in some way, and I want you to tell me how they are alike. Wood
and coal: in what way are they alike?_" Proceed in the same manner
with:--
_An apple and a peach._
_Iron and silver._
_A ship and an automobile._
After the first pair the formula may be abbreviated to "_In what way are
... and ... alike?_" It is often necessary to insist a little if the
child is silent or says he does not know, but in doing this we must
avoid supplementary questions and suggestions. In giving the first pair,
for example, it would not be permissible to ask such additional
questions as, "_What do you use wood for? What do you use coal for? And
now, how are wood and coal alike?_" This is really putting the answer in
the child's mouth. It is only permissible to repeat the original
question in a persuasive tone of voice, and perhaps to add: "_I'm sure
you can tell me how ... and ... are alike_," or something to that
effect.
A very common mistake which the child makes is to give differences
instead of similarities. This tendency is particularly strong if test 5,
year VII (giving differences), has been given earlier in the sitting,
but it happens often enough in other cases also to suggest that finding
differences is, to a much greater extent than finding similarities, the
child's preferred method of making a comparison. When a difference is
given, instead of a similarity, we say: "_No, I want you to tell me how
they are alike. In what way are ... and ... alike?_" Unless the child is
of rather low intelligence level this is sufficient, but the mentally
retarded sometimes continue to give differences persistently in spite
of repeated admonitions, or if they cease to do so for one or two
comparisons, they are likely to repeat the mistake in the latter part of
the test.
SCORING. The test is passed if a likeness is given in _two out of four_
comparisons. We accept as satisfactory any real likeness, whether
fundamental or superficial, though, of course, the more essential the
resemblance, the better indication it is of intelligence. The following
are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory answers:--[58]
[58] For aid in classifying the responses in this and certain other
tests the writer is indebted to Miss Grace Lyman.
(a) _Wood and coal_
_Satisfactory._ "Both burn." "Both keep you warm." "Both are
used for fuel." "Both are vegetable matter." "Both come from the
ground." "Can use them both for running engines." "Both hard."
"Both heavy." "Both cost money."
Of 80 correct answers, 64, or 80 per cent, referred in one way
or another to combustibility.
_Unsatisfactory._ Most frequent is the persistent giving of a
difference instead of a similarity. This accounts for a little
over half of all the failures. About half of the remainder are
cases of inability to give any response. Incorrect statements
with regard to color are rather common. Sample failures of this
type are: "Both are black," or "Both the same color." Other
failures are: "Both are dirty on the outside;" "You can't break
them;" "Coal burns better;" "Wood is lighter than coal," etc.
(b) _An apple and a peach_
_Satisfactory._ "Both are round." "Both the same shape." "They
are about the same color." "Both nearly always have some red on
them." "Both good to eat." "Can make pies of both of them."
"Both can be cooked." "Both mellow when they are ripe." "Both
have a stem" (or seeds, skin, etc.). "Both come from trees."
"Can be dried in the same way." "Both are fruits." "Both green
(in color) when they are not ripe."
Of 82 correct answers, 25 per cent mention color; 25 per cent,
form; 22 per cent, edibility; 20 per cent, having stem, seed, or
skin; and 5 per cent, that both grow on trees.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Both taste the same." "Both have a lot of
seeds." "Both have a fuzzy skin." "An apple is bigger than a
peach." "One is red and one is white," etc.
Again, over 50 per cent of the failures are due to giving
differences and about 18 per cent to silence.
(c) _Iron and silver_
_Satisfactory._ "Both are metals" (or mineral). "Both come out
of the ground." "Both cost money." "Both are heavy." "Both are
hard." "Both can be melted." "Both can be bent." "Both used for
utensils." "You manufacture things out of both of them." "Both
can be polished."
These are named most frequently in the following order: (1)
hardness, (2) origin from the ground, (3) heaviness, (4) use in
making things.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Both thin" (or thick). "Sometimes they are
the same shape." "Both the same color." "A little silver and
lots of iron weigh the same." "Both made by the same company."
"They rust the same." "You can't eat them" (!)[59]
[59] One is here reminded of the puzzling conundrum, "Why is a
brick like an elephant?" The answer being, "Because neither can
climb a tree!" A response of this type states a fact, but because
of its bizarre nature should hardly be counted satisfactory.
Of 60 failures, 32 were due to giving differences and 14 to
silence or unwillingness to hazard a reply.
(d) _A ship and an automobile_
_Satisfactory._ "Both means of travel." "Both go." "You ride in
them." "Both take you fast." "They both use fuel." "Both run by
machinery." "Both have a steering gear." "Both have engines in
them." "Both have wood in them." "Both can be wrecked." "Both
break if they hit a rock."
About 45 per cent of the answers are in terms of running or
travel, 37 per cent in terms of machinery or structure, the rest
scattered.
_Unsatisfactory._ "Both black" (or some other color). "Both very
big." "They are made alike." "Both run on wheels." "Ship is for
the water and automobile for the land." "Ship goes on water and
an automobile sometimes goes in water." "An auto can go faster."
"Ship is run by coal and automobile by gasoline."
Of 51 failures, 32 were due to giving differences and 14 to
failure to reply.
REMARKS. The test of finding similarities was first used by Binet in
1905. Our results show that it is fully as satisfactory as the test of
giving differences. The test reveals in a most interesting way one of
the fundamental weaknesses of the feeble mind. Young normal children,
say of 7 or 8 years, often fail to pass, but it is the feeble-minded who
give the greatest number of absurd answers and who also find greatest
difficulty in resisting the tendency to give differences.[60]
[60] For further discussion of the processes involved, see VII, 5.
VIII, 5. GIVING DEFINITIONS SUPERIOR TO USE
PROCEDURE. The words for this year are _balloon_, _tiger_, _football_,
and _soldier_. Ask simply: "_What is a balloon?_" etc.
If it appears that any of the words are not familiar to the child,
substitution may be made from the following: _automobile_,
_battle-ship_, _potato_, _store_.
Make no comments on the responses until all the words have been given.
In case of silence or hesitation in answering, the question may be
repeated with a little encouragement; but supplementary questions are
never in order. Ordinarily there is no difficulty in securing a response
to the definition test of this year. The trouble comes in scoring the
response.
SCORING. The test is passed if two of the four words are defined in
terms superior to use. "Superior to use" includes chiefly: (a)
Definitions which describe the object or tell something of its nature
(form, size, color, appearance, etc.); (b) definitions which give the
substance or the materials or parts composing it; and (c) those which
tell what class the object belongs to or what relation it bears to
other classes of objects.
It is possible to distinguish different grades of definitions in each of
the above classes. A definition by description (type _a_) may be brief
and partial, mentioning only one or two qualities or characteristics, or
it may be relatively rich and complete. Likewise with definitions of
type _b_. Classificatory definitions (type _c_) are of particularly
uneven value, the lowest order being those which subsume the object to
be defined under a remote class and give few if any characteristics to
distinguish it from other members of the same class; as, for example, "A
football is a thing you can have fun with," or, "A soldier is a person."
The best classificatory definitions are those which subsume the object
under the next higher class and give the more essential traits (perhaps
a number of them) which distinguish the object from others of the class
named; as, for example, "A tiger is a large animal like a cat; it lives
in the jungle and eats men and other animals," or, "A soldier is a man
who goes to war." These shades of distinction give interesting and
valuable clues to the maturity and richness of the apperceptive
processes, but for purposes of scoring it is necessary merely to decide
whether the definition is given in terms superior to use.
The following are samples of satisfactory definitions, those for each
word being arranged roughly in the order of their value from excellent
to barely passing:--
(a) _Balloon_
_Satisfactory._ "A balloon is a means of traveling through the
air." "It is a kind of airship, made of cloth and filled with
air so it can go up." "It is big and made of cloth. It has gas
in it and carries people up in a basket that's fastened on to
the bottom." "It is a thing you hold by a string and it goes
up." "It is like a big bag with air in it." "It is a big thing
that goes up."
_Unsatisfactory._ "To go up in the air." "What you go up in."
"When you go up." "They go up in it." "It's full of gas." "To
carry you up." "A balloon is a balloon," etc. "It is big." "They
go up," etc.
(b) _Tiger_
_Satisfactory._ "It is a wild animal of the cat family." "It is
an animal that's a cousin to the lion." "It is an animal that
lives in the jungle." "It is a wild animal." "It looks like a
big cat." "It lives in the woods and eats flesh." "Something
that eats people."
_Unsatisfactory._ "To eat you up." "To kill people." "To travel
in the circus." "What eats people." "It is a tiger," etc. "You
run from it," etc.
(c) _Football_
_Satisfactory._ "It is a leather bag filled with air and made
for kicking." "It is a ball you kick." "It is a thing you play
with." "It is made of leather and is stuffed with air." "It is a
thing you kick." "It is brown and filled with air." "It is a
thing shaped like a watermelon."
_Unsatisfactory._ "To kick." "To play with." "What they play
with." "Boys play with it." "It's filled with air." "It is a
football." "It is a basket ball." "It is round." "You kick it."
(d) _Soldier_
_Satisfactory._ "A man who goes to war." "A brave man." "A man
that walks up and down and carries a gun." "It is a man who
minds his captain and stands still and walks straight." "It is a
man who goes to war and shoots." "It is a man who stands
straight and marches."
_Unsatisfactory._ "To shoot." "To go to war." "It is a soldier."
"A soldier that marches." "He fights." "He shoots." "What
fights," etc. "When you march and shoot."
Silence accounts for only a small proportion of the failures with
children of 8, 9, and 10 years.
REMARKS. The "use definitions" sometimes given at this age are usually
of slightly better quality than those given in year V. Younger children
more often use the infinitive form, "to play with" (doll), "to drive"
(horse), "to eat on" (table), etc. Use definitions of this year more
often begin with "they," or "what"; as, "they go up in it" (balloon),
"they kick it" (football), etc.
Why, it may be asked, is the use definition regarded as inferior to the
descriptive or the classificatory definition? Is not the use to which an
object may be put the most essential thing about it, for the child at
least? Is it not more important to know that a fork is to eat with than
to be able to name the material it is made of? Is not the use primary
and does it not determine most of the physical characteristics of the
object?
The above questions may sound reasonable, but they are based on poor
psychology. We must rest our case upon the facts. The first lesson which
the student of child psychology must learn is that it is unsafe to set
up criteria of intelligence, of maturity, or of any other mental trait
on the basis of theoretical considerations. Experiment teaches that
normal children of 5 or 6 years, also older feeble-minded persons of the
5-year intelligence level, define objects in terms of use; also that
normal children of 8 or 9 years and older feeble-minded persons of this
mental level have for the most part developed beyond the stage of use
definitions into the descriptive or classificatory stage. An ounce of
fact is worth a ton of theory.
The test has usually been located in year IX, with the requirement of
three successes out of five trials and with somewhat more rigid scoring
of the individual definitions. When only two successes are required in
four trials, and when scored leniently, the test belongs at the 8-year
level.
VIII, 6. VOCABULARY; TWENTY DEFINITIONS, 3600 WORDS
PROCEDURE. Use the list of words given in the record booklet. Say to the
child: "_I want to find out how many words you know. Listen; and when I
say a word you tell me what it means._" If the child can read, give him
a printed copy of the word list and let him look at each word as you
pronounce it.
The words are arranged approximately (though not exactly) in the order
of their difficulty, and it is best to begin with the easier words and
proceed to the harder. With children under 9 or 10 years, begin with the
first. Apparently normal children of 10 years may safely be credited
with the first ten words without being asked to define them. Apparently
normal children of 12 may begin with word 16, and 15-year-olds with
word 21. Except with subjects of almost adult intelligence there is no
need to give the last ten or fifteen words, as these are almost never
correctly defined by school children. A safe rule to follow is to
continue until eight or ten successive words have been missed and to
score the remainder _minus_ without giving them.
The formula is as follows: "What is an _orange_?" "What is a _bonfire_?"
"_Roar_; what does _roar_ mean?" "_Gown_; what is a _gown_?" "What does
_tap_ mean?" "What does _scorch_ mean?" "What is a _puddle_?" etc.
Some children at first show a little hesitation about answering,
thinking that a strictly formal definition is expected. In such cases a
little encouragement is necessary; as: "_You know what a bonfire is. You
have seen a bonfire. Now, what is a bonfire?_" If the child still
hesitates, say: "_Just tell me in your own words; say it any way you
please. All I want is to find out whether you know what a bonfire is._"
Do not torture the child, however, by undue insistence. If he persists
in his refusal to define a word which he would ordinarily be expected to
know, it is better to pass on to the next one and to return to the
troublesome word later. Above all, avoid helping the child by
illustrating the use of a word in a sentence. Adhere strictly to the
formula given above. If the definition as given does not make it clear
whether the child has the correct idea, say: "_Explain_," or, "_I don't
understand; explain what you mean._"
Encourage the child frequently by saying: "That's fine. You are doing
beautifully. You know lots of words," etc. Never tell the child his
definition is not correct, and never ask for a different definition.
Avoid saying anything which would suggest a model form of definition, as
the type of definition which the child spontaneously chooses throws
interesting light on the degree of maturity of the apperceptive
processes. Record all definitions _verbatim_ if possible, or at least
those which are exceptionally good, poor, or doubtful.
SCORING. Credit a response in full if it gives one correct meaning for
the word, regardless of whether that meaning is the most common one, and
regardless of whether it is the original or a derived meaning.
Occasionally half credit may be given, but this should be avoided as far
as possible.
To find the entire vocabulary, multiply the number of words known by
180. (This list is made up of 100 words selected by rule from a
dictionary containing 18,000 words.) Thus, the child who defines
20 words correctly has a vocabulary of 20 × 180 = 3600 words; 50 correct
definitions would mean a vocabulary of 9000 words, etc. The following
are the standards for different years, as determined by the vocabulary
reached by 60 to 65 per cent of the subjects of the various mental
levels:--
8 years 20 words vocabulary 3,600
10 years 30 words vocabulary 5,400
12 years 40 words vocabulary 7,200
14 years 50 words vocabulary 9,000
Average adult 65 words vocabulary 11,700
Superior adult 75 words vocabulary 13,500
Although the form of the definition is significant, it is not taken into
consideration in scoring. The test is intended to explore the range of
ideas rather than the evolution of thought forms. When it is evident
that the child has one fairly correct meaning for a word, he is given
full credit for it, however poorly the definition may have been stated.
While there is naturally some difficulty now and then in deciding
whether a given definition is correct, this happens much less frequently
than one would expect. In order to get a definite idea of the extent of
error due to the individual differences among examiners, we have had the
definitions of 25 subjects graded independently by 10 different persons.
The result showed an average difference below 3 in the number of
definitions scored _plus_. Since these subjects attempted on an average
about 60 words, the average number of doubtful definitions per subject
was below 5 per cent of the number attempted.
An idea of the degree of leniency to be exercised may be had from the
following examples of definitions, which are mostly of low grade, but
acceptable unless otherwise indicated:--
1. _Orange._ "An orange is to eat." "It is yellow and grows on a
tree." (Both full credit.)
2. _Bonfire._ "You burn it outdoors." "You burn some leaves or
things." "It's a big fire." (All full credit.)
3. _Roar._ "A lion roars." "You holler loud." (Full credit.)
4. _Gown._ "To sleep in." "It's a nightie." "It's a nice gown that
ladies wear." (All full credit.)
7. _Puddle._ "You splash in it." "It's just a puddle of water."
(Both full credit.)
9. _Straw._ "It grows in the field." "It means wheat-straw." "The
horses eat it." (All full credit.)
10. _Rule._ "The teacher makes rules." "It means you can't do
something." "You make marks with it," i.e., a ruler, often
called a _rule_ by school children. (All full credit.)
11. _Afloat._ "To float on the water." "A ship floats." (Both full
credit.)
12. _Eyelash._ If the child says, "It's over the eye," tell him to
point to it, as often the word is confused with _eyebrow_.
14. _Copper._ "It's a penny." "It means some copper wire." (Both
full credit.)
15. _Health._ "It means good health or bad health." "It means
strong." (Both full credit.)
17. _Guitar._ "You play on it." (Full credit.)
18. _Mellow._ If the child says, "It means a mellow apple," ask
what kind of apple that would be. For full credit the answer
must be "soft," "mushy," etc.
19. _Pork._ If the answer is "meat," ask what animal it comes
from. Half credit if wrong animal is named.
21. _Plumbing._ "You fix pipes." (Full credit.)
25. _Southern._ If the answer is "Southern States," or
"Southern California," say: "_Yes; but what does 'southern'
mean?_" Do not credit unless explanation is forthcoming.
26. _Noticeable._ "You notice a thing." (Full credit.)
29. _Civil._ "Civil War." (Failure unless explained.) "It means to
be nice." (Full credit.)
30. _Treasury._ Give half credit for definitions like "Valuables,"
"Lots of money," etc.; i.e., if the word is confused with
_treasure._
32. _Ramble._ "To go about fast." (Half credit.)
38. _Nerve._ Half credit if the slang use is defined, "You've got
nerve," etc.
41. _Majesty._ "What you say to a king." (Full credit.)
45. _Sportive._ "To like sports." (Half credit.) "Playful" or
"happy." (Full credit.)
46. _Hysterics._ "You laugh and cry at the same time." "A kind of
sickness." "A kind of fit." (All full credit.)
48. _Repose._ "You pose again." (Failure.)
52. _Coinage._ "A place where they make money." (Half credit.)
56. _Dilapidated._ "Something that's very old." (Half credit.)
58. _Conscientious._ "You're careful how you do your work." (Full
credit.)
60. _Artless._ "No art." (Failure unless correctly explained.)
61. _Priceless._ "It has no price." (Failure.)
66. _Promontory._ "Something prominent." (Failure unless child can
explain what it refers to.)
68. _Milksop._ "You sop up milk." (Failure.)
73. _Harpy._ "A kind of bird." (Full credit.)
80. _Exaltation._ "You feel good." (Full credit.)
85. _Retroactive._ "Acting backward." (Full credit.)
92. _Theosophy._ "A religion." (Full credit.)
It is seen from the above examples that a very liberal standard has been
used. Leniency in judging definitions is necessary because the child's
power of expression lags farther behind his understanding than is true
of adults, and also because for the young subject the word has a
relatively less unitary existence.
REMARKS. Our vocabulary test was derived by selecting the last word
of every sixth column in a dictionary containing approximately
18,000 words, presumably the 18,000 most common words in the language.
The test is based on the assumption that 100 words selected according to
some arbitrary rule will be a large enough sampling to afford a fairly
reliable index of a subject's entire vocabulary. Rather extensive
experimentation with this list and others chosen in a similar manner
has proved that the assumption is justified. Tests of the same
75 individuals with five different vocabulary tests of this type showed
that the average difference between two tests of the same person was
less than 5 per cent. This means that any one of the five tests used is
reliable enough for all practical purposes. It is of no special
importance that a given child's vocabulary is 8000 rather than 7600; the
significance lies in the fact that it is approximately 8000 and not
4000, 12,000, or some other widely different number.
It may seem to the reader almost incredible that so small a sampling of
words would give a reliable index of an individual's vocabulary. That it
does so is due to the operation of the ordinary laws of chance. It is
analogous to predicting the results of an election when only a small
proportion of the ballots have been counted. It is known that a ballot
box contains 600 votes, and if when only 30 have been counted it is
found that they are divided between two candidates in the proportion of
20 and 10, it is safe to predict that a complete count will give the two
candidates approximately 400 and 200 respectively.[61] In 1914 about
1,000,000 votes were cast for governor in California, and when only
10,000 votes had been counted, or a hundredth of all, it was announced
and conceded that Governor Johnson had been reëlected by the 150,000
plurality. The completed count gave him 188,505 plurality. The error was
less than 4 per cent of the total vote.
[61] Supposing the ballots to have been shuffled.
The vocabulary test has a far higher value than any other single test of
the scale. Used with children of English-speaking parents (with children
whose home language is not English it is of course unreliable), it
probably has a higher value than any three other tests in the scale. Our
statistics show that in a large majority of cases the vocabulary test
alone will give us an intelligence quotient within 10 per cent of that
secured by the entire scale. Out of hundreds of English-speaking
children we have not found one testing significantly above age who had a
significantly low vocabulary; and correspondingly, those who test much
below age never have a high vocabulary.
Occasionally, however, a subject tests somewhat higher or lower in
vocabulary than the mental age would lead us to expect. This is often
the case with dull children in cultured homes and with very intelligent
children whose home environment has not stimulated language development.
But even in these cases we are not seriously misled, for the dull child
of fortunate home surroundings shows his dullness in the quality of his
definitions if not in their quantity; while the bright child of
illiterate parents shows his intelligence in the aptness and accuracy of
his definitions.
We have not worked out a satisfactory method of scoring the quality of
definitions in our vocabulary test, but these differences will be
readily observed by the trained examiner. Definitions in terms of use
and definitions which are slightly inaccurate or hazy are quite
characteristic of the lower mental ages. Children of the lower mental
age have also a tendency to venture wild guesses at words they do not
know. This is especially characteristic of retarded subjects and is
another example of their weakness of auto-criticism. One feeble-minded
boy of 12 years, with a mental age of 8 years, glibly and confidently
gave definitions for every one of the hundred words. About 70 of the
definitions were pure nonsense.
This vocabulary test was arranged and partially standardized by Mr.
H. G. Childs and the writer in 1911. Many experiments since then have
proved its value as a test of intelligence.
VIII, ALTERNATIVE TEST 1: NAMING SIX COINS
PROCEDURE is exactly as in VI, 5 (naming four coins). The dollar should
be shown before the half-dollar.
SCORING. _All six coins must be correctly named._ If a response is
changed the rule is to count the second answer and ignore the first.
REMARKS. Binet used nine pieces and required knowledge of all at year X
(1908), but at year IX in the 1911 revision. Most other workers have
used the same method, with the test located in either year IX or year X.
VIII, ALTERNATIVE TEST 2: WRITING FROM DICTATION
PROCEDURE. Give the child pen, ink, and paper, place him in a
comfortable position for writing, and say: "_I want you to write
something for me as nicely as you can. Write these words: 'See the
little boy.' Be sure to write it all: 'See the little boy.'_"
Do not dictate the words separately, but give the sentence as a whole.
Further repetition of the sentence is not permissible, as ability to
remember what has been dictated is a part of the test. Copy, of course,
must not be shown.
SCORING. Passed if the sentence is written legibly enough to be easily
recognized, and if no word has been omitted. Ordinary mistakes of
spelling are disregarded. The rule is that the mistake in spelling must
not mutilate the word beyond easy recognition. The performance may be
graded by the use of Thorndike's handwriting scale. The handwriting of
8-year-old children who have been in school not less than one year or
more than two usually falls between quality 7 and quality 9 on this
scale, but we shall, perhaps, not be too liberal if we consider a
performance satisfactory which does not grade below quality 6, provided
it is not seriously mutilated by errors, omissions, etc.[62]
[62] See scoring card for samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory
performances.
REMARKS. This test found a place in year VIII of Binet's 1908 scale, but
has been omitted from all the other revisions, including Binet's own.
Bobertag did not even regard the test as worthy of a trial. The
universal criticism has been that it is a test of schooling rather than
of intelligence. That the performance depends, in a certain sense, upon
special instruction is self-evident. Without such instruction no child
of 8 years, however intelligent, would be able to pass the test. Nature
does not give us a conventionalized language, either written or spoken.
It must be acquired. It is also true that a high-grade feeble-minded
child, say 8 years of age and of 6-year intelligence, is sometimes
(though not always) able to pass the test after two years of
school instruction. It is exceedingly improbable, however, that a
feeble-minded subject with less than 6-year intelligence will ever be
able to pass this test, however long he remains in school.
The conclusions to be drawn from these facts are as follows: (1)
Inability to pass the test should not be counted against the child
unless it is known that he has had at least a full year of the usual
school instruction. (2) Ability to pass the test after only two years of
school instruction is almost certain proof that the child has reached a
mental level of at least 6 years. (3) Failure to pass the test must be
regarded as a grave symptom in the case of the child 9 or more years of
age who is known to have attended school as much as two years. (4) For
mental levels higher than 8 years the test has hardly any diagnostic
value, since feeble-minded persons of 8- or 9-year intelligence can
usually be taught to write quite legibly.
If the limitations above set forth are kept in mind, the test is by no
means without value, and is always worth giving as a supplementary test.
Learning to write simple sentences from dictation is no mean
accomplishment. It demands, in the first place, a fairly complete
mastery of rather difficult muscular coördinations. Moreover, these
coördinations must be firmly associated with the corresponding letters
and words, for if the writing coördinations are not fairly automatic, so
much attention will be required to carry them out that the child will
not be able to remember what he has been told to write. The necessity of
remembering the passage acts as a distraction, and writing from
dictation is therefore a more difficult task than writing from copy.