INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR IX
IX, 1. GIVING THE DATE
PROCEDURE. Ask the following questions in order:--
(a) "_What day of the week is it to-day?_"
(b) "_What month is it?_"
(c) "_What day of the month is it?_"
(d) "_What year is it?_"
If the child misunderstands and gives the day of the month for the day
of the week, or _vice versa_, we merely repeat the question with
suitable emphasis, but give no other help.
SCORING. An error of three days in either direction is allowed for _c_,
but _a_, _b_, and _d_ must all be given correctly. If the child makes an
error and spontaneously corrects it, the change is allowed, but
corrections must not be called for or suggested.
REMARKS. Binet originally located this test in year IX, but
unfortunately moved it to year VIII in the 1911 revision. Kuhlmann,
Goddard, and Huey all retain it in year IX, where, according to our own
data, it unquestionably belongs. With the exception of Binet's 1911
results, the statistics for the test are in remarkably close agreement
for children in France, Germany, England, and Eastern and Western United
States. It seems that practically all children in civilized countries
have ample opportunity to learn the divisions of the year, month, and
week, and to become oriented with respect to these divisions. Special
instruction is doubtless capable of hastening time orientation to a
certain degree, but not greatly. Binet tells of a French _école
maternelle_ attended by children 4 to 6 years of age, where instruction
was given daily in regard to the date, and yet not a single one of the
children was able to pass this test. This is a beautiful illustration of
the futility of precocious teaching. In spite of well-meant instruction,
it is not until the age of 8 or 9 years that children have enough
comprehension of time periods, and sufficient interest in them, to keep
very close track of the date. Failure to pass the test at the age of
10 or 11 years is a decidedly unfavorable sign, unless the error is very
slight.
The fact that normal adults are occasionally unable to give the day of
the month is no argument against the validity of the test, since the
system of tests is so constructed as to allow for accidental failures on
any particular test. As a matter of fact, very nearly 100 per cent of
normal 12-year-old children pass this test.
The unavoidable fault of the test is its lack of uniformity in
difficulty at different dates. It is easier for school children to give
the day of the week on Monday or Friday than on Tuesday, Wednesday, or
Thursday. Mistakes in giving the day of the month are less likely to
occur at the beginning or end of the month than at any other time, while
mistakes in naming the month are most likely to occur then.
It is interesting to compare the four parts of this test in regard to
difficulty. Binet and Bobertag both state that ability to name the year
comes last, but they give no figures. Our own data show that the four
parts of the test are of almost exactly the same difficulty and that
this is true at all ages.
IX, 2. ARRANGING FIVE WEIGHTS
Use the five weights, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 grams. Be sure that the
weights are identical in appearance. The weights may be made as
described under V, 1, or they may be purchased of C. H. Stoelting & Co.,
Chicago, Illinois. If no weights are at hand one of the alternative
tests may be substituted.
PROCEDURE. Place the five boxes on the table in an irregular group
before the child and say: "_See the boxes. They all look alike, don't
they? But they are not alike. Some of them are heavy, some are not quite
so heavy, and some are still lighter. No two weigh the same. Now, I want
you to find the heaviest one and place it here. Then find the one that
is just a little lighter and put it here. Then put the next lighter one
here, and the next lighter one here, and the lightest of all at this
end_ (pointing each time at the appropriate spot). _Do you understand?_"
Whatever the child answers, in order to make sure that he does
understand, we repeat the instructions thus: "_Remember now, that no two
weights are the same. Find the heaviest one and put it here, the next
heaviest here, and lighter, lighter, until you have the very lightest
here. Ready; go ahead._"
It is best to follow very closely the formula here given, otherwise
there is danger of stating the directions so abstractly that the subject
could not comprehend them. A formula like "_I want you to arrange the
blocks in a gradually decreasing series according to weight_" would be
Greek to most children of 10 years.
If the subject still seems at a loss to know what to do, the
instructions may be again repeated. But no further help of any kind may
be given. Do not tell the subject to take the blocks one at a time in
the hand and try them, and do not illustrate by hefting the blocks
yourself. It is a part of the test to let the subject find his own
method.
Give three trials, shuffling the boxes after each. Do not repeat the
instructions before the second and third trials unless the subject has
used an absurd procedure in the previous trial.
SCORING. The test is passed if the blocks are arranged in the correct
order _twice out of three trials_. Always record the order of
arrangement and note the number and extent of displacement. Obviously an
arrangement like 12-6-15-3-9 is very much more serious than one like
15-12-6-9-3, but we require that two trials be absolutely without error.
Scoring is facilitated if the blocks are marked on the bottom so that
they may be easily identified. It is then necessary to exercise some
care to see that the subject does not examine the bottom of the blocks
for a clue as to the correct order.
REMARKS. Binet originally located this test in year IX, but in his 1911
revision changed it to year VIII. Other revisions have retained it in
year IX. The correct location depends upon the weights used and upon the
procedure and scoring. Kuhlmann uses weights of 3, 9, 18, 27, 36, and
45 grams, and this probably makes the test easier. Bobertag tried two
sets of boxes, one set being of larger dimensions than the other. The
larger gave decidedly the more errors. If we require only one success in
three trials the test could be located a year or two lower in the scale,
while three successes as a standard would require that it be moved
upward possibly as much as two years.
Much depends also on whether the child is left to find his own method,
and on this there has been much difference of procedure. Kuhlmann,
Bobertag, and Wallin illustrate the correct method of making the
comparison by first hefting and arranging the weights while the subject
looks on. We prefer to keep the test in its original form, and with the
procedure and scoring we have used it is well located in year IX.
Wallin carries his assistance still further by saying, after the first
block has been placed, "Now, find the heaviest of the four," and after
the second has been placed, "Now, find the heaviest of the three," etc.
Finally, when the arrangement has been made, he tells the subject to try
them again to make sure the order is correct, allowing the subject to
make whatever changes he thinks necessary. This procedure robs the test
of its most valuable features. The experiment was not devised primarily
as a test of sensory discrimination, for it has long been recognized
that individuals who have developed as far as the 9- or 10-year level of
intelligence are ordinarily but little below normal in sensory capacity.
Psychologically, the test resembles that of comparing weights in V, 1.
Success depends, in the first place, upon the correct comprehension of
the task and the setting of a goal to be attained; secondly, upon the
choice of a suitable method for realizing the goal; and finally, upon
the ability to keep the end clearly in consciousness until all the steps
necessary for its attainment have been gone through. Elementary as are
the processes involved, they represent the prototype of all purposeful
behavior. The statesman, the lawyer, the teacher, the physician, the
carpenter, all in their own way and with their own materials, are
continually engaged in setting goals, choosing means, and inhibiting the
multitudinous appeals of irrelevant and distracting ideas.
In this experiment the subject may fail in any one of the three
requirements of the test or in all of them. (1) He may not comprehend
the instructions and so be unable to set the goal. (2) Though
understanding what is expected of him, he may adopt an absurd method of
carrying out the task. Or (3) he may lose sight of the end and begin to
play with the blocks, stacking them on top of one another, building
trains, tossing them about, etc. Sometimes the guiding idea is not
completely lost, but is weakened or rendered only partially operative.
In such a case the subject may compare some of the blocks carefully,
place others without trying them at all, but continue in his
half-rational, half-irrational procedure until all the blocks have been
arranged.
It is essential, therefore, to supplement the mere record of success or
failure by jotting down a brief but accurate description of the
performance. Note any hesitation or inability to grasp the instructions.
Note especially any absurd procedure, such as placing all the blocks
without hefting any of them, comparing only some of them, holding them
up and shaking them, hefting two at once in the same hand, etc. The
ideal method, of course, is to try all the blocks carefully before
placing any of them, then to make a tentative arrangement, and finally,
to correct this tentative arrangement by means of individual
comparisons. A slight departure from this method does not always bring
failure, but it renders success less probable. As a rule it is only the
very intelligent children of 10 years who think to test out their first
arrangement by making a final and additional trial of each block in
turn. Contrary to what might be supposed, success is slightly favored by
hefting the blocks successively with one hand rather than by taking one
in each hand for simultaneous comparison, but as the child cannot be
expected to know this, we must regard the two methods as equally
logical.
The test of arranging weights has met universal praise. Its special
advantage is that it tests the subject's intelligence in the
manipulation of _things_ rather than his capacity for dealing with
_abstractions_. It tests his ability to do something rather than his
ability to express himself in language. It throws light upon certain
factors of motor adaptation and practical judgment which play a great
part in the everyday life of the average human being. It depends as
little upon school, perhaps, as any other test of the scale, and it is
readily usable with children of all nations without danger of being
materially altered in translation Moreover, it is always an interesting
test for the child. Bobertag goes so far as to say that any 8- or 9-year
child who passes this test cannot possibly be feeble-minded. This may be
true; but the converse is hardly the case; that is, the failure of older
children is by no means certain proof of mental retardation. The same
observation, however, applies equally well to many other of the Binet
tests, some of which correlate more closely with true mental age than
this one. A rather considerable fraction of normal 12-year-olds fail on
it, and it is in fact somewhat less dependable than certain other tests
if we wish to differentiate between 9-year and 11-year intelligence. But
it is a test we could ill afford to eliminate.[63]
[63] Compare with V, 1.
IX, 3. MAKING CHANGE
PROCEDURE. Ask the following questions in the order here given:--
(a) "_If I were to buy 4 cents worth of candy and should give
the storekeeper 10 cents, how much money would I get back?_"
(b) "_If I bought 13 cents worth and gave the storekeeper
15 cents, how much would I get back?_"
(c) "_If I bought 4 cents worth and gave the storekeeper
25 cents, how much would I get back?_"
Coins are not used, and the subject is not allowed the help of pencil
and paper. If the subject forgets the statement of the problem, it is
permissible to repeat it once, but only once. The response should be
made in ten or fifteen seconds for each problem.
SCORING, The test is passed if _two out of three_ problems are answered
correctly in the allotted time. In case two answers are given to a
problem, we follow the usual rule of counting the second and ignoring
the first.
REMARKS. Problems of this nature, when thoroughly standardized, are
extremely valuable as tests of intelligence. The difficulty of the test,
as we have used it, does not lie in the subtraction of 4 from 10, 12
from 15, etc. Such subtractions, when given as problems in subtraction,
are readily solved by practically all normal 8-year-olds who have
attended school as much as two years. The problems of the test have a
twofold difficulty: (1) The statement of the problem must be
comprehended and held in mind until the solution has been arrived at;
(2) the problem is so stated that the subject must himself select the
fundamental operation which applies. The latter difficulty is somewhat
the greater of the two, addition sometimes being employed instead of
subtraction.
It is just such difficulties as this that prove so perplexing to the
feeble-minded. High-grade defectives, although they require more than
the usual amount of drill and are likely to make occasional errors, are
nevertheless capable of learning to add, subtract, multiply, and divide
fairly well. Their main trouble comes in deciding which of these
operations a given problem calls for. They can master routine, but as
regards initiative, judgment, and power to reason they are little
educable. The psychology and pedagogy of mental deficiency is epitomized
in this statement.
There has been little disagreement as to the proper location of the test
of making change, but various procedures have been employed. Coins have
generally been employed, in which case the subject is actually allowed
to make the change. Most other revisions have also given only a single
problem, usually 4 cents out of 20 cents, or 4 out of 25, or 9 out of
25. It is evident that these are not all of equal difficulty. There is
general agreement, however, that normal children of 9 years should be
able to make simple change.
IX, 4. REPEATING FOUR DIGITS REVERSED
The series are 6-5-2-8; 4-9-3-7; 3-6-2-9.
PROCEDURE AND SCORING. Exactly as in VII, alternate test 2.[64]
[64] See discussion, p. 207 _ff._
IX, 5. USING THREE WORDS IN A SENTENCE
PROCEDURE The words used are:--
(a) _Boy_, _ball_, _river_.
(b) _Work_, _money_, _men_.
(c) _Desert_, _rivers_, _lakes_.
Say: "_You know what a sentence is, of course. A sentence is made up of
some words which say something. Now, I am going to give you three words,
and you must make up a sentence that has all three words in it. The
three words are 'boy,' 'ball,' 'river.' Go ahead and make up a sentence
that has all three words in it._" The others are given in the same way.
Note that the subject is not shown the three words written down, and
that the reply is to be given orally.
If the subject does not understand what is wanted, the instruction may
be repeated, but it is not permissible to illustrate what a sentence is
by giving one. There must be no preliminary practice.
A curious misunderstanding which is sometimes encountered comes from
assuming that the sentence must be constructed entirely of the three
words given. If it appears that the subject is stumbling over this
difficulty, we explain: "_The three words must be put with some other
words so that all of them together will make a sentence._"
Nothing is said about hurrying, but if a sentence is not given within
one minute the rule is to count that part of the test a failure and to
proceed to the next trio of words.
Give only one trial for each part of the test.
Do not specially caution the child to avoid giving more than one
sentence, as this is implied in the formula used and should be
understood.
SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ sentences are
satisfactory. In order to be satisfactory a sentence must fulfill the
following requirements: (1) It must either be a simple sentence, or, if
compound, must not contain more than two distinct ideas; and (2) it must
not express an absurdity.
Slight changes in one or more of the key words are disregarded, as
_river_ for _rivers_, etc.
The scoring is difficult enough to justify rather extensive
illustration.
(a) _Boy, ball, river_
_Satisfactory._ An analysis of 128 satisfactory responses gave
the following classification:--
(1) Simple sentence containing a simple subject and a simple
predicate; as: "The boy threw his ball into the river." "The boy
lost his ball in the river." "The boy's ball fell into the
river." "The boy swam into the river after his ball," etc. This
group contains 76 per cent of the correct responses.
(2) A sentence with a simple subject and a compound predicate;
as: "A boy went to the river and took his ball with him." About
8 per cent of all were of this type.
(3) A complex sentence containing a relative clause (2 per cent
only); as: "The boy ran after his ball which was rolling toward
the river."
(4) A compound sentence containing two independent clauses
(about 14 per cent); as: "The boy had a ball and he lost it in
the river."
_Unsatisfactory._ The failures fall into four chief groups:--
(1) Sentences with three clauses (or else three separate
sentences).
(2) Sentences containing an absurdity.
(3) Sentences which omit one of the key words.
(4) Silence, due ordinarily to inability to comprehend the task.
Group 1 includes 78 per cent of the failures; group 2, about
12 per cent; and group 3 and 4 about 5 per cent each. Samples of
group 1 are: "There was a boy, and he bought a ball, and it fell
into the river." "I saw a boy, and he had a ball, and he was
playing by the river." Illustration of an absurd sentence, "The
boy was swimming in the river and he was playing ball."
(b) _Work, money, men_
_Satisfactory_:--
(1) Sentence with a simple subject and simple predicate
(including 75 per cent of 116 satisfactory responses); as: "Men
work for their money." "Men get money for their work," etc.
(2) A complex sentence with a relative clause (12 per cent of
correct answers); as: "Men who work earn much money." "It is
easy for men to earn money if they are willing to work," etc.
(3) A compound sentence with two independent, coördinate clauses
(13 per cent); as: "Men work and they earn money." "Some men
have money and they do not work."
_Unsatisfactory_:--
(1) Three clauses; as: "I know a man and he has money, and he
works at the store."
(2) Sentences which are absurd or meaningless; as: "Men work
with their money."
(3) Omission of one of the words.
(4) Inability to respond.
(c) _Desert, rivers, lakes_
_Satisfactory_:--
(1) Sentences with a simple subject and a simple predicate
(including 84 per cent of 126 correct answers); as: "There are
no rivers or lakes in the desert." "The desert has one river and
one lake," etc.
(2) A complex sentence with a relative clause (only 2 per cent);
as: "In the desert there was a river which flowed into a lake."
(3) A compound sentence with two independent, coördinate clauses
(11 per cent); as: "We went to the desert, and it had no rivers
or lakes."
(4) A compound, complex sentence (3 per cent of all); as: "There
was a desert, and near by there was a river that emptied into a
lake."
_Unsatisfactory_:--
(1) Sentences with three clauses (40 per cent of all failures);
as: "A desert is dry, rivers are long, lakes are rough."
(2) Sentences containing an absurdity (12 per cent of the
failures): as: "a desert is dry, rivers are long, lakes are
filled with swimming boys." "The lake went through the desert
and the river." "There was a desert and rivers and lakes in the
forest." "The desert is full of rivers and lakes."
(3) Omission of one of the words (40 per cent of the failures).
(4) Inability to respond (8 per cent).
REMARKS. The test of constructing a sentence containing given words was
first used by Masselon and is known as "the Masselon experiment."
Meumann, who used it in a rather extended experiment,[65] finds it a
good test of intelligence and a reliable index as to the richness,
definiteness, and maturity of the associative processes. As Meumann
shows, it is instructive to study the qualitative differences between
the responses of bright and dull children, apart from questions of
sentence structure. These differences are especially discernible
in (a) the logical qualities of the associations, and (b) the
definiteness of statement. As regards (a), bright children are much
more likely to use the given words as keystones in the construction of a
sentence which would be logically suggested by them. For example,
_donkey_, _blows_, suggest some such sentence as, "The donkey receives
blows because he is lazy." In like manner we have found that the words
_work_, _money_, _men_ usually suggest to the more intelligent children
a sentence like "Men work for their money" (or "because they need
money," etc.), while the dull child is more likely to give some such
sentence as "The men have work and they don't have much money." That is,
the sentence of the dull child, even though correct in structure and
free enough from outright absurdity to satisfy the standard of scoring
which we have set forth, is likely to express ideas which are more or
less nondescript, ideas not logically suggested by the set of words
given.
[65] "Ueber eine neue Methode der Intelligenzprüfung und über den Wert
der Kombinationsmethoden," in _Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie
und Experimentelle Pädagogik_ (1912), pp. 145-63.
The experiment is one of the many forms of the "completion test," or
"the combination method." As we have already noted, the power to combine
more or less separate and isolated elements into a logical whole is one
of the most essential features of intelligence. The ability to do so in
a given case depends, in the first place, upon the number and logical
quality of the associations which have previously been made with each of
the given elements separately, and in the second place, upon the
readiness with which these ideational stores yield up the particular
associations necessary for weaving the given words into some kind of
unity. The child must pass from what is given to what is not given but
merely suggested. This requires a certain amount of invention. Scattered
fragments must be conceived as the skeleton of a thought, and this
skeleton, or partial skeleton, must be assembled and made whole. The
task is analogous to that which confronts the palæontologist, who is
able to reconstruct, with a high degree of certainty, the entire
skeleton of an extinct animal from the evidence furnished by three or
four fragments of bones. It is no wonder, therefore, that subjects whose
ideational stores are scanty, and whose associations are based upon
accidental rather than logical connections, find the test one of
peculiar difficulty. Invention thrives in a different soil.
Binet located this test in year X. Goddard and Kuhlmann assign it the
same location, though their actual statistics agree closely with our
own. Our procedure makes the test somewhat easier than that of Binet,
who gave only one trial and used the somewhat more difficult words
_Paris_, _river_, _fortune_. Others have generally followed the Binet
procedure, merely substituting for Paris the name of a city better known
to the subject. Binet's requirement of a written response also makes the
test harder.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to uniformity in the use of the test comes
from the difficulty of scoring, particularly in deciding whether the
sentence contains enough absurdity to disqualify it, and whether it
expresses three separate ideas or only two. It is hoped that the rather
large variety of sample responses which we have given will reduce these
difficulties to a minimum.
An additional word is necessary in regard to what constitutes an
absurdity in (b). A sentence like "There are some rivers and lakes in
the desert" is not an absurdity in certain parts of Western United
States. In Professor Ordahl's tests at Reno, Nevada, many children whose
intelligence was altogether above suspicion gave this reply. The
statement is, indeed, perfectly true for the semi-arid region in the
vicinity of Reno known as "the desert." On the other hand, such
sentences as "The desert is full of rivers and lakes," or "There are
forty rivers and lakes in the desert," can hardly be considered
satisfactory. Similar difficulties are presented by (c), though not so
frequently. "Men who work do not have money" expresses, unfortunately,
more truth than nonsense.
IX, 6. FINDING RHYMES
PROCEDURE. Say to the child: "_You know what a rhyme is, of course. A
rhyme is a word that sounds like another word. Two words rhyme if they
end in the same sound. Understand?_" Whether the child says he
understands or not, we proceed to illustrate what a rhyme is, as
follows: "_Take the two words 'hat' and 'cat.' They sound alike and so
they make a rhyme. 'Hat,' 'rat,' 'cat,' 'bat' all rhyme with one
another._"
That is, we first explain what a rhyme is and then we give an
illustration. A large majority of American children who have reached the
age of 9 years understand perfectly what a rhyme is, without any
illustration. A few, however, think they understand, but do not; and in
order to insure that all are given equal advantage it is necessary never
to omit the illustration.
After the illustration say: "_Now, I am going to give you a word and you
will have one minute to find as many words as you can that rhyme with
it. The word is 'day.' Name all the words you can think of that rhyme
with 'day.'_"
If the child fails with the first word, before giving the second we
repeat the explanation and give sample rhymes for _day_; otherwise we
proceed without further explanation to _mill_ and _spring_, saying,
"_Now, you have another minute to name all the words you can think of
that rhyme with 'mill,'_" etc. Apart from the mention of "one minute"
say nothing to suggest hurrying, as this tends to throw some children
into mental confusion.
SCORING. Passed if in _two out of the three_ parts of the experiment the
child finds _three words_ which rhyme with the word given, the time
limit for each series being _one minute_. Note that in each case there
must be three words in addition to the word given. These must be real
words, not meaningless syllables or made-up words. However, we should be
liberal enough to accept such words as _ding_ (from "ding-dong ") for
_spring_, _Jill_ (see "Jack and Jill") for _mill_, _Fay_ (girl's name)
for _day_, etc.
REMARKS. At first thought it would seem that the demands made by this
test upon intelligence could not be very great. Sound associations
between words may be contrasted unfavorably with associations like those
of cause and effect, part to whole, whole to part, opposites, etc. But
when we pass from _a-priori_ considerations to an examination of the
actual data, we find that the giving of rhymes is closely correlated
with general intelligence.
The 9-year-olds who test at or above 10 years nearly always do well in
finding rhymes, while 9-year-olds who test as low as 8 years seldom
pass. When a test thus shows high correlation with the scale as a whole,
we must either accept the test as valid or reject the scale altogether.
While the feeble-minded do not do as well in this test as normal
children of corresponding mental age, the percentage successes for them
rises rapidly between mental age 8 and mental age 10 or 11.
Closer psychological analysis of the processes involved will show why
this is true. To find rhymes for a given word means that one must hunt
out verbal associations under the direction of a guiding idea. Every
word has innumerable associations and many of these tend, in greater or
less degree, to be aroused when the stimulus word is given. In order to
succeed with the test, however, it is necessary to inhibit all
associations which are not relevant to the desired end. The directing
idea must be held so firmly in mind that it will really direct the
thought associations. Besides acting to inhibit the irrelevant, it must
create a sort of magnetic stress (to borrow a figure from physics) which
will give dominance to those associative tendencies pointing in the
right direction. Even the feeble-minded child of imbecile grade has in
his vocabulary a great many words which rhyme with _day_, _mill_, and
_spring_. He fails on the test because his verbal associations cannot be
subjugated to the influence of a directing idea. The end to be attained
does not dominate consciousness sufficiently to create more than a faint
stress. Instead of a single magnetic pole there is a conflict of forces.
The result is either chaos or partial success. _Mill_ may suggest
_hill_, and then perhaps the directing idea becomes suddenly inoperative
and the child gives _mountain_, _valley_, or some other irrelevant
association. The lack of associations, however, is a more frequent cause
of failure than inability to inhibit the irrelevant.
If any one supposes that finding rhymes does not draw upon the higher
mental powers, let him try the experiment upon himself in various stages
of mental efficiency, say at 9 A.M., when mentally refreshed by a good
night of sleep and again when fatigued and sleepy. Poets questioned by
Galton on this point all testified to the greater difficulty of finding
rhymes when mentally fatigued. In this and in many other respects the
mental activities of the fatigued or sleepy individual approach the type
of mentation which is normal to the feeble-minded.
It is important to note that adults make a less favorable showing
in this test than normal children of corresponding mental age,
Mr. Knollin's "hoboes" of 12-year intelligence doing hardly as well as
school children of 10-year intelligence. Those who are habitually
employed in school exercises probably acquire an adeptness in verbal
associations which is later gradually lost in the preoccupations of real
life.
There has been more disagreement as to the proper location of this test
than of any other test of the Binet scale. Binet placed it in year XII
of the 1908 scale, but shifted it to year XV in 1911. Kuhlmann retains
it in year XII, while Goddard drops it down to year XI. However, when we
examine the actual statistics for normal children we do not find very
marked disagreement, and such disagreement as is present can be largely
accounted for by variations in procedure and by differing conclusions
drawn from identical data. In the first place, Binet gave but one trial.
This, of course, makes the test much harder than when three trials are
given and only two successes are required. To make one trial equal in
difficulty to three trials we should perhaps need to demand only two
rhymes, instead of three, in the one trial. In the second place, the
word used by Binet (_obeissance_) is much harder than one-syllable words
like _day_, _mill_, and _spring_. Finally, the wide shift of the test
from year XII to year XV was not justified by the statistics of Binet
himself, and the figures of Kuhlmann and Goddard are really in
exceptionally close agreement with our own, notwithstanding the fact
that Goddard required three successes instead of two. In four series of
tests, considered together, we have found 62 per cent passing at
year IX, 81 per cent at year X, 83 per cent at year XI, and 94 per cent
at year XII.
IX, ALTERNATIVE TEST 1: NAMING THE MONTHS
PROCEDURE. Simply ask the subject to "_name all the months of the
year_." Do not start him off by naming one month; give no look of
approval or disapproval as the months are being named, and make no
suggestions or comments of any kind.
When the months have been named, we "check up" the performance by
asking: "_What month comes before April?_" "_What month comes before
July?_" "_What month comes before November?_"
SCORING. Passed if the months are named in about _fifteen or twenty
seconds with no more than one error_ of omission, repetition, or
displacement, and if _two out of the three check questions_ are answered
correctly. Disregard place of beginning.
REMARKS. Some are inclined to consider this test of little value,
because of its supposed dependence on accidental training. With this
opinion we cannot fully agree. The arguments already given in favor of
the retention of naming the days of the week (year VII), apply equally
well in the present case. It has been shown, however, that age, apart
from intelligence, does have some effect on the ability to name the
months. Defective adults of 9-year intelligence do about as well with it
as normal children of 10-year intelligence.
The test appears in year X of Binet's 1908 scale and in year IX of the
1911 revision. Goddard places it correctly in year IX, while Kuhlmann
and Bobertag have omitted it.
IX, ALTERNATIVE TEST 2: COUNTING THE VALUE OF STAMPS
PROCEDURE. Place before the subject a cardboard on which are pasted
three 1-cent and three 2-cent stamps arranged as follows: 111222. Be
sure to lay the card so that the stamps will be right side up for the
child. Say: "_You know, of course, how much a stamp like this costs_
(pointing to a 1-cent stamp). _And you know how much one like this
costs_ (pointing to a 2-cent stamp). _Now, how much money would it take
to buy all these stamps?_"
Do not tell the individual values of the stamps if these are not known,
for it is a part of the test to ascertain whether the child's
spontaneous curiosity has led him to find out and remember their values.
If the individual values are known, but the first answer is wrong, a
second trial may be given. In such cases, however, it is necessary to be
on guard against guessing.
If the child merely names an incorrect sum without saying anything to
indicate how he arrived at his answer, it is well to tell him to figure
it up aloud. "_Tell me how you got it._"
SCORING. Passed if the correct value is given in not over fifteen
seconds.
REMARKS. The value of this test may be questioned on two grounds: (1)
That it has an ambiguous significance, since failure to pass it may
result either from incorrect addition or from lack of knowledge of the
individual values of the stamps; (2) that familiarity with stamps and
their values is so much a matter of accident and special instruction
that the test is not fair.
Both criticisms are in a measure valid. The first, however, applies
equally well to a great many useful intelligence tests. In fact, it is
only a minority in which success depends on but one factor. The other
criticism has less weight than would at first appear. While it is, of
course, not impossible for an intelligent child to arrive at the age of
9 years without having had reasonable opportunity to learn the cost of
the common postage stamps, the fact is that a large majority have had
the opportunity and that most of those of normal intelligence have taken
advantage of it. It is necessary once more to emphasize the fact that in
its method of locating a test the Binet system makes ample allowance for
"accidental" failures.
Like the tests of naming coins, repeating the names of the days of the
week or the months of the year, giving the date, tying a bow-knot,
distinguishing right and left, naming the colors, etc., this one also
throws light on the child's spontaneous interest in common objects. It
is mainly the children of deficient intellectual curiosity who do not
take the trouble to learn these things at somewhere near the expected
age.
The test was located in year VIII of the Binet scale. However, Binet
used coins, three single and three double sous. Since we do not have
either a half-cent or a 2-cent coin, it has been necessary to substitute
postage stamps. This changes the nature of the test and makes it much
harder. It becomes less a test of ability to do a simple sum, and more a
test of knowledge as to the value of the stamps used. That the test is
easy enough for year VIII when it can be given in the original form is
indicated by all the French, German, and English statistics available,
but four separate series of Stanford tests agree in finding it too hard
for year VIII when stamps are substituted and the test is carried out
according to the procedure described above.