The Measurement of Intelligence

L >> Lewis Madison Terman >> The Measurement of Intelligence

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28

INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL ADVANTAGES. The criticism has often
been made that the responses to many of the tests are so much subject to
the influence of school and home environment as seriously to invalidate
the scale as a whole. Some of the tests most often named in this
connection are the following: Giving age and sex; naming common objects,
colors, and coins; giving the value of stamps; giving date; naming the
months of the year and the days of the week; distinguishing forenoon and
afternoon; counting; making change; reading for memories; naming sixty
words; giving definitions; finding rhymes; and constructing a sentence
containing three given words.

It has in fact been found wherever comparisons have been made that
children of superior social status yield a higher average mental age
than children of the laboring classes. The results of Decroly and Degand
and of Meumann, Stern, and Binet himself may be referred to in this
connection. In the case of the Stanford investigation, also, it was
found that when the unselected school children were grouped in three
classes according to social status (superior, average, and inferior),
the average I Q for the superior social group was 107, and that of the
inferior social group 93. This is equivalent to a difference of one year
in mental age with 7-year-olds, and to a difference of two years with
14-year-olds.

However, the common opinion that the child from a cultured home does
better in tests solely by reason of his superior home advantages is an
entirely gratuitous assumption. Practically all of the investigations
which have been made of the influence of nature and nurture on mental
performance agree in attributing far more to original endowment than to
environments. Common observation would itself suggest that the social
class to which the family belongs depends less on chance than on the
parents' native qualities of intellect and character.

The results of five separate and distinct lines of inquiry based on the
Stanford data agree in supporting the conclusion that the children of
successful and cultured parents test higher than children from wretched
and ignorant homes for the simple reason that their heredity is better.
The results of this investigation are set forth in full elsewhere.[42]

[42] See _The Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon
Measuring Scale of Intelligence_. (Warwick and York, 1916)

It would, of course, be going too far to deny all possibility of
environmental conditions affecting the result of an intelligence test.
Certainly no one would expect that a child reared in a cage and denied
all intercourse with other human beings could by any system of mental
measurement test up to the level of normal children. There is, however,
no reason to believe that _ordinary_ differences in social environment
(apart from heredity), differences such as those obtaining among
unselected children attending approximately the same general type of
school in a civilized community, affects to any great extent the
validity of the scale.

A crucial experiment would be to take a large number of very young
children of the lower classes and, after placing them in the most
favorable environment obtainable, to compare their later mental
development with that of children born into the best homes. No extensive
study of this kind has been made, but the writer has tested twenty
orphanage children who, for the most part, had come from very inferior
homes. They had been in a well-conducted orphanage for from two to
several years, and had enjoyed during that time the advantages of an
excellent village school. Nevertheless, all but three tested below
average, ranging from 75 to 90 I Q.

The impotence of school instruction to neutralize individual differences
in native endowment will be evident to any one who follows the school
career of backward children. The children who are seriously retarded in
school are not normal, and cannot be made normal by any refinement of
educational method. As a rule, the longer the inferior child attends
school, the more evident his inferiority becomes. It would hardly be
reasonable, therefore, to expect that a little incidental instruction in
the home would weigh very heavily against these same native differences
in endowment. Cases like the following show conclusively that it does
not:--

X is the son of unusually intelligent and well-educated parents.
The home is everything one would expect of people of scholarly
pursuits and cultivated tastes. But X has always been
irresponsible, troublesome, childish, and queer. He learned to
walk at 2 years, to talk at 3, and has always been delicate and
nervous. When brought for examination he was 8 years old. He had
twice attempted school work, but could accomplish nothing and
was withdrawn. His play-life was not normal, and other children,
younger than himself, abused and tormented him. The Binet tests
gave an I Q of approximately 75; that is, the retardation
amounted to about two years. The child was examined again three
years later. At that time, after attending school two years, he
had recently completed the first grade. This time the I Q was
73. Strange to say, the mother is encouraged and hopeful because
she sees that her boy is learning to read. She does not seem to
realize that at his age he ought to be within three years of
entering high school.

The forty-minute test had told more about the mental ability of
this boy than the intelligent mother had been able to learn in
eleven years of daily and hourly observation. For X is
feeble-minded; he will never complete the grammar school; he
will never be an efficient worker or a responsible citizen.

Let us change the picture. Z is a bright-eyed, dark-skinned girl
of 9 years. She is dark-skinned because her father is a mixture
of Indian and Spanish. The mother is of Irish descent. With her
strangely mated parents and two brothers she lives in a dirty,
cramped, and poorly furnished house in the country. The parents
are illiterate, and the brothers are retarded and dull, though
not feeble-minded.

It is Z's turn to be tested. I inquire the name. It is familiar,
for I have already tested the two stupid brothers. I also know
her ignorant parents and the miserable cabin in which she lives.
The examination begins with the 8-year tests. The responses are
quick and accurate. We proceed to the 9-year group. There is no
failure, and there is but one minor error. Successes and
failures alternate for a while until the latter prevail. Z has
tested at 11 years. In spite of her wretched home, she is
mentally advanced nearly 25 per cent. By the vocabulary test she
is credited with a knowledge of nearly 6000 words, or nearly
four times as many as X, the boy of cultured home and scholarly
parents, had learned by the age of 8 years.

Five years have passed. When given the test, Z was in the fourth
grade and, as we have already stated, 9 years of age. As a
result of the test she was transferred to the fifth grade. Later
she skipped again and at the age of 14 is a successful student
in the second year of high school. To assay her intelligence and
determine its quality was a task of forty-five minutes.

The above cases, each of which could be paralleled by many others which
we have found, will serve to illustrate the fact that exceptionally
superior endowment is discoverable by the tests, however unfavorable the
home from which it comes, and that inferior endowment cannot be
normalized by all the advantages of the most cultured home. Quoting
again from Stern, "The tests actually reach and discover the general
developmental conditions of intelligence, and not mere fragments of
knowledge and attainments acquired by chance."

PART II

GUIDE FOR THE USE OF THE STANFORD REVISION AND EXTENSION

CHAPTER VIII

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

NECESSITY OF SECURING ATTENTION AND EFFORT. The child's intelligence is
to be judged by his success in the performance of certain tasks. These
tasks may appear to the examiner to be very easy, indeed; but we must
bear in mind that they are often anything but easy for the child. Real
effort and attention are necessary for his success, and occasionally
even his best efforts fall short of the desired result. If the tests are
to display the child's real intellectual ability it will be necessary,
therefore, to avoid as nearly as possible every disturbing factor which
would divide his attention or in any other way injure the quality of
his responses. To insure this it will be necessary to consider somewhat
in detail a number of factors which influence effort, such as degree of
quiet, the nature of surroundings, presence or absence of others, means
of gaining the child's confidence, the avoidance of embarrassment,
fatigue, etc.

One should not expect, however, to secure an absolutely equal degree of
attention from all subjects. The power to give sustained attention to a
difficult task is characteristically weak in dull and feeble-minded
children. What we should labor to secure is the maximum attention of
which the child is capable, and if this is unsatisfactory without
external cause, we are to regard the fact as symptomatic of inferior
mental ability, not as an extenuating factor or an excuse for lack of
success in the tests.

Attention, of course, cannot be normal if any acute physical or mental
disturbance is present. Toothache, headache, earache, nausea, fever,
cold, etc., all render the test inadvisable. The same is true of mental
anxiety or fear, as in the case of the child who has just been arrested
and brought before the court.

QUIET AND SECLUSION. The tests should be conducted in a quiet room,
located where the noises of the street and other outside distractions
cannot enter. A reasonably small room is better than a very large one,
because it is more homelike. The furnishings of the room should be
simple. A table and two chairs are sufficient. If the room contains a
number of unfamiliar objects, such as psychological apparatus, pictures
on the walls, etc., the attention of the child is likely to be drawn
away from the tasks which he is given to do. The halls and corridors
which it is sometimes necessary to use in testing school children are
usually noisy, cold, or otherwise objectionable.

PRESENCE OF OTHERS. A still more disturbing influence is the presence of
other persons. Generally speaking, if accurate results are to be secured
it is not permissible to have any auditor, besides possibly an
assistant to record the responses. Even the assistant, however quiet and
unobtrusive, is sometimes a disturbing element. Though something of a
convenience, the assistant is by no means necessary, after the examiner
has thoroughly mastered the procedure of the tests and has acquired some
skill in the use of abbreviations in recording the answers. If an
assistant or any other person is present, he should be seated somewhat
behind the child, not too close, and should take no notice of the child
either when he enters the room or at any time during the examination.

At all events, the presence of parent, teacher, school principal, or
governess is to be avoided. Contrary to what one might expect, these
distract the child much more than a strange personality would do. Their
critical attitude toward the child's performance is very likely to cause
embarrassment. If the child is alone with the examiner, he is more at
ease from the mere fact that he does not feel that there is a reputation
to sustain. The praise so lavishly bestowed upon him by the friendly and
sympathetic examiner lends to the same effect.

As Binet emphasizes, if the presence of others cannot be avoided, it
is at least necessary to require of them absolute silence. Parents,
and sometimes teachers, have an almost irrepressible tendency to
interrupt the examination with excuses for the child's failures and
with disturbing explanations which are likely to aid the child in
comprehending the required task. Without the least intention of doing
so, they sometimes practically tell the child how to respond. Parents,
especially, cannot refrain from scolding the child or showing impatience
when his answers do not come up to expectation. This, of course,
endangers the child's success still further.

The psychologist is not surprised at such conduct. It would be foolish
to expect average parents, even apart from their bias in the particular
case at hand, to adopt the scientific attitude of the trained examiner.
Since we cannot in a few moments at our disposal make them over into
psychologists, our only recourse is to deal with them by exclusion.

This is not to say that it is impossible to test a child satisfactorily
in the presence of others. If the examiner is experienced, and if the
child is not timid, it is sometimes possible to make a successful test
in the presence of quite a number of auditors, provided they remain
silent, refrain from staring, and otherwise conduct themselves with
discretion. But not even the veteran examiner can always be sure of the
outcome in demonstration testing.

GETTING INTO "RAPPORT." The examiner's first task is to win the
confidence of the child and overcome his timidity. Unless _rapport_ has
first been established, the results of the first tests given are likely
to be misleading. The time and effort necessary for accomplishing this
are variable factors, depending upon the personality of both the
examiner and the subject. In a majority of cases from three to five
minutes should be sufficient, but in a few cases somewhat more time is
necessary.

The writer has found that when a strange child is brought to the clinic
for examination, it is advantageous to go out of doors with him for a
little walk around the university buildings. It is usually possible to
return from such a stroll in a few minutes, with the child chattering
away as though to an old friend. Another approach is to begin by showing
the child some interesting object, such as a toy, or a form-board, or
pictures not used in the test. The only danger in this method is that
the child is likely to find the object so interesting that he may not be
willing to abandon it for the tests, or that his mind will keep
reverting to it during the examination.

Still another method is to give the child his seat as soon as he is
ushered into the room, and, after a word of greeting, which must be
spoken in a kindly tone but without gushiness, to open up a conversation
about matters likely to be of interest. The weather, place of residence,
pets, sports, games, toys, travels, current events, etc., are suitable
topics if rightly employed. When the child has begun to express himself
without timidity and it is clear that his confidence has been gained,
one may proceed, as though in continuance of the conversation, to
inquire the name, age, and school grade. The examiner notes these down
in the appropriate blanks, rather unconcernedly, at the same time
complimenting the child (unless it is clearly a case of serious
retardation) on the fine progress he has made with his studies.

KEEPING THE CHILD ENCOURAGED. Nothing contributes more to a satisfactory
_rapport_ than praise of the child's efforts. Under no circumstances
should the examiner permit himself to show displeasure at a response,
however absurd it may be. In general, the poorer the response, the
better satisfied one should appear to be with it. An error is always to
be passed by without comment, unless it is painfully evident to the
child himself, in which case the examiner will do well to make some
excuse for it; e.g., "You are not quite old enough to answer questions
like that one; but, never mind, you are doing beautifully," etc.
Exclamations like "fine!" "splendid!" etc., should be used lavishly.
Almost any innocent deception is permissible which keeps the child
interested, confident, and at his best level of effort. The examination
should begin with tests that are fairly easy, in order to give the child
a little experience with success before the more difficult tests are
reached.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TACT. It goes without saying that children's
personalities are not so uniform and simple that we can adhere always to
a single stereotyped procedure in working our way into their good
graces. Suggestions like the above have their value, but, like rules of
etiquette, they must be supported by the tact which comes of intuition
and cannot be taught. The address which flatters and pleases one child
may excite disgust in another. The examiner must scent the situation and
adapt his method to it. One child is timid and embarrassed; another may
think his mental powers are under suspicion and so react with sullen
obstinacy; a third may be in an angry mood as a result of a recent
playground quarrel. Situations like these are, of course, exceptional,
but in any case it is necessary to create in the child a certain mood,
or indefinable attitude of mind, before the test begins.

PERSONALITY OF THE EXAMINER. Doubtless there are persons so lacking in
personal adaptability that success in this kind of work would be for
them impossible. The wooden, mechanical, matter-of-fact and unresponsive
personality is as much out of place in the psychological clinic as the
traditional bull in the china shop. It would make an interesting study
for some one to investigate, by exact methods, the influence on test
results of the personality of different examiners who have been equally
trained in the methods to be employed and who are equally conscientious
in applying them according to rules.

On the whole, differences of this kind are probably not very great among
experienced and reasonably competent examiners. Adaptability grows with
experience and with increase of self-confidence. After a few score tests
there should be no serious failure from inability to get into _rapport_
with the child. Even in those rare cases where the child breaks down and
cries from timidity, or perhaps refuses to answer out of embarrassment,
the difficulty can be overcome by sufficient tact so that the
examination may proceed as though nothing had happened.

If the examiner has the proper psychological and personal equipment, the
testing of twenty or thirty children forms a fairly satisfactory
apprenticeship. Without psychological training, no amount of experience
will guarantee absolute accuracy of the results.

THE AVOIDANCE OF FATIGUE. Against the validity of intelligence tests it
is often argued that the result of an examination depends a great deal
on the time of day when it is made, whether in the morning hours when
the mind is at its best, or in the afternoon when it is supposedly
fatigued. Although no very extensive investigation has been made of this
influence, there is no evidence that the ordinary fatigue incident to
school work injures the child's performance appreciably. Our tests of
1000 children showed no inferiority of results secured from 1 to 4 P.M.,
as compared with tests made from 9 to 12 A.M.

An explanation for this is not hard to find. Although school work causes
fatigue, in the sense that a part of the child's available supply of
mental energy is used up, there is always a reserve of energy sufficient
to carry the child through a thirty-to fifty-minute test. The fact that
the required tasks are novel and interesting to a high degree insures
that the reserve energy will really be brought into play. This
principle, of course, has its natural limits. The examiner would avoid
testing a child who was exhausted either from work or play, or a child
who was noticeably sleepy.

DURATION OF THE EXAMINATION. About the only danger of fatigue lies in
making the examination too long. Young children show symptoms of
weariness much more quickly than older children, and it is therefore
fortunate that not so much time is needed for testing them. The
following allowances of time will usually be found sufficient:--

Children 3-5 years old 25-30 minutes
" 6-8 " " 30-40 "
" 9-12 " " 40-50 "
" 13-15 " " 50-60 "
Adults 60-90 "

This allowance ordinarily includes the time necessary for getting into
_rapport_ with the child, in addition to that actually consumed in the
tests. But the examiner need not expect to hold fast to any schedule.
Some subjects respond in a lively manner, others are exasperatingly
slow. It is more often the mentally retarded child who answers slowly,
but exceptions to this rule are not uncommon. One 8-year-old boy
examined by the writer answered so hesitatingly that it required two
sittings of nearly an hour each to complete the test. The result,
however, showed a mental age of 111/2 years, or an I Q of 143.

It is permissible to hurry the child by an occasional "that's fine; now,
quickly," etc., but in doing this caution must be exercised, or the
child's mental process may be blocked. The appearance of nagging must be
carefully avoided. If the test goes so slowly that it cannot be
completed in the above limits of time, it is usually best to stop and
complete the examination at another time. When this is not possible, it
is advisable to take a ten-minute intermission and a little walk out of
doors.

Time can be saved by having all the necessary materials close at hand
and conveniently arranged. The coins should be kept in a separate purse,
and the pictures, colors, stamps, and designs for drawing should be
mounted on stiff cardboard which may be punched and kept in a notebook
cover. The series of sentences, digits, comprehension questions, fables,
etc., should either be mounted in similar fashion, or else printed in
full on the record sheets used in the tests. The latter is more
convenient.[43] All other materials should be kept where they will not
have to be hunted for.

[43] Examiners will find it a great convenience to use the record
booklet which has been specially devised for testing with the Stanford
revision. It contains all the necessary printed material, including
digits, sentences, absurdities, fables, the vocabulary list, the reading
selection, the square and diamond for copying, etc., and in addition
gives with each test the standard for scoring. It is so arranged as to
afford ample room for a _verbatim_ record of all the child's responses,
and contains other features calculated to make testing easy and
accurate. Regarding purchasing of supplies see p. 141.

Besides saving valuable time, a little methodical foresight of this kind
adds to the success of the test. If the child is kept waiting, the test
loses its interest and attention strays. See to it, if possible, that no
lull occurs in the performance.

Inexperienced examiners sometimes waste time foolishly by stopping to
instruct the child on his failures. This is doubly bad, for besides
losing time it makes the child conscious of the imperfection of his
responses and creates embarrassment. Adhere to the purpose of the test,
which is to ascertain the child's intellectual level, not to instruct
him.

DESIRABLE RANGE OF TESTING. There are two considerations here of equal
importance. It is necessary to make the examination thorough, but in the
pursuit of thoroughness we must be careful not to produce fatigue or
ennui. Unless there is reason to suspect mental retardation, it is
usually best to begin with the group of tests just below the child's
age. However, if there is a failure in the tests of that group, it is
necessary to go back and try all the tests of the previous group. In
like manner the examination should be carried up the scale, until a test
group has been found in which all the tests are failed.

It must be admitted, however, that because of time limitations and
fatigue, it is not always practicable to adhere to this ideal of
thoroughness. In testing normal children, little error will result if we
go back no farther than the year which yielded only one failure, and if
we stop with the year in which there was only one success. _This is the
lowest permissible limit of thoroughness._ Defectives are more uneven
mentally than normal children, and therefore scatter their successes and
failures over a wider range. With such subjects it is absolutely
imperative that the test be thorough.

In the case of defectives it is sometimes necessary to begin with random
testing, until a rough idea is gained of the mental level. But the
skilled observer soon becomes able to utilize symptoms in the child's
conversation and conduct and to dispense with most of this preliminary
exploration.

ORDER OF GIVING THE TESTS. The child's efforts in the tests are
sometimes markedly influenced by the order in which they are given. If
language tests or memory tests are given first, the child is likely to
be embarrassed. More suitable to begin with are those which test
knowledge or judgment about objective things, such as the pictures,
weights, stamps, bow-knot, colors, coins, counting pennies, number
of fingers, right and left, time orientation, ball and field,
paper-folding, etc. Tests like naming sixty words, finding rhymes,
giving differences or similarities, making sentences, repeating
sentences, and drawing are especially unsuitable because they tend to
provoke self-consciousness.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28