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

III, 2. NAMING FAMILIAR OBJECTS

PROCEDURE. Use a key, a penny, a closed knife, a watch, and an ordinary
lead pencil. The key should be the usual large-sized doorkey, not one of
the Yale type. The penny should not be too new, for the freshly made,
untarnished penny resembles very little the penny usually seen. Any
ordinary pocket knife may be used, and it is to be shown unopened. The
formula is, "_What is this?_" or, "_Tell me what this is._"

SCORING. There must be at least _three correct responses out of five_. A
response is not correct unless the object is named. It is not sufficient
for the child merely to show that he knows its use. A child, for
example, may take the pencil and begin to mark with it, or go to the
door and insert the key in the lock, but this is not sufficient. At the
same time we must not be too arbitrary about requiring a particular
name. "Cent" or "pennies" for "penny" is satisfactory, but "money" is
not. The watch is sometimes called "a clock" or "a tick-tock," and we
shall perhaps not be too liberal if we score these responses _plus_.
"Pen" for "pencil," however, is unsatisfactory. Substitute names for
"key" and "knife" are rarely given. Mispronunciations due to baby-talk
are of course ignored.

REMARKS. The purpose of this test is to find out whether the child has
made the association between familiar objects and their names. The
mental processes necessary to enable the child to pass this test are
very elementary, and yet, as far as they go, they are fundamental.
Learning the names of objects frequently seen is a form of mental
activity in which the normally endowed child of 2 to 4 years finds great
satisfaction. Any marked retardation in making such associations is a
grave indication of the lack of that spontaneity which is so necessary
for the development of the higher grades of intelligence. It would be
entirely beside the point, therefore, to question the validity of the
test on the ground that a given child may not have been _taught_ the
names of the objects used. Practically all children 3 years old, however
poor their environment, have made the acquaintance of at least three of
the five objects, and if intelligence is normal they have learned their
names as a result of spontaneous inquiry.

Always use the list of objects here given, because it has been
standardized. Any improvised selection would be sure to contain some
objects either less or more familiar than those in the standardized
list. Note also that three correct responses out of five are sufficient.
If we required five correct answers out of six (like Kuhlmann), or three
out of three (like Binet, Goddard, and Huey), the test would probably
belong at the 4-year level. Binet states that this test is materially
harder than that of naming objects in a picture, since in the latter the
child selects from a number of objects in the picture those he knows
best, while in the former test he must name the objects we have
arbitrarily chosen. This difference does not hold, however, if we
require only three correct responses out of five for passing the test of
naming objects, instead of Binet's three out of three. All else being
equal, it is of course easier to recognize and name a real object shown
than it is to recognize and name it from a picture.

III, 3. ENUMERATION OF OBJECTS IN PICTURES

PROCEDURE. Use the three pictures designated as "Dutch Home," "River
Scene," and "Post-Office." Say, "_Now I am going to show you a pretty
picture._" Then, holding the first one before the child, close enough to
permit distinct vision, say: "_Tell me what you see in this picture._"
If there is no response, as sometimes happens, due to embarrassment or
timidity, repeat the request in this form: "_Look at the picture and
tell me everything you can see in it._" If there is still no response,
say: "_Show me the ..._" (naming some object in the picture). Only one
question of this type, however, is permissible. If the child answers
correctly, say: "_That is fine; now tell me everything you see in the
picture._" From this point the responses nearly always follow without
further coaxing. Indeed, if _rapport_ has been properly cultivated
before the test begins, the first question will ordinarily be
sufficient. If the child names one or two things in a picture and then
stops, urge him on by saying "_And what else_" Proceed with pictures _b_
and _c_ in the same manner.

SCORING. The test is passed if the child enumerates as many as _three_
objects in _one_ picture _spontaneously_; that is, without intervening
questions or urging. Anything better than enumeration (as description
or interpretation) is also acceptable, but description is rarely
encountered before 5 years and interpretation rarely before 9 or 10.[46]

[46] See instructions for VII, 2, and XII, 7.

REMARKS. The purpose of the test in this year is to find out whether the
sight of a familiar object in a picture provokes recognition and calls
up the appropriate name.[47] The average child of 3 or 4 years is in
what Binet calls "the identification stage"; that is, familiar objects
in a picture will be identified but not described, their relations to
one another will not be grasped.

[47] For a discussion of the significance of the different types of
response, enumeration, description, and interpretation, see VII, 2, and
XII, 7.

In giving the test, always present the pictures in the same order,
first Dutch Home, then River Scene, then Post-Office. The order of
presentation will no doubt seem to the uninitiated too trivial a matter
to insist upon, but a little experience teaches one that an apparently
insignificant change in the procedure may exert a considerable influence
upon the response. Some pictures tend more strongly than others to
provoke a particular type of response. Some lend themselves especially
to enumeration, others to description, others to interpretation. The
pictures used in the Stanford revision have been selected from a number
which have been tried because they are more uniform in this respect
than most others in use. However, they are not without their
differences, picture _b_, for example, tending more than the others to
provoke description.

There seems to be no disagreement as to the proper location of this
test.

III, 4. GIVING SEX

PROCEDURE. If the subject is a boy, the formula is: "_Are you a little
boy or a little girl?_" If a girl, "_Are you a little girl or a little
boy?_" This variation in the formula is necessary because of the
tendency in young children to repeat mechanically the last word of
anything that is said to them. If there is no response, say: "_Are you a
little girl?_" (if a boy); or, "_Are you a little boy?_" (if a girl). If
the answer to the last question is "no" (or a shake of the head), we
then say: "_Well, what are you? Are you a little boy or a little girl?_"
(or _vice versa_).

SCORING. The response is satisfactory if it indicates that the child has
really made the discrimination, but we must be cautious about accepting
any other response than the direct answer, "A little girl," or, "A
little boy." "Yes" and "no" in response to the second question must be
carefully checked up.

REMARKS. Binet and Goddard say that 3-year-olds cannot pass this test
and that 4-year-olds almost never fail. We can accept the last part of
this statement, but not the first part. Nearly all of our 3-year-old
subjects succeed with it.

The test probably has nothing to do with sex consciousness, as such.
Success in it would seem to depend on the ability to discriminate
between familiar class names which are in a certain degree related.

III, 5. GIVING THE FAMILY NAME

PROCEDURE. The child is asked, "_What is your name?_" If the answer, as
often happens, includes only the first name (Walter, for example), say:
"_Yes, but what is your other name? Walter what?_" If the child is
silent, or if he only repeats the first name, say: "_Is your name
Walter ... ?_" (giving a fictitious name, as Jones, Smith, etc.). This
question nearly always brings the correct answer if it is known.

SCORING. Simply + or -. No attention is paid to faults of pronunciation.

REMARKS. There is unanimous agreement that this test belongs in the
3-year group. Although the child has not had as much opportunity to
learn the family name as his first name, he is almost certain to have
heard it more or less, and if his intelligence is normal the interest in
self will ordinarily cause it to be remembered.

The critic of the intelligence scale need not be unduly exercised over
the fact that there may be an occasional child of 3 years who has never
heard his family name. We have all read of such children, but they
are so extremely rare that the chances of a given 3-year-old being
unjustly penalized for this reason are practically negligible. In
the second place, contingencies of this nature are throughout the
scale consistently allowed for in the percentage of passes required
for locating a test. Since (in the year groups below XIV) the
individual tests are located at the age level where they are passed by
60 to 70 per cent of unselected children of that age, it follows that
the child of average ability _is expected_ to fail on about one third of
the tests of his age group. The plan of the scale is such as to warrant
this amount of leeway. But even granting the possibility that one
subject out of a hundred or so may be unjustly penalized for lack of
opportunity to acquire the knowledge which the test calls for, the
injustice done does not greatly alter the result. A single test affects
mental age only to the extent of two months, and the chances of two such
injustices occurring with the same child are very slight. Herein lies
the advantage of a multiplicity of tests. No test considered by itself
is very dependable, but two dozen tests, properly arranged, are almost
infinitely reliable.

III, 6. REPEATING SIX TO SEVEN SYLLABLES

PROCEDURE. Begin by saying: "_Can you say 'mamma'? Now, say 'nice
kitty.'_" Then ask the child to say, "_I have a little dog._" Speak the
sentence distinctly and with expression, but in a natural voice and not
too slowly. If there is no response, the first sentence may be repeated
two or three times. Then give the other two sentences: "_The dog runs
after the cat_," and, "_In summer the sun is hot._" A great deal of tact
is sometimes necessary to enlist the child's cooeperation in this test.
If he cannot be persuaded to try, the alternative test of three digits
may be substituted.

SCORING. The test is passed if at least _one sentence is repeated
without error after a single reading_. "Without error" is to be taken
literally; there must be no omission, insertion, or transposition
of words. Ignore indistinctness of articulation and defects of
pronunciation as long as they do not mutilate the sentence beyond easy
recognition.

REMARKS. The test does not presuppose that the child should have
the ability to make and use sentences like these for purposes of
communication, or even that he should know the meaning of all the words
they contain. Its purpose is to bring out the ability of the child to
repeat a six-syllable series of more or less familiar language sounds.
As every one knows, the normal child of 2 or 3 years is constantly
imitating the speech of those around him and finds this a great source
of delight. Long practice in the semi-mechanical repetition of language
sounds is necessary for the learning of speech cooerdinations and is
therefore an indispensable preliminary to the purposeful use of
language. High-grade idiots and the lowest grade of imbeciles never
acquire much facility in the repetition of language heard. The test gets
at one of the simplest forms of mental integration.

Binet says that children of 3 years _never_ repeat sentences of
ten syllables. This is not strictly true, for six out of nineteen
3-year-olds succeeded in doing so. All the data agree, however, that the
_average_ child of 3 years repeats only six to seven syllables
correctly.

III. ALTERNATIVE TEST: REPEATING THREE DIGITS

PROCEDURE. Use the following digits: 6-4-1, 3-5-2, 8-3-7. Begin with two
digits, as follows: "_Listen; say 4-2_." "_Now, say 6-4-1_." "_Now, say
3-5-2_," etc. Pronounce the digits in a distinct voice and with
perfectly uniform emphasis at a rate just a little faster than one per
second. Two per second, as recommended by Binet, is too rapid.

Young subjects, because of their natural timidity in the presence of
strangers, sometimes refuse to respond to this test. With subjects under
5 or 6 years of age it is sometimes necessary in such cases to re-read
the first series of digits several times in order to secure a response.
The response thus secured, however, is not counted in scoring, the
purpose of the re-reading being merely to break the child's silence. The
second and third series may be read but once. With the digits tests
above year IV the re-reading of a series is never permissible.

SCORING. Passed if the child repeats correctly, _after a single reading,
one series out of the three_ series given. Not only must the correct
digits be given, but the order also must be correct.

REMARKS. Others, on the basis of rather scanty data, have usually
located this test at the 4-year level. Our results show that with the
procedure described above it is fully as easy as the test of repeating
sentences of 6 to 7 syllables.[48]

[48] See p. 194 _ff._ for further discussion of the digits test.

CHAPTER X

INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR IV

IV, 1. COMPARISON OF LINES

PROCEDURE. Present the appropriate accompanying card with the lines in
horizontal position. Point to the lines and say: "_See these lines. Look
closely and tell me which one is longer. Put your finger on the longest
one._" We use the superlative as well as the comparative form of _long_
because it is often more familiar to young subjects. If the child does
not respond, say: "_Show me which line is the biggest._" Then withdraw
the card, turn it about a few times, and present it again with the
position of the two lines reversed, saying: "_Now show me the longest._"
Turn the card again and make a third presentation.

SCORING. All three comparisons must be made correctly; or if only two
responses out of three are correct, all three pairs are again shown,
just as before, and if there is no error this time, the test is passed.
The standard, therefore, is _three correct responses out of three, or
five out of six_.

Sometimes the child points, but at no particular part of the card. In
such cases it may be difficult to decide whether he has failed to
comprehend and to make the discrimination or has only been careless in
pointing. It is then necessary to repeat the experiment until the
evidence is clear.

REMARKS. As noted by Binet, success in this test depends on the
comprehension of the verbal directions rather than on actual
discrimination of length. The child who would unerringly choose the
larger of two pieces of candy might fail on the comparison of lines.
However, since the child must correctly compare the lines three times in
succession, or at least in five out of six trials, _willingness to
attend_ also plays a part. The attention of the low-grade imbecile, or
even of the normal child of 3 years, is not very obedient to the
suggestions of the experimenter. It may be gained momentarily, but it is
not easily held to the same task for more than a few seconds. Hence some
children who perfectly comprehend this task fail to make a succession of
correct comparisons because they are unable or unwilling to bring to
bear even the small amount of attention which is necessary. This does
not in the least condone the failure, for it is exactly in such
voluntary control of mental processes that we find one of the most
characteristic differences between bright and dull, or mature and
immature subjects.

There has been little disagreement as to the proper location of this
test.

IV, 2. DISCRIMINATION OF FORMS

PROCEDURE. Use the forms supplied with this book. First, place the
circle of the duplicate set at "X", and say: "_Show me one like
this_," at the same time passing the finger around the circumference of
the circle. If the child does not respond, say: "_Do you see all of
these things?_" (running the finger over the various forms); "_And do
you see this one?_" (pointing again to the circle); "_Now, find me
another one just like this._" Use the square next, then the triangle,
and the others in any order.

Correct the child's first error by saying: "_No, find one just like
this_" (again passing the finger around the outline of the form at "X").
Make no comment on errors after the first one, proceeding at once with
the next card, but each time the choice is correct encourage the child
with a hearty "That's good," or something similar.

SCORING. The test is passed if _seven out of ten_ choices, are correct,
the first corrected error being counted.

REMARKS. In the test of discriminating forms, unlike the test of
comparing lines, lack of success is less often due to inability to
understand the task than to failure to discriminate. The test may be
regarded as a variation of the form-board test. It displays the
subject's ability to compare and contrast successive visual perceptions
of form. The accurate perception of even a fairly simple form requires
the integration of a number of sensory elements into one whole. The
forms used in this test have meaning. They are far from nonsense figures
even for the (normal) child of 4 years, who has, of course, never heard
about "triangles," "squares," "rectangles," etc. The meaning present at
this level of intelligence is probably a compound of such factors as
appreciation of symmetry and direction, and discrimination of quantity
and number.

Another element in success, especially in the latter part of the
experiment, is the ability to make an _attentive_ comparison between the
form shown and the others. The child may be satisfied to point to the
first form his eye happens to fall upon. Far from being a legitimate
excuse for failure, such an exhibition of inattention and of weakness of
the critical faculty is symptomatic of a mental level below 4 years.

In addition to counting the number of errors made, it is interesting to
note with what forms they occur. To match the circle with the ellipse or
the octagon, for example, is a less serious error than to match it with
the square or triangle.

This test was devised and standardized by Dr. Fred Kuhlmann. It is
inserted here without essential alteration, except that the size
recommended for the forms is slightly reduced and minor changes have
been made in the wording of the directions. Our own results are
favorable to the test and to the location assigned it by its author.

IV, 3. COUNTING FOUR PENNIES

PROCEDURE. Place four pennies in a horizontal row before the child. Say:
"_See these pennies. Count them and tell me how many there are. Count
them with your finger, this way_" (pointing to the first one on the
child's left)--"_One_"--"_Now, go ahead._" If the child simply gives the
number (whether right or wrong) without pointing, say: "_No; count them
with your finger, this way_," starting him off as before. Have him count
them aloud.

SCORING. The test is passed only if the counting tallies with the
pointing. It is not sufficient merely to state the correct number
without pointing.

REMARKS. Contrary to what one might think, this is not to any great
extent a test of "schooling." Practically all children of this age have
had opportunity to learn to count as far as four, and with normal
children the spontaneous interest in number is such that very few
4-year-olds, even from inferior social environment, fail to pass the
test.

While success requires more than the ability to repeat the number names
by rote, it does not presuppose any power of calculation or a mastery of
the number concepts from one to four. Many children who will readily
say, mechanically, "one, two, three, four," when started off, are not
able to pass the test. On the other hand, it is not expected that the
child who passes will also necessarily understand that four is made up
of two two's, or four one's, or three plus one, etc.

Binet, Goddard, and Kuhlmann place this test in the 5-year group, but
three separate series of tests made for the Stanford revision, as well
as nearly all the statistics available from other sources, show that it
belongs at 4 years.

IV, 4. COPYING A SQUARE

PROCEDURE. Place before the child a cardboard on which is drawn in heavy
black lines a square about 11/4 inches on a side.[49] Give the child a
pencil and say: "_You see that_ (pointing to the square). _I want you to
make one just like it. Make it right here_ (showing where it is to be
drawn). _Go ahead. I know you can do it nicely._"

[49] No material is needed if the regular Stanford record blanks are
used, as these all contain the square and diamond.

Avoid such an expression as, "_I want you to draw a figure like that._"
The child may not know the meaning of either _draw_ or _figure_. Also,
in pointing to the model, take care not to run the finger around the
four sides.

Children sometimes have a deep-seated aversion to drawing on request and
a bit of tactful urging may be necessary. Experience and tact will
enable the experimenter in all but the rarest cases to come out
victorious in these little battles with balky wills. Give three trials,
saying each time: "_Make it exactly like this_," pointing to model.
Make sure that the child is in an easy position and that the paper used
is held so it cannot slip.

SCORING. The test is passed if at least _one drawing out of the three_
is as good as those marked + on the score card. Young subjects usually
reduce figures in drawing from copy, but size is wholly disregarded in
scoring. It is of more importance that the right angles be fairly well
preserved than that the lines should be straight or the corners entirely
closed. The scoring of this test should be rather liberal.

REMARKS. After the three copies have been made say: "_Which one do you
like best?_" In this way we get an idea of the subject's power of
auto-criticism, a trait in which the mentally retarded are nearly always
behind normal children of their own age. Normal children, when young,
reveal the same weakness to a certain extent. It is especially
significant when the subject shows complete satisfaction with a very
poor performance.

Observe whether the child makes each part with careful effort, looking
at the model from time to time, or whether the strokes are made in a
haphazard way with only an initial glance at the original. The latter
procedure is quite common with young or retarded subjects. Curiously
enough, the first trial is more successful than either of the others,
due perhaps to a waning of effort and attention.

Note that pencil is used instead of pen and that only one success is
necessary. Binet gives only one trial and requires pen. Goddard allows
pencil, but permits only one trial. Kuhlmann requires pen and passes the
child only when two trials out of three are successful. But these
authors locate the test at 5 years. Our results show that nearly three
fourths of 4-year-olds succeed with pencil in one out of three trials if
the scoring is liberal. It makes a great deal of difference whether pen
or pencil is used, and whether two successes are required or only one.
No better illustration could be given of the fact that without
thoroughgoing standardization of procedure and scoring the best mental
test may be misleading as to the degree of intelligence it indicates.

Copying a square is one of three drawing tests used in the Binet scale,
the others being the diamond (year VII), and the designs to be copied
from memory (year X). These tests do not to any great extent test what
is usually known as "drawing ability." Only the square and the diamond
tests are strictly comparable with one another, the other having a
psychologically different purpose. In none of them does success seem to
depend very much on the amount of previous instruction in drawing. To
copy a figure like a square or a diamond requires first of all an
appreciation of spacial relationships. The figure must be perceived as a
whole, not simply as a group of meaningless lines. In the second place,
success depends upon the ability to use the visual impression in guiding
a rather complex set of motor cooerdinations. The latter is perhaps the
main difficulty, and is one which is not fully overcome, at least for
complicated movements, until well toward adult life.

It is interesting to compare the square and the diamond as to relative
difficulty. They have the same number of lines and in each case the
opposite sides are parallel; but whereas 4-year intelligence is equal to
the task of copying a square, the diamond ordinarily requires 7-year
intelligence. Probably no one could have foreseen that a change in the
angles would add so much to the difficulty of the figure. It would be
worth while to devise and standardize still more complicated figures.

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