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

(c) _Why we should judge a person more by his actions than by his words_

_Satisfactory responses_ fall into the following classes:--
(1) Words and deeds both mentioned and contrasted in
reliability; as: "Actions speak louder than words" (this in
8 per cent of successes). "You can tell more by his actions
than by his words." "He might talk nice and do bad things."
"Sometimes people say things and don't do them." "It's not
what you say but what you do that counts." "Talk is cheap;
when he does a thing you can believe it." "People don't do
everything they say." "A man might steal but talk like a
nice man." Over 45 per cent of all correct responses belong
to group (1).
(2) Acts stressed without mention of words; as: "You can tell by
his actions whether he is good or not." "If he _acts_ nice
he _is_ nice." "Actions show for themselves." Group (2)
contains about 25 per cent of the correct responses.
(3) Emphasis on unreliability of words; as: "You can't tell by
his words, he might lie or boast." "Because you can't always
believe what people say." (Group (3) contains 15 per cent of
the correct responses.)
(4) Responses which state that a man's deeds are sometimes
better than his words; as: "He might talk ugly and still not
do bad things." "Some really kind-hearted people scold and
swear." "A man's words may be worse than his deeds," etc.
Group (4) contains over 10 per cent of the correct
responses.

_Unsatisfactory responses_ are usually due to inability to
comprehend the meaning of the question. If there is a complete
lack of comprehension the result is either silence or a totally
irrelevant response. If there is partial comprehension of the
question the response may be partially relevant, but fail to
make the expected distinction.

The following are sample failures: "You could tell by his words
that he was educated." "It shows he is polite if he acts nice."
"Sometimes people aren't polite." "Actions show who he might
be." "Acts may be foolish." "Words ain't right." "A man might be
dumb." "A fellow don't know what he says." "Some people can
talk, but don't have control of themselves." "You can tell by
his acts whether he goes with bad people." "If he doesn't act
right you know he won't talk right." "Actions show if he has
manners." "Might get embarrassed and not talk good." "He may not
know how to express his thoughts." "He might be a rich man but a
poor talker." "He might say the wrong thing and afterwards be
sorry for it," etc. (The last four are nearer correct than the
others, but they fall just short of expressing the essential
contrast.)

REMARKS. For discussion of the comprehension questions as a test of
intelligence, see page 158.

Binet used eight questions, three "easy" and five "difficult," and
required that five out of eight be answered correctly in year X. The
eight were as follows:--

(1) What to do when you have missed your train.
(2) When you have been struck by a playmate, etc.
(3) When you have broken something, etc.
(4) When about to be late for school.
(5) When about to undertake something important.
(6) Why excuse a bad act committed in anger more readily than a bad
act committed without anger.
(7) What to do if some one asks your opinion, etc.
(8) Why can you judge a person better by his actions, etc.

As we have shown, questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are much too easy for year X.
Question 6 is hard enough for year XII. We have omitted it because it
was not needed and is not entirely satisfactory.

X, 6. NAMING SIXTY WORDS

PROCEDURE. Say: "_Now, I want to see how many different words you can
name in three minutes. When I say ready, you must begin and name the
words as fast as you can, and I will count them. Do you understand? Be
sure to do your very best, and remember that just any words will do,
like 'clouds,' 'dog,' 'chair,' 'happy'--Ready; go ahead!_"

The instructions may be repeated if the subject does not understand what
is wanted. As a rule the task is comprehended instantly and entered into
with great zest.

Do not stare at the child, and do not say anything as the test proceeds
unless there is a pause of fifteen seconds. In this event say: "_Go
ahead, as fast as you can. Any words will do._" Repeat this urging after
every pause of fifteen seconds.

Some subjects, usually rather intelligent ones, hit upon the device of
counting or putting words together in sentences. We then break in with:
"_Counting_ (or _sentences_, as the case may be) _not allowed. You must
name separate words. Go ahead._"

Record the individual words if possible, and mark the end of each
half-minute. If the words are named so rapidly that they cannot be taken
down, it is easy to keep the count by making a pencil stroke for each
word. If the latter method is employed, repeated words may be indicated
by making a cross instead of a single stroke. Always make record of
repetitions.

SCORING. The test is passed if _sixty_ words, exclusive of repetitions,
are named in three minutes. It is not allowable to accept twenty words
in one minute or forty words in two minutes as an equivalent of the
expected score. Only real words are counted.

REMARKS. Scoring, as we have seen, takes account only of the number of
words. It is instructive, however, to note the kind of words given. Some
subjects, more often those of the 8- or 9-year intelligence level, give
mainly isolated, detached words. As well stated by Binet, "Little
children exhaust an idea in naming it. They say, for example, _hat_, and
then pass on to another word without noticing that hats differ in color,
in form, have various parts, different uses and accessories, and that in
enumerating all these they could find a large number of words."

Others quickly take advantage of such relationships and name many parts
of an object before leaving it, or name a number of other objects
belonging to the same class. _Hat_, for example, suggests _cap_, _hood_,
_coat_, _shirt_, _shoes_, _stockings_, etc. _Pencil_ suggests _book_,
_slate_, _paper_, _desk_, _ink_, _map_, _school-yard_, _teacher_, etc.
Responses of this type may be made up of ten or a dozen plainly distinct
word groups.

Another type of response consists in naming only objects present, or
words which present objects immediately suggest. It is unfortunate that
this occurs, since rooms in which testing is done vary so much with
respect to furnishings. The subject who chooses this method is obviously
handicapped if the room is relatively bare. One way to avoid this
influence is to have all subjects name the words with eyes closed, but
the distraction thus caused is sometimes rather disturbing. It is
perhaps best for the present to adhere to the original procedure, and to
follow the rule of making tests in a room containing few furnishings in
addition to the necessary table and chairs.

A fourth type of response is that including a large proportion of
unusual or abstract words. This is the best of all, and is hardly ever
found except with subjects who are above the 11-year intelligence level.

It goes without saying that a response need not belong entirely to any
one of the above types. Most responses, in fact, are characterized by a
mixture of two or three of the types, one of them perhaps being
dominant.

Though not without its shortcomings, the test is interesting and
valuable. Success in it does not, as one might suppose, depend solely
upon the size of the vocabulary. Even 8-year-olds ordinarily know the
meaning of more than 3000 words, and by 10 years the vocabulary usually
exceeds 5000 words, or eighty times as many as the child is expected to
name in three minutes. The main factors in success are two, (1) richness
and variety of previously made associations with common words; and (2)
the readiness of these associations to reinstate themselves. The young
or the retarded subject fishes in the ocean of his vocabulary with a
single hook, so to speak. He brings up each time only one word. The
subject endowed with superior intelligence employs a net (the idea of a
class, for example) and brings up a half-dozen words or more. The latter
accomplishes a greater amount and with less effort; but it requires
intelligence and will power to avoid wasting time with detached words.

One is again and again astonished at the poverty of associations which
this test discloses with retarded subjects. For twenty or thirty seconds
such children may be unable to think of a single word. It would be
interesting if at such periods we could get a glimpse into the subject's
consciousness. There must be some kind of mental content, but it seems
too vague to be crystallized in words. The ready association of thoughts
with definite words connotes a relatively high degree of intellectual
advancement. Language forms are the short-hand of thought; without
facile command of language, thinking is vague, clumsy, and ineffective.
Conversely, vague mental content entails language shortage.

Occasionally a child of 11- or 12-year intelligence will make a poor
showing in this test. When this happens it is usually due either to
excessive embarrassment or to a strange persistence in running down all
the words of a given class before launching out upon a new series.
Occasionally, too, an intelligent subject wastes time in thinking up a
beautiful list of big or unusual words. As stated by Bobertag, success
is favored by a certain amount of "intellectual nonchalance," a
willingness to ignore sense and a readiness to break away from a train
of associations as soon as the "point of diminishing returns" has been
reached. This doubtless explains why adults sometimes make such a
surprisingly poor showing in the test. They have less "intellectual
nonchalance" than children, are less willing to subordinate such
considerations as completeness and logical connection to the demands of
speed. Knollin's unemployed men of 12- to 13-year intelligence succeeded
no better than school children of the 10-year level.

We do not believe, however, that this fault is serious enough to warrant
the elimination of the test. The fact is that in a large majority of
cases the score which it yields agrees fairly closely with the result of
the scale as a whole. Subjects more than a year or two below the mental
age of 10 years seldom succeed. Those more than a year or two above the
10-year level seldom fail.

There is another reason why the test should be retained, it often has
significance beyond that which appears in the mere number of words
given. The naming of unusual and abstract words is an instance of this.
An unusually large number of repetitions has symptomatic significance
in the other direction. It indicates a tendency to mental stereotypy, so
frequently encountered in testing the feeble-minded. The proportion of
repetitions made by normal children of the 10- or 11-year intelligence
level rarely exceeds 2 or 3 per cent of the total number of words named;
those of older retarded children of the same level occasionally reach
6 or 8 per cent.

It is conceivable, of course, that a more satisfactory test of this
general nature could be devised; such, for example, as having the
subject name all the words he can of a given class (four-footed animals,
things to eat, articles of household furniture, trees, birds, etc.). The
main objection to this form of the test is that the performance would in
all probability be more influenced by environment and formal instruction
than is the case with the test of naming sixty words.

One other matter remains to be mentioned; namely, the relative number of
words named in the half-minute periods. As would be expected, the rate
of naming words decreases as the test proceeds. In the case of the
10-year-olds, we find the average number of words for the six successive
half-minutes to be as follows:--

18, 121/2, 101/2, 9, 81/2, 7.

Some subjects maintain an almost constant rate throughout the test,
others rapidly exhaust themselves, while a very few make a bad beginning
and improve as they go. As a rule it is only the very intelligent who
improve after the first half-minute. On the other hand, mentally
retarded subjects and very young normals exhaust themselves so quickly
that only a few words are named in the last minute.

Binet first located this test in year XI, but shifted it to year XII in
1911. Goddard and Kuhlmann retain it in year XI, though Goddard's
statistics suggest year X as the proper location, and Kuhlmann's even
suggest year IX. Kuhlmann, however, accepts fifty words as satisfactory
in case the response contains a considerable proportion of abstract or
unusual words. All the American statistics except Rowe's agree in
showing that the test is easy enough for year X.

X, ALTERNATIVE TEST 1: REPEATING SIX DIGITS

The digit series used are 3-7-4-8-5-9; and 5-2-1-7-4-6.

The PROCEDURE and SCORING are the same as in VII, 3, except that only
two trials are given, one of which must be correct. The test is somewhat
too easy for year 10 when three trials are given.

The test of repeating six digits did not appear in the Binet scale and
seems not to have been standardized until inserted in the Stanford
series.

X, ALTERNATIVE TEST 2: REPEATING TWENTY TO TWENTY-TWO SYLLABLES

The sentences for this year are:--

(a) "_The apple tree makes a cool, pleasant shade on the ground
where the children are playing._"
(b) "_It is nearly half-past one o'clock; the house is very
quiet and the cat has gone to sleep._"
(c) "_In summer the days are very warm and fine; in winter it
snows and I am cold._"

PROCEDURE and SCORING exactly as in VI, 6.

REMARKS. It is interesting to note that five years of mental growth are
required to pass from the ability to repeat sixteen or eighteen
syllables (year VI) to the ability to repeat twenty or twenty-two
syllables. Similarly in memory for digits. Five digits are almost as
easy at year VII as six at year X. Two explanations are available: (1)
The increased difficulty may be accounted for by a relatively slow
growth of memory power after the age of 6 or 7 years; or (2) the
increase in difficulty may be real, expressing an inner law as to the
behavior of the memory span in dealing with material of increasing
length. Both factors are probably involved.

This is another of the Stanford additions to the scale. Average children
of 10 years ordinarily pass it, but older, retarded children of 10-year
mental age make a poorer showing. In the case of mentally retarded
adults, especially, the verbal memory is less exact than that of school
children of the same mental age.

X, ALTERNATIVE TEST 3: CONSTRUCTION PUZZLE A (HEALY AND FERNALD)

MATERIAL. Use the form-board pictured on page 279. This may be
purchased of C. H. Stoelting & Co., Chicago, Illinois. A home-made one
will do as well if care is taken to get the dimensions exact.
Quarter-inch wood should be used. The inside of the frame should be
3 x 4 inches, and the dimensions of the blocks should be as follows:
1+3/16 x 3; 1 x 11/2; 1 x 23/4; 1 x 11/2; 11/4 x 2.

PROCEDURE. Place the frame on the table before the subject, the short
side nearest him. The blocks are placed in an irregular position on the
side of the frame away from the subject. Take care that the board with
the blocks in place is not exposed to view in advance of the experiment.

Say: "_I want you to put these blocks in this frame so that all the
space will be filled up. If you do it rightly they will all fit in and
there will be no space left over. Go ahead._"

Do not tell the subject to see how quickly he can do it. Say nothing
that would even suggest hurrying, for this tends to call forth the
trial-and-error procedure even with intelligent subjects.

[Illustration]

SCORING. The test is passed if the child succeeds in fitting the blocks
into place _three times in a total time of five minutes for the three
trials_.

The method of procedure is fully as important as the time, but is not so
easily scored in quantitative terms. Nevertheless, the examiner should
always take observations on the method employed, noting especially
any tendency to make and to repeat moves which lead to obvious
impossibilities; i.e., moves which leave a space obviously unfitted to
any of the remaining pieces. Some subjects repeat an absurd move many
times over; others make an absurd move, but promptly correct it; others,
and these are usually the bright ones, look far enough ahead to avoid
error altogether.

REMARKS. This test was devised by Professor Freeman, was adapted
slightly by Healy and Fernald, and was first standardized by
Dr. Kuhlmann. Miss Gertrude Hall has also standardized it, but on a
different procedure from that described above.[67]

[67] _Eugenics and Social Welfare Bulletin_, No. 5, The State Board of
Charities, Albany, New York.

The test has a lower correlation with intelligence than most of the
other tests of the scale. Many bright children of 10-year intelligence
adopt the trial-and-error method and have little success, while retarded
older children of only 8-year intelligence sometimes succeed. Age, apart
from intelligence, seems to play an important part in determining the
nature of the performance. A favorable feature of the test, however, is
the fact that it makes no demand on language ability and that it brings
into play an aspect of intelligence which is relatively neglected by the
remainder of the scale. For this reason it is at least worth keeping as
an alternative test.

CHAPTER XVII

INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR XII

XII, 1. VOCABULARY (FORTY DEFINITIONS, 7200 WORDS)

PROCEDURE and SCORING as in previous vocabulary tests.[68] In this case
forty words must be defined.

[68] See VIII, 6.

XII, 2. DEFINING ABSTRACT WORDS

PROCEDURE. The words to be defined are _pity_, _revenge_, _charity_,
_envy_, and _justice_. The formula is, "_What is pity? What do we mean
by pity?_" and so on with the other words. If the meaning of the
response is not clear, ask the subject to explain what he means. If the
definition is in terms of the word itself, as "Pity means to pity
someone," "Revenge is to take revenge," etc., it is then necessary to
say: "_Yes, but what does it mean to pity some one?_" or, "_What does it
mean to take revenge?_" etc. Only supplementary questions of this kind
are permissible.

SCORING. The test is passed if _three of the five_ words are
satisfactorily defined. The definition need not be strictly logical nor
the language elegant. It is sufficient if the definition shows that the
meaning of the word is known. Definitions which define by means of an
illustration are acceptable. The following are samples of satisfactory
and unsatisfactory responses:--

(a) _Pity_

_Satisfactory._ "To be sorry for some one." "To feel
compassion." "To have sympathy for a person." "To feel bad for
some one." "It means you help a person out and don't like to
have him suffer." "To have a feeling for people when they are
treated wrong." "If anybody gets hurt real bad you pity them."
"It's when you feel sorry for a tramp and give him something to
eat." "If some one is in trouble and you know how it feels to be
in that condition, you pity him." "You see something that's
wrong and have your feeling aroused."

Of 130 correct responses, 85, or 65 per cent, defined _pity_ as
"to feel sorry for some one," or words to that effect. Less than
10 per cent defined by means of illustration.

_Unsatisfactory._ "To think of the poor." "To be good to
others." "To help." "It means sorrow." "Mercy." "To cheer people
up." "It means 'What a pity!'" "To be ashamed." "To be sick or
poor." "It's when you break something."

Apart from inability to reply, which accounts for nearly one
fourth of the failures, there is no predominant type of
unsatisfactory response.

(b) _Revenge_

_Satisfactory._ "To get even with some one." "To get back on
him." "To do something to the one who has done something to
you." "To hurt them back." "To pay it back," or "Do something
back." "To do something mean in return." "To square up with a
person." "When somebody slaps you, you slap back." "You kill a
person if he does something to you."

The expression "to get even" was found in 42 per cent of 120
correct answers; "to pay it back," or "To do something back," in
20 per cent; "To get back on him," in 17 per cent. About
8 per cent were illustrations.

_Unsatisfactory._ "To be mad." "You try to hurt them." "To
fight." "You hate a person." "To kill them." "It means hateful."
"To try again." "To think evil of some one." "To hate some one
who has done you wrong." "To let a person off." "To go away from
something."

Inability to reply accounts for a little over 40 per cent of the
failures.

(c) _Charity_

_Satisfactory._ "To give to the poor." "To help those who are
needy." "It is charity if you are poor and somebody helps you."
"To give to somebody without pay."

Of 110 correct replies, 72 per cent were worded substantially
like the first or second given above.

_Unsatisfactory._ "A person who helps the poor." "A place where
poor people get food and things." "It is a good life." "To be
happy." "To be poor." "Charity is being treated good." "It is to
be charitable." "Charity is selling something that is not worth
much." "It means to be good" or "to be kind."

When the last named response is given, we should say: "_Explain
what you mean._" If this brings an amplification of the response
to "It means to do things for the poor," or the equivalent, the
score is _plus_. "Charity means love" is also _minus_ if the
statement cannot be further explained and is merely rote memory
of the passage in the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthians. Simply
"To help" or "To give" is unsatisfactory. Half of the failures
are due to inability to reply.

(d) _Envy_

_Satisfactory._ "You envy some one who has something you want."
"It's the way you feel when you see some one with something
nicer than you have." "It's when a poor girl sees a rich girl
with nice dresses and things." "You hate some one because
they've got something you want." "Jealousy" (satisfactory if
subject can explain what _jealousy_ means; otherwise it is
_minus_). "It's when you see a person better off than you are."

Nearly three fourths of the correct responses say in substance,
"You envy a person who has something you want." Most of the
others are concrete illustrations.

_Unsatisfactory._ "To hate some one," or simply "To hate." "You
don't like 'em." "Bad feeling toward any one." "To be a great
man or woman." "Not to be nice to people." "What we do to our
enemies."

Inability to respond accounts for 55 per cent of the failures.

(e) _Justice_

_Satisfactory._ "To give people what they deserve." "It means
that everybody is treated the same way, whether he is rich or
poor." "It's what you get when you go to court." "If one does
something and gets punished, that's justice." "To do the square
thing." "To give everybody his dues." "Let every one have what's
coming to him." "To do the right thing by any one." "If two
people do the same thing and they let one go without punishing,
that is not justice."

Approximately 38 per cent of 102 correct responses referred to
treating everybody the same way; 25 per cent to "doing the
square thing", 12 per cent were concrete illustrations; and
4 per cent were definitions of what justice is not.

_Unsatisfactory._ "It means to have peace." "It is where they
have court." "It's the Courthouse." "To be honest." "Where one
is just" (_minus_, unless further explained). "To do right"
(_minus_, unless in explaining _right_ the subject gives a
definition of _justice_).

It is very necessary, in case of such answers as "Justice is to
do right," "To be just," etc., that the subject be urged to
explain further what he means. "To do right" includes nearly
12 per cent of all answers, and is given by the very brightest
children. Most of these are able, when urged, to complete the
definition in a satisfactory manner.

REMARKS. The reader may be surprised that the ability to define common
abstract words should develop so late. Most children who have had
anything like ordinary home or school environment have doubtless heard
all of these words countless times before the age of 12 years.
Nevertheless, the statistics from the test show unmistakably that before
this age such words have but limited and vague meaning. Other vocabulary
studies confirm this fact so completely that we may say there is hardly
any trait in which 12- to 14-year intelligence more uniformly excels
that of the 9- or 10-year level.

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