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

Type (2), very crude interpretations stated in concrete terms:
"Not to try to carry the donkey." "That walking is better than
riding." "The people should have been more polite to the old
man." "That the father should be allowed to ride."

Type (3), irrelevant responses: "The men were too heavy for the
donkey." "They ought to have stayed on and they would not have
fallen into the stream." "It teaches about a man and he lost his
donkey."

Type (4), efforts to repeat the story.

Type (5), inability to respond.

REMARKS. The fable test, or the "test of generalization," as it may
aptly be named, was used by the writer in a study of the intellectual
processes of bright and dull boys in 1905,[71] and was further
standardized by the writer and Mr. Childs in 1911.[72] It has proved its
worth in a number of investigations. It has been necessary, however, to
simplify the rather elaborate method of scoring which was proposed in
1911, not because of any logical fault of the method, but because of the
difficulty in teaching examiners to use the system correctly. The method
explained above is somewhat coarser, but it has the advantage of being
much easier to learn.

[71] "Genius and Stupidity," in _Pedagogical Seminary_, vol. xiii,
pp. 307-73.

[72] "A Tentative Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Measuring
Scale of Intelligence," _Journal of Educational Psychology_ (1912).

The generalization test presents for interpretation situations which are
closely paralleled in the everyday social experience of human beings. It
tests the subject's ability to understand motives underlying acts or
attitudes. It gives a clue to the status of the social consciousness.
This is highly important in the diagnosis of the upper range of mental
defectiveness. The criterion of the subnormal's fitness for life outside
an institution is his ability to understand social relations and to
adjust himself to them. Failure of a subnormal to meet this criterion
may lead him to break common conventions, and to appear disrespectful,
sulky, stubborn, or in some other way queer and exceptional. He is
likely to be misunderstood, because he so easily misunderstands others.
The skein of human motives is too complex for his limited intelligence
to untangle.

Ethnological studies have shown in an interesting way the social origin
of the moral judgment. The rectitude of the moral life, therefore,
depends on the accuracy of the social judgment. It would be interesting
to know what proportion of offenders have transgressed moral codes
because of continued failure to grasp the essential lessons presented
by human situations.

For the intelligent child even the common incidents of life carry an
endless succession of lessons in right conduct. On the average school
playground not an hour passes without some happening which is fraught
with a moral hint to those who have intelligence enough to generalize
the situation. A boy plays unfairly and is barred from the game. One
bullies his weaker companion and arouses the anger and scorn of all his
fellows. Another vents his braggadocio and feels at once the withering
scorn of those who listen. Laziness, selfishness, meanness, dishonesty,
ingratitude, inconstancy, inordinate pride, and the countless other
faults all have their social penalties. The child of normal intelligence
sees the point, draws the appropriate lesson and (provided emotions and
will are also normal) applies it more or less effectively as a guide to
his own conduct. To the feeble-minded child, all but lacking in the
power of abstraction and generalization, the situation conveys no such
lesson. It is but a muddle of concrete events without general
significance; or even if its meaning is vaguely apprehended, the powers
of inhibition are insufficient to guarantee that right action will
follow.

It is for this reason that the generalization test is so valuable in the
mental examinations of delinquents. It presents a moral situation,
imagined, to be sure, but none the less real to the individual of normal
comprehension. It tells us quickly whether the subject tested is able to
see beyond the incidents of the given situation and to grasp their wider
relations--whether he is able to generalize the concrete.

The following responses made by feeble-minded delinquents from
16 to 21 years of age demonstrate sufficiently their inability to
comprehend the moral situation:--

_Hercules and the Wagoner._ "Teaches you to look where you are
going." "Not to help any one who is stuck in the mud." "Not to
whip oxen." "Teaches that Hercules was mean." "Teaches us to
carry a stick along to pry the wheels out."

_The Fox and the Crow._ "Not to sing when eating." "To keep away
from strangers." "To swallow it before you sing." "Not to be
stingy." "Not to listen to evil." "The fox was wiser than the
crow." "Not to be selfish with food." "Not to do two things at
once." "To hang on to what you've got."

_The Farmer and the Stork._ "Teaches the stork to look where he
steps." "Not to be cruel like the farmer." "Not to tell lies."
"Not to butt into other people's things." "To be kind to birds."
"Teaches us how to get rid of troublesome people." "Never go
with anything else."

The following are the responses of an 18-year-old delinquent
(intelligence level 10 years) to the five fables:--

_Maid and Eggs._ "She was thinking about getting the dress and
spilled the milk. Teaches selfishness."

_Hercules and the Wagoner._ "He wanted to help the oxen out."

_Fox and Crow._ "Guess that's where the fox got his name--'Old
Foxy.' Don't teach us anything."

_Farmer and Stork._ "Try and help the stork out of the field."

_Miller, Son, and Donkey._ "They was all big fools and mean to
the donkey."

One does not require very profound psychological insight to see that a
person of this degree of comprehension is not promising material for
moral education. His weakness in the ability to generalize a moral
situation is not due to lack of instruction, but is inherent in the
nature of his mental processes, all of which have the infantile quality
of average 9- or 10-year intelligence. Well-instructed normal children
of 10 years ordinarily succeed no better. The ability to draw the
correct lesson from a social situation is little developed below the
mental level of 12 or 13 years.

The test is also valuable because it throws light on the subject's
ability to appreciate the finer shades of meaning. The mentally retarded
often show marked inferiority in this respect. They sense, perhaps, in a
general way the trend of the story, but they fail to comprehend much
that to us seems clearly expressed. They do not get what is left for the
reader to infer, because they are insensible to the thought fringes. It
is these which give meaning to the fable. The dull subject may be able
to image the objects and activities described, but taken in the rough
such imagery gets him nowhere.

Finally, the test is almost free from the danger of coaching. The
subject who has been given a number of fables along with twenty-five or
thirty other tests can as a rule give only hazy and inaccurate testimony
as to what he has been put through. Moreover, we have found that, even
if a subject has previously heard a fable, that fact does not materially
increase his chances of giving a correct interpretation. If the
situation depicted in the fable is beyond the subject's power of
comprehension even explicit instruction has little effect upon the
quality of the response.

Incidentally, this observation raises the question whether the use of
proverbs, mottoes, fables, poetry, etc., in the moral instruction of
children may not often be futile because the material is not fitted to
the child's power of comprehension. Much of the school's instruction in
history and literature has a moral purpose, but there is reason to
suspect that in this field schools often make precocious attempts in
"generalizing" exercises.

XII, 6. REPEATING FIVE DIGITS REVERSED

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

PROCEDURE and SCORING. Exactly as in years VII and IX.[73]

[73] See discussion, p. 207 _ff._

XII, 7. INTERPRETATION OF PICTURES

PROCEDURE. Use the same pictures as in III, 1, and VII, 2, and the
additional picture _d_. Present in the same order. The formula to begin
with is identical with that in VII, 2: "_Tell me what this picture is
about. What is this a picture of?_" This formula is chosen because it
does not suggest specifically either description or interpretation, and
is therefore adapted to show the child's spontaneous or natural mode of
apperception. However, in case, this formula fails to bring spontaneous
interpretation for three of the four pictures, we then return to those
pictures on which the subject has failed and give a second trial with
the formula: "_Explain this picture_." A good many subjects who failed
to interpret the pictures spontaneously do so without difficulty when
the more specific formula is used.

If the response is so brief as to be difficult to classify, the subject
should be urged to amplify by some such injunction as "_Go ahead_," or
"_Explain what you mean_."

One more caution. It is necessary to refrain from voicing a single word
of commendation or approval until all the pictures have been responded
to. A moment's thought will reveal the absolute necessity of adhering to
this rule. Often a subject will begin by giving an inferior type of
response (description, say) to the first picture, but with the second
picture adjusts better to the task and responds satisfactorily. If in
such a case the first (unsatisfactory) response were greeted with an
approving "That's fine, you are doing splendidly," the likelihood of any
improvement taking place as the test proceeds would be greatly lessened.

SCORING. _Three pictures out of four_ must be satisfactorily
interpreted. "Satisfactorily" means that the interpretation given should
be reasonably plausible; not necessarily the exact one the artist had in
mind, yet not absurd. The following classified responses will serve as
a fairly secure guide for scoring:--

(a) _Dutch Home_

_Satisfactory._ "Child has spilled something and is getting a
scolding." "The baby has hurt herself and the mother is
comforting her." "The baby is crying because she is hungry and
the mother has nothing to give her." "The little girl has been
naughty and is about to be punished." "The baby is crying
because she does not like her dinner." "There's bread on the
table and the mother won't let the little girl have it and so
she is crying." "The baby is begging for something and is crying
because her mamma won't give it to her." "It's a poor family.
The father is dead and they don't have enough to eat."

_Unsatisfactory._ "The baby is crying and the mother is looking
at her" (description). "It's in Holland, and there's a little
girl crying, and a mamma, and there's a dish on the table"
(mainly description). "The mother is teaching the child to walk"
(absurd interpretation).

(b) _River Scene_

_Satisfactory._ "Man and lady eloping to get married and an
Indian to row for them." "I think it represents a honeymoon
trip." "In frontier days and a man and his wife have been
captured by the Indians." "It's a perilous journey and they have
engaged the Indian to row for them."

_Unsatisfactory._ "They are shooting the rapids." "An Indian
rowing a man and his wife down the river" (mainly description).
"A storm at sea" (absurd interpretation). "Indians have rescued
a couple from a shipwreck." "They have been up the river and
are riding down the rapids."

The following responses are somewhat doubtful, but should
probably be scored _minus_: "People going out hunting and have
Indian for a guide." "The man has rescued the woman from the
Indians." "It's a camping trip."

(c) _Post-Office_

_Satisfactory._ "It's a lot of old farmers. They have come to
the post-office to get the paper, which only comes once a week,
and they are all happy." "There's something funny in the paper
about one of the men and they are all laughing about it." "They
are reading about the price of eggs, and they look very happy so
I guess the price has gone up." "It's a bunch of country
politicians reading the election news."

_Unsatisfactory._ "A man has just come out of the post-office
and is reading to his friends." "It's a little country town and
they are looking at the paper." "A man is reading the paper and
the others are looking on and laughing." "Some men are reading a
paper and laughing, and the other man has brought some eggs to
market, and it's in a little country town." (All the above are
mainly description.)

Responses like the following are somewhat better, but hardly
satisfactory: "They are reading something funny in the paper."
"They are reading the ads." "They are laughing about something
in the newspaper," etc.

(d) _Colonial Home_

_Satisfactory._ "They are lovers and have quarreled." "The man
has to go away for a long time, maybe to war, and she is afraid
he won't return." "He has proposed and she has rejected him, and
she is crying because she hated to disappoint him." "The woman
is crying because her husband is angry and leaving her." "The
man is a messenger and has brought the woman bad news."

_Unsatisfactory._ "The husband is leaving and the dog is looking
at the lady." "It's a picture to show how people dressed in
colonial times." "The lady is crying and the man is trying to
comfort her." "The man is going away. The woman is angry because
he is going. The dog has a ball in its mouth and looks happy,
and the man looks sad."

Such responses as the following are doubtful, but rather _minus_
than _plus_: "A picture of George Washington's home." "They
have lost their money and they are sad" (gratuitous
interpretation). "The man has struck the woman."

Doubt sometimes arises as to the proper scoring of imaginative
or gratuitous interpretations. The following are samples of
such: (a) "The little girl is crying because she wants a new
dress and the mother is telling her she can have one when
Christmas comes if she will be good." (b) "The man and woman
have gone up the river to visit some friends and an Indian guide
is bringing them home." (c) "Some old Rubes are reading about
a circus that's going to come." (d) "Napoleon leaving his
wife."

Sometimes these imaginative responses are given by very bright subjects,
under the impression that they are asked to "make up" a story based on
the picture. We may score them _plus_, provided they are not too much
out of harmony with the situation and actions represented in the
picture. Interpretations so gratuitous as to have little or no bearing
upon the scene depicted should be scored _minus_.

REMARKS. The test of picture interpretation has been variously located
from 12 to 15 years. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that
everything depends on the nature of the pictures used, the form in which
the question is put, and the standard for scoring. The Jingleman-Jack
pictures used by Kuhlmann are as easy to interpret at 10 years as the
Stanford pictures at 12. Spontaneous interpretation ("What is this a
picture of?" or "What do you see in this picture?") comes no more
readily at 14 years than provoked interpretation ("Explain this
picture") at 12. The standard of scoring is no less important. If with
the Stanford pictures we require three satisfactory responses out of
four, the test belongs at the 12-year level, but the standard of two
correct out of four can be met a year or two earlier.

Even after we have agreed upon a given series of pictures, the formula
for giving the test, and upon the requisite number of passes, there
remains still the question as to the proper degree of liberality in
deciding what constitutes interpretation. There is no single point in
mental development where the "ability to interpret pictures" sweeps in
with a rush. Like the development of most other abilities, it comes by
slow degrees, beginning even as early as 6 years.

The question is, therefore, to decide whether a given response contains
as much and as good interpretation as we have a right to expect at the
age level where the test has been placed. It is imperative for any one
who would use the scale correctly to acquaint himself thoroughly with
the procedure and standards described above.

XII, 8. GIVING SIMILARITIES, THREE THINGS

PROCEDURE. The procedure is the same as in VIII, 4, but with the
following words:--

(a) _Snake_, _cow_, _sparrow_.
(b) _Book_, _teacher_, _newspaper_.
(c) _Wool_, _cotton_, _leather_.
(d) _Knife-blade_, _penny_, _piece of wire_.
(e) _Rose_, _potato_, _tree_.

As before, a little tactful urging is occasionally necessary in order to
secure a response.

SCORING. _Three satisfactory responses out of five_ are necessary for
success. Any real similarity is acceptable, whether fundamental or
superficial, although the giving of fundamental likenesses is especially
symptomatic of good intelligence.

Failures may be classified under four heads: (1) Leaving one of the
words out of consideration; (2) giving a difference instead of a
similarity; (3) giving a similarity that is not real or that is too
bizarre or far-fetched; and (4) inability to respond. Types (1), (3),
and (4) are almost equally numerous, while type (2) is not often
encountered at this level of intelligence.

This test provokes doubtful responses somewhat oftener than the earlier
test of giving similarities. Those giving greatest difficulty are the
indefinite statements like "All are useful," "All are made of the same
material," etc. Fortunately, in most of these cases an additional
question is sufficient to determine whether the subject has in mind a
real similarity. Questions suitable for this purpose are: "Explain what
you mean," "In what respect are they all useful?" "What material do
you mean?" etc. Of course it is only permissible to make use of
supplementary questions of this kind when they are necessary in order to
clarify a response which has already been made.

While the amateur examiner is likely to have more or less trouble in
deciding upon scores, this difficulty rapidly disappears with
experience. The following samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory
responses will serve as a fairly adequate guide in dealing with doubtful
cases:--

(a) _Snake_, _cow_, _sparrow_

_Satisfactory._ "All are animals" (or creatures, etc.). "All
live on the land." "All have blood" (or flesh, bones, eyes,
skin, etc.). "All move about." "All breathe air." "All are
useful" (_plus_ only if subject can give a use which they have
in common). "All have a little intelligence" (or sense,
instinct, etc.).

_Unsatisfactory._ "All have legs." "All are dangerous." "All
feed on grain" (or grass, etc.). "All are much afraid of man."
"All frighten you." "All are warm-blooded." "All get about the
same way." "All walk on the ground." "All can bite." "All
holler." "All drink water." "A snake crawls, a cow walks, and a
sparrow flies" (or some other difference). "They are not alike."

(b) _Book_, _teacher_, _newspaper_

_Satisfactory._ "All teach." "You learn from all." "All give you
information." "All help you get an education." "All are your
good friends" (_plus_ if subject can explain how). "All are
useful" (_plus_ if subject can explain how).

_Unsatisfactory._ "All tell you the news." "A teacher writes,
and a book and newspaper have writing." "They are not alike."
"All read." "All use the alphabet."

(c) _Wool_, _cotton_, _leather_

_Satisfactory._ "All used for clothing." "We wear them all."
"All grow" (_plus_ if subject can explain). "All have to be sent
to the factory to be made into things." "All are useful" (_plus_
if subject can give a use which all have in common). "All are
valuable" (_plus_ if explained).

_Unsatisfactory._ "All come from plants." "All grow on animals."
"All came off the top of something." "All are things." "They are
pretty." "All spell alike." "All are furry" (or soft, hard,
etc.).

(d) _Knife-blade_, _penny_, _piece of wire_

_Satisfactory_. "All are made from minerals" (or metals). "All
come from mines." "All are hard material."

_Unsatisfactory._ "All are made of steel" (or copper, iron,
etc.). "All are made of the same metal." "All cut." "All bend
easily." "All are used in building a house." "All are
worthless." "All are useful in fixing things." "All have an
end." "They are small." "All weigh the same." "Can get them all
at a hardware store." "You can buy things with all of them."
"You buy them with money." "One is sharp, one is round, and one
is long" (or some other difference).

Such answers as "All are found in a boy's pocket," or "Boys like
them," are not altogether bad, but hardly deserve to be called
satisfactory. "All are useful" is _minus_ unless the subject can
give a use which they have in common, which in this case he is
not likely to do. Bizarre uses are also _minus_; as, "All are
good for a watch fob," "Can use all for paper weights," etc.

(e) _Rose_, _potato_, _tree_

_Satisfactory._ "All are plants." "All grow from the ground."
"All have leaves" (or roots, etc.). "All have to be planted."
"All are parts of nature." "All have colors."

_Unsatisfactory._ "All are pretty." "All bear fruit." "All have
pretty flowers." "All grow on bushes." "All are valuable" (or
useful). "They grow close to a house." "All are ornamental."
"All are shrubbery."

REMARKS. The words of each series lend themselves readily to
classification into a next higher class. This is the best type of
response, but with most of the series it accounts for less than two
thirds of the successes among subjects of 12-year intelligence. The
proportion is less than one third for subjects of 10-year intelligence
and nearly three fourths at the 14-year level. It would be possible and
very desirable to devise and standardize an additional test of this
kind, but requiring the giving of an essential resemblance or
classificatory similarity.

For discussion of the psychological factors involved in the similarities
test, see VII, 5.

CHAPTER XVIII

INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR XIV.

XIV, 1. VOCABULARY (FIFTY DEFINITIONS, 9000 WORDS)

PROCEDURE and SCORING, as in VIII, X, and XII. At year XIV fifty words
must be correctly defined.

XIV, 2. INDUCTION TEST: FINDING A RULE

PROCEDURE. Provide six sheets of thin blank paper, say 81/2 x 11 inches.
Take the first sheet, and telling the subject to watch what you do, fold
it once, and in the middle of the folded edge tear out or cut out a
small notch; then ask the subject to tell you _how many holes there will
be in the paper when it is unfolded_. The correct answer, _one_, is
nearly always given without hesitation. But whatever the answer, unfold
the paper and hold it up broadside for the subject's inspection. Next,
take another sheet, fold it once as before and say: "_Now, when we
folded it this way and tore out a piece, you remember it made one hole
in the paper. This time we will give the paper another fold and see how
many holes we shall have._" Then proceed to fold the paper again, this
time in the other direction, and tear out a piece from the folded side
and ask how many holes there will be when the paper is unfolded. After
recording the answer, unfold the paper, hold it up before the subject so
as to let him see the result. The answer is often incorrect and the
unfolded sheet is greeted with an exclamation of surprise. The governing
principle is seldom made out at this stage of the experiment. But
regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the first and second
answers, proceed with the third sheet. Fold it once and say: "_When we
folded it this way there was one hole._" Then fold it again and say:
"_And when we folded it this way there were two holes._" At this point
fold the paper a third time and say: "_Now, I am folding it again. How
many holes will it have this time when I unfold it?_" Record the answer
and again unfold the paper while the subject looks on.

Continue in the same manner with sheets four, five, and six, adding one
fold each time. In folding each sheet recapitulate the results with the
previous sheets, saying (with the sixth, for example): "_When we folded
it this way there was one hole, when we folded it again there were two,
when we folded it again there were four, when we folded it again there
were eight, when we folded it again there were sixteen; now, tell me
how many holes there will be if we fold it once more._" In the
recapitulation avoid the expression "_When we folded it once, twice,
three times_," etc., as this often leads the subject to double the
numeral heard instead of doubling the number of holes in the previously
folded sheet. After the answer is given, do not fail to unfold the paper
and let the subject view the result.

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