FOOTNOTES:[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 averbatimrecord of all the child’s responses, and contains other features calculated to make testing easy and accurate. Regarding purchasing of supplies see p.141.[44]SeeChapter VI.[45]Houghton Mifflin Company will supply all the printed material needed in the tests, including the lines for the forms forVI, 2, the four pictures for “enumeration,” “description,” and “interpretation,” the pictures forV, 3andVI, 2, the colors, designs forX, 3, the code forAverage Adult 6, and score cards for square, diamond, designs, and ball-and-field.This is all the material required for the use of the Stanford revision, except the five weights forIX, 2, andV, 1, and theHealy-Fernald Construction PuzzleforX. These may be purchased of C. H. Stoelting & Co., 3037 Carroll Avenue, Chicago. It is not necessary, however, to have the weights and the Construction Puzzle, as the presence of one or more alternative tests in each year makes it possible to substitute other tests instead of those requiring these materials. This saves considerable expense. Apart from these, which may either be made at home (see pages278,279) or dispensed with, the only necessary equipment for using the Stanford revision is a copy of this book with the accompanying set of printed matter, and the record booklets. The record booklets are supplied only in packages of 25.
[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 averbatimrecord of all the child’s responses, and contains other features calculated to make testing easy and accurate. Regarding purchasing of supplies see p.141.
[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 averbatimrecord of all the child’s responses, and contains other features calculated to make testing easy and accurate. Regarding purchasing of supplies see p.141.
[44]SeeChapter VI.
[44]SeeChapter VI.
[45]Houghton Mifflin Company will supply all the printed material needed in the tests, including the lines for the forms forVI, 2, the four pictures for “enumeration,” “description,” and “interpretation,” the pictures forV, 3andVI, 2, the colors, designs forX, 3, the code forAverage Adult 6, and score cards for square, diamond, designs, and ball-and-field.This is all the material required for the use of the Stanford revision, except the five weights forIX, 2, andV, 1, and theHealy-Fernald Construction PuzzleforX. These may be purchased of C. H. Stoelting & Co., 3037 Carroll Avenue, Chicago. It is not necessary, however, to have the weights and the Construction Puzzle, as the presence of one or more alternative tests in each year makes it possible to substitute other tests instead of those requiring these materials. This saves considerable expense. Apart from these, which may either be made at home (see pages278,279) or dispensed with, the only necessary equipment for using the Stanford revision is a copy of this book with the accompanying set of printed matter, and the record booklets. The record booklets are supplied only in packages of 25.
[45]Houghton Mifflin Company will supply all the printed material needed in the tests, including the lines for the forms forVI, 2, the four pictures for “enumeration,” “description,” and “interpretation,” the pictures forV, 3andVI, 2, the colors, designs forX, 3, the code forAverage Adult 6, and score cards for square, diamond, designs, and ball-and-field.
This is all the material required for the use of the Stanford revision, except the five weights forIX, 2, andV, 1, and theHealy-Fernald Construction PuzzleforX. These may be purchased of C. H. Stoelting & Co., 3037 Carroll Avenue, Chicago. It is not necessary, however, to have the weights and the Construction Puzzle, as the presence of one or more alternative tests in each year makes it possible to substitute other tests instead of those requiring these materials. This saves considerable expense. Apart from these, which may either be made at home (see pages278,279) or dispensed with, the only necessary equipment for using the Stanford revision is a copy of this book with the accompanying set of printed matter, and the record booklets. The record booklets are supplied only in packages of 25.
Procedure.After getting the child’s attention, say: “Show me your nose.” “Put your finger on your nose.” Same with eyes, mouth, and hair.
Tact is often necessary to overcome timidity. If two or three repetitions of the instruction fail to bring a response, point to the child’s chin or ear and say: “Is this your nose?” “No?” “Then where is your nose?” Sometimes, after one has tried two or three parts of the test without eliciting any response, the child may suddenly release his inhibitions and answer all the questions promptly. In case of persistent refusal to respond it is best not to harass the child for an answer, but to leave the test for a while and return to it later. This is a rule which applies generally throughout the scale. In the case of one exceptionally timid little girl, it was impossible to get any response by the usual procedure, but immediately when a doll was shown the child pointed willingly to its nose, eyes, mouth, and hair. The device was successful because it withdrew the child’s attention from herself and centered it upon something objective.
Scoring.Three responses out of fourmust be correct. Instead of pointing, the child sometimes responds by winking the eyes, opening the mouth, etc., which is counted as satisfactory.
Remarks.Binet’s purpose in this test is to ascertain whether the subject is capable of comprehending simplelanguage. The ability to comprehend and use language is indeed one of the most reliable indications of the grade of mental development. The appreciation of gestures comes first, then the comprehension of language heard, next the ability to repeat words and sentences mechanically, and finally the ability to use language as a means of communication. The present test, however, is not more strictly a test of language comprehension than the others of the 3-year group, and in any case it could not be said to mark thebeginningof the power to comprehend spoken language. That is fairly well advanced by the age of 2 years. The test closely resemblesIII, 2(naming familiar objects), andIII, 3(enumeration of objects in a picture), except that it brings in a personal element and gives some clue to the development of the sense of self. All the data agree in locating the test at year III.
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 leastthree 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 particularname. “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 responsesplus. “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 beentaughtthe 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 apicture, 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.
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, ifrapporthas 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 picturesbandcin the same manner.
Scoring.The test is passed if the child enumerates as many asthreeobjects inonepicturespontaneously; that is, without intervening questions or urging. Anything betterthan enumeration (as description or interpretation) is also acceptable, but description is rarely encountered before 5 years and interpretation rarely before 9 or 10.[46]
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.
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, pictureb, for example, tending more than the others to provoke description.
There seems to be no disagreement as to the proper location of this test.
Procedure.If the subject is a boy, the formula is: “Are you a little boy or a little girl?” If a girl, “Are youa 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?” (orvice 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.
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 abilityis expectedto 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.
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 coöperation 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 leastone 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 coördinations 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 yearsneverrepeat sentencesof 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 theaveragechild of 3 years repeats only six to seven syllables correctly.
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 threeseries 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]
FOOTNOTES:[46]See instructions forVII, 2, andXII, 7.[47]For a discussion of the significance of the different types of response, enumeration, description, and interpretation, seeVII, 2, andXII, 7.[48]See p.194ff.for further discussion of the digits test.
[46]See instructions forVII, 2, andXII, 7.
[46]See instructions forVII, 2, andXII, 7.
[47]For a discussion of the significance of the different types of response, enumeration, description, and interpretation, seeVII, 2, andXII, 7.
[47]For a discussion of the significance of the different types of response, enumeration, description, and interpretation, seeVII, 2, andXII, 7.
[48]See p.194ff.for further discussion of the digits test.
[48]See p.194ff.for further discussion of the digits test.
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 oflongbecause 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, isthree 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 mightfail 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 attendalso 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.
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, buteach time the choice is correct encourage the child with a hearty “That’s good,” or something similar.
Scoring.The test is passed ifseven out of tenchoices, 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 anattentivecomparison 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.
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 the5-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.
Procedure.Place before the child a cardboard on which is drawn in heavy black lines a square about 1¼ 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.”
Avoid such an expression as, “I want you to draw a figure like that.” The child may not know the meaning of eitherdraworfigure. 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 leastone drawing out of the threeis 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 thediamond(year VII), and thedesigns 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, theother 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 coördinations. 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.
Procedure.After getting the child’s attention, say: “What must you do when you are sleepy?” If necessary the question may be repeated a number of times, using a persuasive and encouraging tone of voice. No other form of question may be substituted. About twenty seconds may be allowed for an answer, though as a rule subjects of 4 or 5 years usually answer quite promptly or not at all.
Proceed in the same way with the other two questions: “What ought you to do when you are cold?” “What ought you to do when you are hungry?”
Scoring.There must betwo correct responses out ofthree. No one form of answer is required. It is sufficient if the question is comprehended and given a reasonably sensible answer. The following are samples of correct responses:—
With the comprehension questions in this year it is nearly always easy to decide whether the response is acceptable, failure being indicated usually either by silence or by an absurd or irrelevant answer. One 8-year-old boy who had less than 4-year intelligence answered all three questions by putting his finger on his eye and saying: “I’d do that.” “Have to cry” is a rather common incorrect response.
Remarks.The purpose of these questions is to ascertain whether the child can comprehend the situations suggested and give a reasonably pertinent reply. The first requirement, of course, is to understand the language; the second is to tell how the situation suggested should be met.
The question may be raised whether a given child might not fail to answer the questions correctly and yet have the intelligence to do the appropriate thing if the real situation were present. This is at least conceivable, but since it would not be practicable to make the subject actually cold, sleepy, or hungry in order to observe his behavior,we must content ourselves with suggesting a situation to be imagined. It probably requires more intelligence to tell what one ought to do in a situation which has to be imagined than to do the right thing when the real situation is encountered.
The comprehension questions of this year had not been standardized until the Stanford investigation of 1913–14. Questionsaandbwere suggested by Binet in 1905, whilecis new. They make an excellent test of 4-year intelligence.
Procedure.Say: “Now, listen. I am going to say over some numbers and after I am through, I want you to say them exactly like I do. Listen closely and get them just right—4–7–3–9.” Same with 2–8–5–4 and 7–2–6–1. The examiner should consume nearly four seconds in pronouncing each series, and should practice in advance until this speed can be closely approximated. If the child refuses to respond, the first series may be repeated as often as may be necessary to prove an attempt, butsuccess with a series which has been re-read may not be counted. The second and third series may be pronounced but once.
Scoring.Passed if the child repeats correctly,after a single reading, one series out of the threeseries given. The order must be correct.
Remarks.The test of repeating four digits was not included by Binet in the scale and seems not to have been used by any of the Binet workers. It is passed by about three fourths of our 4-year-olds.
The three sentences are:—
Procedure.Get the child’s attention and say: “Listen, say this: ‘Where is kitty?’” After the child responds, add: “Now say this ...,” reading the first sentence in a natural voice, distinctly and with expression. If the child is too timid to respond, the first sentence may be re-read, but in this case the response is not counted.Re-reading is permissible only with the first sentence.
Scoring.The test is passed if at leastone sentence is repeated without error after a single reading. As in thealternative testofyear III, we ignore ordinary indistinctness and defects of pronunciation due to imperfect language development, but the sentence must be repeated without addition, omission, or transposition of words.
Remarks.Sentences of twelve syllables had not been standardized previous to the Stanford revision, but Binet locates memory for ten syllables at year V, and others have followed his example. Our own data show that even 4-year-olds are usually able to repeat twelve syllables with the procedure here set forth.
FOOTNOTES:[49]No material is needed if the regular Stanford record blanks are used, as these all contain the square and diamond.
[49]No material is needed if the regular Stanford record blanks are used, as these all contain the square and diamond.
[49]No material is needed if the regular Stanford record blanks are used, as these all contain the square and diamond.
Materials.It is necessary to have two weights, identical in shape, size, and appearance, weighing respectively 3 and 15 grams.[50]If manufactured weights are not at hand, it is easy to make satisfactory substitutes by taking stiff cardboard pill-boxes, about 1¼ inches in diameter, and filling them with cotton and shot to the desired weight. The shot must be embedded in the center of the cotton so as to prevent rattling. After the box has been loaded to the exact weight, the lid should be glued on firmly. If one does not have access to laboratory scales, it is always possible to secure the help of a druggist in the rather delicate task of weighing the boxes accurately. A set of pill-box weights will last through hundreds of tests, if handled carefully, but they will not stand rough usage. The manufactured blocks are more durable, and so more satisfactory in the long run. If the weights are not at hand, the alternative test may be substituted.
Procedure.Place the 3- and 15-gram weights on the table before the child some two or three inches apart. Say: “You see these blocks. They look just alike, but one of them is heavy and one is light. Try them and tell me which one is heavier.” If the child does not respond, repeat theinstructions, saying this time, “Tell me which one is the heaviest.” (Many American children have heard only the superlative form of the adjective used in the comparison of two objects.)
Sometimes the child merely points to one of the boxes or picks up one at random and hands it to the examiner, thinking he is asked toguesswhich is heaviest. We then say: “No, that is not the way. You must take the boxes in your hands and try them, like this” (illustrating by lifting with one hand, first one box and then the other, a few inches from the table). Most children of 5 years are then able to make the comparison correctly. Very young subjects, however, or older ones who are retarded, sometimes adopt the rather questionable method of lifting both weights in the same hand at once. This is always an unfavorable sign, especially if one of the blocks is placed in the hand on top of the other block.
After the first trial, the weights are shuffled and again presented for comparison as before,this time with the positions reversed. The third trial follows with the blocks in the same position as in the first trial. Some children have a tendency to stereotyped behavior, which in this test shows itself by choosing always the block on a certain side. Hence the necessity of alternating the positions.[51]Reserve commendation until all three trials have been given.
Scoring.The test is passed iftwo of the threecomparisons are correct. If there is reason to suspect that the successful responses were due to lucky guesses, the test should be entirely repeated.
Remarks.This test is decidedly more difficult than that of comparing lines (IV, 1). It is doubtful, however, if we can regard the difference as one due primarily to the relative difficulty of visual discrimination and musculardiscrimination. In fact, the test with weights hardly taxes sensory discrimination at all when used with children of 5-year intelligence. Success depends, in the first place, on the ability to understand the instructions; and in the second place, on the power to hold the instructions in mind long enough to guide the process of making the comparison. The test presupposes, in elementary form, a power which is operative in all the higher independent processes of thought, the power to neglect the manifold distractions of irrelevant sensations and ideas and to drive direct toward a goal. Here the goal is furnished by the instruction, “Try them and see which is heavier.” This must be held firmly enough in mind to control the steps necessary for making the comparison. Ideas of piling the blocks on top of one another, throwing them, etc., must be inhibited. Sometimes the low-grade imbecile starts off in a very promising way, then apparently forgets the instructions (loses sight of the goal), and begins to play with the boxes in a random way. His mental processes are not consecutive, stable, or controlled. He is blown about at the mercy of every gust of momentary interest.
There is very general agreement in the assignment of this test to year V.
Materials.Use saturated red, yellow, blue, and green papers, about 2 × 1 inch in size, pasted one half inch apart on white or gray cardboard. For sake of uniformity it is best to match the colors manufactured especially for this test.[52]
Procedure.Point to the colors in the order, red, yellow, blue, green. Bring the finger close to the color designated,in order that there may be no mistake as to which one is meant, and say: “What is the name of that color?” Do not say: “What color is that?” or, “What kind of a color is that?” Such a formula might bring the answer, “The first color”; or, “A pretty color.” Still less would it do to say: “Show me the red,” “Show me the yellow,” etc. This would make it an entirely different test, one that would probably be passed a year earlier than the Binet form of the experiment. Nor is it permissible, after a color has been miscalled, to return to it and again ask its name.
Scoring.The test is passed only ifallthe colors are named correctly and without marked uncertainty. However, prefixing the adjective “dark,” or “light,” before the name of a color is overlooked.
Remarks.Naming colors is not a test of color discrimination, for that capacity is well developed years below the level at which this test is used. All 5-year-olds who are not color blind discriminate among the four primary colors here used as readily as adults do. As stated by Binet, it is a test of the “verbalization of color perception.” It tells us whether the child has associated the names of the four primary colors with his perceptual imagery of those colors.
Theabilityto make simple associations between a sense impression and a name is certainly present in normal children some time before the above color associations are actually made. Many objects of experience are correctly named two or three years earlier, and it may seem at first a little strange that color names are learned so late. But it must be remembered that the child does not have numerous opportunities to observe and hear the names of several colors at once, nor does the designation of colors by their names ordinarily have much practical value for the young child. When he finally learns their names, it ismore because of his spontaneous interest in the world of sense. Lack of such spontaneous interest is always an unfavorable sign, and it is not surprising, therefore, that imbecile intelligence has ordinarily never taken the trouble to associate colors with their names. Girls are somewhat superior to boys in this test, due probably to a greater natural interest in colors.
Binet originally placed this test in year VIII, changing it to year VII in the 1911 scale. Goddard places it in year VII, while Kuhlmann omits it altogether. With a single exception, all the actual statistics with normal children justify the location of the test in year V. Bobertag’s figures are the exception, opposed to which are Rowe, Winch, Dumville, Dougherty, Brigham, and all three of the Stanford investigations.
The test is probably more subject to the influence of home environment than most of the other tests of the scale, and if the social status of the child is low, failure would not be especially significant until after the age of 6 years. On the whole it is an excellent test.
Use the three pairs of faces supplied with the printed forms. It goes without saying that improvised drawings may not be substituted for Binet’s until they have first been standardized.
Procedure.Show the pairs in order from top to bottom. Say: “Which of these two pictures is the prettiest?” Use both the comparative and the superlative forms of the adjective. Do not use the question, “Which face is the uglier (ugliest)?” unless there is some difficulty in getting the child to respond. It is not permitted, in case of an incorrect response, to give that part of the test again and to allowthe child a chance to correct his answer; or, in case this is done, we must consider only the original response in scoring.
Scoring.The test is passed only if allthreecomparisons are made correctly. Any marked uncertainty is failure. Sometimes the child laughingly designates the ugly picture as the prettier, yet shows by his amused expression that he is probably conscious of its peculiarity or absurdity. In such cases “pretty” seems to be given the meaning of “funny” or “amusing.” Nevertheless, we score this response as failure, since it betokens a rather infantile tolerance of ugliness.
Remarks.From the psychological point of view this is a most interesting test. One might suppose that æsthetic judgment would be relatively independent of intelligence. Certainly no one could have known in advance of experience that intellectual retardation would reveal itself in weakness of the æsthetic sense about as unmistakably as in memory, practical judgment, or the comprehension of language. But such is the case. The development of the æsthetic sense parallels general mental growth rather closely. The imbecile of 4-year intelligence, even though he may have lived forty years, has no more chance of passing this test than any other test in year V. It would be profitable to devise and standardize a set of pictures of the same general type which would measure a less primitive stage of æsthetic development.
The present test was located by Binet in year VI and has been retained in that year in other revisions; but three separate Stanford investigations, as well as the statistics of Winch, Dumville, Brigham, Rowe, and Dougherty, warrant its location in year V.
Procedure.Use the words:Chair,horse,fork,doll,pencil, andtable. Say: “You have seen a chair. You know what a chair is. Tell me, what is a chair?” And so on with the other words, always in the order in which they are named above.
Occasionally there is difficulty in getting a response, which is sometimes due merely to the child’s unwillingness to express his thoughts in sentences. The earlier tests require only words and phrases. In other cases silence is due to the rather indefinite form of the question. The child could answer, but is not quite sure what is expected of him. Whatever the cause, a little tactful urging is nearly always sufficient to bring a response. In this test we have not found the difficulty of overcoming silence nearly as great as others have stated it to be. In consecutive tests of 150 5- and 6-year-old children we encountered unbreakable silence with 8 words out of the total 900 (150 × 6). This is less than 1 per cent. But tactful encouragement is sometimes necessary, and it is best to take the precaution of not giving the test untilrapporthas been well established.
The urging should take the following form: “I’m sure you know what a ... is. You have seen a .... Now, tell me, what is a ... ?” That is, we merely repeat the question with a word of encouragement and in a coaxing tone of voice. It would not at all do to introduce other questions, like, “What does a ... look like?” or, “What is a ... for?” “What do people do with a ... ?”
Sometimes, instead of attempting a definition (ofdoll, for example), the child begins to talk in a more or less irrelevant way, as “I have a great big doll. Auntie gave it to me for Christmas,” etc. In such cases we repeat the question and say, “Yes, but tell me; what is a doll?” This isusually sufficient to bring the little chatter-box back to the task.
Unless it is absolutely necessary to give the child lavish encouragement, it is best to withhold approval or disapproval until the test has been finished. If the first response is a poor one and we pronounce it “fine” or “very good,” we tempt the child to persist in his low-grade type of definition. By withholding comment until the last word has been defined, we give greater play to spontaneity and initiative.
Scoring.As a rule, children of 5 and 6 years define an object in terms of use, stating what it does, what it is for, what people do with it, etc. Definitions by description, by telling what substance it is made of, and by giving the class to which it belongs are grouped together as “definitions superior to use.” It is not before 8 years that two thirds of the children spontaneously give a large proportion of definitions in terms superior to use.
The test is passed in year V iffour words out of the sixare defined in terms of use (or better than use). The following are examples of satisfactory responses:—
Examples of failure are such responses as the following: “A chair is a chair”; “There is a chair”; or simply,“There” (pointing to a chair). We record such responses without pressing for a further definition. About the only other type of failure is silence.
Remarks.It is not the purpose of this test to find out whether the child knows the meaning of the words he is asked to define. Words have purposely been chosen which are perfectly familiar to all normal children of 5 years. But with young children there is a difference between knowing a word and giving a definition of it. Besides, we desire to find out how the child apperceives the word, or rather the object for which it stands; whether the thing is thought of in terms of use, appearance (shape, size, color, etc.), material composing it, or class relationships.
This test, because it throws such interesting light on the maturity of the child’s apperceptive processes, is one of the most valuable of all. It is possible to differentiate at least a half-dozen degrees of excellence in definitions, according to the intellectual maturity of the subject. A volume, indeed, could be written on the development of word definitions and the growth of meanings; but we will postpone further discussion untilVIII, 5. Our concern at present is to know that children of 5 years should at least be able to define four of these six words in terms of use.
Binet placed the test in year VI, but our own figures and those of nearly all the other investigations indicate that it is better located in year V.
Material.Prepare two rectangular cards, each 2 × 3 inches, and divide one of them into two triangles by cutting it along one of its diagonals.
Procedure.Place the uncut card on the table with oneof its longer sides to the child. By the side of this card, a little nearer the child and a few inches apart, lay the two halves of the divided rectangle with their hypothenuses turned from each other as follows: