A pair of congruent non-isosceles right-angled triangles, placed with their vertical sides nearest one another.
Then say to the child: “I want you to take these two pieces(touching the two triangles)and put them together so they will look exactly like this” (pointing to the uncut card). If the child hesitates, we repeat the instructions with a little urging. Say nothing about hurrying, as this is likely to cause confusion. Give three trials, of one minute each. If only one trial is given, success is too often a result of chance moves; but luck is not likely to bring two successes in three trials. If the first trial is a failure, move the cut halves back to their original position and say: “No; put them together so they will look like this” (pointing to the uncut card). Make no other comment of approval or disapproval. Disregard in silence the inquiring looks of the child who tries to read his success or failure in your face.
If one of the pieces is turned over, the task becomes impossible, and it is then necessary to turn the piece back to its original position and begin over, not counting this trial. Have the under side of the pieces marked so as to avoid the risk of presenting one of them to the child wrong side up.
Scoring.There must betwo successes in three trials. About the only difficulty in scoring is that of deciding what constitutes a trial. We count it a trial when the child brings the pieces together and (after few or many changes) leaves them in some position. Whether he succeeds after many moves, or leaves the pieces with approval in some absurd position, or gives up and says he cannot do it, his effort counts as one trial. A single trial may involve a number of unsuccessful changes of position in the twocards, but these changes may not consume altogether more than one minute.
Remarks.As aptly described by Binet, the operation has the following elements: “(1) To keep in mind the end to be attained, that is to say, the figure to be formed. It is necessary to comprehend this end and not to lose sight of it. (2) To try different combinations under the influence of this directing idea, which guides the efforts of the child even though he be unconscious of the fact. (3) To judge the formed combination, compare it with the model, and decide whether it is the correct one.”
It may be classed, therefore, as one of the many forms of the “combination method.” Elements must be combined into some kind of whole under the guidance of a directing idea. In this respect it has something in common with the form-board test, the Ebbinghaus test, and the test with dissected sentences (XII, 4). Binet designates it a “test of patience,” because success in it depends upon a certain willingness to persist in a line of action under the control of an idea.
Not all failures in this test are equally significant. A bright child of 5 years sometimes fails, but usually not without many trial combinations which he rejects one after another as unsatisfactory. A dull child of the same age often stops after he has brought the pieces into any sort of juxtaposition, however absurd, and may be quite satisfied with his foolish effort. His mind is not fruitful and he lacks the power of auto-criticism.
It would be well worth while to work out a new and somewhat more difficult “test of patience,” but with special care to avoid the puzzling features of the usual games of anagrams. The one given us by Binet is rather easy for year V, though plainly somewhat too difficult for year IV.
Procedure.After getting up from the chair and moving with the child to the center of the room, say: “Now, I want you to do something for me. Here’s a key. I want you to put it on that chair over there; then I want you to shut (or open) that door, and then bring me the box which you see over there(pointing in turn to the objects designated).Do you understand? Be sure to get it right. First, put the key on the chair, then shut(open)the door, then bring me the box(again pointing).Go ahead.” Stress the wordsfirstandthenso as to emphasize the order in which the commissions are to be executed.
Give the commissions always in the above order. Do not repeat the instructions again or give any further aid whatever, even by the direction of the gaze. If the child stops or hesitates it is never permissible to say: “What next?” Have the self-control to leave the child alone with his task.
Scoring.All three commissions must be executed and in the proper order.Failure may result, therefore, either from leaving out one or more of the commands or from changing the order. The former is more often the case.
Remarks.Success depends first on the ability to comprehend the commands, and secondly, on the ability to hold them in mind. It is therefore a test of memory, though of a somewhat different kind from that involved in repeating digits or sentences. It is an excellent test, for it throws light on a kind of intelligence which is demanded in all occupations and in everyday life. A more difficult test of the same type ought to be worked out for a higher age level.
Binet originally located this test in year VI, but in 1911 changed it to year VII. This is unfortunate, for the threeStanford investigations, as well as the statistics of all other investigators, show conclusively that it is easy enough for year V.
Procedure.The formula is simply, “How old are you?” The child of this age is, of course, not expected to know the date of his birthday, but merely how many years old he is.
Scoring.About the only danger in scoring is in the failure to verify the child’s response. Some children give an incorrect answer with perfect assurance, and it is therefore always necessary to verify.
Remarks.Inability to give the age may or may not be significant. If the child has arrived at the age of 7 or 8 years and has had anything like a normal social environment, failure in the test is an extremely unfavorable sign. But if the child is an orphan or has grown up in neglect, ignorance of age has little significance for intelligence. About all we can say is that if a child gives his age correctly, it is because he has had sufficient interest and intelligence to remember verbal statements which have been made concerning him in his presence. He may even pass the test without attaching any definite meaning to the word “year.” On the other hand, if he has lived seven or eight years in a normal environment, it is safe to assume that he has heard his age given many times, and failure to remember it would then indicate either a weak memory or a grave inferiority of spontaneous interests, or both. Normal children have a natural interest in the things they hear said about themselves, while the middle-grade imbecile of even 40 years may fail to remember his age, however often he may have heard it stated.
Binet placed the test in year VI of the 1908 series, but omitted it altogether in 1911. Kuhlmann and Goddardalso omit it, perhaps wisely. Nevertheless, it is always interesting to give as a supplementary test. Children from good homes acquire the knowledge about a year earlier than those from less favorable surroundings. Unselected children of California ordinarily pass the test at 5 years.
FOOTNOTES:[50]The weights required for this test, and also forIX, 2, may be purchased of C. H. Stoelting & Co., 3037 Carroll Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.[51]For discussion of “stereotypy” see p.203.[52]Printed cards showing these colors are included in the set of material furnished by the publishers of this book.
[50]The weights required for this test, and also forIX, 2, may be purchased of C. H. Stoelting & Co., 3037 Carroll Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.
[50]The weights required for this test, and also forIX, 2, may be purchased of C. H. Stoelting & Co., 3037 Carroll Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.
[51]For discussion of “stereotypy” see p.203.
[51]For discussion of “stereotypy” see p.203.
[52]Printed cards showing these colors are included in the set of material furnished by the publishers of this book.
[52]Printed cards showing these colors are included in the set of material furnished by the publishers of this book.
Procedure.Say to the child: “Show me your right hand.” After this is responded to, say: “Show me your left ear.” Then: “Show me your right eye.” Stress the wordsleftandearrather strongly and equally; alsorightandeye. If there is one error, repeat the test, this time with left hand, right ear, and left eye. Carefully avoid giving any help by look of approval or disapproval, by glancing at the part of the body indicated, or by supplementary questions.
Scoring.The test is passed if all three questions are answered correctly, or if, in case of one error, the three additional questions are all answered correctly. The standard, therefore,is three out of three, or five out of six.
The chief danger of variation among different examiners in scoring comes from double responses. For example, the child may point first to one ear and then to the other. In all cases of double response, the rule is to count the second response and disregard the first. This holds whether the first response was wrong and the second right, orvice versa.
Remarks.It is interesting to follow the child’s acquisitions of language distinctions relating to spacial orientation. Other distinctions of this type are those between up and down, above and below, near and far, before and behind,etc. As Bobertag has pointed out, the child first masters such distinctions as up and down, above and below, before and behind, etc., and arrives at a knowledge of right and left rather tardily.
How may we explain the late distinction of right and left as compared with up and down? At least four theories may be advanced: (1) Something depends on the frequency with which children have occasion to make the respective distinctions. (2) It may be explained on the supposition that kinæsthetic sensations are more prominently involved in distinctions of up and down than in distinctions of right and left. It is certainly true that, in distinguishing the two sides of a thing, less bodily movement is ordinarily required than in distinctions of its upper and lower aspects. The former demands only a shift of the eyes, the latter often requires an upward or downward movement of the head. (3) It may be due to the fact that the appearance of an object is more affected by differences in vertical orientation than by those of horizontal orientation. We see an object now from one side, now from the other, and the two aspects easily blend, while the two aspects corresponding to above and below are not viewed in such rapid succession and so remain much more distinct from one another in the child’s mind. Or, (4), the difference may be mainly a matter of language. The child undoubtedly hears the wordsupanddownmuch oftener thanrightandleft, and thus learns their meaning earlier. Horizontal distinctions are commonly made in such terms asthis sideandthat side, or merely by pointing, while in the case of vertical distinctions the wordsupanddownare used constantly. This last explanation is a very plausible one, but it is very probable that other factors are also involved.
The distinction between right and left has a certain inherent and more or less mysterious difficulty. To convinceone’s self of this it is only necessary to try a little experiment on the first fifty persons one chances to meet. The experiment is as follows. Say: “I am going to ask you a question and I want you to answer it as quickly as you can.” Then ask: “Which is your right hand?” About forty persons out of fifty will answer correctly without a second’s hesitation, several will require two or three seconds to respond, while a few, possibly four or five per cent, will grow confused and perhaps be unable to respond for five or ten seconds. Some very intelligent adults cannot possibly tell which is the right or left hand without first searching for a scar or some other distinguishing mark which is known to be on a particular hand. Others resort to incipient movements of writing, and since, of course, every one knows which hand he writes with, the writing movements automatically initiated give the desired clue. One bright little girl of 8 years responded by trying to wink first one eye and then the other. Asked why she did this, she said she knew she could wink her left eye, but not her right! One who is resourceful enough to adopt such an ingenious method is surely not less intelligent than the one who is able to respond by a direct instead of an intermediate association.
It seems that normal people never encounter a corresponding difficulty in distinguishing up and down. The writer has questioned several hundred without finding a single instance, whereas a great many have to employ some intermediate association in order to distinguish right and left. It is the “p’s and q’s” that children must be told to mind; not the “p’s and b’s.” The former is a horizontal, the latter a vertical distinction.
Considering the difficulty which normal adults sometimes have in distinguishing right and left, is it fair to use this test as a measure of intelligence? We may answer in the affirmative. It is fair because normal adults, notwithstandingmomentary uncertainty, are invariably able to make the distinction, if not by direct association, then by an intermediate one. We overlook the momentary confusion and regard only the correctness of the response. Subjects who are below middle-grade imbecile, however long they have lived, seldom pass the test.
This test found a place in year VI of Binet’s 1908 scale, but was shifted to year VII in the 1911 revision. The Stanford statistics, and all other available data, with the exception of Bobertag’s, justify its retention in year VI. It is possible that the children of different nations do not have equal opportunity and stimulus for learning the distinction between right and left, but the data show that as far as American and English children are concerned we have a right to expect this knowledge in children of 6 years.
Procedure.Show the pictures to the child one at a time in the order in which they are lettered,a,b,c,d. When the first picture is shown (that with the eye lacking), say: “There is something wrong with this face. It is not all there. Part of it is left out. Look carefully and tell me what part of the face is not there.” Often the child gives an irrelevant answer; as, “The feet are gone,” “The stomach is not there,” etc. These statements are true, but they do not satisfy the requirements of the test, so we say: “No; I am talking about the face. Look again and tell me what is left out of the face.” If the correct response does not follow, we point to the place where the eye should be and say: “See, the eye is gone.” When picturebis shown we say merely: “What is left out of this face?” Likewise with picturec. For picturedwe say: “What is left out of this picture?” No help of any kind is givenunless (if necessary) with the first picture. With the others we confine ourselves to the single question, and the answer should be given promptly, say within twenty to twenty-five seconds.
Scoring.Passed if the omission is correctly pointed out inthree out of fourof the pictures. Certain minor errors we may overlook, such as “eyes” instead of “eye” for the first picture; “nose and one ear” instead of merely “nose” for the third; “hands” instead of “arms” for the fourth, etc. Errors like the following, however, count as failure: “The other eye,” or “The other ear” for the first or third; “The ears” for the fourth, etc.
Remarks.The test is one of the two or three dozen forms of the so-called “completion test,” all of which have it in common that from the given parts of a whole the missing parts are to be found. The whole to be completed may be a word, a sentence, a story, a picture, a group of pictures, an object, or in fact almost anything. Sometimes all the parts of the whole are given and only the arrangement or order is to be found, as in the test with dissected sentences.
Further discussion of the completion test will be found in connection withtest 4, year XII. For the present we will only observe that notwithstanding a certain similarity among the tests of this type, they do not all call into play the same mental processes. The factor most involved may be verbal language coherence, visual perception of form, the association of abstract ideas, etc. To pass Binet’s test with mutilated pictures requires, (1) that the parts of the picture be perceived as constituting a whole; and (2) that the idea of a human face or form be so easily and so clearly reproducible that it may act, even before it comes fully into consciousness, as a model or pattern, for the criticism of the picture shown. The younger the child, the less adequate, in this sense, is his perceptual familiarity withcommon objects. In standardizing a series of “absurd pictures,” the writer has found that normal children of 3 years often see nothing wrong in a picture which shows a cat with two legs or a hen with four legs. Such children would, of course, never mistake a cat for a hen. Their trouble lies in the inability to call up in clear form a “free idea” of a cat or a hen for comparison with the perceptual presentation offered by the picture. Middle-grade imbeciles of adult age have much the same difficulty as normal children of 4 years in recognizing mutilations or absurdities in pictures of familiar objects.
Binet first placed this test in year VII, changing it to year VIII in the 1911 revision. In other revisions it has been retained in year VII, although all the available statistics except Bobertag’s warrant its location in year VI.
Procedure.The procedure is the same as in the test of counting four pennies (year IV, test 3). If the first response contains only a minor error, such as the omission of a number in counting, failure to tally with the finger, etc., a second trial is given.
Scoring.The test is passed if there isone success in two trials. Success requires that the counting should tally with the pointing. It is not sufficient merely to state the number of pennies without pointing, for unless the child points and counts aloud we cannot be sure that his correct answer may not be the joint result of two errors in opposite directions and equal; for example, if one penny were skipped and another were counted twice the total result would still be correct, but the performance would not satisfy the requirements.
Remarks.Does success in this test depend uponintelligence or upon schooling? The answer is, intelligence mainly. There are possibly a few normal 6-year-old children who could not pass the test for lack of instruction, but children of this age usually have enough spontaneous interest in numbers to acquire facility in counting as far as 13 without formal teaching. Certainly, inability to do so by the age of 7 years is a suspicious sign unless the child’s environment has been extraordinarily unfavorable. On the other hand, feeble-minded adults of the 5-year level usually have to have a great deal of instruction before they acquire the ability to count 13, and many of them are hardly able to learn it at all. So much does our learning depend on original endowment.
Binet originally placed this test in year VII, but moved it to year VI in 1911. All the statistics, without exception, show that this change was justified. Bobertag says that nearly all 7-year-olds who are not feeble-minded can pass it, a statement with which we can fully agree.
Procedure.The questions used in this year are:—
Note that the wording of the first part of the questions is slightly different from that inyear IV, test 5.
If there is no response, or if the child looks puzzled, the question may be repeated once or twice. The form of the question must not under any circumstances be altered. Questionb, for example, would be materially changed if we should say: “Suppose you were to come home fromschool and find that your house was burning up. What would you do?” The expression “burning up” would probably be much less likely to suggest calling a fireman than would the words “on fire.”
Scoring.Two out of threemust be answered correctly. The harder the comprehension questions are, the greater the variety of answers and the greater the difficulty of scoring. Because of the difficulty many examiners find in scoring this test, we will list the most common satisfactory, unsatisfactory, and doubtful responses to each question.
(a) If it is raining when you start to schoolSatisfactory.“Take umbrella,” “Bring a parasol,” “Put on rubbers,” “Wear an overcoat,” etc. This type of response occurred 61 times out of 72 successes. “Have my father bring me” also countsplus.Unsatisfactory.“Go home,” “Stay at home,” “Stay in the house,” “Have the rainbow,” “Stay in school,” etc. “Stay at home” is the most common failure and might at first seem to the examiner to be a satisfactory response. As a matter of fact, this answer rests on a slight misunderstanding of the question, the import of which is that one is to go to school and it is raining.Doubtful.“Run” as an answer is a little more troublesome. It may reasonably be scoredplusif it can be ascertained that the child is accustomed to meet the situation in this way. It is a common response with children in those regions of the Southwest where rains are so infrequent that umbrellas are rarely used. “Bring my lunch” may be considered a satisfactory response in case the child is in the habit of so doing on rainy days.(b) If you find that your house is on fireSatisfactory.“Ring the fire alarm,” “Call the firemen,” “Call for help,” “Put water on it,” etc.Unsatisfactory.The most common failure, accounting for nearly half of all, is to suggest finding other shelter;e.g., “Go to the hotel,” “Get another house,” “Stay with your friends,” “Build a new house,” etc. Others are: “Tell them you are sorry it burned down,” “Be careful and not let it burn again,” “Have it insured,” “Cry,” “Call the policeman,” etc.Doubtful.Instead of suggesting measures to put out the fire, a good many children suggest mere escape or the saving of household articles. Responses of this type are: “Jump out of the windows,” “Save yourself,” “Get out as fast as you can,” “Save the baby,” “Get my dolls and jewelry and hurry and get out.” These answers are about one seventh as frequent as the perfectly satisfactory ones, and the rule for scoring them is a matter of some importance. Under certain circumstances the logical thing to do would be to save one’s self or valuables without wasting time trying to call help. There may be no help in reach, or a fire which the child imagines may be too far along for help to be effective. In order to avoid the possibility of doing a subject an injustice, it may be desirable to score such answersplus. We must not be too arbitrary.(c) If you miss your trainSatisfactory.The answer we expect is, “Wait for another,” “Take the next car,” or something to that effect. This type of answer includes about 85 per cent of the responses which do not belong obviously in the unsatisfactory group. “Take a jitney” is a modern variation of this response which must be counted as satisfactory.Unsatisfactory.These are endless. One continues to meet new examples of absurdity, however many children one has tested. The possibilities are literally inexhaustible, but the following are among the most common: “Wait for it to come back,” “Have to walk,” “Be mad,” “Don’t swear,” “Run and try to catch it,” “Try to jump on,” “Don’t go to that place,” “Go to the next station,” etc.Doubtful.The main doubtful response is, “Go home again,” “Come back next day and catch another,” etc. In small or isolated towns having only one or two trains per day, this is the logical thing to do, and in such cases the score isplus. Fortunately, only about one answer in ten gives rise to any difference of opinion among even partly trained examiners.
Satisfactory.“Take umbrella,” “Bring a parasol,” “Put on rubbers,” “Wear an overcoat,” etc. This type of response occurred 61 times out of 72 successes. “Have my father bring me” also countsplus.
Unsatisfactory.“Go home,” “Stay at home,” “Stay in the house,” “Have the rainbow,” “Stay in school,” etc. “Stay at home” is the most common failure and might at first seem to the examiner to be a satisfactory response. As a matter of fact, this answer rests on a slight misunderstanding of the question, the import of which is that one is to go to school and it is raining.
Doubtful.“Run” as an answer is a little more troublesome. It may reasonably be scoredplusif it can be ascertained that the child is accustomed to meet the situation in this way. It is a common response with children in those regions of the Southwest where rains are so infrequent that umbrellas are rarely used. “Bring my lunch” may be considered a satisfactory response in case the child is in the habit of so doing on rainy days.
Satisfactory.“Ring the fire alarm,” “Call the firemen,” “Call for help,” “Put water on it,” etc.
Unsatisfactory.The most common failure, accounting for nearly half of all, is to suggest finding other shelter;e.g., “Go to the hotel,” “Get another house,” “Stay with your friends,” “Build a new house,” etc. Others are: “Tell them you are sorry it burned down,” “Be careful and not let it burn again,” “Have it insured,” “Cry,” “Call the policeman,” etc.
Doubtful.Instead of suggesting measures to put out the fire, a good many children suggest mere escape or the saving of household articles. Responses of this type are: “Jump out of the windows,” “Save yourself,” “Get out as fast as you can,” “Save the baby,” “Get my dolls and jewelry and hurry and get out.” These answers are about one seventh as frequent as the perfectly satisfactory ones, and the rule for scoring them is a matter of some importance. Under certain circumstances the logical thing to do would be to save one’s self or valuables without wasting time trying to call help. There may be no help in reach, or a fire which the child imagines may be too far along for help to be effective. In order to avoid the possibility of doing a subject an injustice, it may be desirable to score such answersplus. We must not be too arbitrary.
Satisfactory.The answer we expect is, “Wait for another,” “Take the next car,” or something to that effect. This type of answer includes about 85 per cent of the responses which do not belong obviously in the unsatisfactory group. “Take a jitney” is a modern variation of this response which must be counted as satisfactory.
Unsatisfactory.These are endless. One continues to meet new examples of absurdity, however many children one has tested. The possibilities are literally inexhaustible, but the following are among the most common: “Wait for it to come back,” “Have to walk,” “Be mad,” “Don’t swear,” “Run and try to catch it,” “Try to jump on,” “Don’t go to that place,” “Go to the next station,” etc.
Doubtful.The main doubtful response is, “Go home again,” “Come back next day and catch another,” etc. In small or isolated towns having only one or two trains per day, this is the logical thing to do, and in such cases the score isplus. Fortunately, only about one answer in ten gives rise to any difference of opinion among even partly trained examiners.
Remarks.The three comprehension questions of this group were all suggested by Binet in 1905. Only one of them, however, “What would you do if you were going some place and missed your train?” was incorporated in the 1908 or 1911 series, and this was used in year X withseven others much harder. The other two remained unstandardized previous to the Stanford investigation.[53]
Procedure.Show a nickel, a penny, a quarter, and a dime, asking each time: “What is that?” If the child misunderstands and answers, “Money,” or “A piece of money,” we say: “Yes, but what do you call that piece of money?” Show the coins always in the order given above.
Scoring.The test is passed ifthree of the fourquestions are correctly answered. Any correct designation of a coin is satisfactory, including provincialisms like “two bits” for the 25-cent piece, etc. If the child changes his response for a coin, we count the second answer and ignore the first. No supplementary questions are permissible.
Remarks.Some of the critics of the Binet scale regard this test as of little value, because, they say, the ability to identify pieces of money depends entirely on instruction or other accidents of environment. The figures show, however, that it is not greatly influenced by differences of social environment, although children from poor homes do slightly better with it than those from homes of wealth and culture. The fact seems to be that practically all children by the age of 6 years have had opportunity to learn the names of the smaller coins, and if they have failed to learn them it betokens a lack of that spontaneity of interest in things which we have mentioned so often as a fundamental presupposition of intelligence. It is by no means a test of mere mechanical memory.
This test was given a place in year VII of Binet’s 1908 scale, the coins used being the 1-sou, 2-sous, 10-sous, and5-franc pieces. It was omitted from the Binet 1911 revision and also from that of Goddard. Kuhlmann retains it in year VII. Others, however, have required all four coins to be correctly named, and when this standard is used the test is difficult enough for year VII. Germany has six coins up to and including the 1-mark piece, all of which could be named by 76 per cent of Bobertag’s 7-year-olds. With the coins and the standard of scoring used in the Stanford revision the test belongs well in year VI.
The sentences are:—
Procedure.The instructions should be given as follows: “Now, listen. I am going to say something and after I am through I want you to say it over just like I do. Understand? Listen carefully and be sure to say exactly what I say.” Then read the first sentence rather slowly, in a distinct voice, and with expression. If the response is not too bad, praise the child’s efforts. Then proceed with the second and third sentences, prefacing each with an exhortation to “say exactly what I say.”
In this year and in the memory-for-sentences test of later years it is not permissible to re-read even the first sentence. The only reason for allowing a repetition of one of the sentences in the earlier test of this kind was to overcome the child’s timidity. With children of 6 years or upward we seldom encounter the timidity which sometimesmakes it so hard to secure responses in some of the tests of the earlier years.
Scoring.The test is passedif at least one sentence out of three is repeated without error, or if two are repeated with not more than one error each. A single omission, insertion, or transposition counts as an error. Faults of pronunciation are of course overlooked. It is not sufficient that the thought be reproduced intact; the exact language must be repeated. The responses should be recordedverbatim. This is easily done if record blanks used for scoring have the sentences printed in full.
Remarks.In this test and in later tests of memory for sentences, it is interesting to ask after each response: “Did you get it right?” As in the tests with digits, it is an unfavorable sign when the child is perfectly satisfied with a very poor response.
It is evident that tests of this type give opportunity for different degrees of failure. To repeat only a half or a third of each sentence is much more serious than to make but one error in each sentence (one word omitted, inserted, or misplaced). It would be possible to use the same sentences at three or four different age levels, by setting the appropriate standard for success at each age. If the standard is one sentence out of three repeated with no more than two errors, the test belongs in year V. If we require two absolutely correct responses out of three, the test belongs at about year VII. The shifting standard is rendered unnecessary, however, by the use of other tests of the same kind, easier ones in the lower years and more difficult ones in the upper.
Sentences of sixteen syllables found a place in Binet’s 1908 scale and were correctly located in year VI, but later revisions, including that of Binet, have omitted the test.
Procedure.If it is morning, ask: “Is it morning or afternoon?” If it is afternoon, put the question in the reverse form, “Is it afternoon or morning?” This precaution is necessary because of the tendency of some children to choose always the latter of two alternatives. Do not cross-question the child or give any suggestion that might afford a clue as to the correct answer.
Scoring.The test is passed if the correct response is given with apparent assurance. If the child says he is not sure butthinksit forenoon (or afternoon, as the case may be), we score the response a failure even if the answer happens to be correct. However, this type of response is not often encountered.
Remarks.It is interesting to follow the child’s development with regard to orientation in time. This development proceeds much more slowly than we are wont to assume. Certain distinctions with regard to space, as up and down, come much earlier. As Binet remarks, schools sometimes try to teach the events of national history to children whose time orientation is so rudimentary that they do not even know morning from afternoon!
The test has two rather serious faults: (1) It gives too much play to chance, for since only two alternatives are offered, guesses alone would give about fifty per cent of correct responses. (2) We cannot be sure that the verbal distinction between forenoon and afternoon always corresponds the two divisions of the day. It is possible that the temporal discrimination precedes the formation of the correct verbal association.
This test was included in the year VI group of the 1908 scale, but was omitted from the 1911 revision. Nearly allthe data except Bobertag’s show that it is rather easy for year VI, though too difficult for year V. Bobertag’s figures would place the test in year VII. Possibly the corresponding German words are not as easy to learn as ourmorningandafternoon.
FOOTNOTES:[53]For general discussion of the comprehension questions as a test, see p.158.
[53]For general discussion of the comprehension questions as a test, see p.158.
[53]For general discussion of the comprehension questions as a test, see p.158.
Procedure.“How many fingers have you on one hand?” “How many on the other hand?” “How many on both hands together?” If the child begins to count in response to any of the questions, say: “No, don’t count. Tell me without counting.” Then repeat the question.
Scoring.Passedif all three questions are answered correctly and promptlywithout the necessity of counting. Some subjects do not understand the question to include the thumbs. We disregard this if the number of fingers exclusive of thumbs is given correctly.
Remarks.Like the two tests of counting pennies, this one, also, throws light on the child’s spontaneous interest in numbers. However, the mental processes it calls into play are a little less simple than those required for mere counting. If the child is able to give the number of fingers, it is ordinarily because he has previously counted them and has remembered the result. The memory would hardly be retained but for a certain interest in numbers as such. Middle-grade imbeciles of even adult age seldom remember how many fingers they have, however often they may have been told. They are not able to form accurate concepts of other than the simplest number relationships, and numbers have little interest or meaning for them.
Binet gave this test a place in year VII of the 1908 series,but omitted it in the 1911 revision. Goddard omits it, while Kuhlmann retains it in year VII, where, according to our own figures, it unmistakably belongs. Bobertag finds it rather easy for year VII, though too difficult for year VI.
Our data prove that this test fulfills the requirements of a good test. It shows a rapid but even rise from year V to year VIII in the per cent passing, the agreement among the different testers is extraordinarily close, and it is relatively little influenced by training and social environment. For these reasons, and because it is so easy to give and score with uniformity, it well deserves a place in the scale.
Procedure.Use the same pictures as inIII, 3, presenting them always in the following order: Dutch Home, River Scene, Post-Office. The formula for the test in this year is somewhat different fromthat of year III. Say: “What is this picture about? What is this a picture of?” Use the double question, and follow the formula exactly. It would ruin the test to say: “Tell me everything you see in this picture,” for this form of question tends to provoke the enumeration response even with intelligent children of this age.
When there is no response, the question may be repeated as often as is necessary to break the silence.
Scoring.The test is passed iftwo of the threepictures are described or interpreted. Interpretation, however, is seldom encountered at this age. Often the response consists of a mixture of enumeration and description. The rule is that the reaction to a picture should not be scoredplusunless it is made up chiefly of description (or interpretation).
Study of the following samples of satisfactory responseswill give a fairly definite idea of the requirements for satisfactory description:—
Picture (a): satisfactory responses“The little girl is crying. The mother is looking at her and there is a little kitten on the floor.”“The mother is watching the baby, and the cat is looking at a hole in the floor, and there is a lamp and a table so I guess it’s a dining room.”“The little girl has wooden shoes. Her mother is sitting in a chair and has a funny cap on her head. The cat is sitting on the floor and there is a basket by the mother and a table with something on it.”“It’s about Holland. The little Dutch girl is crying and the mother is sitting down.”“A little Dutch girl and her mother and that’s a kitten, and the little girl has her hand up as if she was doing something to her forehead. She has shoes that curve up in front.”“Dutch lady, and the little baby doesn’t want to come to her mother and the cat is looking for some mice.”“The mother is sitting down and the little one has her hands up over her eyes. There’s a pail by the mother and a chair with some clothes on it and a table with dishes. And here’s a lamp and here’s some curtains.”Picture (b): satisfactory responses“Some people in a boat. The water is high and if they don’t look out the boat will tip over.”“Some Indians and a lady and man. They are in a boat on the river and the boat is about to upset, and there are some dead trees going to fall.”“There’s a lot of water coming up to drown the people. There are two people in the boat and the boat is sinking.”“There’s some people sailing in a canoe and the woman is leaning over on the man because she is afraid.”“There’s an Indian and some white people in the boat. I suppose they are out for a ride in a canoe.”“Picture about some man and lady in a canoe and going down to the sea.”“They are taking a boat ride on the ocean and the water is upso high that one of them is scared. Here are some trees and two of them are going to fall down. Here’s a little place or bridge you can stand on. The man is touching this one’s head and this one has his hand on the cover.”“The water is splashing all over. There’s trees on this bank and there’s a rock and some trees falling down. The people have a blanket over them.”Picture (c): satisfactory responses“A man selling eggs and two men reading the paper together and two men watching.”“A few men reading a newspaper and one has a basket of eggs and this one has been fishing.”“There’s a man with a basket of eggs and another is reading the paper and a woman is hanging out clothes. There’s a house near.”“There’s a man trying to read the paper and the others want to read it too. Here’s a lady walking up to the barn. There are houses over there and one man has a basket.”“There’s a big brick house and five men by it and a man with a basket of eggs and a post-office sign and a lady going home.”“They are all looking at the paper. He is looking over the other man’s shoulder and this one is looking at the back of the paper. There’s a woman cleaning up her back yard and some coops for hens.”“A man reading a paper, a man with eggs, a woman and a tree and another house. That man has an apron on. This is the post-office.”
“The little girl is crying. The mother is looking at her and there is a little kitten on the floor.”
“The mother is watching the baby, and the cat is looking at a hole in the floor, and there is a lamp and a table so I guess it’s a dining room.”
“The little girl has wooden shoes. Her mother is sitting in a chair and has a funny cap on her head. The cat is sitting on the floor and there is a basket by the mother and a table with something on it.”
“It’s about Holland. The little Dutch girl is crying and the mother is sitting down.”
“A little Dutch girl and her mother and that’s a kitten, and the little girl has her hand up as if she was doing something to her forehead. She has shoes that curve up in front.”
“Dutch lady, and the little baby doesn’t want to come to her mother and the cat is looking for some mice.”
“The mother is sitting down and the little one has her hands up over her eyes. There’s a pail by the mother and a chair with some clothes on it and a table with dishes. And here’s a lamp and here’s some curtains.”
“Some people in a boat. The water is high and if they don’t look out the boat will tip over.”
“Some Indians and a lady and man. They are in a boat on the river and the boat is about to upset, and there are some dead trees going to fall.”
“There’s a lot of water coming up to drown the people. There are two people in the boat and the boat is sinking.”
“There’s some people sailing in a canoe and the woman is leaning over on the man because she is afraid.”
“There’s an Indian and some white people in the boat. I suppose they are out for a ride in a canoe.”
“Picture about some man and lady in a canoe and going down to the sea.”
“They are taking a boat ride on the ocean and the water is upso high that one of them is scared. Here are some trees and two of them are going to fall down. Here’s a little place or bridge you can stand on. The man is touching this one’s head and this one has his hand on the cover.”
“The water is splashing all over. There’s trees on this bank and there’s a rock and some trees falling down. The people have a blanket over them.”
“A man selling eggs and two men reading the paper together and two men watching.”
“A few men reading a newspaper and one has a basket of eggs and this one has been fishing.”
“There’s a man with a basket of eggs and another is reading the paper and a woman is hanging out clothes. There’s a house near.”
“There’s a man trying to read the paper and the others want to read it too. Here’s a lady walking up to the barn. There are houses over there and one man has a basket.”
“There’s a big brick house and five men by it and a man with a basket of eggs and a post-office sign and a lady going home.”
“They are all looking at the paper. He is looking over the other man’s shoulder and this one is looking at the back of the paper. There’s a woman cleaning up her back yard and some coops for hens.”
“A man reading a paper, a man with eggs, a woman and a tree and another house. That man has an apron on. This is the post-office.”
Unsatisfactory responses are those made up entirely or mainly of enumeration. A phrase or two of description intermingled with a larger amount of enumeration countsminus. Sometimes the description is satisfactory as far as it goes, but is exceedingly brief. In such cases a little tactful urging (“Go ahead,” etc.) will extend the response sufficiently to reveal its true character.
Remarks.Description is better than enumeration because it involves putting the elements of a picture together in a simple way or noting their qualities. This requires a higher type of mental association (combinativepower) than mere enumeration. An unusually complete description indicates relative wealth of mental content and facility of association.
Binet placed this test in year VII, and it seems to have been retained in this location in all revisions except Bobertag’s. However, the statistics of various workers show much disagreement. Lack of agreement is easily accounted for by the fact that different investigators have used different series of pictures and doubtless also different standards for success. The pictures used by Binet have little action or detail and are therefore rather difficult for description. On the other hand, the Jingleman-Jack pictures used by Kuhlmann represent such familiar situations and have so much action that even 5- or 6-year intelligence seldom fails with them. The pictures we employ belong without question in year VII.
No better proof than the above could be found to show how ability of a given kind does not make its appearance suddenly. There is no one time in the life of even a single child when the power to describe pictures suddenly develops. On the contrary, pictures of a certain type will ordinarily provoke description, rather than enumeration, as early as 5 or 6 years; others not before 7 or 8 years, or even later.
Procedure.Use: 3–1–7–5–9; 4–2–3–8–5; 9–8–1–7–6. Tell the child to listen and to say after you just what you say. Then read the first series of digits at a slightly faster rate than one per second, in a distinct voice, and with perfectly uniform emphasis.Avoid rhythm.
In previous tests with digits, it was permissible to re-read the first series if the child refused to respond. In this year, and in the digits tests of later years, this is notpermissible. Warning is not given as to the number of digits to be repeated. Before reading each series, get the child’s attention. Do not stare at the child during the response, as this is disconcerting. Look aside or at the record sheet.
Scoring.Passed if the child repeats correctly, after a single reading,one series out of the threeseries given. The order must be correct.
Remarks.Psychologically the repetition of digits differs from the repetition of sentences mainly in the fact that digits have less meaning (fewer associations) than the words of a sentence. It is because they are not as well knit together in meaning that three digits tax the memory as much as six syllables making up a sentence.
Testing auditory memory for digits is one of the oldest of intelligence tests. It is easy to give and lends itself well to exact quantitative standardization. Its value has been questioned, however, on two grounds: (1) That it is not a test of pure memory, but depends largely on attention; and (2) that the results are too much influenced by the child’s type of imagery. As to the first objection, it is true that more than one mental function is brought into play by the test. The same may be said of every other test in the Binet scale and for that matter of any test that could be devised. It is impossible to isolate any function for separate testing. In fact, the functions called memory, attention, perception, judgment, etc., never operate in isolation. There are no separate and special “faculties” corresponding to such terms, which are merely convenient names for characterizing mental processes of various types. In any test it is “general ability” which is operative, perhaps nowchieflyin remembering, at another timechieflyin sensory discrimination, again in reasoning, etc.
The second objection, that the test is largely invalidatedby the existence of imagery types, is not borne out by the facts. Experiments have shown that pure imagery types are exceedingly rare, and that children, especially, are characterized by “mixed” imagery. There are probably few subjects so lacking in auditory imagery as to be placed at a serious disadvantage in this test.
Lengthening a series by the addition of a single digit adds greatly to the difficulty. While four digits can usually be repeated by children of 4 years, five digits belong in year VII and six in year X.
It is always interesting to note the type of errors made. The most common error is to omit one or more of the digits, usually in the first part of the series. If the child’s ability is decidedly below the test he may give only the last two or three out of the five or six heard. Substitutions are also quite frequent, and if so many substitutions are made as to give a series quite unlike that which the child has heard, it is an unfavorable sign, indicating weakness of the critical sense which is so often found with low-level intelligence. In case of extreme weakness of the power of auto-criticism, the child in response to the series 9–8–1–7–6–, may say 1–2–3–4–5–6, or perhaps merely a couple of digits like 8–6, and still express complete satisfaction with his absurd response. After each series, therefore, the examiner should say, “Was it right?”[54]Very young subjects, however, have a tendency to answer “yes” to any question of this type, and it is therefore best not to call for criticism of a performance below the age of 6 or 7 years.
Digit series of a given length are not always of equal difficulty, and for this reason it is never wise to use series improvised at the moment of the experiment. We must avoid especially series of regularly ascending or descendingvalue, the repetition at regular intervals of a particular digit, and all other peculiarities of arrangement which would favor the grouping of the digits for easier retention.
It remains to mention two or three further cautions in regard to procedure. It is best to begin with a series about one digit below the child’s expected ability. If the child has a probable intelligence of about 6 or 7 years, we should begin with four digits; in case of probable 10-year intelligence we begin with five digits, etc. On the other hand, we should avoid beginning too far down, because then the result is too much complicated by the effects of practice and fatigue.
It is not necessary, and often it is not expedient, to give the digits tests of all the different years in succession; that is, without other tests intervening. While this may be permissible with older children, in young children the power of sustained attention is so weak that no single kind of test should occupy more than two or three minutes. Children below 6 or 7 years should ordinarily be given the tests in the order in which they are listed in the record booklet.
In his 1911 revision of the scale Binet unfortunately shifted this test from year VII to year VIII. Goddard follows his example, but Kuhlmann retains it in year VII. The data from more than a dozen leading investigations in America, England, and Germany agree in showing that the test should remain in year VII.
Procedure.Prepare a shoestring tied in a bow-knot around a stick. The knot should be an ordinary “double bow,” with wings not over three or four inches long. Make this ready in advance of the experiment and show the child only the completed knot.
Place the model before the subject with the wings pointing to the right and left, and say: “You know what kind of knot this is, don’t you? It is a bow-knot. I want you to take this other piece of string and tie the same kind of knot around my finger.” At the same time give the child a piece of shoestring, of the same length as that which is tied around the stick, and hold out a finger pointed toward the child and in convenient position for the operation. It is better to have the subject tie the string around the examiner’s finger than around a pencil or other object because the latter often falls out of the string and is otherwise awkward to handle.
Some children who assert that they do not know how to tie a bow-knot are sometimes nevertheless successful when urged to try. It is always necessary, therefore, to secure an actual trial.
Scoring.The test is passed if a double bow-knot (both ends folded in) is madein not more than a minute. A single bow-knot (only one end folded in) counts half credit, because children are often accustomed to use the single bow altogether. The usual plain common knot, which precedes the bow-knot proper, must not be omitted if the response is to count as satisfactory, for without this preliminary plain knot a bow-knot will not hold and is of no value. To be satisfactory the knot should also be drawn up reasonably close, not left gaping.
Remarks.This test, which had not before been standardized, was suggested to the writer by the late Dr. Huey, who in a conversation once remarked upon the frequent inability of feeble-minded adults to perform the little motor tasks which are universally learned by normal persons in childhood. The test was therefore incorporated in the Stanford trial series of 1913–14 and tried with 370 non-selected children within two months of the 6th, 7th, 8th,or 9th birthday. It was expected that the test would probably be found to belong at about the 8-year level, but it proved to be easy enough for year VII, where 69 per cent of the children passed it. Only 35 per cent of the 6-year-olds succeeded, but after that age the per cent passing increased rapidly to 94 per cent at 9 years.
This little experiment, simple as it is, seems to fulfill reasonably well the requirements of a good test. The main objection which might be brought against it is that it is much subject to the influence of training. If this were true in any marked degree, the mentally retarded children of 7-year intelligence should be expected to succeed better with it than mentally advanced children of the same mental level, since the former would have had at least two or three years more in which to learn the task. A comparison of the two groups, however, shows no great difference. The factor of age, apart from mental age, affects the results so little that it is evident we have here a real test of intelligence.
It would, of course, be easy to imagine a child of 7 years who had not had reasonable opportunity to make the acquaintance of bow-knots or to learn to tie them. But such children are seldom encountered in the ages above 6 or 7. Of 68 7-year-olds who were asked whether they had ever seen a bow-knot (“a knot like that”) only two replied in the negative. It cannot be denied, however, that specific instruction and special stimulus to practice do play a certain part. This is suggested by the fact that girls excel the boys somewhat at each age, doubtless because bow-knots play a larger rôle in feminine apparel. Social status affects the results in only a moderate degree, though it might be supposed that poor ragamuffins, on the one hand, and children of the very rich, on the other, would both make a poor showing in this test; the former because oftheir scanty apparel, the latter because they sometimes have servants to dress them.
The following are probably the chief factors determining success with this test: (1) Interest in common objective things; (2) ability to form permanent associative connections between successive motor coördinations (memory for a series of acts); and (3) skill in the acquisition of voluntary motor control. The last factor is probably much less important than the other two. Motor awkwardness often prolongs the time from the usual ten or fifteen seconds to thirty or forty seconds, but it is rarely a cause of a failure. The important thing is to be able to reproduce the appropriate succession of acts, acts which nearly all children of 7 years, under the joint stimulus of example and spontaneous interest, have before performed or tried to perform.
Procedure.Say: “What is the difference between a fly and a butterfly?” If the child does not seem to understand, say: “You know flies, do you not? You have seen flies? And you know the butterflies! Now, tell me the difference between a fly and a butterfly.” Proceed in the same way withstone and egg, andwood and glass. A little coaxing is sometimes necessary to secure a response, but supplementary questions and suggestions of every kind are to be avoided. For example, it would not be permissible for the examiner to say: “Which is larger, a fly or a butterfly?” This would give the child his cue and he would immediately answer, “A butterfly.” The child must be left to find a difference by himself. Sometimes a difference is given, but without any indication as to its direction, as, for example, “One is bigger than the other” (for fly and butterfly). It is then permissible to ask: “Which is bigger?”
Scoring.Passed if a real difference is given intwo out of three comparisons. It is not necessary, however, that anessentialdifference be given; the difference may be trivial, only it must be a real one. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses:—
Fly and butterflySatisfactory.“Butterfly is larger.” “Butterfly has bigger wings.” “Fly is black and a butterfly is not.” “Butterfly is yellow (or white, etc.) and fly is black.” “Fly bites you and butterfly don’t.” “Butterfly has powder on its wings, fly does not.” “Fly flies straighter.” “Butterfly is outdoors and a fly is in the house.” “Flies are more dangerous to our health.” “Flies haven’t anything to sip honey with.” “Butterfly doesn’t live as long as a fly.” “Butterfly comes from a caterpillar.”Sometimes a double contrast is meant, but not fully expressed; as, “A fly is small and a butterfly is pretty.” Here the thought is probably correct, only the language is awkward.Of 102 correct responses, 70 were in terms of size, or size plus color or form; 12 were in terms of both form and color; 6 in terms of color alone; and the rest scattered among such responses as those mentioned above.Unsatisfactory.These are mostly misstatements of facts; as: “Fly is bigger.” “Fly has legs and butterfly hasn’t.” “Butterfly has no feet and fly has.” “Butterfly makes butter.” “Fly is a fly and a butterfly is not.” Failures due to misstatement of fact are of endless variety. If an indefinite response is given, like “The fly is different,” or “They don’t look alike,” we ask, “How is it different?” or, “Why don’t they look alike?” It is satisfactory if the child then gives a correct answer.Stone and eggSatisfactory.“Stone is harder.” “Egg is softer.” “Egg breaks easier.” “Egg breaks and stone doesn’t.” “Stone is heavier.” “Egg is white and stone is not.” “Egg has a shell and stone does not.” “Eggs have a white and a yellow in them.” “You put eggs in a pudding.” “An egg is rounder than a stone.” We may also accept statements which are only qualifiedly true; as, “You can break an egg, but not a stone.” Likewise double but incompletecomparisons are satisfactory; as, “An egg you fry and a stone you throw,” “A stone is tough and an egg you eat,” etc.A little over three fourths of the comparisons made by children of 6, 7, and 8 years are in terms of hardness. The other responses are widely scattered.Unsatisfactory.“A stone is bigger (or smaller) than an egg.” “A stone is square and an egg is round.” “An egg is yellow and a stone is white.” “Stones are red (or black, etc.) and eggs are white.” “An egg is to eat and a stone is to plant.” “An egg is round and a stone is sometimes round.”It will be noted that the above responses are partly true and partly false. The error they contain renders them unacceptable. Most of the failures are due to misstatements as to size, shape, or color, but occasionally one meets a bizarre answer.Wood and glassSatisfactory.“Glass breaks easier than wood.” “Glass breaks and wood does not.” “Wood is stronger than glass.” “Glass you can see through and wood you can’t.” “Glass cuts you and wood doesn’t.” “You get splinters from wood and you don’t from glass.” “Glass melts and wood doesn’t.” “Wood burns and glass doesn’t.” “Wood has bark and glass hasn’t.” “Wood grows and glass doesn’t.” “Glass is heavier than wood.” “Glass glistens in the sun and wood does not.”An incomplete double comparison is also counted satisfactory; as, “Wood you can burn and glass you can see through.”Unsatisfactory.“Wood is black and glass is white.” (Color differences are always unsatisfactory in this comparison unless transparency is also mentioned.) “Glass is square and wood is round.” “Glass is bigger than wood” (orvice versa). “Wood is oblong and glass is square.” “Glass is thin and wood is thick.” “Wood is made out of trees and glass out of windows.” “There is no glass in wood.”The two most frequent types of failures are misstatements regarding color and thickness. The other failures are widely scattered.
Satisfactory.“Butterfly is larger.” “Butterfly has bigger wings.” “Fly is black and a butterfly is not.” “Butterfly is yellow (or white, etc.) and fly is black.” “Fly bites you and butterfly don’t.” “Butterfly has powder on its wings, fly does not.” “Fly flies straighter.” “Butterfly is outdoors and a fly is in the house.” “Flies are more dangerous to our health.” “Flies haven’t anything to sip honey with.” “Butterfly doesn’t live as long as a fly.” “Butterfly comes from a caterpillar.”
Sometimes a double contrast is meant, but not fully expressed; as, “A fly is small and a butterfly is pretty.” Here the thought is probably correct, only the language is awkward.
Of 102 correct responses, 70 were in terms of size, or size plus color or form; 12 were in terms of both form and color; 6 in terms of color alone; and the rest scattered among such responses as those mentioned above.
Unsatisfactory.These are mostly misstatements of facts; as: “Fly is bigger.” “Fly has legs and butterfly hasn’t.” “Butterfly has no feet and fly has.” “Butterfly makes butter.” “Fly is a fly and a butterfly is not.” Failures due to misstatement of fact are of endless variety. If an indefinite response is given, like “The fly is different,” or “They don’t look alike,” we ask, “How is it different?” or, “Why don’t they look alike?” It is satisfactory if the child then gives a correct answer.
Satisfactory.“Stone is harder.” “Egg is softer.” “Egg breaks easier.” “Egg breaks and stone doesn’t.” “Stone is heavier.” “Egg is white and stone is not.” “Egg has a shell and stone does not.” “Eggs have a white and a yellow in them.” “You put eggs in a pudding.” “An egg is rounder than a stone.” We may also accept statements which are only qualifiedly true; as, “You can break an egg, but not a stone.” Likewise double but incompletecomparisons are satisfactory; as, “An egg you fry and a stone you throw,” “A stone is tough and an egg you eat,” etc.
A little over three fourths of the comparisons made by children of 6, 7, and 8 years are in terms of hardness. The other responses are widely scattered.
Unsatisfactory.“A stone is bigger (or smaller) than an egg.” “A stone is square and an egg is round.” “An egg is yellow and a stone is white.” “Stones are red (or black, etc.) and eggs are white.” “An egg is to eat and a stone is to plant.” “An egg is round and a stone is sometimes round.”
It will be noted that the above responses are partly true and partly false. The error they contain renders them unacceptable. Most of the failures are due to misstatements as to size, shape, or color, but occasionally one meets a bizarre answer.
Satisfactory.“Glass breaks easier than wood.” “Glass breaks and wood does not.” “Wood is stronger than glass.” “Glass you can see through and wood you can’t.” “Glass cuts you and wood doesn’t.” “You get splinters from wood and you don’t from glass.” “Glass melts and wood doesn’t.” “Wood burns and glass doesn’t.” “Wood has bark and glass hasn’t.” “Wood grows and glass doesn’t.” “Glass is heavier than wood.” “Glass glistens in the sun and wood does not.”
An incomplete double comparison is also counted satisfactory; as, “Wood you can burn and glass you can see through.”
Unsatisfactory.“Wood is black and glass is white.” (Color differences are always unsatisfactory in this comparison unless transparency is also mentioned.) “Glass is square and wood is round.” “Glass is bigger than wood” (orvice versa). “Wood is oblong and glass is square.” “Glass is thin and wood is thick.” “Wood is made out of trees and glass out of windows.” “There is no glass in wood.”
The two most frequent types of failures are misstatements regarding color and thickness. The other failures are widely scattered.
Remarks.The test is one which all the critics agree in commending, largely because it is so little influenced by ordinary school experience. Its excellence lies mainly, however, in the fact that it throws light upon the characterof the child’s higher thought processes, for thinking means essentially the association of ideas on the basis of differences or similarities. Nearly all thought processes, from the most complex to the very simplest, involve to a greater or less degree one or the other of these two types of association. They are involved in the simple judgments made by children, in the appreciation of puns, in mechanical inventions, in the creation of poetry, in the scientific classification of natural phenomena, and in the origination of the hypotheses of science or philosophy.
The ability to note differences precedes somewhat the ability to note resemblances, though the contrary has sometimes been asserted by logician-psychologists. The difficulty of the test is greatly increased by the fact that the objects to be compared are not present to the senses, which means that the free ideas must be called up for comparison and contrast. Failure may result either from weakness in the power of ideational representation of objects, or from the inadequacy of the associations themselves, or from both. Probably both factors are usually involved.
Intellectual development is especially evident in increased ability to noteessentialdifferences and likenesses, as contrasted with those which are trivial, superficial, and accidental. To distinguish an egg from a stone on the basis of one being organic, the other inorganic matter requires far higher intelligence than to distinguish them on the basis of shape, color, fragibility, etc. It is not till well toward the adult stage that the ability to give very essential likenesses and differences becomes prominent, and when we get a comparison of this type from a child of 7 or 8 years it is a very favorable sign.
It would be well worth while to standardize a new test of this kind for use in the upper years and especially adapted to display the ability to give essential likenesses and differences.At year VII we must accept as satisfactory any real difference.
One point remains. In the tests of giving differences and similarities, it is well to make note of any tendency tostereotypy, by which is meant the mechanical reappearance of the same idea, or element, in successive responses. For example, the child begins by comparing fly and butterfly on the basis of size; as, “A butterfly is bigger than a fly.” So far, this is quite satisfactory; but the child with a tendency to stereotypy finds himself unable to get away from the dominating idea of size and continues to make it the basis of the other comparisons: “A stone is larger than an egg,” “Wood is larger than glass,” etc. In case of stereotypy in all three responses, we should have to score the total response failure even though the idea employed happened to fit all three parts of the question. As a rule it is encountered only with very young children or with older children who are mentally retarded. It is therefore an unfavorable sign.
Although this test has been universally used in year VIII, all the available statistics, with the exception of Bobertag’s and Bloch’s, indicate that it is decidedly too easy for that year. Binet himself says that nearly all 7-year-olds pass it. Goddard finds 97 per cent passing at year VIII, and Dougherty 90 per cent at year VI. With the standard of scoring given in the present revision, and with the substitution ofstone and egginstead of the more difficultpaper and cloth, the test is unquestionably easy enough for year VII.
Procedure.On a white cardboard draw in heavy black lines a diamond with the longer diagonal three inches and the shorter diagonal an inch and a half. The specially prepared record booklet contains the diamond as well as many other conveniences.
Place the model before the child with the longer diagonal pointing directly toward him, and giving himpen and inkand paper, say: “I want you to draw one exactly like this.” Give three trials, saying each time: “Make it exactly like this one.” In repeating the above formula, merely point to the model; do not pass the fingers around its edge.
Unlike the test ofcopying a squarein year IV, there is seldom any difficulty in getting the child to try this one. By the age of 7 the child has grown much less timid and has become more accustomed to the use of writing materials.
Note whether the child draws each part carefully, looking at the model from time to time, or whether the strokes are made in a more or less haphazard manner with only an initial glance at the original.
After each trial, say to the child: “Is it good?” And after the three copies have been made say: “Which one is the best?” Retarded children are sometimes entirely satisfied with the most nondescript drawings imaginable, but they are more likely correctly to pick out the best of three than to render a correct judgment about the worth of each drawing separately.
Scoring.The test is passed iftwo of the threedrawings are at least as good as those marked satisfactory on the score card. The diamond should be drawn approximately in the correct position, and the diagonals must not be reversed. Disregard departures from the model with respect to size.
Remarks.The test is a good one. Age and training, apart from intelligence, affect it only moderately. There are few adult imbeciles of 6-year intelligence who are able to pass it, while but few subjects who have reached the 8-year level fail on it.[55]
This test was located in year VII of the 1908 scale, but was shifted to year VI in Binet’s 1911 revision. The change was without justification, for Binet expressly states, both in 1908 and 1911, that only half of the 6-year-olds succeed with it. The large majority of investigations have given too low a proportion of successes at 6 years to warrant its location at that age, particularly if pen is required instead of pencil. Location at year VI would be warranted only on the condition that the use of pencil be permitted and only one success required in three trials.