Difficulties in the Interpretation of Mental Tests? Types and Examples
- Author:
Frances Porter, A.B.,
Assistant Psychologist, Psychopathic Institute, Juvenile Court, Chicago.
In the literature on tests, with a few exceptions such as Haberman’s article on the evaluation of mental tests, criticisms, particularly of the Binet scale, have been made from the statistical standpoint. Many articles deal with the correlations between Binet findings and some other findings, such as the judgments of the teacher about the child, or the child’s school advancement or retardation. In such studies discussion of peculiarities of the individual child’s reactions to the tests is omitted; indeed, the human aspect of the examinee is entirely ignored or dismissed with a few general remarks. It is just this side of the problem that we have attempted to emphasize here.
Our plan in this paper is to give, first, a classification of the anomalous findings by tests, then typical records from case studies. We wish to emphasize that the cases cited are merely single illustrations of types which we find repeated over and over; that they are, in fact, examples of what one must expect to find in using tests. The group from which these cases are selected includes persons of almost all the European nationalities, as well as Americans. They range in age from the rare cases under 8 years of age to those of 18 years, the average being almost 16. The cases include delinquents and non-delinquents. Classification of anomalous records showing types of test results and types of individuals making these records: Class I. Cases in which Results on Binet Tests Compared with Results on Other Tests are Discrepant. This includes cases which would grade higher by Binet than by other tests and those which would grade lower. 1. Results on Binet tests proportionately better than results on performance tests. a. The verbalist type of defective.?These cases often do better on Binet because of their language ability. b. Individuals with good ability along rote lines, but poor apperceptive ability.?This is presumably because Binet tests involve to a large extent information which most children acquire by rote memory, and only in a very few questions involve apperceptive ability. c. Aberrational cases.?The Binet tests often fail to give any indication of aberrational tendencies because they require so little in the way of control of mental processes. d. Individuals with poor powers of concentration.?Such cases often do better proportionately on Binet tests because these require no long continued effort. 2. Results on Binet tests proportionately poorer than results on performance tests. a. Foreign bom individuals. b. Individuals with some physical defect affecting language ability, e. g., deaf-mute. 3. Results on school work at variance with results on other tests. a. Individuals with special disabilities for learning the usual school subjects. b. Individuals whose abilities show distinctly better in learning the usual school subjects. 4. Results on one specific type of tests better than results on all other tests. a. Defective with highly specialized abilities. Class II. Cases in which the Results on the Same Tests differ when the Tests are repeated after an Interval. This includes cases in which the results are better and those in which the results are worse on retesting. 1. Results relatively better on retesting (i. e. where the improvement is greater than the normal for the interval since the previous testing). a. Individual tested when in bad physical condition and retested after condition has improved. b. Individual tested when in an unfavorable emotional state and retested in a favorable state. (1) Tested under unfavorable laboratory conditions. (2) Tested when in a recalcitrant attitude. (Of course many other emotional moods, such as sorrow and fear, may interfere with fair testing.) c. Undisciplined individuals.?These are children whose prior environmental conditions have been atrocious and who, consequently, have acquired no habits of concentration and self-control. 2. Results relatively worse on retesting (i. e. cases of dullness from dementia, bad physical conditions, depleting habits, etc.). Class III. Cases in which the Results on Tests are Noticeably Irregular. The term “irregular” implies that one test is done well, while another of the same type, which is no more difficult, is done poorly, and the fact that reactions to the same tests vary from day to day, and even from hour to hour. 1. Results on all types of tests irregular. a. Epileptic cases.?These often fail on easy and pass more difficult tests, fail on tests previously passed, and vary from one trial to another. b. Cases of mental dullness from bad habits.?Here, similarly, there are marked irregularities. 2. Results vary from time to time. 3. Results on Binet tests show great irregularity (sometimes a peculiarly distributed “area of irregularity”). a. Defectives (not of the usual type) whose irregularities are the result of failures on all types of Binet tests. b. Normal children who fail on all the questions of one type (e. g., all involving information).
In order to make the following rather detailed case studies clear it seems necessary to give a brief description of the tests used. They include tests for school work, the Binet-Simon tests, the HealyFernald tests,1 and other tests especially to gauge mental control. In ail the cases cited the 1911 Binet-Simon series was used. Introductory Test.?This is a combination of the test form board 1 Tests for Practical Mental Classification. William Healy and Grace M. Fernald, Psyche logical Monograph 54 Psychological Review Pub, Co,, Princeton. N. J, with the picture puzzle. The seven pieces are quite dissimilar in shape and have distinctive parts of the picture printed on them, two are nearly interchangeable, and two are right triangles which together fit into an equilateral triangle. These last two give a good opportunity for studying the subject’s ability to profit by trial and error.
The First Construction Test.?This is a wooden frame into which five pieces are to be fitted. While there are a number of possible positions into which the various pieces can be put into the frame there is only one possible correct position for each piece, although any four of them can be placed in a number of ways. This test involves the subject’s perception of space relationships, and also shows his planfulness and ability to profit by past trials. The Second Construction Test.?This involves the same mental elements as the first construction test. It is, however, more complex as there are many more alternative moves.
The Puzzle Box.?The purpose of this test is to bring out abilities or defects in manipulative power and the ability to analyze a slightly complicated physical situation. The box is fastened by a series of strings passed over posts which can only be unfastened in certain sequence. As one side of the box is glass, the entire arrangement can be seen and analyzed. First Cross Line Test.?The investigator draws a large X on a sheet of paper in front of the subject, calling attention to the fact that the figure is made up of four compartments. These are then numbered, the order in which the numbers are placed with regard to the figure being emphasized and after the subject has had a good chance to look at the model, it is turned over. The different angles are drawn one by one and the subject is asked to tell what belongs in each. If he fails he is allowed to draw and number the figure himself and try again. This and the two tests following seem to involve the power of mental representation of the model together with the ability to analyze out its parts, and recall by visual memory, and perhaps by a definite logical process, the numbers corresponding to the parts. Second Cross Line Test?The procedure is the same as above except that the figure is the one used by children in the game of “Tit-tat-to,” and is made up of nine parts.
Code Test.?By a combination of the two cross line tests a complete alphabetic code can be arranged. After the subject has studied the arrangement, it is turned over and he is given a sentence to write. Because of the greater number of parts to be worked out from the subject’s recollection of the general scheme, this test is of great value in indicating the subject’s ability to control his mental processes as well as his ability to grasp the idea of a code. The Completion Test.?This test is a picture representing ten activities from which ten squares of equal size have been cut so that on each piece is a part essential to the meaning. There are forty more pieces on which are drawn objects that do not logically complete the picture. The subject is told to pick out the pieces that “make the best sense.” The test brings out the subject’s powers of apperception and has an added value in the fact that in psychosis cases the performance is often extremely erratic.
Substitution Test.?This test shows the ability of the subject to learn the arbitrary association of a set of symbols with numerals. Memory Tests.?Two passages, one to test auditory verbal and the other to test visual verbal memory.
Aussage Test.?The butcher-sliop picture is shown to the subject, who gives a free account and answers to direct questions. School Work.?This includes reading and giving the meaning of a passage, writing from dictation, and arithmetic. The work is, of course, varied according to the age of the subject and the actual amount of schooling he has had.
Tapping Test.?In this test for psycho-motor control, the subject taps as rapidly as possible in half inch squares without touching the lines or missing the squares. Kraepelin Subtraction Test.?This is the continuous subtraction test used to gauge mental control. Opposites Test.?Here the subject is given a stimulus word to which he is to reply with the exact opposite. This should be a test for control, of association processes, but with our group of subjects it sometimes turns out to be a language test.
Class I. Cases in which the Results on Binet as Compared with Other Tests are Discrepant. 1. Results on Binet tests proportionately better than results on performance tests. a. Verbalist type of defective. Case 1. G. I. Just 9 years. Girl. Summary: Physical condition good. The girl was brought to us because of incessant stealing. Judged by Binet tests alone this girl is found to be only a year retarded; nevertheless her work on other tests shows her to be feebleminded. She is noticeably lacking both in reasoning and in acquisitive powers, but her ability to use spoken language is sufficient to disguise her mentality when studied by tests which depend so largely on ability to use language.
Mental tests: Binet tests?failures; 7 years (1) knowing right and left, (2) describing pictures; 8 years (2) counting 20-0, (4) knowing date, (5) repeating numerals; 9 years (2) defining in terms superior to use, (4) naming months; 10 years (1) arranging weights, (2)| copying designs, (3) detecting incongruities; 12 years (2) using given words in 1 sentence, (4) defining abstract terms, (5) rearranging shuffled sentences. Binet age over 8 2/5. First construction test?does this in 4’ 30” with 42 moves. This is done very poorly as to time and in an exceedingly random method: the minimum number of moves is five. Second construction test?done in 9’ 40” with 108 moves. As in the previous test, the number of moves shows the girl’s complete failure to reason out the situation. First cross line test?failure in four trials. This is a poor result for a child of 9 years. Substitution test?done with one error, that is, fairly well. Auditory memory test?quite well done. School work? the girl cannot read. Cannot add 2 and 2. Her success with the two Binet questions involving arithmetic is due to their concrete form. The girl has had ordinary school advantages.
Case 2. F. E. 14 years, 3 months. Girl. Summary: Physical condition good. This case, like the preceding one, represents the verbalist type of feebleminded who cannot be adequately tested by Binet tests alone. When this girl was first examined, only the performance tests were used and she did very poorly indeed. A few days later she actually gets through three of the 12 year and 2| of the 15 year Binet tests, although on all tests showing powers of mental representation she still grades extremely low, lower than many morons we have seen. On school work she shows this same verbal glibness coupled with a lack of any real comprehension; for instance, she reads a third grade passage well, but cannot give the meaning oi it.
Mental tests: Introductory test?5’ 45”; excessively slow with many trials. The triangles were done slowly with repeated errors. First construction test?2’ 39” with 26 moves. This, too, is a decidedly poor record. Second construction test?failed. First cross line test?failed utterly, even the reproduction of the drawings was almost impossible. Completion test?7’ 50” with 3 illogical errors. This is a very poor record both from the number of illogical errors and for the very long reaction time. Substitution test?2 errors. (At her age this should be done perfectly.) Memory tests?both of these were done very poorly, very few items were recalled and those in a rather incoherent manner. Tapping test?done slowly but accurately.
Mental tests (four days later): Binet tests?failures; 9 years (2) defining in terms superior to use; 10 years (2) ? copying drawings, (3) detecting incongruities, (4) solving common sense questions; 12 years (4) defining abstract terms, but gets one correct, (5) arranging shuffled sentences, but does one of these. Successes: besides the three 12 year tests she readily passes 15 years (2) rhyming, (4) | interpreting pictures, (5) inferring facts from narrative. First cross line test?failed, again. Second cross line test?failed. School work? does simple sums. Reads third grade passage fluently, but cannot give meaning. Writes and spells well.
The remarkable interest of this case lies in the fact that this girl does so many of upper year tests and yet ranges so low in her reasoning ability and in her work with concrete material. b. Individual with good ability along rote lines, but poor apperceptive ability. Case 3. I. D. Just 14 years. Boy. Summary: Physical condition good. Good home conditions, and school advantages very good; in fact the boy was examined because of his inability to profit by the opportunities in a higher school. He does all the tests which involve rote memory very well, but those involving reasoning he does very poorly; compare, for instance, the results on the second cross line test with those on the code test. His social reactions and conversation about himself and his plans show the same inability to reason things out. This boy represents the border-line cases of feeblemindedness; judged by Binet test alone he would be considered normal since he passes all the 12 year tests; yet he does miserably on the first construction test and on the completion test, in which memory ability does not help him. In this type of case the Binet scale has proved inadequate because the boy has ability along rote lines and his training has been such that he has been taught the necessary information.
Mental tests: Binet tests?gets through all the 13 year tests rapidly and easily. First construction test?6’ 30” with 60 moves, 25 of which were impossible. This is an atrocious performance. A normal boy of 14 should do this in less than 1’ and in 10 or 15 moves at the most, with not more than a couple of impossible ones. Second construction test?1’ 10” with 12 moves, but this was apparently by chance. Second cross line test?done on first trial, this good result being due to his memory power. Code test?could not grasp the idea! Completion test?7 errors, 5 being illogical. These were such ridiculous errors as substituting the football for the child’s hat, and blanks for all the pieces. This is another exceedingly stupid performance. Instruction box, substitution test, auditory and visual memory tests?all well done. “Aussage” test?gave most of the details. Memory span?7 numbers. School work?shows the same contrast between rote work and that requiring reasoning. He reads well, but speaks poorly. Arithmetic very poor indeed, cannot even do long division.
Case 4. M. 0. 13 years, 4 months. Girl. Summary: This little girl is definitely a moron in spite of her fairly intelligent expression. When we first examined her she did very poorly on all tests including school work. Later, after having been in an institutional school for a month, she shows marked improvement, but only along rote lines. She has made a great deal of progress in school work, having learned to read third grade passages (previously she could read a first grade passage only with great difficulty), to add and subtract, and to write simple sentences. Retesting her, we find that she has gained much in the more or less mechanical things, but she is still unable to cope with situations that require reasoning or analysis or even apperceptive ability. For instance, she fails completely on first cross line test even after numerous trials, and the results on such tests as the completion test are as poor as when originally done. She does succeed a little better on a few of the Binet tests, but is still 3 years retarded. On the whole, then, one would say that by dint of much individual attention, she has gained in rote knowledge; but that she gives no evidence of any greater ability in the solving of novel situations which require initiative and reasoning. Mental tests: Binet tests?failures; 9 years (2) defining in terms superior to use, (4) naming months; 10 years (2) copying drawings, (3) detecting incongruities, (4) solving common sense problems; 12 years (2) using given words in one sentence, (4) defining abstract terms, (5) rearranging shuffled sentences. First construction test? 2’ 16” with 26 moves; a decidedly poor record. First cross line test?failed. Completion test?7 errors, all but 2 being illogical; this is an excessively bad record. Substitution test?5 errors in copying and 4 in reproducing from memory, another atrocious performance. School test?adds very simple combinations, cannot multiply. Reads very poorly.
Mental tests (next day): First cross line test?fails. Substitute test?done with only 1 error in the reproduction from memory. School work test?fails on all arithmetical problems.
Mental tests (one month later): Binet tests?failures; 9 years (2) and (4) ; 10 years (2)|; 12 years (4) and (5). First construction test?10” with 5 moves, this, of course, merely shows her good memory. Second construction test?6’ 55” with 44 moves. This is done slowly and in a random manner. First cross line test?failed. Completion test?9 errors, 6 illogical; an incredibly stupid performance. School work?adds and subtracts correctly and can “prove” her results. Has learned to do simple problems in multiplication. Writing and spelling unexpectedly good. Reads third grade passage easily.
Aberrational cases.
Case 5. W. D. 13 years, 6 months. Boy. Summary: No significant physical findings. The boy has been behaving strangely at home and his manner and conversation during the tests were most erratic. Though he seemed quite willing to do the work, he giggled in an uncontrolled manner and frequently broke off to tell us most passionately and bitterly how everyone hates him, especially his mother. Later we found that he had just written her a letter saying, “The sight of you would be heaven to me.” This boy does all the 12 year Binet tests quite normally, but his work on other tests is very variable?typical of his aberrational tendencies. He fails on a test at one time and half an hour later does it very well. He fails on everything involving mental control and his elaborate fantastic explanations of his errors on the completion test are those we frequently get from psychosis cases. The feebleminded individual either fails to give any explanation or gives a very simple one which often does not take into account the pieces he has put in. It is evident to the examiner that the boy’s failure on the first cross line test was due to his inability to control his mental processes sufficiently to recall all the parts correctly. In contrast to this, note how I. D., the border-line feebleminded case just cited, was able because of his good rote memory to do the second cross line test, but showed his poor reasoning ability by failing to grasp the idea of the code test. The only Binet test which might have showed up W. D’s abnormality?the 60 word free association test?was done normally, so that on the basis of Binet tests alone this boy passes as normal, although it is plain from the other tests that he is not. He was diagnosed as an aberrational case, possibly dementia praecox.
Mental tests: Binet tests?does all the 12 year tests very well and all the 10 year tests except (2) the drawings. First construction test?failed in 5’. Half an hour later he does this very well in 14” with 8 moves. Second construction test?makes 63 moves in 8’ 21”, then says, “I surrender.” This also was done later in 15” with 18 moves. First cross line test?done on fourth trial, showing the boy’s lack of mental control. Second cross line test?failed badly on fourth trial. Completion test?makes 7 illogical errors, and even this very poor result was obtained after many moves. His explanations are also erratic. He substitutes the crying baby for the fighting chicken and tells us that “the other chicken is doing what the baby is,” that, “the girl is showing the cat an empty cage to make it wild hunting the bird”?an explanation involving two unrelated groups. Auditory and visual verbal memory tests?done very poorly. School work ?arithmetic poor.
(Three weeks later.) Second cross line test?still fails on fourth trial. Completion test?6 illogical errors. When urged to correct them changes two pieces which had been correct and insists, “there’s nothing wrong now.”
(Next day.) Seco?id cross line test?still fails. Kraepelin test? done fairly quickly with 4 errors in subtraction by sevens. Opposites test?done fairly promptly with 2 errors. Tapping test?taps 70 squares with 0 error and 75 with 1 error, but when urged to speed up makes an excessive number of errors.
Case 6. G. I. 16 years 7 months. Girl. Summary: This girl is in rather poor general physical condition, and has very defective vision. Heredity is atrocious, the mother is insane and the father is a drunkard. At present she is regarded by her teachers as “peculiar.” We felt unable to make an exact diagnosis of her mentality without her being tried out under better conditions. Certainly her mental processes are very erratic. One cannot doubt that she is at least on the border line of a psychosis. The Binet tests, however, give no indication of this instability, for there she does well, not only on the 12 but also on the 15 year tests. On the other hand she fails utterly on the Kraepelin test, even on the subtraction by fours. This same lack of power of sustained attention is shown in ordinary arithmetic, where in multiplying by eight, numerous errors are made in carrying. She multiplies each digit correctly when working orally, but the final result is entirely wrong.
Mental tests: First construction test?13” with 5 moves, a very good record. Second construction test?7’ 41” with 42 moves, a decidedly poor and slow performance. First cross line test?done on second trial. Second cross line test?failed. Completion test? 6 errors, 4 illogical, a typically erratic performance. Substitution test?2 errors in copying, 6 in reproducing from memory, a significantly bad result. School work?fails on multiplication and long division, apparently because she cannot control her mental processes. Tapping test?77 squares in 30” with 6 errors. Later 74 squares in 30” with 6 errors. Kraepelin test?subtracting by sevens and by threes: very poor results.
Mental tests (three days later): Binet tests?does all the 12 year tests easily, and all the 15 year tests except (4) which was omitted. Second cross line test?(renumbered) correct on first trial. Completion test?i errors, 2 illogical. Substitution test?0 errors. Tapping test?84 squares in 30” with 30 errors! 80 squares in 30” with 30 errors! Kraepelin test?by sixes and by fours, done miserably.
Case 7. J. V. 15 years, 1 month. Boy. Summary: Much enlarged tonsilar glands. No other morbid physical findings. This boy has held two “jobs”, first as actor on the vaudeville stage, and afterwards as messenger boy for newspaper reporters; just the sort of work one might expect such a facile, unstable youth to choose. We note at once that he is an extremely glib and fluent talker,? indeed, his command of spoken language is so great that we realize that the Binet tests would offer no difficulty for him. As a matter of fact, he does all the 12-year tests as easily and with as much assurance as he talks, yet he fails outright on the easy first construction and the second cross line tests. His failures are all due to lack of mental control, the construction test, for instance, being done in a sort of frenzied hurry that precluded any but an accidental success. The only control test that was well done was the opposites tests, but even here again the boy’s language ability aided him. The diagnosis was tentative, the boy is very probably an adolescent psychosis case, perhaps on the basis of bad habits, but possibly also he is a defective of the verbalist type.
Mental tests: Binet tests?does all the 12-year tests with the greatest ease and assurance. First construction test?failed in 5’. Done with nervous haste. Second construction test?done in 9’ 58” with 82 moves, and with the same frantic haste. For a boy of his age, this amounts to a failure. First cross line test?correct on second trial. Second cross line test?failed. School work?knows the processes of multiplication and long division, but fails because of inaccuracies.
Mental tests (next day): First construction test?failed. Second cross line test (renumbered)?failed. Completion test?does very slowly and with 5 illogical errors, a thoroughly aberrational result. Tapping test?60 squares in 30” with 0 errors. On second trial taps 60 squares with 14 errors! Kraepelin test?3 errors in subtracting by sevens. Opposites test?2 errors, normal reaction time.
Individual with poor powers of concentration.
Case 8. P. K. Just 12 years. Boy. Summary: Good physical condition except for slightly defective vision and occasional headaches. This boy shows himself quite capable on any test not requiring prolonged attention, with the possible exception of the construction tests, which he does in a rather random fashion. He gets all but the first of the 12-year Binet tests and does the completion test correctly. On the other hand, although he plainly is thoroughly familiar with the process of long division, he cannot keep his attention on the task long enough to finish correctly. It was interesting to see the boy’s work on these problems?after being urged to make a serious effort he would begin quite well but invariably after getting part way through his work he would make one very careless error after another and he finally failed to get one out of four problems. Since the Binet tests require only a succession of brief efforts they quite failed to show this boy’s mental peculiarity, although it is one that may be most significant as an explanation of his reactions to school and vocational life.
Mental tests. Binet tests?failures, 12 years (1) judging lines. First construction test?done in 2’ 43” with 30 moves. This and the next test were done in a random way. Second construction test? 57” with 51 moves. First cross line test?correct on first trial. Second cross line test?correct on second trial. Completion test?done in 5’ 44” with 0 errors. This is rather a slow performance, but of course the time is only of minor importance. School test?fails to do one out of four long division problems correctly though he plainly knows the process. Reads and writes fairly for his grade?the sixth. Kraepelin test?subtraction by sevens very poorly done. 2. Results on Binet tests proportionately poorer than results on performance tests.
Foreign born individual.
Case 9. S. V. 16 years 1 month. Boy. Summary: Physical conditions, rather premature development. This boy has got in with a bad crowd and done a good deal of stupid stealing, and his explanations of this in court were very incoherent and slow-witted. His parents are Norwegian and the family speak Norwegian altogether at home, although the boy was born in this country. The officer reports that they are all very slow of speech. In conversation this boy seems to have the utmost difficulty to express himself. “Words fairly seem to rattle round in his head and his ideas never come out clearly.” Quite as one would expect from this he does very poorly on the opposites test and on the Binet tests where all his failures, except one, involve language. But one sees here a striking difference between his poor work on these tests and his good work on the construction and cross line tests. His school work shows just this same difference; his arithmetic is fairly good?the boy is in the low sixth grade?but his writing is extremely bad. His Binet age is 10 years, so that by that criterion he would be considered a moron, but his work on performance tests is that of a normal person. We considered him to be of fair ability, except for language.
Mental tests: Binet tests?failures; 10 years (5) using given words in two sentences; 12 years (1) comparing lines, (2) using given words in one sentence, (4) defining abstract terms, (5) rearranging shuffled sentences. Binet age, 10 2/5 years. Even the 60 word tests which C. passes is done with several repetitions. All the failures except the comparison of lines involve language. First construction test?done in 20” with 5 moves. Second construction test?done in 1’ 4” with 12 moves. First cross line tests?done on first trial. Second cross line tests?done on first trial. Completion test?1 logical error. Done promptly. All these performance tests are distinctly well done. School test?does long division correctly. Writes poorly. Reads fairly well. Mental tests (five days later): Second cross line test? (remembered) correct on first trial. Code test-?3 errors and all dots omitted, but the boy admitted he was not trying. Puzzle box?quite well done. Opposites test?6 errors and 2 failures. This is an unusually bad record, but is quite in keeping with the boy’s other language work. Tapping test?done normally. School test?cannot write simple sentence from dictation, though he makes an incomprehensible attempt. Case 10. E. X. 10 years, 1 month. Boy. Summary: Physical condition, heart lesion and a number of stigmata. This boy is reported to be fairly bright in school “when he wants to work.” From his work for us we should hardly agree to so much brightness, but we will vouch for the lack of perseverance and concentration implied in the teacher’s comment. We noted his slouchiness, and that he was very easily diverted from his work. His test record shows the same tendencies; for there he grades almost up to age on Binet, although his work on all tests requiring continued effort is on a much lower level. Very probably he will turn out to be subnormal and his development will not go much further.
Mental tests: Binet tests?failures; 9 years (4) naming months; 10 years (1) arranging weights, (2) copying drawings, (5) using given words in two sentences. Binet age 9 1/5. Introductory test?failed on triangles after 5’. First construction test?failed in 6’. The boy’s form perception is so poor as really to amount to a specialized defect. First cross line test?done on third trial. Second cross line test?done on second trial, but only after a number of unsuccessful attempts to draw the figure from memory. Completion test?done rather slowly with 3 errors, 1 illogical. School work?all very poor. Reads second grade passage stumblingly. Can only write his name. Fails on such problems as 16 minus 7 and 12 plus 8. Even if we rule out the work on construction tests as due to a specialized defect, the results on all these other tests are much worse than one could expect from the results on Binet tests.
b. Individual with some physical deject affecting language ability.
Case 11. F. Z. Just 17 years. Boy. Summary: Physical condition, completely deaf since 5 months old. Since the boy had had only a few months’ training at a school for the deaf, he does not talk and does not know lip reading, and has not been taught to read and write. Of course Binet tests were out of the question, but we were easily able to demonstrate by performance tests that the boy was normal and a suitable case for a school for the deaf. In such a case negative results could not be considered of much value, but the positive results were as valuable in this case as in any other. Mental tests: First construction test?done in 14” with 7 moves. Second construction test?done in 1’ 26” with 17 moves. Both these tests are done quickly and by a very rational method. Puzzle box? 1’ 24” with 2 errors, a good performance. First cross line test? correct on second trial. Second cross line test?correct on third trial. These two tests are only fairly well done. Completion test?2’ 37”, no errors. School test?adds a single column of numbers.
Case 12. B. E. 15 years, - months. Boy. Summary: This boy is a case of otitis media with varying hearing conditions. When we saw him, he could barely hear a low voice at 10 feet. His general physical condition was poor; weight only 91 pounds, height 4 feet 11 inches. Says he suffers much from headache. Is only in the third grade in school, but has been out much. This boy grades Very low on Binet tests, but his work on performance tests is good, and so is his work on all the Binet tests that do not involve language. Thinking that the boy might not have understood because of his deafness, a definite effort was made to get him to do better on the language work. For instance, the incongruities were read to him while he read them for himself. Even with this help, he still did very poorly; he failed on repeated trials to give 60 words in 3’, and did the shuffled sentences only with the greatest difficulty. However, we necessarily concluded that his Binet record was not significant since it is almost certain that the boy’s language sense has been dulled by his inability to hear things. Probably because of the constant irritation arising from this, it was even difficult to get him to co-operate on work requiring verbal answers. While the Binet tests failed to measure this boy’s innate mental ability, his response to them does give some clue concerning his probable reaction to many social situations, but his mentality must be judged by other tests.
Mental tests: Binet tests?failures; 9 years (2) defining in terms superior to use; 10 years (3) detecting incongruities, (4) solving common sense problems, (5) using given words in two sentences. First construction test?32” with 13 moves, a good record. Second construction test?V 26” with 22 moves, also well done. First cross line test?correct on first trial. Second cross line test?correct on second trial. Completion test?1 logical error. Substitution test?no errors. All these performance tests, with the possible exception of the second cross line test, are very well done. School work?adds simple sums correctly, but fails on simple multiplication. Writes only shorter words and reads third grade passage with difficulty, but refuses to give any account.
Mental tests (next day): Binet tests?failures; 10 years (3) read all these sentences, but only succeeded on one out of five; failed badly on all the others, (4) and (5); 12 years (2) using given words in one sentence (later this was done correctly), (3) giving 60 words in 3’, (4) defining abstract terms.
3. Results on school work at variance with results on other tests.
a. Individuals with special disabilities for learning the usual school subjects.
Case 13. H. C. Just 10 years. Boy. Summary: This boy was sent to us from an institution because of his failure to learn in school. He cannot read, cannot write the simplest words from dictation, and cannot add more than two digits. We found him to be rather an intelligent little boy, much interested in his own problem. He co-operated most willingly on tests and even offered his own explanation of his difficulties. By Binet tests he graded up to age, and did equally well on performance tests, but though the results on these two groups of tests agree, they differ strikingly from the results on school tests. This boy has had a good deal of individual instruction from interested teachers, so that the discrepancy is a significant one from the standpoint of reading and arithmetic in our modern life. Can an individual be considered normal who is incapable of acquiring these things under at least fair conditions; on the other hand, can he be considered subnormal if he is capable of passing all the other “mental tests”? The boy was in good condition physically, and showed no aberrational symptoms. Though his home conditions were bad they had not been such as to keep him out of school. Because of these conditions he was sent to a family in the country, with some recommendations as to possible methods of teaching him. However, he was sent too recently for any result to be repeated.
Mental tests: Binet tests?failures, 8 years (4) knowing date: 9 years (4) naming months. He does all the 10 year tests correctly. Fails, 12 years (3) saying 60 words in 3’, (4) defining abstract terms (5) re-arranging shuffled sentences (but he cannot read these). Binet age, 10 years. Introductory test?done in 2’ 57” by trial and error. Second construction test?2’ 49” with 22 moves, done thoughtfully. Some trial and error, but no repetition of errors. First cross line test?done on second trial. Second cross line test?done on second trial. This is a good result for his age. Completion test? 3 illogical errors, but not a bad performance for 10 years. Substitution test?done quickly with no errors. School test?he does simple sums such as 7+3, but he adds 3+8+5+1 on his fingers. Adds a quarter, a dime, a nickel and two pennies. Cannot tell what 1/3 of 9 is, but says that if you were going to divide 9 apples among 3 boys each would get 3. In fact, he does distinctly better when told not to do things the school way, but to use his common sense. H. C. cannot write words dictated to him, but offers to write a few which he does know because he has practiced them over and over again, He puts down run, nam (man), care, ayn (and).
Mental tests (five days later): The child told us that he thought his trouble was that he didn’t remember, so to test his remote memory he was asked to do the following. The first construction test he completed in 28” with 10 moves; much better than his first effort, but he did not remember absolutely. He failed to reproduce the first cross line drawing, but drew the second after one failure. Drew the first of the 10 year Binet drawings. Gave a good account of two auditory verbal memory passages read 48 hours previously. School work?he writes a few new words which he has learned and writes out the table of threes, but this is really done by putting down the problems and then adding on his fingers.
Case 14. W. E. 13 years, 5 months. Boy. Summary: This boy, also, is an educational problem; he is unable to read well even a first grade passage, and is equally poor in the handling of numbers. He has been in the first and second readers for about six years. In spite of this, he does very well on all tests except the fourth and fifth of the 12 year Binet tests. The only notable feature is his very poor rote memory; he does much better with logical material.
Mental tests: Binet tests?failures; 12 years (4) defining abstract terms, (5) rearranging shuffled sentences. Of course inability to read affects this result. First construction test?1’ 15” with 21 moves. Second construction test?1’ 13” with 16 moves. First cross line test?done on first trial. Second cross line test?done on second trial. All these four tests done either fairly or very well. Auditory verbal memory test?done well. Memory span?five numerals. Substitution test?6 errors, an exceedingly poor record. School work?cannot add four digits; fails 5 plus 8. Writes extremely poorly. Reads first grade passage very poorly and utterly fails on second grade passage. Tapping test?61 squares in 30” with 1 error; 63 in 30” with 3 errors. Opposites test?1 error in first list, 4 errors in second; prompt reactions.
In this case again, feeblemindedness cannot be considered if we go by the scale of Binet, which, however, does not bring out the essential peculiarities of the case. Scholastically the boy is very defective, and naturally social judgment is largely based on just those attainments which he lacks. The correct diagnosis is that the boy is defective along special lines.
b. Individuals whose abilities show distinctly better in learning the usual school subjects.
Case 15. C. P. Just 15 years. Girl. Summary: This case scarcely needs any commentary; it is given merely to show that we find cases which do much better on school tests than on other tests, as well as such cases as H. C., just cited, where we find the reverse. This girl has had rather poor educational advantages, yet her school work is well up to her grade, the fifth, while her work on other tests is that of a moron. We must add that the girl does not give the impression from her conversation and reaction to commands of being an out-and-out defective. Her mother is insane and it is possible that the girl herself is aberrational, although her test work shows none of the irregularity so common to the work of that class of cases, but is merely consistently poor.
Mental tests: Binet tests?failures; 9 years (2) defining by terms superior to use, (4) naming months; 10 years (2) copying drawings, (3) detecting incongruities, (4) solving common sense problems; 12 years, all. Binet age, 9 years. Second construction test?5’ 45” with 44 moves; also an extremely stupid attempt with repetition of many impossibilities. First cross line test?failed. Completion test?10’ 36” with 4 errors, 3 being illogical. This is very poorly done both because of the illogical errors and because of the very slow reaction time. School work?does long division well, knows the process thoroughly and does the problem with only a careless error in subtraction at the end. Tells the price of 5 oranges at 60 cents per dozen. Reads a third grade passage easily and gives a good account of it. Inadvertently, she was not given a fifth grade passage.
4. Results on one specific type of tests better than results on all other tests.
a. Defective with highly specialized abilitiest Case 16. N. E. 13 years, 5 months. Girl. Summary: Vision, right and left 20/40. No other significant physical findings. This girl does as well as any bright normal girl on all the construction tests, but plainly shows by her work or the other tests that she is feebleminded. In this instance the value of using the performance tests as well as the Binet system lies in the possibility of making a constructive recommendation as to the training from which she is best able to benefit.
Mental tests: Binet tests?failures; 8 years (1) comparing objects, (2) counting 20-0, (4) knowing date; 9 years (2) defining in terms superior to use, (4) naming months, (5) solving common sense problems; 10 years, (1) arranging weights, (3) detecting incongruities, (4) solving common sense problems, (5) using given words in two sentences. Binet age 8 years. Introductory test? done in 50”. Did the triangles in 10”. First construction test?17” with only 6 moves. Second construction test?55” with 13 moves. These three construction tests are done excellently both for time and number of moves. First cross line test?failed on fourth trial. Completion test?8 errors out of a possible 9, only 2 being logical.
This is a very poor result even for a defective, and her explanations of her errors are also very silly. School test?reads only the simplest words. Can barely write. Fails to add 2+5 or 6+7. Case 17. D. T. 11 years, 6 months. Boy. Summary: Physical condition good, except for an old head injury. This boy’s work is poor on all types of tests, except the construction types where he does fully as well as any normal boy of his age.
Mental tests: Binet tests?failure; 7 years (4) giving value of stamps; 8 years (2) counting 20-0, (4) knowing date, (5) repeating numerals; 9 years (2) defining in terms superior to use, (4) solving common sense problems; 10 years, all. Binet age 7 4/5. Introductory test?2’ 59”. The triangles were done in only 15”. First construction test?58” with 13 moves. Second construction test?1’ 13” with 14 moves, i. e. only 3 more than the minimum. Puzzle box? 2’ 6” with only 3 errors. Compare the very good work on these tests with the boy’s Binet record, which shows him almost four years retarded, or with his work on the completion test where twothirds of the situations are not understood. First cross line test? correct on third trial. Second cross line test?failed. Completion test?6 errors, 4 illogical. Substitution test?7 errors out of a possible 10. This is an unusually poor record, even for a feebleminded boy. School work?can not read a first grade passage. Can only add 1 plus 1. The boy has been truant a good deal, but, of course, not sufficiently to account for such a miserable performance as this. {To be concluded)
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.