Physical and Mental Factors Involved in the Formboard Test
The Psychological Clinic Copyright, 1916, by Lightner Witmer, Editor. Vol. X, No. 6 November 15, 1916 :Author: Herman H. Young, Ph.D., Psychologist, Psychopathic Laboratory, Juvenile Court, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1/ The purpose of this discussion is to present a tentative analysis of the various physical and mental factors involved in the performance of the formboard test. The existence of these factors places the formboard at the head of the list of clinical tests. That it really holds this exalted position is supported by statements coming from various clinical laboratories. Thus Goddard says, “We have in our laboratory no other test that shows us so much about a child’s condition in so short a time as this formboard.” (1) Witmer considers the formboard to be first among clinical tests. He may be quoted as follows, “It is one of the best tests for distinguishing the feebleminded from the child of normal intelligence. It very quickly gives the experimenter a general idea of the child’s powers of recognition, discrimination, memory, and coordination. Repetition of the experiment often leads to a conclusion as to his ability to learn.” (6) Wallin employs the formboard test in determining intellectual status, to throw light upon the patient’s ability visually to identify forms, upon his constructive capacity and his power of muscular coordination. (5) Norsworthy considers the formboard a test of form perception and rate of movement. She also sought to learn something of the individual’s learning capacity and his ability to meet a new situation. (2) Sylvester, in the introduction to his standardization of the formboard, values the test as follows, “It appeals to the child’s interest, affording him a short and fascinating task which calls for his best efforts, and it helps to free him from the fear and self-consciousness which often interfere seriously in a mental examination. At the same time the test gives the examiner a good general view of the child’s mentality and it usually indicates more or less clearly the nature of his defects.” (4).
The above citations serve two purposes. In the first place they show the general agreement among clinicians as to the value of the formboard as a general diagnostic test. In the second place they name the various functions or capacities which are sought to be explored and tested by different examiners. Perhaps no one quoted above intended to name all the qualities or capacities revealed by the test, but they no doubt did mean to name those which they considered to be most significantly revealed in the performance of the test. The fact that they did not attempt to catalog it as a test of this or that particular mental function or capacity is of more than ordinary importance. It is an indication of the growing tendency to recognize the complexity and interdependence of the mental functions involved in the performance of apparently very simple tests. In addition, it indicates the great need of carefully studying and analyzing the elementary mental qualities involved in the performance of each test as a basis for correctly evaluating the behavior of an individual.
Perhaps the chief obstacle to a more rapid analytic development of tests has been the desire to express results in quantitative terms in order to establish norms for comparative purposes. To accomplish this aim, since only measurements of objects or qualities belonging to the same general class or order can be compared, investigators have been forced to posit and assume that the particular test which they were standardizing tested only one quality, as memory, imagination, form perception, or rate of movement. If, however, the investigator was aware that other factors were involved and not infrequently exerted a powerful, and only somewhat less frequently a dominating influence on the quantitative expression of an individual’s record, he failed to give them the prominence and emphasis necessary to prevent others from falling into the error of being content to assume that only one quality is being tested and that its value is adequately expressed in quantitative terms and may be directly compared, in those terms alone, with the results of others. Group comparisons may be justifiable, but even then we are not safe in concluding that this summation which obscures individualities insures the measurement of the same quality in different groups. When applied to an individual, a comparison with this narrow outlook is sure to be unjust and misleading. No attempt is made to minimize the value of quantitative measurements and the establishment of norms. That has great value and is an important part of the further development of tests. The emphasis here is on the careful establishment, proper use, and interpretation of norms. Objection is raised against the habit of assuming that figures tell the whole story. They have value only when supplemented by qualifying terms determined by the requirements of the particular case under consideration. The value of any test is great or small in direct proportion to the examiner’s ability carefully to observe, recognize, and analyze the various mental functions, capacities, or limitations revealed by the subject during his performance of the test. To facilitate rating the performance of an individual on the formboard an attempt is here made to include in one chart many of the more elementaly mental and physical factors involved. This is not proposed as an exhaustive list. If revision is needed it will be by addition rather than subtraction. Various other peculiarities of habit and mental traits are often revealed, but it has not seemed advisable to carry the list beyond those factors likely to be revealed in the testing of every individual. This list is intended to be suggestive of possibilities and aims, to stimulate further and more careful observation, and to induce the examiner to cultivate the habit of analyzing behavior. It is in no way intended to pieclude further and additional observations. To evaluate correctly the performance of a given individual a certain amount of information is necessary. There is (1) a slight but constant sex difference in formboard ability running throughout life, men and boys tending on the whole to do the test quicker than women and girls; and (2) an indirect ratio between age and formboard ability up at least to the age of maturity. Consequently sex is chosen as the primary and age as the secondary basis of classification. It is possible that there is a closer correlation between physiological age and formboard ability than between chronological age and formboard ability, but such classification is impossible at present, because there is no ready means of adequately determining physiological development. Although not a part of the established system of classification, it has been found advisable to record the subject’s educational or professional standing.
After the sex, age, and educational standing of the subject have been obtained, his performance may be compared with the performances of normal subjects of the same sex, age, and educational standing, or if his performance is so exceptional in any respect that it falls outside the group in which it properly belongs, an attempt should then be made to find in what group a performance such as his naturally falls. A boy six years and two months old must be rated in terms of what boys of this same age do under similar cir152 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. . cumstances. He cannot be expected to give more attention, show more intelligence, planfulness, or powers of observation than boys of his age, but he should be on a par with them. In some respects he may rate near the median, in others he may reach the maximum, and in still others he may fall to the minimum for his age, yet his performance as a whole may be considered medium for his age, because his assets and defects counterbalance one another. It is exceptional to find a normal child consistently above or below par in every respect. His degree of success is determined by the interplay of all the factors involved and by the number, nature, and degree of their variations from the median.
If a subject does so poorly that he falls outside his age group, he may be found to do as poorly as a two or three year old in some respects, while in others he may show normal powers. On the other hand, a subject may be precocious in one or more respects and make a fine record. Whatever the nature of a performance, it should be rated as accurately as possible on every factor involved, by using the median of the subject’s age group as the standard. Such ratings give valuable diagnostic material, by showing where the individual excels, where he is defective, in what he may be expected to succeed, and in what to fail. It gives evidence as to why he is thought dull, normal, or precocious by his teachers or parents.
Early in this investigation attempts at the qualitative analysis of the formboaid test revealed that faulty evaluation and interpretation of performances are responsible for more mistakes than inherent defects of the tests themselves. It is generally assumed, and perhaps rightly so in many cases, that in a test we are securing the best possible results from the subject, that he is in the best of trim, and is revealing his innate powers. Unless care is taken, the subject is considered unable to do better on other occasions and on other tests. On the other hand, just as serious a mistake may be made by assuming that he will always do as well as he did on this particular occasion. The test may present itself as unusually difficult and thus show the subject at his worst, or familiarity with the test or allied tasks may give a decided advantage. Such differences tend to make results incomparable. If a reliable study and diagnosis is to be made, the individual must be subjected to a large series of tests and given an opportunity to display his powers. But later, when referring to the written record, how shall an individual’s performances be interpreted? How shall the significant be distinguished from the insignificant, those tests which presented a real difficulty from those which were mere play? If in connection with one test he is rated low on muscular coordination, and on another low on attention, are we to understand these ratings to refer to his performance on the particular tests in connection with which they are recorded or shall they be interpreted to represent his maximum ability under any conditions whatever, favorable or unfavorable? In all probability, the examiner himself, if asked this question, could not answer with certainty. He would perhaps reply that such a distinction did not occur to him, but that he likely meant them as ability rather than mere performance ratings. These ratings might prove to be nothing more than a rough expression of a general and indefinite impression instead of a careful analysis of performances. These considerations and limitations are not peculiar to the formboard. In certain other tests it is still more important to make a careful distinction between types of behavior peculiar to the moment and occasion, and those which actually signify the full strength of an individual’s capacities. What is here said of the formboard applies with almost equal force to all tests. Frequently an individual works a test satisfactorily without having any of his powers really tested, because no special demand is made upon them. The test is not, however, without value in such cases as it shows the individual to have adequate powers so far as required for a satisfactory performance.
That analytic ratings may be of the greatest diagnostic value and convey a definite meaning, both at the time they are recorded and later when reference is made to them by the same or another examiner, a careful distinction must be made between those factors and qualities which are involved only to a limited degree, but are not drawn out to their full extent, and those which are actually put to the test, revealed with full force, and measured with certainty. To make these distinctions possible and to insure uniformity in their application, it has been found necessary to propose terms whose meanings are restricted to the above uses. The noun, epideixis, (from the Greek, epideiknumi, to show), and its adjective form, epideictic, literally mean “the showing or exhibition,” for the noun, and “the shown or exhibited” for the adjective. When I evaluate and record an individual’s epideixis of attention and muscular coordination as low, I mean that on the particular occasion and performance referred to, he used and exhibited poor powers of attention and muscular coordination. It constitutes an evaluation of what he actually did. If I meant to convey the idea that I had really tested and measured their full strength and capacity or had other sufficient evidence, gained by considerable experience with the indivdual or by the results of a long series of tests, for knowing their optimum limits, i. e. the existing innate power of each quality actually present and available, I could distinguish such rating from the above only by the use of a different term. The noun hyparxis, (Greek, hyparcho, to be. present), meaning existence, and the adjective hyparctic. (Greek, hyparktikos), meaning existent, are the terms employed to convey this latter meaning. If I rate an individual’s hyparxis of attention low, I mean that the amount of attention which he is capable of giving and actually possesses, or could possibly give under any conditions whatever, no matter how favorable, is low. It means that he could, if necessary, under appropriate conditions give so much attention but no more.
Hyparctic ratings are justified only upon clear cut evidence or actual determination of the maximal intensity and ability of the specific factors rated. In the absence of such evidence in respect to any factor the rating must be made in terms of its degree actually discovered, but stripped of the implication that its full strength has been tested and measured. Hyparxis has no element of futurity. It has reference only to that stage of development which the individual has reached and his actual capabilities at that particular stage. The hyparxis of a given boy’s energy at the age of twelve is distinctly different from what it was at the age of five. No hyparctic rating per se indicates the future possibilities or probabilities of development. It has to do only with actualities, with no reference whatever to possibilities.
It is unfortunate that in practice it is unsatisfactory to attempt to restrict the terms to either of the above uses alone. Either one alone serves the purpose about as badly as the other. If the two uses are born in mind throughout the rating of a performance and recorded as separate ratings) the result is a satisfactory and helpful analysis which for diagnostic purposes is far superior to a mere detailed description and narrative of the performance itself. The time to evaluate the significant features of a performance is during its progress or immediately thereafter, not at some later date from even the most carefully recorded observations. The important thing is not so much what the subject does, but how he does it. The chart is not intended to displace descriptive accounts of behavior. It has an independent function which cannot be subsumed under the head of description.
Owing to the large number of factors involved in performing this test, two fundamental facts must be recognized; (1) that it is impossible to predict what factors will be tested in a given individual, and (2) that the number of possible combinations which may determine his success or failure is practically unlimited. Exactly what factors will be tested can be determined only by application of the test. These vary from individual to individual and show why the formboard cannot be used as a specific test, i. e. a test of a specific mental function. This is true of a larger range of tests than is generally supposed. Strictly speaking there are few if any really specific tests; tests which can be given while the examiner takes a vacation. There is at present too great a tendency to interpret results mechanically. The tester gives tests with assurance that he knows exactly what problems he is setting, what they will test and measure, and then upon this illusion, either forgetting or not recognizing that in reality it was an entirely different problem for the child, he proceeds to interpret results.
In evaluating the different factors and qualities a five point scale is used. The highest grade is 5, the medium or median 3, and the lowest is 1. It is often advantageous and frequently essential to make finer distinctions and ratings than the simple five point system permits. Each of these general grades is therefore subdivided into five parts, each bearing the same relation to the other within the group that the corresponding parts of the coarser system bear to one another. Thus the lowest grade, employing the finer system, is 1-1, the median 3-3, and the highest 5-5. The grade 1-3 is the median within the first or lowest general group, and 1-5 is the highest ranking within this same general group. The median grade is assigned whenever there is no evidence of marked variation from the average for the sex and age group. Explanation and Use of Terms in Chart. The chart is arranged to include both hyparctic and epideictic ratings. The diffeient factors are defined, or explained, and rated only in so far as they are involved in the performance of this test. The particular position which each occupies in the chart is in no way intended to be indicative of its relative importance. Physical adequacy A large variety of physical defects and peculiarities naturally fall under this heading, but whatever their nature, they can be classed as anatomical, functional, or both. The specific nature and significance of each defect and asset should be carefully noted. Deformities, over- or under-development, or absence of parts of the body, particularly of the arms, hands, and eyes, are classed as anatomical. Under functional factors come such disturbances as paralysis, choreic movements, and impaired volitional control. Sensitivity
The subject must have at least fair powers of auditory acuity to understand the spoken directions. Suspicion as to hearing ability is often aroused when the subject, otherwise awake, fails to comprehend the directions. He may by observation grasp the idea that he is to replace the blocks, but fail entirely to get the idea that he is to hurry. Rudolph Pintner and Donald G. Patterson have made some interesting comparisons between the formboard ability of young deaf and hearing children. They conclude that at the Ohio State School for the deaf, “The average entering class of deaf children is apt to be about a year backward in formboard ability and that this backwardness is not made up during the first year in school.” Stated merely in quantitative terms, based on time and errors, their report is not satisfying, as it fails to tell wherein the difference lies. Such comparison is probably not fair to the deaf child on account of the different method of giving him instructions. Then, too, a larger number of cases or a second group of hearing children might have reversed even these qualified conclusions. Of special significance is the fact that the difference between the two groups of seven year old deaf children is greater than the difference between the second group of seven year old deaf children and the seven year old hearing children who had had the experience of the preceding year. (3) Visual acuity is a very important factor, as it may be responsible for apparent defectiveness in other qualities. Poor space perception may be due entirely to defective vision. Poor vision may cause numerous and otherwise inexcusable errors, or may very materially increase the time, because the subject hesitatingly goes no faster than he is able to distinguish the forms with certainty. Although the acuity of vision can in no way be accurately determined by this test, grave defectiveness should be discovered or at least arouse suspicion.
Cutaneous and kincesthetic sensations play a more important function in the formboard test than is ordinarily attributed to them. They are seldom given a place even in introspective reports. These sensations have the happy faculty of avoiding detection and of rendering valuable service unhonored. If we make them the special object of attention either in ourselves or others, we discover that in their absence the performance would be decidedly faulty. We depend upon vision to recognize the different forms and to associate the blocks with their proper recesses, but we depend upon pressure and kinsesthesis to furnish the final information as to the fit of each block. The eyes follow a block only until it approaches its chosen recess, and then give it no more attention unless it does not fit securely. There may be some relation between the functional development of tactile and kinesthetic sensations and the amusing performance of some young children and many feebleminded who energetically pound in each block with their hands.
Vitality
The energy used by different individuals varies from the person who would break the board if it were at all destructible to the one whose energy is almost zero. In many cases rate is in direct ratio to energy. Some individuals have a high rate with no accuracy, while others are both rapid and accurate workers. With most normal subjects, except in the case of young children, fatiguability is negligible so far as revealed by this test. Small children and the feebleminded often show fatigue and especially when they meet with repeated failures on successive trials. The health of the subject has, of course, a great deal to do with the general tone and character of his performance.
Movement
Control has reference to the degree of success with which the subject is able to direct and execute his general bodily movements. Good control requires that the subject accomplish easily and readily the intended aim of his movements. Coordination is relatively unmodifiable muscular cooperation, refers to the finer adjustments, and is used in a more restricted sense than control. Good coordination insures precision in grasping and handling the blocks. Initiative has reference to the self-initiated activity of the subject, whether he is a self-starter or requires urging. Without initiative nothing can be accomplished. Excess initiative may cause the expenditure of much energy without compensating success. Dexterity is manual expertness or readiness and skill in using the hands. Dexterity for some people is limited to the use of only one hand at a time. This is the case with most young children. Many adults use both hands successfully at the same time.
Complexity of responsiveness is rated by the appropriateness of the movements made in response to the instructions of the examiner. Poor responsiveness is illustrated by those children who begin to gather the blocks into their arms, put them into their mouths, try to drop or throw the blocks into recesses. Vivacity is shown by ready, animated, and brisk responsiveness.
Attention
Analytic concentration requires that the subject give attention to the different parts and features of the test individually in such a way as to break it up into its component parts and attend to each separately. It demands an analysis of the situation at the beginning and at its various successive stages. Persistent concentration requires that the subject give his entire attention to the matter in hand until it is completed.
Distribution requires that the attention be properly distributed over the board as a whole or unit, and that no part of the test escape notice. Poor distribution of attention is exhibited when the child confines his attention to a restricted area of the board in an attempt to find the recess for a given block. Alertness is shown when the child is wide awake and “on the job.” It is the facility with which attention can be awakened and employed.
When the test makes an appeal to the child and arouses and holds his involuntary attention, we are dealing with interest. Without interest the child may refuse to do the test, may do it as a piece of drudgery, or as a matter of courtesy to the examiner. Imagination (general)
Imageability has a very definite influence on formboard ability. Its innate powers determine the intensity and keenness of an individual’s images. Without imageability this test cannot be worked, for the subject cannot directly compare block with recess. He must form an image of the block looked at and then hold it in mind while looking for the recess which, when found, must be compared with the image of the block.
Associability refers to the number of discrete things which can be present in consciousness at one time. It is generally considered under the caption of memory span. The individual who is able to hold in consciousness only two or three things at once is at a great disadvantage and is bound to reveal his limitations. Associability as the measure of possible complexity determines to a considerable extent the complexity of imagination, but great complexity does not necessarily accompany good associability. Imagination (specific)
For a first class performance on this test the subject must possess good powers of observation. He must be able, in addition to comprehending the test and directions, to employ his attention in such a manner that nothing escapes his notice and that he is constantly aware of the success, failure, and particular stage of his progress on the test. Blocks left out entirely or misplaced and at the end of the trial still uncorrected, are some of the things which happen with faulty observation.
Understanding is rated according to the degree of comprehension with which the subject grasps the directions and works the test. If he understands what he is to do and then shows that he can do it, he must be credited with fair understanding. There is such a difference in the readiness or quickness with which individuals comprehend what is to be done that it is advisable to rate quickness of understanding. A mere suggestion or hint is sufficient to give many the clue, while others must be shown or they would never be able to work the test.
An individual may show planfulness (1) by attempting a method in replacing the blocks and reviewing the board systematically in search of the correct recess when it is not seen at once, and (2) by removing the blocks in a predetermined order to facilitate replacing them on the third trial. It is often found very difficult to distinguish between an intentional plan and an accidental plan of removing the blocks, for both look alike and serve the same purpose. Intelligence is the ability of an individual to solve what for him is a new problem. (7) The formboard is no more a test of intelligence than a test of the other factors here listed. In many performances, perhaps most performances, there is no ground of inference either for or against the intelligence of the individual. Perception of form is used as ability to discriminate differences in shape between different blocks and different recesses, and to recognize the resemblance between each block and its recess. Trainability and retentiveness of memory can be only estimated in the majority of cases. Frequently the formboard serves as an adequate measure, especially of the former. Both are essential for a normal performance and have a direct bearing on formboard ability.
Attitude
Adaptability refers to the individual’s behavior and bearing in adjusting, accommodating, and fitting himself in with these new and changed conditions. Good adaptability requires that the individual either appear accommodated from the very first or else be able to adjust himself readily. Some conduct themselves as well as if coached for the occasion. Others with poor adaptability are out of harmony with their surroundings.
Assurance is used in much the same sense as self-confidence, the difference being that confidence is founded on reasoning, while assurance is largely a matter of feeling. A reasonable degree of posi160 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. tiveness or assurance is essential. There is not necessarily, however, a direct relation between degree of assurance and formboard ability. An absolute lack of assurance accomplishes nothing. In this case the child does nothing without encouragement and assent from the examiner for every move he makes.
The spirit of competition or rivalry is an important contributing factor, and is rated under the heading of competitiveness. Some subjects show a very high degree of competitiveness and others a very low degree.
Painstaking refers to attitude toward or habits of work. It is characterized by careful attention. The painstaking individual is scrupulous and faithful in performance. He is dependable and reliable in the discharge of his duty, i. e. he can be depended upon to do his best, but his best may be far below the standard for his age group. He is rated in terms of the faithfulness with which he applies himself to the best of his ability, not in terms of his ability and not in terms of the resulting success.
Poise as defined by Sylvester is ” ability to work at one’s maximum speed without losing control and getting confused. When a child in his efforts to place the blocks quickly, over-hurries and gets flustered so that he makes numerous and inexcusable errors or hesitates in a semi-dazed way, he does so because he is lacking in this quality which we have chosen to call poise.” (4) Shyness frequently has a definite influence on formboard ability. When present it should be recognized by the examiner and given its appropriate rating. An individual capable in other respects may be shy and on that account make a poor record.
Individuals may approach the test with predetermined ideas concerning the nature of the test and the conditions under which it is to be taken. Such ideas, depending on their nature, may hinder or facilitate the performance and should be rated accordingly under their appropriate heading, H being used for hinder and F for facilitate.
Tractability has to do with manageability or the ease with which the subject is controlled or governed. It takes account of how he submits to discipline, and refers to his obedience. Surprising revelations are often made in this short and simple test. Miscellaneous The specific nature of the laboratory conditions under which the test is worked must be taken into consideration in rating a performance, and should be rated in the same manner as other factors. The child is not held responsible for poor laboratory conditions, but if FACTORS INVOLVED IN FORM BOARD TEST. 161 they exist he might reasonably be granted the privilege of registering a complaint. Good laboratory conditions demand the absence of all extraordinary stimuli except the formboard. Two methods may be employed in replacing the blocks. The child generally picks up a block and then glancing over the board searches for its recess. Normal children employ this method in about ninety-nine per cent of the cases. By the other method the child chooses a recess to be filled, sometimes taking the recesses in a definite order across the board, and then searches through the pile of blocks to find the one to fit the recess chosen to be filled next. If he gets a wrong block, he replaces it in the pile of blocks and resumes his search for the correct one. This method prolongs a trial and gives a very bad time record. Frequently these two methods are used by the same subject, but this latter method is generally used only in placing one or two blocks. No attempt is made to grade method, because no satisfactory criterion is available. A record is kept of which method is used in making the shortest trial. Imitation is placed under miscellaneous because it, too, cannot be rated. It should be noted that a child usually imitates to his own disadvantage, making a worse time record than he would otherwise. If on the first trial the examiner throws the blocks out into the tray the child may try to throw them into their recesses instead of setting them in carefully and firmly. On the second trial he may try to grasp an entire pile of blocks in one hand as the examiner did in taking them out. On the third trial he may attempt to remove the blocks by a mixed arrangement as the examiner did on the second trial.
Summation Rating
The general attitude or feeling of the examiner toward the performance as a whole, considered in terms of the impression he has of what others of the same sex and age do, is graded as impressional rating. As another basis for summation rating the time of the shortest of the first three trials according to the standard method is recorded and compared with the proper chart of distribution. If the record falls within the limits of its sex and age group, it is located in that group according to the quintile within which it falls. If a record lies outside its own group, the individual’s formboard ability must be rated accordingly.
Formboard age is not synonymous with mental age, and is used only in comparing the formboard ability of children of different ages. The individual is assigned for his formboard age the^age of 162 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. that group nearest whose median time his record lies. Thus twenty per cent of thirteen year old boys have a formboard age of less than ten years. Competency (social) This test alone does not enable us to decide definitely and finally upon the subject’s social ability and conformity. If we note carefully and evaluate correctly the various factors involved and exhibited, we have evidence Avhich should enable us to make fairly reliable inferences concerning ability and conformity. We must, however, not lose sight of the fact that such rating is merely an estimation and not a measurement. The formboard should give sufficient indication of the subject’s weaknesses and capacities to enable the examiner to proceed directly to the specific tests necessary for confirmation. Its usefulness as a test varies directly as the examiner’s ability to interpret and evaluate performances. It is, therefore, highly important that the test be kept constantly in mind as a device for learning something about the subject’s ability and conformity.
Explanation of the Ratings of William on Chart 1A. The formboard test was given William according to the standard method immediately after his arrival at the Clinic. The only information at hand was that he is a boy eight years and one month old. He was rated by two trained observers according to the method already described. Both rated this one performance, but made their ratings independently. In ten factors the grades were exactly alike, in thirty-five cases the grades fell within the same quintiles, and in only two instances were the differences more than five points of the finer grading system. The nearness of the two ratings, together with facts developed during the remainder of the clinical examination, evidence the practical usefulness of the chart.
Physical adequacy
He had neither anatomical nor functional defect to interfere with this test. He appeared as able for it as most boys his age, and was accordingly given median rating.
Sensitivity So far as shown by this test he had normal auditory, cutaneous, and kinesthetic sensations. He appeared to be hindered by poor sight and grave^suspicion was aroused as to his visual acuity. CHART 1 A.* ANALYTIC CHART FOR FORMBOARD WITH RATINGS OF WILLIAM. Name: William. Date: Sex: Boy. Age: 8 yr. 1 mo. School Grade: Special Class. Physical Adequacy… . j Function^ 3. Auditory. . Sensitivity i Visual ‘5. Cutaneous. 6. Energy Vitality J 710. Control 11. Co-ordination. Movement Initiative. 13. Dexterity. Responsiveness / Complexity… 16. Concentration A. 17. ” P. Attention 18. Distribution 21. Imageability. Imagination (general).. <j 22. Associability. 23. Complexity. . 24. Observation.. .. 25. Understanding.. 26. ” Q Imagination (specific).. ?< 27. Planfulness Memory J30. Tramability. 31. Retentiveness. Kinaesthetic. 8. Fatiguability. 9. Health 15. Vivacity. 19. Alertness. 20. Interest. . 28. Intelligence 29. Form Perception. 32. Adaptability… . 33. Assurance 34. Competitiveness. 35. Painstaking Attitude 36. Poise 37. Preperception F. 38. ” H. 39. Shyness 40. Tractability 41. Lab. conditions . Miscellaneous J f?- Method 43. Imitation 44. Shortest trial time .. 45. Formboard ability .. Summation Rating. ? ? ? 46. ” age 47. Impressional Competency (Social)… ( ?? !!!!! Ratings Epideictie Hyparctio 3 2-3 2-3 2-3 3-1 3 2-5 3-2 2-3 3-1 3-2 2-3 2-4 3 2-5 2 2-2 3-1 2-4 2 3-4 3-1 3-1 3 2-5 3-1 2 2-5 3-1 3-1 2 3 3 3 4 3 b-r 0 53 2-1 ? 2 2-3 3
It will be observed that the qualities enumerated under the general heads ?Vitality, Movement, Attention,
Imagination, etc., are the same as on Dr Witmer’s diagnostic chart, used at the Psychological Clinic of the University of Pa. See Thb Psychological Clinic, Vol. IX, No. 8, Jan., 1916, p. 229. 164 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC.
Vitality
Both energy and rate were distinctly below that employed by the ordinary eight year old boy. They were so far below and used in such a way that both examiners rated him as unable to employ as much energy, even at his best, as an eight year old ordinarily uses. As is shown by a rating of three from both examiners, nothing unusual was noted concerning his fatiguability and health. He thus falls far below normal in vitality.
Movement
His control is better than his energy and rate. His coordination is better than his control, and is, in fact, good enough for his age. His initiative is considerably below normal and falls far short of that generally exhibited by boys of his age. Boys of his age normally use more than he could possibly muster up. He showed low normal dexterity for his age. The complexity of his responses was as good as need be and was not responsible for his poor record. His epideictic vivacity was very low.
Attention His epideictic analytic concentration, distribution of attention, and interest were distinctly low. Alertness was given a low hyparctic rating. The persistence of his attention was sufficient for his age. Imagination (general)
There is a question as to where he should be rated on imageability. The evidence is strongly in favor of putting him entirely below his age group. About associability there is no question, for in it he is distinctly poor. That the low hyparctic rating of associability here is justified, was proven later by the fact that he has a memory span for only three digits. Complexity of imagination is also on the borderline.
Imagination (specific)
His observation was scarcely as good as it should be for an eight year old boy. In understanding and quickness of understanding he comes within the lower limits of his age group. His poor performance was thus not entirely due to inability to comprehend the task. His planfulness was about on a par with his understanding. His intelligence was not put to any great test, but so far as revealed was scarcely of as high grade as it should be. His perception of form was good enough to enable him to perform the test at a greater rate. The fact that he confused some of the blocks may have been due to poor vision, inadequate space perception or poorly directed attention. In trainability and retentiveness he fell distinctly below the performance level of his sex and age group.
Attitude
In adaptability and assurance he comes within the lower limits of his age group. Lack of the spirit of rivalry or competitiveness characterized his whole performance. He did not hurry or work with a winning spirit. So far as painstaking, poise, and shyness were involved, there was nothing unusual. They did not tend to give him a bad record. The highest rating in any factor is in tractability. Miscellaneous
The laboratory conditions were satisfactory. There were no important disturbing factors and nothing in them to give an excuse for his poor performance. His method was to find the recess for a block after picking it up. This is the best method. He did not imitate. His shortest trial time record was 53 seconds.
Summation Rating
His time record is much longer than that of any normal eight year old boy. His formboard ability is very low. It is just about that of a four year old child. His performance impressed one as very bad, even when not carefully analyzed.
William was rated distinctly low in ability by both examiners. This rating for his age is virtually a diagnosis of feeblemindedness. His conformity was considered good enough for a lad of his age and was assigned the median rating of three. The ratings in ability and conformity are merely inferences based on the evidence obtained from this one performance and are not offered as final diagnoses. In less than an hour after the above ratings were completed, William was given a careful clinical examination. He was again given three trials on the formboard by the standard method, but succeeded in reducing his time only two seconds, from 53 to 51 seconds. His performance was but little better than on the first three trials. His memory span was found to be limited to three digits. Other details of the examination cannot be given here, but it is of interest to note that he was diagnosed as an idio-imbecile, custodial case, due to developmental degeneracy of intra-uterine origin. Ratings and Diagnosis of Mary.
Owing to the lengthy descriptions of the chart already given, it is unnecessary to give a detailed description of the ratings of CHART 1 B. ANALYTIC CHART FOR FORMBOARD WITH RATINGS OF MARY. Name: Mary. Date: Sex: Girl. Age: 10 yr. 4 mo. School Grade: Special Class. Physical Adequacy… . j Sensitivity j Vitality J Movement Responsiveness. Attention Imagination (general).. Imagination (specific).. Memory Attitude. Miscellaneous. Summation Rating…. | Competency (Social)… j 1. Anatomical. 2. Functional. 3. Auditory 4. Visual 5. Cutaneous. . Kinaesthetic. 6. Energy 7. Rate 8. Fatiguability 9. Health 10. Control 11. Co-ordination. 12. Initiative… . 13. Dexterity. .. . ‘14. Complexity. . 15. Vivacity 16. Concentration A. 17. ” P. 18. Distribution 19. Alertness 20. Interest 21. Imageability. 22. Associability. 23. Complexity. , 24. Observation 25. Understanding. . 26. ” Q. 27. Planfulness 28. Intelligence 29. Form Perception. f30. Trainability 131. Retentiveness…. 32. Adaptability… . 33. Assurance 34. Competitiveness. 35. Painstaking 36. Poise 37. Preperception F. 38. ” H. 39. Shyness 40. Tractability 41. Lab. conditions 42. Method 43. Imitation 44. Shortest trial time.. 45. Formboard ability . 46. ” age 47. Impressional 48. Ability 49. Conformity Epideictic Hyparctic 3 3-1 3 2-3 2-5 2-3 3 3 2-4 2-3 3-1 3-12-5 3-1 2-2 2-2 2-4 2-3 2-3 2-5 2-3 2-3 2-1 2-3 2-3 2 2 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-5 2-1 2-1 3 3 2-4 3-1 b-r 0 140 1 3(?) 2 2-3 3 Mary. Her ratings are included because some of them stand in marked contrast with those of William. Reference to the chart should give a fair clinical picture of her performance. The only information available concerning Maiy at the time she was given this test, was that she was a girl ten years and four months old. This same afternoon she was given a thorough mental examination and the following diagnosis was made: “Cerebropathy leading to imbecility and slight spastic paraplegia: an idio-imbecile (Barr classification).” The ratings of a normal child are not given, because they show so little variation from the median that we can do no better than give them a normal or medium rating in most of the factors. In one or two of the factors there is generally sufficient variation to require a rating slightly above or below the median, but nearly always coming within the age group.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Goddard, H. H. The Fonnboard as a measure of intellectual development in children. Reprint from The Training School {Bulletin), 1912, 9, 49-52.
Norsworthy, N. Psychology of mentally deficient children. Columbia University Cont. to Philos. and Psychol., 1906. Pp. 111.
3. Pintner, Rudolph, and Patterson, Donald C. The Formboard ability of young deaf and hearing children. The Psychol. Clinic, 1916, 9, 234-237. 4. Sylvester, Reuel Hull. The Formboard test. Psychol. Review Monographs, Vol. XV, No. 4, Sept., 1913, Whole No. 65. Princeton, N. J.: Psychol. Review Co. Pp. 56. 5. Wallin, J. E. W. Human efficiency. Ped. Sern., 1911, 18, 74-84. 6. Witmer, Lightner. Courses in psychology at the summer school of the University of Pennsylvania. The Psychol. Clinic, 1910-1911, 4, 247 and 249. 7 . . On the Relation of intelligence to efficiency. The Psychol. Clinic, 1915, 9, 61-86. 8. Young, Herman H. The Witmer formboard. The Psychol. Clinic, 1916, 10, 93-111.
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.