Point Scale Ratings of Ninety-Three Dependent Children
- Author:
Charles E. Skinner, Ph.D.,
Ohio University, Athens.
In the year 1915-16 the writer became very much interested in psychological, educational, and sociological problems relating to dependent children. A survey of psychological literature revealed the fact that but little had been done in this field. A little more had been done along sociological lines.
The problem was to determine the mental status of dependent children and to interpret as far as possible the results of the investigation. The superintendent of one of the county homes for orphan children gave permission to test the dependent children in his charge. There were 93 children in the home at that time, ranging in age from 3 to 17 years.
The tests of the Yerkes-Bridges-Hardwick Point Scale were given to these children, and had time permitted several performance tests would also have been given. Attention is called to the fact that while the Yerkes Point Scale is one of the best of its kind, the results must not be considered as dogmatic. The work was facilitated by an eugenic survey being made of the county by Dr. Thomas Haines, Director of the Ohio Board of Juvenile Research. The 93 children in the county home came from all parts of the county. Nine were colored, and several others were children of foreign-born parents. All of the children were tested by the writer. In only a few instances was any great difficulty found in getting the children to respond, the failure being due to the low mentality of the subjects. Most of the children became immediately interested and tried to do their best. As stated above, the Yerkes-BridgesHardwick Scale was used. The mental age was calculated from the norms used by Yerkes. The data was subjected to a veiy rough test using Goddard’s 3 and 2 bases of diagnosing feeblemindedness and Pintner and Patterson’s 3 per cent hypothesis. The main difference between the two methods (in results) is, that the latter method reduces the number of feebleminded one-half and about doubles the backward group. This I believe is closer to the actual state of affairs. It is my firm belief that the majority of workers have been diagnosing many as feebleminded, who in reality are only backward.
The cases were then diagnosed by using ? .75 I.Q. (Intelligence Quotient, or coefficient of mental ability) as diagnostic of feeblemindedness. Stern advocates the I.Q.; Kuhlman, Terman, and Bobertag use it. The quotient is arrived at by dividing the mental age by the chronological age. Some writers have considered the child feebleminded if the quotient falls below .80. Stern holds, however, that an I. Q. between .71 and .80 does not always denote feeblemindedness. Pintner has clearly demonstrated that an I. Q. of .80 is too high a limit for feeblemindedness, and that this method is totally inadequate for children of sixteen and over. Several of our cases fell into this upper age group. Instead of using ? .80 as the line of demarcation between the feebleminded and the normal, I am using ? .75 which is much more conservative.
After thorough consideration I cannot help but feel that Pintner and Patterson’s psychological concept of feeblemindedness greatly clarifies our ideas as to who is feebleminded, and at the same time, offers a self-perfecting method of determining whether an individual is feebleminded, backward, normal, bright, or very bright. A sympathetic understanding of the principles laid down by Kuhlrnann in the June, 1915, issue of the Journal of Psycho-Asthenics TABLE I. POINTS SCORED ON THE POINT SCALE BY NINETY-THREE DEPENDENT CHILDREN, ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL YEAR GROUPS, AND IN ORDER OF POINTS SCORED, WITH MEDIAN AND AVERAGE ATTAINMENTS. Scores… 3* Total. .. Median . Av. Dev. Averages 1.5* 3* 17 2* 17 20 21 26 17 19 22 29 20 4.6 18.2 20 23 31 49 20.5 3.7 27 9.2 21.730.7 26 29 30 32 36 36 46 46 27 31 35 36 41 47 49 56 59 10 34 5.9 35.1 41 9.1 42.3 26 32 39 41 44 46 47 49 50 69 11 46 47 47 49 50 52 53 54 56 57 61 12 13 37 38 50 52 53 54 56 62 10 45 7.9 44.3 11 52 3.8 52.4 47 53 53 56 60 61 62 62 62 63 64 65 70 14 22 44 58 62 62 79 15 41 53 59 63 52.5 6.0 50.2 13 62 4.3 59.9 6 60 13.2 54.5 56 7.0 54 16 46 46 50 59 67 17 46 62 5 50 6.S 53.6 54 8.0 54
‘ The Mental Age as determined by Huey’s method. See Huey, E. B. Syllabus for Clinical Examination of Children. will do much toward preparing one to accept the concept and method of Pintner and Patterson. Table II gives in the first column the age of the child; the second column, the score attained by the child; the third column, the corresponding mental age; in the fourth, the years accelerated 3* 1.5* 3* 17 2* 17 20 21 26 17 19 22 29 20 23 31 49 26 29 30 32 36 36 46 46 27 31 35 36 41 47 3 1.5 3 4.5 2.0 4.5 4 4.9 5.6 4. 4. 5 6 4. 5 6.5 8.8 5. 6 6 6.5 7.5 7.5 5 8.5 5.8 6.4 7 7.5 .2 .5 s* + 0 -2.5 -1.0 +0.5 -3.0 -0.5 -0.2 -0.1 -0.6 -1.5 -1.2 -1.0 0 -2.1 _2 -0.5 +1.8 -2.5 -2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -0.5 -0.5 +0.5 +0.5 -3.2 -2.6 -2.0 -1.5 -0.8 -0.5 N F B N F N N N N B B N(?) N F F N N F F F B N N N N F F F B N N N F B N F N N N Br. B B B N B B’ N V.Br. B B ‘B B N N N N B B B B B N 49 56 59 26 32 39 41 44 46 47 49 50 69 46 47 47 49 50 52 53 54 56 57 61 37 38 50 52 53 54 56 9 10 5.5 6.5 8 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.8 8.9 11.5 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.8 8.9 9 9.1 9.3 9.5 9.6 10.5 7.5 7.9 8.9 9 9.1 9.3 9.5 ? ‘ S o * + -0.2 +0.5 + 1.0 -4.5 -3.5 -2.0 -1 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.2 -1.1 +1.5 -2.5 -2.4 -2.4 -2.2 -2.1 -2.0 -1.9 -1.7 -1.5 -1.4 -0.5 -4.5 -4.1 -3.1 -3.0 -2.9 -2.7 -2.5 62 47 53 53 56 60 61 62 62 62 63 64 65 70 22 44 58 62 62 79 41 53 59 63 46 46 50 59 67 46 62 10.6 8.6 9.1 9.1 9.5 10.2 10.5 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.8 11 11.1 11.6 5 8.4 9.8 10.6 10.6 14.3 8.2 9.1 10 10.8 8.5 8.5 8.9 10 11.3 8.5 10.6 8 ? X + -1.4 -4.4 -3.9 -3.9 -3.5 -2.8 -2.5 -2.3 -2.3 -2.3 -2.2 -2.0 -1.9 -1.4 -9 -5.6 -4.2 -3.4 -3.4 +0.3 -6.8 -5.9 -5.0 -4.2 -7.5 -7.5 -7.1 -6.0 -4.7 -8.5 -6.4
or retarded (subtracting column 3 from column 1); in the fifth the diagnosis of the child or the usual 3 years retardation above 9 and 2 years retardation below 9 as being diagnostic of feeblemindedness; and in the last column the diagnosis based upon the hypothesis that 3 per cent of unselected children in an average community are TABLE XIX. SHOWING GODDARD’s 3 AND 2 BASIS OF DIAGNOSIS, AND PINTNER AND PATTERSON’S 3 PER CENT HYPOTHESIS. Age F. M. 3 & 2 3%H 3 & 2 3%H. 3&2 3%H. 3 &2 3%H. 3 & 2 3%H, 3&2 3%H N. Br. V. Br. Total. Age 3&2 3%H 10 3 & 2 3%H, 3&2 3%H. 12 3 & 2 3%H. 342 3%H. 3&2 3%H F. M. 10 10 12 N. Br. V. Br. Total. 10 10 11 11 13 13 Age F. M. B…. N…. Br. .. V. Br. Total. 3&2 3%H 16 3&2 3%H 3 &2 3%H. All Ages 3 & 2 3% H. 36 14 35 58 20 18 93 93 All Ages, per cents 3 & 2 3% H. 38.7 15.0 37.6 62.3 21.5 19.3 2.1 2.1 1.0 99.9 99.7
feebleminded, 22 per cent backward, 50 per cent normal, 22 per cent bright, and 3 per cent very bright. The letters in the table are F = Feebleminded, B = Backward, N = Normal, Br = Bright, and V. Br. = Very Bright. Table III gives the distribution of the children in the five-fold classification above referred to, by chronological age, using the 3 and 2-year basis, and also the 3 per cent hypothesis of Patterson and Pintner.
TABLE IV. INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS OF NINETY-THREE DEPENDENT CHILDREN, ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL YEAR GROUPS, AND IN ORDER OF THE I. Q. WITH MEDIAN AND AVERAGE ATTAINMENTS. Ages…. Scores.. 100 Total. . Median. Av. Dev. Averages 1 100 0 100 50 75 100 75 16.6 75 45 80 88 96 100 67 79 82 100 80.5 9 82 65 73 86 120 70 75 85 88 90 90 100 103 79.5 17 89 8 87.6 60 71 80 81 89 94 96 100 105 10 56 67 79 80 82 83 85 86 86 115 11 12 76 76 77 77 77 79 81 81 82 84 90 9 10 82.5 11 86.2 81.9 11 79 3.2 80 61 63 72 73 73 74 75 82 73.7 4.6 71.6 13 64 65 67 69 75 75 77 77 77 81 82 84 87 13 77 5.6 75.4 14 15 53 58 64 70 16 68 12 66 61 5.8 61 55 55 58 63 75 58 5.6 61 17 55 66 60.3 5.5 60.5
We may speak of those scoring between 0.70 and 0.75 I. Q. as a group of “doubtfuls.” We have just ten such cases. By using ? .75 I. Q. as diagnostic of feeblemindedness, ,we find 35 cases in that category, or 37.6 per cent of our cases.
Interpretation and Conclusions.
The diagnosis of our data shows clearly that many of the dependent children are either feebleminded or backward. In a recent investigation of the mental status of dependent children, Pintner found the chief characteristic to be backwardness, rather than feeblemindedness. However, he found the percentage of feeblemindedness much larger than what would be found among the ordiPOINT SCALE RATINGS. 173 nary school population. A still lower percentage was found in tests given to fifty children at a children’s home by Miss Rodebaugh. Only 12 per cent of her number were found to be definitely feebleminded, although 48 per cent were backward. Also 4 per cent of her cases tested more than one year above age. The New York State Board of Analysis and Investigation tested a large number of dependent children with about the same results,? namely, that dependent children are much inferior to the public school children, and that the great majority of the feebleminded and backward cases are products primarily of bad heredity and absence of prenatal hygiene, rather than the result of faulty surroundings. Stenquist, Thorndike, and Trabue found in their investigation of the mental status of dependent children, that “these dependent children as a group are much below ordinary children of corresponding ages in the sort of abilities tested by the Binet, completion, and reading tests. They differ of course among themselves. We find one child of much promise, forty-nine of nearly average ability or better, while forty-eight are four years or more behind, and the remaining three-fifths are from half a year to four years behind.”
Using the three per cent hypothesis, I found 15 per cent of my cases to be definitely feebleminded; 62.3 per cent backward; 19.3 per cent normal; 2.1 per cent bright; and one child very bright. My results show a much larger percentage of feebleminded and backward children than was found by Rodebaugh.
The relation between dependency and the mentality of the dependent is, as we have seen, a most important problem both to clinical psychology and to society in general. The present study shows that the failure of the child to make much progress in the Children’s Home or with its foster parents when placed out, is often due to inherent feeblemindedness. In a study of the heredity of our feebleminded cases, Dr Haines and his social worker found that many of the children had parents, brothers or sisters, or near kin in the State Hospital for the Insane, the State Hospital for Epileptics, the Feebleminded Institution, the Industrial or Reform Schools, or else in the County Infirmary. Their investigations also show conclusively, that many of these feebleminded dependent children come from syphilitic parents, or feebleminded parents. The social conditions of the home would also point to feeblemindedness in the family. Many of the children are illegitimate. Parents seldom visit their children, or send them anything after they have become public charges. One single case will serve to illustrate the conditions found by the writer. Five children (brothers and sisters) in the Home have an idiotic mother and a syphilitic father. These children do not play with other children. Three of them cannot talk. Terman also shows, that we cannot lay the low record of such children at the feet of “environment.” By the Pearson method, the correlation between intelligence and social status is .40, a result which is fully in harmony with the earlier findings of Binet workers. As Terman says: “The usual assumption has been that such correlation is the artificial product of environmental influences; that the child from a superior home does better because he has had more opportunity to pick up the information needed for success in the tests. A careful sifting of the data has forced upon us the conclusion that the greater part of the difference found is due to an actual average superiority in the endowment of better-class children.” Yerkes and Anderson also found children of superior social and economic status to be superior in mental cap city. Terman finds a correlation of social status with the teachers’ estimates of intelligence to be .55, and the correlation between the I. Q. and social status to be .43 for the younger children, .40 for those in the middle years and only .29 for the older. “In other words, the longer the supposed influence of home environment lasts, the more independent of it the I. Q. becomes.” All of our facts point to the same conclusion, that the correlation of I. Q. with social status rests upon actual differences in endowment.
Forty-eighth Annual Report of the N. Y. State Board of Charities, 1914.
2. Kuhlmann, F. What constitutes feeblemindedness? Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, June, 1915. 3. Pintner, Rudolf and Patterson, D. G. A Performance scale for the measurement of intelligence. Journal of Criminal Law, May, 1916. 4. Pintner, Rudolf, Juvenile delinquents tested by the Binet scalePedagogical Seminary, XXI, 1914, 523-531. 5. Stenquist, J. L., Thorndike, E. L., and Trabue, M. R. The Intellectual status of children who are public charges. Archives of Psychology No. 33, Sept., 1915. 6. Terman, L. M. The Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. VI, 1915, 551-562. 7. Yerkes, Robert M. A Point scale for measuring mental ability.
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.