“Construction Test A” of the Healy-Fernald Series
- Author:
Augusta F. Bronner, Ph.D.,
Assistant Director, Psychopathic Institute, Juvenile Court of Chicago. In the February number of The Psychological Clinic there J appeared an article entitled “A Study of the Fernald Form-Board” by Bruckner and King. We cannot let this study pass without comment, for several reasons. The test referred to is in reality “Construction Puzzle A,” first described in the Psychological Monograph No. 54, March, 1911. This monograph contains a description of a group of “Tests for Practical Mental Classification” described by Dr William Healy and Dr Grace M. Fernald?a series of tests now used perhaps more widely than any one series, with the exception of the Binet-Simon tests. It is because of the very general use of “Construction Puzzle A” that we feel much misunderstanding may arise through the study recently published in The Clinic. To begin with, the title, “A Study of the Fernald Form-Board” is totally inaccurate. First, Fernald is not the originator; credit for the idea of the test is definitely given by Healy and Fernald to Professor Freeman. Secondly, it is not a form-board, properly speaking, but rather, as its correct name suggests, a test for constructive ability, the purpose of which is very different from that of the ordinary formboard. The latter tests perception of form; the former, perception of relationship of form.
Furthermore, the technique used by Bruckner and King is evidently quite different from that originally described for the test and commonly used. They apparently use it as a learning test, for which it was not intended. Their study offers a striking example of the weakness of not stating specifically the procedure used. Thus in the Bruckner and King study we are told, “It was possible to put the blocks into the form-board in eight different ways.” We cannot conceive what is meant by this, for, as originally planned and commonly used, there is but one way in which the blocks can be placed correctly. Since the eight ways are not described, yet form the basis of their findings, the study becomes practically meaningless to those who are unfamiliar with these writers’ method. Certainly, nothing in the directions given in Psychological Monograph No. 54 nor in the study by Dr Clara Schmitt (Psychological Monograph No. 83), who has standardized the test following closely Dr Healy’s directions, would explain the possibility of the method. It is possible that the puzzle itself is not correctly made. We know that at Ellis Island this test was once being used with materials so improperly made as to defeat the specific object of the test. In the correct form certain parts are interchangeable, and unless so constructed the test loses its whole value. The frame must be manufactured very accurately. If these precautions are taken, it would seem impossible to use the test in a manner so different from the original directions.
The authors do not refer to the work done with this test by others, and yet references to it in the literature of psychological tests are very frequent. There is the standardization given by Schmitt, mentioned above, in which the technique is described in detail. She has presented her findings for time and method of solution used, both according to school grade and according to age. Knox has placed this test at eight years in his “Scale for the Estimation of the Degree of Mental Deficiency in Illiterates and Others.” This age placing is based upon the fact that more than 50 per cent of his eightyear-old subjects solved the test correctly. Terman, in his revision and extension of the Binet-Simon measuring scale of intelligence, 1914-1915, places the test in the ten-year group, allowing a shorter period of time for the solution than Knox does. In a later revision, 1915-1916, he leaves this test at the same age-level, but alters the procedure, using it apparently as a learning test, in part at least. We do not know the basis for his decision. Results with this test are reported, also, in a bulletin issued by the State Board of Charities of New York, where the findings, based on extensive study, show the test to be suitable for the nine-year level of intelligence. In the Bruckner and King study the only figures comparable to other studies are the median times given for the first trial with eight “CONSTRUCTION PUZZLE A” RECORD OF NORMAL BOYS OF GOOD INNATE ABILITY
Age 11 12 13 14 15 1G 17 Number of cases 20 30 33 37 59 G7 38 Median time in seconds 45 41 54 30 40 32 26 Range in seconds Range in sec. 25-75 Percentile 11-202 6-270 11-259 10-178 7-241 7-250 8-224 22- 73 21- 90 17-102 16- 65 17- 85 17- 71 17- 53 Median number of moves 13 11.5 13 11 12 9 9 Range Range 25-75 Percentile 6-36 5-53 5-38 5-33 5-41 5-44 5-43 8-16 7-20 7-20 8-18 7-20 7-18 7-15 Per cent failure 10 3 6 6 2 3 RECORD OF NORMAL GIRLS OF GOOD INNATE ABILITY 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 7 14 11 20 24 44 43 61 38 47 24 33 42 25 20-152 10-159 10-162 9-130 9-270 8-184 8-200 13- 21 14- 65 24- 71 20- 35 22- 62 21- 77 18- 34 19 8.5 13 9.5 8 9 S 13-34 5-26 5-31 5-26 5-39 5-31 5-21 15-21 6-11 7-14 7-10 6-14 7-16 6-10 Mental Age FEEBLEMINDED BOYS 7-12 yrs 56 70 15-2S8 35-107 14.5 5-44 12-26 36 Mental Age FEEBLEMINDED GIRLS 7-12 yrs 36 95 17-292 26-128 I 15 5-71 S-26 31
and ten year old children. The time scores for the later trials cannot be compared because in most instances later trials are not given. It seems to us a great pity that these investigators have not used the test m such a way that their results throughout would be clearer. With the present effort to standardize tests which are being widely used, it would seem wise that everyone should adopt the same technique in order to facilitate this end, or at least give the variations from the generally accepted technique in such detail that the findings can be readily interpreted.
Our own study of young adolescents leads us to question whether “Construction Puzzle A” is valuable as an age test. We believe that it is better adapted to throw light upon ability along certain lines regardless of age. In our laboratory we see many more individuals over ten years of age than under, whereas in most of the experimental work with this test it is those of younger age who have been used as subjects. Then, too, all the individuals are studied by a wide range of tests so that their mental status is quite well determined. When, however, the standardization of a test is based upon data gathered in schools the mentality of the children cannot be determined and there . might conceivably be included feebleminded and greatly retarded, as well as the normal. A few such extreme cases would alter averages considerably.
Noting our results we find:
A. Among boys 11 to 17 years of age, all of whom are of good general innate ability: (1) At all ages there are some individuals who fail to solve this test within the time limit of five minutes. (2) The median time does not decrease steadily with increasing age. (3) The same is true for the median number of moves required in the solution. (4) There is very great variability in the scores for both time and the number of moves, and this variability does not decrease with increasing age. (5) Scores combining time and moves according to an arbitrary scale, show the same results. B. Among girls, 11 to 17 years of age, all of whom are of good general innate ability: (1) The results present the same characteristics as for boys, except that they are slightly better throughout. There are fewer failures, the median time and number of moves are lower; but the results present the same general features as those for boys.
C. Among the feebleminded, as diagnosed on the basis of Binet and other tests: (1) The test is not solved correctly by any individual who grades lower than a moron. (2) A large percentage of the moron group succeed in solving the test. (3) The successes are scattered from those Avith a mental age of 7 to those whose mental age is above 10 years. (4) Success with the test among the feebleminded does not depend upon chronological age, and thus world experience does not seem to be a determining factor. That is, there are children 11 years old chronologically and 7 years old mentally, according to the Binet scale, who succeed; on the other hand, there are children 14 years old chronologically who grade as 10 years mentally by Binet tests who fail. The table on page 46 furnishes the data from which these conclusions are drawn: From the above it would seem clear that “Construction Puzzle A” is not a good test for determining general intelligence or for placement at some specific age-level. Rather, it affords an opportunity of testing the subject’s ability to solve a praticular kind of problem, namely, one that involves perception of relationship of form. It enables one to know the subject’s reactions in a particular kind of situation, to find the method used in a solution, and the ability to profit by the experience of repeated trials. This it does as well for older as for younger subjects.
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.