The Witmer Formboard? First Trial Records
- Author:
Herman H. Young, Ph.D.,
and Mary H. Young, A.M., Department of Psychology, Indiana University. The first report on the Witmer Formboard gave a description of the board, the method of giving the test, the average, median and quintile time records for the shortest of the first three trials of three thousand children.1 The present report includes the first trial records of these same children and of six hundred other children under eight years of age.
The writers tested all the children, but did not test all the adults. All children tested were in the Philadelphia elementary public schools. The standard method as given in the first report and as restated here was scrupulously adhered to throughout.
Standard Method.
It is necessary always to make the testing conditions such and to present the test in such manner that any failure on the part of the child is the result of his own inability to solve the problem and not the result of poor testing conditions. It is generally best to have the child stand while taking the test. The formboard should be placed at such height that the child is able to look down upon the board. Any other position interferes with the perspective of the blocks and recesses. The board is placed horizontally on the table with its lower edge (edge opposite tray) even with the edge of the table nearest the child. The board should always be placed in the best light available.
All instructions to the child are positive. In no case is he given any help or suggestion. He is not given any instructions other than those included in the standard directions. Inability to follow these standard directions or to complete the test correctly without additional instruction constitutes a failure and is labelled DNC, which means, Did Not Complete. The entire test consists of three trials given in as rapid succession as possible. First Trial. As soon as the subject has his correct position in front of the formboard, the examiner, beginning to remove the blocks, says, “I am going to take these blocks out and put them up here.. 1 Young, Herman H. The Witmer Formboard, The Psychological Clinic, 1916, 10, 93-111.
I want to see how quickly you can put them back where they belong.” While giving these directions the examiner removes the blocks from their recesses and distributes them in a haphazard arrangement in the tray at the top of the board, i. e., he begins to remove the blocks at the same time he begins to speak, but usually finishes speaking before the blocks are all removed. It is frequently well to have the child help remove the blocks. After the blocks are all removed the examiner continues the directions thus, “You may use both hands, and work just as fast as you can.” This is generally sufficient to induce the subject to begin replacing the blocks at once. If he hesitates with an air of uncertainty, as if waiting for the “ready” signal, the experimenter may add, “You may begin as soon as you are ready”, or “Go ahead,” or “All right”, or “See how quickly you can put them in.” If, several repetitions of these additional directions fail to bring an appropriate response, the test is considered a failure. The time is recorded by means of a stop watch from the moment the subject touches the first block until the last block is set securely into its proper recess. For the test to be completed correctly all the blocks must be set down firmly in their respective recesses; but a trial may be accepted as correct if only one block is left lying loosely, but turned correctly upon its recess, providing the other ten are set in properly. It is advisable to encourage and assure the subject of his success by saying, “That’s right,” as soon as he has all the blocks correctly replaced.
Second Trial. This follows the completion of the first trial immediately without comment of any kind whatever. On this trial the test is presented to every subject not only with the same verbal directions, but with the blocks in a set arrangement. The general principle of this arrangement is that the blocks shall not come in regular order, and shall not when removed be in the tray directly above their respective recesses. Since the examiner, in repeating the test, tends unconsciously to fall into the habit of removing the blocks always in a certain manner, it seemed advisable to determine the proper course of this habit before it was formed and thereby be assured that it will not defeat its purpose. The following arrangement was therefore decided upon and rigidly followed. The blocks are placed in the tray, arranged in three piles. One pile is set in the tray directly above the square and contains the semicircle, the elongated hexagon, the isoceles triangle and the star. The second pile is placed in the middle of the tray and contains the diamond, the rectangle, and the equilateral triangle. The third pile is placed in the tray directly above the equilateral triangle and contains the square, the circle, the elongated oval and the maltese cross. The blocks of each pile are picked out of their recesses with one hand by taking them in the order named above. Thus the middle pile is formed by picking up the diamond, and placing it on the rectangle, then picking up these two and placing them on the equilateral triangle and then picking up all three and placing them in the middle of the tray.
While the blocks are being removed in the manner described above, the examiner says, “Now I am going to take the blocks out in this order (or a definite order) and I want to see if you can’t put them in quicker.” When the blocks are all removed, he spurs the subject on thus, “Now see how quickly you can put them in.” The time is recorded in exactly the same manner as on the first trial. If all the blocks are not correctly replaced without further suggestion the trial is recorded as DNC.
Third Trial. As soon as all the blocks are correctly replaced on the second trial, the following directions are given, “Now (or this time) you may take the blocks out to suit yourself, and see if you can’t put them in still quicker.” The subject is given absolute freedom in the removal of the blocks and their arrangement, with the single exception that he is required to place them in the tray. As soon as he has removed all the blocks, he is urged to do his best by saying, “Now see how quickly you can replace them (or put them in).” The time is again taken as on the first trial, and the test is complete.
Index of Formboard Ability. In the first report of the Witmer Formboard the shortest of the first three trials was taken as the index of a child’s formboard ability. The shortest trial time was chosen as the index largely on the basis of work done by Sylvester which showed it to be the least variable of several indices.1 Other criteria which have been set up within the last few years indicate that the shortest of three trials is not a thoroughly satisfactory index of formboard ability. Recent investigations in differential psychology show that indices which reveal and vary with individual differences must be employed in clinical practice.
Pintner and Paterson have computed the correlation of five indices of formboard ability on thirty-one children, tested twice with an interval of one year.2 These indices and correlations arranged in rank order are:
1 Sylvester, Reuel Hull. The Formboard Test. Psychological Monographs, Vol. XV, No. 4. September, 191o, Whole No. 65. Princeton, N. J. 2 Pintner, Rudolf and Paterson, Donald G. A Discussion of the Index of Formboard Ability. The Psychological Clinic, 1916, X, 192-198. 88 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. Index. P. E. 1. Average of three trials. 2. First trial 3. Shortest of three trials. 4. Second trial 5. Third trial 0.77 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.45 0.069 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.113
These unanalyzed correlations do not indicate the relative psychological significance of the five indices. The psychological value of an index depends upon the definiteness with which it can be interpreted, as much as upon its correlation. The average of three trials is a composite value which tends to smooth over individual differences just as it does chance facilitating the hindering influences. It is an averaging of (1) a child’s adaptation to an initial attack upon a new problem as brought out by the first trial with (2) his improvement on the same task as brought out on the last two trials. Such a generalization has little definite psychological value, and as an index of formboard ability has less value than any of the other four indices. The shortest of three trials ranks third in correlation value. It has only a little more definite psychological value than the average of three trials. It is usually made on the third trial, but it is not infrequently made on one of the first two trials. Thus it sometimes comes without practice and again it is made only after one or two trials. It falls most frequently on the third trial or after two practice trials. Because with different people it comes after unequal practice periods it can scarcely be considered a satisfactory standardizable index.
Each of the three trials has more definite psychological significance than either the average or shortest of three trials. The first trial is an individual’s initial reaction to the formboard as a new problem. The second trial is his reaction after one practice trial, while the third is his reaction after two practice trials.
The second trial time is a statistical index of a child’s formboard ability after a preliminary practice trial. It probably has little if any value as an index of success in handling new problems. It has little value as an index of ability to learn or of trainability except as indicated by the reduction in time from that of the first trial. As the second trial time by itself does not permit of definite psychological interpretation, it must be compared with the first trial record to secure its definite significance. This requires the introduction of one or two additional steps in the computation of the signifiTHE WITMER FORMBOARD. 89 cant index from the second trial time. It is doubtful if for practical purposes this index is valuable enough to justify its computation. As the third trial time is a statistical index of a child’s formboard ability after two practice trials, its definite psychological value can be obtained only by subjecting it to statistical treatment similar to, but probably more complicated than that indicated above as necessary for the second trial time. The third trial time without such interpretation has little definite psychological value.
The first trial time is a statistical index of a child’s formboard ability without previous acquaintance or practice on this specific problem. As such it emphasizes his proficiency in utilizing somewhat similar, yet dissimilar previous experiences in the solution and execution of this particular new problem. There is no obvious reason why a child’s initial reaction to the formboard should differ materially from his initial reaction to other new problems. The only advantage of the formboard over everyday problems is that it is a standardized stimulus. This permits the reactions it elicits from a given individual to be evaluated by comparison with the reactions of others. As a sample of a child’s mode and facility of reacting to new problems the first trial on the formboard has a definite psychological significance. This analysis of the psychological value of various indices of formboard ability leads to the following conclusions: 1. That neither the average nor the shortest of three trials has definite psychological significance.
2. That each trial, but not the uninterpreted time record of each trial has definite psychological significance when considered in its exact numerical order.
3. That the definite psychological significance of the second and third trial time records is probably not great enough to justify the lengthy computation of their psychologically significant indices. 4. That the definite psychological significance of the first trial is more adequately expressed by its time record than that of any other trial. This gives its time record the superior advantage of both definite psychological significance and statistical simplicity over all other indices considered.
This discussion of the psychological significance of formboard time records should not be construed to imply that psychological interpretations of this test should be restricted to the manipulation and interpretation of statistical data. Other psychologically significant features and limitations of this test which should always be considered were published as the second report on the Witmer Formboard.1
1 Young, Herman H. Physical and Mental Factors Involved in the Formboard Test. The Psychological Clinic, 1910,10, 6, pp. 149-167. Table I.?Witmer Formboard?First Trial. Percentiles?1850 Boys. Percentile. 100. 90. 80. 70. 60. 50. 40. 30. 20. 10. 0. Total Cases. Age. 4 0-5 47 60 65 72 75 91 163 180 DNC DNC DNC 16 4 6-11 40 53 59 62 74 92 100 130 DNC DNC DNC 30 5 0-5 25 42 52 55 63 73 75 87 113 151 DNC 74 5 6-11 31 36 41 45 52 60 65 78 93 121 DNC 51 0-5 26 32 38 41 45 50 57 73 91 171 DNC 103 6 6-11 19 29 34 40 43 47 55 59 65 79 DNC 122 7 0-5 21 30 33 37 40 44 46 51 57 76 DNC 135 7 6-11 21 27 30 33 37 39 43 46 52 70 DNC 143 0-5 20 25 28 29 32 34 39 43 52 57 DNC 77 6-11 19 23 26 28 29 32 34 38 45 55 DNC 73 9 0-5 16 22 24 26 28 30 32 35 39 43 89 75 6-11 17 21 22 23 25 28 31 34 37 42 86 90 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 0-5 6-11 0-11 0-11 0-11 0-11 0-11 15 17 15 14 12 13 14 19 19 19 17 17 16 15 22 20 21 19 18 17 17 23 21 23 20 19 19 18 25 23 24 22 20 20 20 26 25 25 24 22 21 21 28 27 27 25 23 23 22 29 29 28 27 24 25 25 32 33 31 30 26 28 27 50 37 38 33 29 31 29 86 90 96 59 56 43 66 62 66 136 181 137 100 47 Table II.?Witmer Formboard?First Trial. Percentiles?1772 Girls. Percentile. 100. 90. 80. 70. 60. 50. 40. 30. 20. 10. 0. Total Cases. 27 Age 4 0-5 55 64 67 88 93 120 DNC DNC DNC DNC DNC 4 6-11 36 54 63 77 85 88 119 DNC DNC DNC DNC 35 5 0-5 29 47 57 65 82 86 92 111 DNC DNC DNC 44 5 6-11 28 37 42 49 52 61 74 90 102 180 DNC 6 0-5 28 38 45 48 54 60 72 80 117 DNC DNC 61 113 6 6-11 25 34 38 41 44 51 56 66 90 DNC DNC 7 0-5 21 30 35 38 42 45 50 55 62 96 DNC 7 6-11 21 30 33 37 40 45 48 54 60 78 DNC 119 119 137 78 74 0-5 16 25 28 30 31 33 36 38 41 51 DNC 6-11 19 25 26 28 31 35 38 40 44 63 DNC 9 0-5 19 23 25 28 29 31 33 38 41 45 DNC 68 9 6-11 17 20 21 23 25 27 29 31 39 51 85 72 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 0-5 6-11 0-11 0-11 0-11 0-11 0-11 17 17 13 13 14 12 16 19 20 19 18 18 17 16 22 22 22 20 19 19 18 24 24 23 22 20 19 18 26 25 24 23 21 21 19 27 28 25 25 23 22 22 29 29 27 27 25 24 24 32 31 29 28 26 25 25 36 32 32 31 29 28 31 55 35 38 39 35 33 34 118 125 136 85 53 45 65 64 70 155 164 146 73 31 First Trial Time Records.
Table I gives the first trial time records for 1729 boys and 121 men, a total of 1850 males. Table II gives the first trial time records for 1669 girls and 103 women, a total of 1772 females. This makes a grand total of 3622 cases. Both tables are constructed on the same plan. The two upper rows of figures indicate the age intervals of the children whose time records are reported in the corresponding columns of the table directly below. The upper row of figures indicates age at last birthday, while the second row indicates the number of months following the birthday which are included in each age interval. Thus the first age interval includes the records of all children whose ages lie within the interval of four years and no months to four years and five months inclusive or those who have reached their fourth birthday but are not yet four years and six months old.
The numbers of the first column at the left side of the table 0, 10, etc., every ten to 100, designate the percentile value of the time in seconds of the rows opposite each. The zero row gives the longest time record for each age. The 100 row gives the shortest time record for each age. The 10 row gives the shortest time record made by any child of that 10 per cent of the children who took longest at each age. In the same way each of the other rows indicates the shortest time record made by that particular percentage of children as shown by the percentile of the first column who took longest at each age. Thus for the boys four years old but not yet four years and six months old all of the 20 per cent who took longest rated DNC, i. e., did not complete the test in 180 seconds. Of the 30 per cent who took longest the best record was 180 seconds.
Because only elementary school children were tested the time records for the upper ages are not truly representative. This is especially true for the 14 and 15 year old children.
With increasing age of children there is a reduction in the time required to work the formboard, but this reduction in time becomes less and less marked with increasing age. The discrimination value of the formboard as indicated by the reduction in time from year to year decreases to such an extent that it is of little value for normal children over eight or ten years of age. It is, however, of great value in testing subnormal children of all ages.
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.