Standardization of a Color Cube Test
The Psychological Clinic Copyright, 1925, by Lightner Witmer, Editor Vol. XVI, Nos. 3-4 March-April, 1925 :Author:R. B. W. Hutt, Ph.D.,
Jenkintown, Pennsylvania In the year 1914, Francis N. Maxfield constructed a set of cubes somewhat larger than but colored like the color cubes now Manufactured by the Embossing Company and proceeded to use them in the Psychological Laboratory and Clinic of the University ?f Pennsylvania in a study of the imageability of children. Although the material has been changed to the commercial cubes mentioned above, the experiment has been continued down to the Present day in the same laboratory and clinic and by former students now working elsewhere. A standard procedure was developed but nothing was published until 1921 when Clara H. Town issued her report of an “Analytic Study of a Group of Five and Six-YearOld Children.”1 In 1923, S. D. Kohs published his “Intelligence Measurement” “which is a statistical treatment of the results he obtained when Using the same material. He departed from Maxfield’s method of Presenting a design for copy constructed of the same sort of blocks which the subject is to use in making the copy and substituted a flat picture of the design. Both Dr Town and Dr Kohs experimented with groups numbering less than fifty in any chronological age. The former had a total of forty-five cases distributed in the five and six year groups. The latter had no age group larger than thirty-seven nor grade group larger than forty. Both of these investigators used the method of placing the design before the subject and having it copied. The procedure developed at the University of Pennsylvania included the additional factor of having some patterns reproduced after the removal of the stimulus pattern. The writer knows of no publication giving any standardization of procedure or of results C Town, C. H., University of Iowa Studies, Vol. I, Number 4.)
for the use of the Maxfield cubes when employed in. the above manner. In fact, the present report is an outgrowth of the Maxfield experiment as employed at the University of Pennsylvania and has little in common with the two publications cited. This is so because Dr Town has given no time norms, because Dr Kohs attempts to use the test as a measure of “General Intelligence,” and because of the inadequate number of cases studied by each. As stated above, the original study was a study of imageability, a specific ability which Humpstone2 defines as the ability to have correct images in any sense field. In this case, the sense field of vision is isolated. Dr Town3 analyzes the test further and notes that “the test requires in its performance accuracy of both color and form perception, the ability to perceive slight differences of form and position in a pattern containing several varieties of both, and the ability to analyze the total perception into its block units, concentrating on each in turn to the exclusion of the others.” This, of course, applies to the test as used by her. The test was used by her, and by clinicians at the University of Pennsylvania as one of a battery. Evaluation was dependent upon the personal judgment of the examiner there being no means of making an exact measurement prior to the establishment of adequate norms. The present study is designed to add to the usefulness of the test by the fixing of tentative norms and by an analysis of the performance observed in the examination of an adequate number of normal children. The subjects were unselected, except as to age and grade, and were assumed to be normal inasmuch as they were found in the Public Schools for normal children in Philadelphia and its environs and, further, inasmuch as they had not been diagnosed otherwise. In respect to social status, the majority of the cases were below the median.
In all, 1,198 cases are represented in the tables here submitted although more than 1,500 were examined. Those of the kindergarten group, those above fourteen years in chronological age, and some concerning whom the grade had not been noted had to be excluded when the tables for age and grade were compiled, since these tables are arbitrarily limited to the first eight grades and the sixth to the fourteenth year of chronological age. However, to keep the grade groups representative, it was necessary to include in them 2 (“Analytic Diagnosis,” Psychological Clinic, Vol. XII, page 173). 3 (Town, C. H. Op. cit., p. 66).
those cases found in the grades which could not be included in the limited age groups. In each grade and age group a minimum of 100 cases was considered significant. The following procedure was used, being based upon that arranged by Elizabeth McOwen, an advanced student in psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, in 1923. Record name, age, sex, color and grade of subject and name of school, with the date of the examination. Have subject seated at a table of convenient elevation with eight design-blocks placed at random before him. Pick up one of the blocks and show it to the subject, saying: “Have you seen blocks like these? You see one side is red and white, one blue and yellow and the remaining four sides are of solid colors. Each side differs from every other side but every block is exactly like every other block.’’ Should it happen that the subject says that he has used such blocks, make record of the fact. Now pick up three additional blocks, saying: ‘’I will make a design with these four blocks and will then put it on the table for you to copy. When I say ‘Go,’ I want you to make one exactly like mine, using your four blocks.” While saying the last sentence, Push the remaining four blocks toward the subject, being careful that none of the faces required to make the design is in view. Having formed figure A under cover, place it squarely before him at a distance convenient for his observation while working and say Go.’’ Start timing with a stop-watch from the word ” Go ” until the design is satisfactorily completed, or until he presents a pattern and says he is satisfied with it, or until three minutes have passed. Note time required for successful completion or F for unsuccessful completion and failure to complete within the time allowed with marginal note of significant factors observed in the performance. (Note: The author notes the form of incorrect solutions by means of symbols or sketches. This gives a permanent record of the nature of each failure.)
Figures B and C are introduced in a similar way but with the following words: ‘’ Let us try another design. See if you can make one exactly like this. Go.” In each case the blocks are arranged as above.
In introducing D, the procedure is as follows: “Now we will do it differently. Instead of leaving my design on the table for you to copy, I will show it to you for a little while and then take it away. You are to do nothing but look at my design while it is on the table but will begin to make one like it when I say ‘Go’ after having taken it away.” Allow ten seconds exposure, remove and say “Go.”
In introducing E, say: “Let us try another design. Remember you are to do nothing but look until I take my design away and say ‘Go’ and then you will make one like it.” In case the subject fails to complete E satisfactorily, reexpose with these words: “Look at this again.” Allow five seconds exposure. “Now make one like it. Go.” The five designs are given below.
Discussion of Results
Table 1 shows that less than twenty per cent of the lowest age group failed to complete the first three figures within the time allowed. In fact, only four per cent failed to complete one of these first three figures satisfactorily. Although figure C required more time for completion, at this lowest age level, the number of failures is 17.2 per cent as compared with 18.9 per cent for figure B and 13.4 per cent for figure A. The three figures, therefore, seem to have approximately equal value for diagnostic purposes and successful completion of any one should be considered as valid an indication of comparative imageability, of a perceptible sort, as would ki B M k A KEY “YELLOW?? I BLUE ? rf-WH.TE
Table 1. Age Distribution (Each “year” includes the twelve months span beginning with the seventh month of the previous year.) Figure A 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th year (C.A.) Total Failures 14 4 4 2 1 Max. 10th, Decile 10 180 4 170 4 164 g 178 130 82 1 137 70 Max. 9th, Decile 175 4 108 120 98 70 57 50 64 35 Max. 8th, Decile 120 75 70 65 40 36 35 38 30 Max. 7th, Decile 57 60 56 46 30 25 23 26 23 Max. 6th, Decile 40 40 49 30 25 20 19 20 20 Max. 5th, Decile 30 30 30 19 19 15 15 17 17 Median Max. 4th, Decile 20 22 22 15 15 13 13 15 15 Max. 3rd, Decile 13 15 15 11 12 11 10 14 12 Max. 2nd, Decile 9 10 12 9 10 9 9 12 10 Max. 1st, Decile 678776798 Min. 1st, Decile 444444545 Figure B 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th year (C.A.) Total Failures 19 1 5 3 11 1 Max. 10th, Decile 10 164 1 180 5 165 3 175 156 1 119 1 170 100 1 Max. 9th, Decile 175 9 110 130 95 85 70 58 50 40 Max. 8th, Decile 167 78 80 69 45 43 38 36 33 Max. 7th, Decile 89 53 65 48 35 31 30 27 26 Max. 6th, Decile 48 40 50 33 30 25 25 21 22 Max. 5th, Decile 35 33 35 27 24 21 20 18 18 Median Max. 4th, Decile 20 24 25 20 19 18 17 16 16 Max. 3rd, Decile 11 18 20 14 16 15 13 15 14 Max. 2nd, Decile 8 12 12 12 13 14 12 14 11 Max. 1st, Decile 6 9 10 10 10 11 9 10 10 Min. 1st, Decile 354366655 Failures noted in italics 82 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC Figure C 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th year (C.A.) Total Failures 18 11 3 5 3 1 Max. 10th, Decile 10 10 139 3 170 5 175 3 165 1 157 162 130 Max. 9th, Decile 180 8 164 1 100 102 95 72 65 51 45 Max. 8th, Decile 170 93 80 60 67 47 45 39 32 Max. 7th, Decile 85 65 57 44 50 38 35 30 27 Max. 6th, Decile 60 53 43 36 37 31 27 26 25 Max. 5th, Decile 45 43 35 29 30 27 26 23 20 Median Max. 4th, Decile ~~j32 38 30 25 25 22 21 19 17 Max. 3rd, Decile 25 31 23 21 20 18 18 16 15 Max. 2nd, Decile 20 25 20 17 17 15 15 14 14 Max. 1st, Decile 14 17 14 10 10 11 12 15 11 Min. 1st, Decile 584848996 Figure D 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th year (C.A.) Total Failures 86 89 76 53 40 39 27 29 28 Max. 10th, Decile 10 10 10 10 11 11 10 10 10 Max. 9th, Decile 10 10 10 10 11 11 10 10 10 Max. 8th, Decile 10 10 10 10 11 11 128 7 180 9 165 8 Max. 7th, Decile 11 11 11 10 173 7 128 6 90 165 110 Max. 6th, Decile 11 11 11 11 154 80 54 61 43 Max. 5th, Decile 11 11 11 165 t 59 44 35 30 32 Median Max. 4th, Decile Tl Tl Tl 67 40 31 24 25 23 Max. 3rd, Decile 11 11 175 g 38 25 20 19 20 19 Max. 2nd, Decile 169 1 160 4 105 26 19 16 16 17 14 Max. 1st, Decile 45 50 41 20 15 15 13 13 10 Min. 1st, Decile 10 12 15 7 11 7 8 7 5 Failures noted in italics COLOR CUBE TEST 83 Figure E Gtli 7th 8th 9tli 10th 11th 12th 13th 14tli year (C.A.) Total Failures 84 80 72 55 38 30 18 23 28 Max. 10th, Decile 10 10 10 10 11 11 10 10 10 Max. 9th, Decile 10 10 10 10 11 11 167 8 10 10 Max. 8th, Decile 10 10 10 10 11 175 8 100 105 3 155 8 Max. 7th, Decile 11 11 11 10 162 5 103 55 64 106 Max. 6th, Decile 11 11 11 11 90 54 34 43 43 Max. 5th, Decile 11 11 11 160 4 52 35 36 30 38 Median Max. 4th, Decile Max. 3rd, Decile Max. 2nd, Decile Max. 1st, Decile Min. 1st, Decile 11 11 175 9 70 38 26 22 _ 25 25 175 10 165 6 160 53 31 21 17 20 20 125 60 46 37 21 17 15 17 17 31 35 30 28 16 14 13 13 13 786 10 10 8884 NUMBER OF CASES 105 105 105 103 115 113 101 100 100 Failures noted in italics. Table 2. Grade Distribution Figure A 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th grade Total Failures 20 12 6 12 2 Max. 10th, Decile 12 12 178 6 145 108 1 130 2 137 2 90 Max. 9th, Decile 180 8 164 80 60 49 50 48 34 Max. 8th, Decile 130 85 53 45 34 35 30 25 Max. 7th, Decile 85 64 33 35 25 22 23 20 Max. 6th, Decile 60 46 25 25 20 18 18 18 Max. 5th, Decile 42 30 19 19 16 15 15 16 Median Max. 4th, Decile ~32 24 15 14 14 13 12 13 Max. 3rd, Decile 20 16 10 11 12 12 10 11 Max. 2nd, Decile 13 11 8 10 9 10 8 10 Max. 1st, Decile 97768779 Min. 1st, Decile 54444445 Failures noted in italics 84 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC Figure B 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th grade Total Failures 26 6 3 4 1 4 1 Max. 10th, Decile 12 180 6 175 3 165 4 108 1 130 4 137 1 90 Max. 9th, Decile 12 107 94 71 62 44 48 40 Max. 8th, Decile 167 2 80 65 49 47 36 38 32 Max. 7th, Decile 95 60 41 33 33 30 27 24 Max. 6th, Decile 70 50 32 28 26 25 20 20 Max. 5th, Decile 40 37 26 24 24 20 18 18 Median Max. 4th, Decile ~32 28 20 18 19 16 15 16~ Max. 3rd, Decile 21 20 15 15 16 15 13 14 Max. 2nd, Decile 15 15 12 12 14 13 11 11 Max. 1st, Decile 10 11 9 10 10 10 9 9 Min. 1st, Decile 65356655 Figure C 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th grade Total Failures 37 2 7 1 2 Max. 10th, Decile 12 175 120 2 175 7 135 162 1 157 g 75 Max. 9th, Decile 12 93 90 76 61 55 56 38 Max. 8th, Decile 12 75 64 52 45 38 34 32 Max. 7th, Decile 180 1 60 50 42 34 30 29 25 Max. 6th, Decile 120 44 40 37 27 27 26 20 Max. 5th, Decile 72 35 34 31 25 23 23 18 Median Max. 4th, Decile 50 30 26 26 21 20 19 16 Max. 3rd, Decile 36 25 22 21 17 18 15 14 Max. 2nd, Decile 26 20 16 18 16 16 13 14 Max. 1st, Decile 19 13 11 15 15 13 11 12 Min. 1st, Decile 10 8 4 3 11 9 7 6 Failures noted in italics
Figure D 1st 2nd 3rd 4tli 5tli 6th 7th 8th grade Total Failures 107 102 61 38 22 28 20 28 Max. 10th, Decile 12 12 11 12 10 10 10 10 Max. 9th, Decile 12 12 11 12 10 10 10 10 Max. 8th, Decile 12 12 11 12 112 2 136 8 165 127 8 Max. 7th, Decile 12 12 11 173 2 65 122 65 62 Max. 6th, Decile 12 13 11 127 43 65 34 40 Max. 5th, Decile 13 13 165 6 56 33 40 24 26 Median Max. 4th, Decile 13 13 133 40 25 26 20 21 Max. 3rd, Decile 12 13 55 30 20 22 17 17 Max. 2nd, Decile 160 9 144 2 31 23 17 16 15 13 Max. 1st, Decile 50 60 20 16 14 13 12 10 Min. 1st, Decile 15 12 7 12 9 7 5 6 Figure E 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7tli 8th grade Total Failures 97 97 71 41 12 23 13 29 Max. 10th, Decile 12 12 11 12 10 10 10 10 Max. 9th, Decile 12 12 11 12 103 i 10 167 3 10 Max. 8th, Decile 12 12 11 1.2 74 136 3 55 160 9 Max. 7th, Decile It 12 11 175 5 56 55 36 110 Max. 6th, Decile IS 13 11 80 38 43 28 52 Max. 5th, Decile 13 13 11 46 34 25 22 32 Median Max. 4th, Decile 13 13 160 5 35 26 22 18 24 Max. 3rd, Decile 175 11 165 10 60 28 22 18 17 19 Max. 2nd, Decile 165 69 32 20 17 14 14 16 Max. 1st, Decile 40 40 25 16 15 11 11 13 Min. 1st, Decile 15 8 10 10 8 7 8 4 NUMBER OP CASES 122 124 111 122 100 100 100 107 Failures noted in italics.
successful completion of any other one of the three. Inasmuch as only four per cent of the children in this lowest group failed to pass any one of the three first figures, they are better fitted to test a lower age or else the time allowance must be reduced. The last two figures show more interesting results. Upon referring to the same Table, it will be noted that only those superior to 80 per cent of the six year group were able to complete figure D and E. In the seven year group the situation is unchanged. Beginning with the eight year group and containing up to and including the twelve year group, we find the threshold descending fairly regularly by 10 per cent intervals with D showing two 20 per cent jumps and E one. The regression of E in the thirteen year group and remaining regressed with D, would indicate that the cases which caused the threshold to descend so far in the twelve year group were probably accidental and that the threshold probably belongs at the “20 per cent superior,J point. It should be noted that at the ninth year, we find an approximately equal distribution of successes and of failures.
Table II shows a similar situation but with less regularity. The first grade group shows approximately 20 per cent not passing the first three figures but this is probably explained by the presence of some five year old children and of some children whose mental status has not been determined by competition in school or in psychological examination. However, the results here would indicate that the first three figures are too easy for this grade from the standpoint of diagnosis.
In the grade distribution, the curve for the last two figures is not so smooth as the age curve and the point at which 50 per cent fail and 50 per cent succeed lies about the third grade. In case of both age and grade, these two Tables show that comparative proficiency may be rated within the respective age and grade groups according to a decile or quintile rating. It was noted above that at the ninth year an approximately equal distribution of successes and failures occur, in the solution of the last two figures. This indicates that the period including the eighth, ninth and tenth years deserves closer scrutiny and the following analysis proves interesting and significant. Distribution of the 8-year old children in the grades: 2 per cent in first grade, 62 per cent in second grade, 32 per cent in third grade, and 2 per cent in fourth grade.
Distribution of 9-year old children: 2 per cent in first grade, 20 per cent in second, 41 per cent in third, 36 per cent in fourth, and 1 per cent in fifth grade. Distribution of 10-year old children:
8 per cent in second grade, 18 per cent in third, 49 per cent in fourth, 19 per cent in fifth, and 4 per cent in sixth grade. This occurrence of children of a given age in different grades accounts in some measure for the different rate of improvement noted ln the grade distribution of results as compared with the age distribution. The question which naturally arises out of this situation is concerned with the correlation of grade proficiency with the scores made by the children in any given age group. This is roughly indicated by a study of the occurrences of failure to complete one or both of the last two figures of the test. The ninth and tenth years were selected for this study and attention is confined to the three middle groups: i e., the failures of the nine-yearolds in the second, third, and fourth grades and of the ten-year-olds in the third, fourth, and fifth grades.
Of the failures made by the nine-year old children in the second, third, and fourth grades, 50 per cent were in the second, 30 per cent in the third, and 20 per cent in the fourth.
Of the failures made by the ten-year old children in the third, fourth, and fifth grades, 66 per cent were made in the third, 22 per cent in the fourth, and 12 per cent in the fifth grade.
This distribution and the distributions shown in the tables for age and for grade, indicate that there is an improvement in performance, from the standpoint of the occurrence of failures to complete the last two figures satisfactorily, both in increase of age and in increase of grade.
Upon approaching the problem from the point of view of the age distribution in a given grade and the comparative number of failures made by each such age, we find that, of the failures made by seven, eight, and nine year old children in the second grade, the seven year old children made 30.5 per cent, the eight year made 33.3 per cent, and the nine year made 36.2 per cent. In the third grade, considering the failures of the seven, eight, and nine-year-old children, the seven old children made 28 per cent of the failures, the eight-year-old made 32 per cent, and the nine-year-old made 40 per cent. The fourth grade distribution, considering the records of nine, ten, and eleven-year-old children, the nine year olds made 30 per cent of the failures, the ten-year-olds made 34.5 per cent and the eleven-year-olds made 35.5 per cent.
The above paragraph shows superior performance by the younger children in these grades. This precipitates the question of mental age and indicates that the child of superior mental age, as determined by the ratio4 of chronological age and grade, will make a lesser number of failures than the child of inferior mental age. The results obtained in the use of figure C do not correspond to those obtained by Kohs5 in the use of the identical figure in his Test IV. Taking his time limit of 120 seconds and applying it to the six-year-old cases used in this standardization, we find that 70 per cent succeed. None of his cases succeeded at this age. This discrepancy appears at each age level. It is probable that the discrepancy is due to the small number of cases upon which Kohs based his conclusions. He had fifteen six-year-old children, for instance.
When we turn to the consideration of individual scores, we find great irregularity of performance. Occasional low or high scores mar an otherwise smooth or regular reaction. In the tenth year, half of the cases showed this irregularity while above the percentage was less and below it was greater. The actual relationship of irregular scores to regular scores in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh years is shown by the following notation of such irregularity for these years?55 per cent, 47 per cent and 30 per cent. The following tables of results, accompanied by marginal notes made at the time of the examination will show the apparent causes of such irregularity and, also, the need of careful analysis of the performance and the making of proper notation.
Table III
(The initials refer to the subject examined. The numerals refer to the time required to complete the five figures in the test and as noted in the first case. The sixth set of numerals refers to the result of re-exposure of figure E and occurs only when the first exposure resulted in failure. The notes refer to the results in italics.)
ABODE
1. J.P. 34 11 14 12 F 10 In attempting to reproduce the pattern A, the subject tried to match the vertical surfaces of the cubes as well as the top surface. As this is not possible and as the examiner did not discover what was happening until 4 Concerning mental ratio see Mateer-Ped. Sem. 1918, Page 367 Diagnostic Fallibility of Intellig. Batio. ?Kohs, Intelligence Measurement, Table XLY, page 124.
ABODE
several seconds elapsed, tlie figure was not completed as quickly as the other figures were.
In the case of figure E, first trial, the correct pattern was reproduced but in an inverted position. 2. B.W. 36 19 17 F 15 In this case the subject was not attentive to the pattern. He had the right solution at the end of twenty-six seconds but failed to recognize it and immediately moved the block in the lower left hand corner. Solution was finally secured after reference to the pattern.
H.O. 10 16 33 18 26
H.O. became confused when he first found difficulty in arranging the inferior half of figure C and used a trial and error method of quick random moves instead of the careful analysis and synthesis which characterized the rest of the test. This performance disclosed a deficiency of self-control.
F.S. 23 45 21 14 18
F.S. was inattentive to the pattern and reproduced the design in the colors used in the previous pattern. He showed surprise when he did look at the pattern and realized his mistake. In the case of the two last figures, which show a shorter time reaction than the previous simpler figures required, it was apparent that the subject was using more care (less trial and error) and more effort.
F.C. 7 39 15 21 43
The subject made the error, which was so frequently met with in the course of this experiment, of assuming that some other block would fit into a certain place more readily than the ones first tried. This was an indication of insufficient attention to instructions inasmuch as the examiner had called attention, at the outset, to the fact that each block was exactly like every other block.
E.T. 8 9 29 127 12
E.T. had three of the blocks correctly placed and needed to place the one with the all white surface in the lower right hand corner. Upon picking up the block, the needed surface was on the far side of the cube and E.T. failed to turn the block so as to bring that side into view. After looking at the other five sides, she seemed to assume that there was no all-white side and that the correct solution could be gotten by means of the red and white side. This she attempted to do until repeated failure led to a new search and the finding of the needed surface.
7? I.G. 31 37 24 6 32
In this case the subject was aided by a fortuitous grouping of the blocks. When he turned the first two over, they formed the upper half of the pattern without further adjustment. Upon turning the other two, the white surface appeared close to the lower right hand corner, where needed. One more turn of the remaining block supplied the missing part and the design was completed. 00 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC A B C D E 8. E.S. 35 22 17 F 25 E.S. used what seemed to be a trial and error method in attempting to reproduce figure D while the rest of the experiment had been characterized by fair planfulness. After a minute’s futile effort she said, “I don’t think I can do this.” She was told to keep trying and did so but repeatedly offered to give up. She was asked if she had forgotten the pattern and replied, “I know what it looks like, but I can’t make it.” She eventually formed the desired stripe but the blocks were not in the form of a square, for this stripe required all four blocks instead of three. From this performance, it is, reasonable to assume that her remembrance was of a stripe of the proper color and running in the right direction and that she had failed to observe the white square in the lower right hand corner. Her ability to reproduce E in reasonable time suggests that she had not given due attention to the pattern in the case of D. This case also illustrates the futility of depending upon introspection of children. E.S. was fourteen years old and gave the most positive declaration of having knowledge of the pattern to be reproduced. The result shows that she did not have that knowledge. 9. J.B. 21 14 19 F 70 Solution of D was like product of above case. E avoided solution for 65 seconds and the performance was characterized by apparently purposeless movement of the blocks. Final correct solution came in the last five seconds and the performance was characterized by quick accurate moves with evident purpose. 10. R.McH. 18 25 10 F 11 Instead of making a copy of B, the subject produced the former pattern A in twelve seconds. Evidently he was not attentive to the pattern before him. In case of D, the subject presented A in red and white at the end of forty seconds, then changed and gave C at the end of fifty-five seconds. Final product was similar to that given by the two cases above. 11. N.F. 14 11 20 5 8 The surprising proficiency shown in the solution of the last two figures was accompanied by an evident change in method. There was no dependence on chance but, rather, an apparent effort of a more intense sort resulting in an accurate placement of blocks without any hesitation. The physical evidences of effort were marked and obvious. 12. M.H. 24 94 55 F F M reproduced figure A when Figure B was to be copied and then did not make another move for twenty seconds when, looking at the pattern, she finally noticed the difference. This was a clear case of inattention to the pattern. Even when she returned to the task of producing the new pattern, she still continued to work without reference to it and-repeatedly constructed A and then would look at the pattern. Her attempted reproduction of the third figure was of a similar sort but the incorrect product was the second instead of the first. When she came to the fourth figure, she ran the whole gamut of the previous figures but never succeeded in forming a close approximation of the required pattern. In the COLOR CUBE TEST 91 ABODE fifth figure, she produced figure B on its side and was satisfied. Inattention and memory deficiency were noted. 13. B.W. 36 19 17 F 15 B attempted to produce the desired design without reference to pattern and almost succeeded. He did have all the blocks in their proper places at the end of twenty-six seconds but immediately changed the one in the lower left hand corner. After some further trial, he looked at the pattern and made immediate reproduction. In the fourth figure, he placed a red block in the lower right hand corner. His imageability and retainability were good but he relied too much upon them and failed to make due use of the pattern when it was exposed. 14. W.N. 10 12 14 F 11 W. gave little attention to the pattern but succeeded in constructing in short time. His failure was clearly due to this factor because, using trial and error, he placed the blocks in the correct position but failed to recognize the produced design. I assume that he did not make use of opportunity to observe figure D when it was exposed. 15. C.R. 47 154 35 F F F In the case of the second figure, the subject constructed a replica of figure A in thirty seconds and then consulted the pattern. The same procedure was persisted in throughout. Having failed to produce the last figure, even upon reexposure, the experimenter moved the blocks about into various formations including the correct one. The subject recognized the correct pattern when it appeared. The perceptual image was necessary for recall. 16. J.L. 24 25 48 17 21 When figure B was exhibited, the subject noted the changed color but not the changed design. He constructed figure A in tliose colors and then referred to the pattern. He constructed the correct copy in an additional nine seconds. When he came to the first memory design, he was very attentive. 17. H.R. 15 13 35 85 F F The subject began well but failed to make use of the exposed pattern in attempting to reproduce the third figure. He formed each of the previous figures, indicating dependence upon memory and not vision. Instead of figure D, he produced figure E, which he had not been shown as yet. This was done by several subjects. When it was exposed and he attempted to construct a replica from memory, he produced a mirror image of it. This phenomenon has been frequently noted also. 18. J.H. 9 30 26 120 18 In solving figure B there was insufficient attention to the pattern and figure A was first reproduced. In the case of figure D, he had all blocks excepting that of the lower right hand corner at the end of forty seconds. He kept moving this block but by an apparent negative trophism would reverse the movement each time the correct placement was attempted. This exasperating procedure has been noticed in hundreds of cases where trial and error methods were used. As soon as the subject managed to get the block actually in place, immediate recognition occurred. 92 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC A B C D E 19. E.T. 78 60 55 F F F This case is introduced as a clear example of inattention. Because of the methods used in getting response, I have not included it in the tables of results. It is not the case of an atypical subject but of departure from the standardized procedure. In the first three figures, the subject produced an incorrect pattern and was satisfied. When asked if the solution was correct he would compare with the exposed design and make some corrective move. This procedure had to be followed until the correct pattern was completed and then no further alteration could be induced. After the first glance at the exposed design, there would have been no recourse to it except after challenge. Eight years old. 20. J.B. 17 175 85 F F F Figure B was not attended to until after futile attempts to reproduce from memory. Figures D and E were soon abandoned with the remark, “I do not know what it looks like.” He was a six-year-old. The reference to other abilities than mere imageability brings us to a point where some consideration must be given to the specific elements involved in the solution of these design-block tests. First of all, the exposed pattern must be observed. This involves a sort of “mental noting” in which occur attention, perception and an imprinting upon memory an image of the two colored spatial pattern. In the case of the first three figures, this memory element may be of the simplest sort, perhaps involving little more than that which has been termed the memory span. It seems to be a sort of hangover or perceptible after-image. It is of such a transitory nature that frequent reference to the stimulus pattern is required in those cases where true memory does not operate and failure so to distribute the attention as to attain this frequent reference has been demonstrated, in the cases cited above, to be a common cause for failure to complete the copy in such time as the age or grade of the individual would cause us to expect, or as the other performances of the individual would suggest. In the cases of the last two figures, this memory element comes under the head of real retainability either of a mental pattern or image, or of the factor or factors which make recognition possible. In addition, in both the former and the latter cases, the complexus, under which must be grouped the whole physical and mental response in the operations involved in constructing the copied pattern, by means of comparison with the stimulus or with the recollection of it?this complexus must be noted as an important part of the attempt to solve the tests. All of COLOR CUBE TEST 93 these factors, other than the attention to the stimulus pattern, involve the use of imagery of some sort. We may assume that some individuals can attend to the stimulus pattern without having such imagery. These individuals would not necessarily lack imageability, according to Humpstone’s definition, cited above. The individuals who could perceive the stimulus pattern would have, we may say, a sense image. The persons who can retain such an image, whether it appears at unexpected times, like a forgotten name, whether it is clear or vague, exact or inexact, these persons have memory imagery. This may be as simple as the memory element in recognition or even in perception,6 or as complex as the volitional recall ?f past experience. The type of imagery, the method and manner of recall, the relative complexity and permanence can hardly be Judged from the results of this test alone. Introspection alone can reveal these finer experiences. (Watson, Psychology and Behaviour, page 173, Psychological Review, 1912, citing Angell and Fernald. G. M. Fernald, Diagnosis of Mental Imagery, pp. 135 to 138, Psychological Monographs, Vol. XIV, No. 1). Whatever assumptions may be made from the observed behaviour of the subjects submitted to these tests, suggest Meumann’s division of retention into three classes?temporary, immediate and permanent.7 The first sort was indicated by the subjects who could construct the first three figures only by frequent comparison with the stimulus pattern. The frequent failure to recognize the correct placement of a block, even while following this method, indicated that the retention was too temporary, if the attention was adequate. Immediate retention is shown in cases of immediate reproduction with few or no errors to be corrected. Permanent retention showed itself when the pattern was reproduced rapidly and accurately after a lapse of some seconds. In one case this was done in five seconds after a lapse of 150 seconds spent in apparently blind groping. It was reasonable to assume, in this case, that the memory image had dropped out but was recalled later.8 This recurrence ?f an idea which has dropped from consciousness9 presents itself in other ways, for instance when the subject constructs a figure like 9 McDougall?Outline of Psychology, page 305. ‘’Psychology of Learning, Introduction, page XIV, and text, page 37. 8 Ogden, in the Psych. Rev. 1913, Vol. XX, pages 378-410, cites Fechner these words, ‘’ images disappear and must be willed back.’’ “See Meumann, ibid, 23-25, with comment on G. E. Muller’s use of the term ‘’ perseveration.’’ 94 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC a former stimulus pattern and presents it as a solution of a later test. The nineteenth case, cited above, gives a good example of solution by means of what McDougall considers the simplest type of memory, where there was recognition of the reproduced stimulus pattern without such retention to make reconstruction of the design possible. In other cases, it is fair to assume that the method of solution largely depended upon chance construction by means of unplanned grouping and regrouping of the blocks. The chance arrangement of the blocks is recognized as a unit of the whole forgotten design and further manipulation often brings the desired result. This method of solution seems to depend upon “familiar perception”10 rather than upon “familiar imagination” or upon the “feeling of rightness”11 or of relation. Regarding attention, which seems to lend itself to objective observation more than the factors discussed above, we find a greater amount of evidence. Using Calkins’12 terminology, we found that that primary attention, which she links with interest, apparently present in all cases. The test proved interesting to all the subjects subjected to it and resulted in ready cooperation. The apparent defects were shown in both the concentrative and distributive phases. In some cases there was too much attention to the construction and not enough to the stimulus pattern and in other cases excessive distraction because of recurrent previously observed patterns. The frequent abandonment of a chosen method of solution, such as the rotation of an incorrectly placed block, led to delayed completion much to the exasperation of the observer. In many cases a block would be so placed that a single quarter turn to the right would have brought the desired result. Instead, the subject would turn a half turn, passing through the correct position. Again the block would be turned back to the position abandoned and the subject would fail to note the neglected possibility. At times, all three incorrect positions would be tried and the subject seemed to be governed by a negative trophism, so far as the fourth position was concerned, and would turn back through the incorrect positions time and time again. This phenomenon seems to belong in 10 Calkins Introduction to Psyc., page 261. 11 Fernald-t&id, page 179, and Titchener, Thought Process pages 175 and 185. 12 Calkins, M. W., Introduction to Psychology, pp. 137-140. COLOR CUBE TEST 95 the category of deficient analytic concentration of attention. The plan was abandoned too soon, or its full possibilities were never noted. Further evidence of insufficient analysis is to be found in a rather common type of response. The whole design was separated into two two block parts. These were readily synthesized. However, the relationship of these two composite units had not been noted. This led to trial and error maneuvering and occasional resignation when the correct combination resisted such efforts. There was probably no memory image of the whole design but only of the two unrelated parts. Such a situation suggests the possible preponderating interference of the direct and immediate pattern of the constructed units. The original memory image dropped out and was replaced by the vivid two-block combinations. Defects of analytic concentration of attention would hardly appear de novo at the stage of the experiment when the reproduction had to be niade from memory. Such difficulty there should have* been preceded by similar difficulty in the attempt to copy the first three stimulus patterns for there little more than analysis and synthesis is required. However, in the latter part of the experiment, the defect would be more apparent inasmuch as there was no opportunity to renew the fleeting image. The reversal of color in the first part of the test is an evidence of insufficient analysis. Form may be correct and the colors (for instance, red and white) may be correctly chosen, but the dissimilarity in pattern caused by placing one color where the other should be frequently escapes the observation. This is not a case of defective color sense. It is evident that these factors of Attention, Perception, and Memory play a large part in the solution of these tests. In the latter two, Imageability is involved. The complexes of Plan fulness, Observation and Intelligence show forth in the performance. Irainability exhibits itself in the repeated use of the two simple isosceles triangle combinations which form the upper and lower units of the first three figures and in the repeated use of the slanting stripe combination in the last two figures. In fact, extended use of these tests suggests that their employment as general performance tests may be justified in case more accurate tests are not available. A decided advantage in the employment of the Maxfield-block Test is to be found in the time and apparatus required. The fact that so many factors are involved in the solution of the test must serve as a warning. If we are endeavoring to test 96 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC imageability alone, we must first exclude all other factors. Here is where the need of clinical experience is made evident. A mere time score is not a measure of imageability. The imageability may be normal but failure to complete may be due to one or more other factors. Imageability may be deficient but adequate to permit successful completion because of the superior exercise of normal and supernormal factors. At the best, unless these other factors have been accurately measured in some other way, the test, even with expert observation, can be little more than a means of demonstrating that imageability?that ability to have proper visual images?is operating. A quantitative estimation does not seem probable unless there is such additional measurement of the other operating factors or unless scientific introspection is reverted to. So far as this study goes, it has revealed that the differences in time reaction were probably due to these other factors and that the most significant results lending themselves to statistical treatment are those derived from the use of the last two figures involving the use of the memory image. In the ages and gradesi under consideration, successful completion of any two of the five figures excludes the possibility of mere chance and demonstrates the existence of operating imageability but does not permit quantitative treatment. On the other hand, successful completion of one or both of the last two figures does permit such quantitative treatment, if the norms for completion of the last two figures have been determined according to the methods employed in reproducing the first three figures. A further study, using the method of copy from the present stimulus in all five figures, would establish such norms for the last two figures and permit such comparison. Aside from the possibility to be thus derived from further study, the present results clearly demonstrate that the improvement noted in the succeeding ages and grades, where the designs are reproduced from memory, keeps pace with physical and mental development and posits norms for the given ages and grades. Conclusions I. The first three figures are too easy for diagnostic purposes, the range of time reaction being too slight. However, the time scores made in solving these figures and the comparative proficiency in abilities other than imageability serve as a basis for the COLOR CUBE TEST 97 proper evaluation of the performances exhibited in the effort to solve the last two figures. II. Successful completion of either of the last two figures places the subject in a definite group. In the sixth and seventh years of chronological age, successful solution places the subject in the superior quintile of that group. In the eighth year, he is superior to 70 per cent; in the ninth year, superior to 50 per cent; in the tenth and eleventh years, superior to 30 per cent; in the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth years, superior to 20 per cent. In the grade distribution, the results are similar with the exception that the limen between success and failure descends more rapidly and a plateau is reached in the fifth grade. This difference is due to the fact that the modal age for each grade does not advance in the proportion of one year for each grade. III. Children in a given grade, whose age is less than that which is modal for the grade, show greater proficiency in this test than do the children of modal age. Children of superior to modal age show less proficiency than do those of modal age. This indicates that there is correlation between school proficiency and proficiency in the solution of these tests. IV. Individual irregularity of performance, such as one or two unusually long or short time intervals required for completion of parts of the test which are of difficulty equal to other parts of the test, can be explained usually in terms of factors other than imageability. Such other factors, particularly noted in this study, are attention and memory. V. Objective evidence of the types of imagery used is insufficient to warrant any attempt to determine such, by means of this test. It is safe to assume that the tests could not be performed were there no visual imagery, but’ it would not be safe to assume that there was no substitution of verbalization or of other image types after the image was once perceived. There was occasional evidence of the use of kinaesthesia as an aid to retention and to solution. VI. The most significant development derived from this study is to be found in the performance noted in the eighth, ninth and tenth years (chronological age) when using that part requiring reproduction of the removed pattern.
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.