Design Blocks
A Description of a Simple Clinical Test
Francis N. Maxfield, State Psychologist, Harrisburg, Pa.
The publication by Kohs1 of a standardization of his blockdesign test as Part II of his Intelligence Measurement has suggested that it might be opportune to publish a brief comment on this test material, which was prepared in 1917 under the above title. Owing to the fact that no careful standardization had been made it was not published. The writer, however, with the assistance of a group of graduate students had given the test to several hundred unselected children (sic) so that the relative difficulty of the designs used seemed to be fairly well established.
Since the publications of Kohs’ standardization, the writer has used that method, which involves the use of cards, with a fair number of subjects. He has not yet overcome his prejudice in favor of; a straight imitation method, though he occasionally uses this material as a memory test. Some comment in the light of more recent experience will be added after the earlier statement which was as follows: During the past two or three years (1914-17) this design block test has been in frequent use at the Psychological Clinic of the University of Pennsylvania, and has apparent diagnostic value as a performance test.
The test material consists of cubical blocks, one inch on the side, each painted in colors in the same manner. Four surfaces of each cube are of solid color?white, blue, red, and yellow, respectively; the other two surfaces are painted in two colors divided diagonally, one side being painted half white and half red, and the other half blue and half yellow. These blocks are manufactured under the name of Color Cubes, and are sold in toy shops and by Milton Bradley and Company.2 They are sold in boxes of sixteen, or thirty-six, or more blocks, thei smallest boxes being the 1 Kohs, S. C., Intelligence Measurement, A psychological and statistical study based upon the design tests, Macmillan and Co., New York, 1923, pp. 39 ad -fin.
2 Sold more recently also> by C. H. Stoelting Co., Chicago, J. L. Engle, Beaver, Pa., and other school supply houses. most convenient for clinical purposes. They have been used to some extent in kindergartens and special classes for backward children, but this does not seem to interfere with their use as test material.
These blocks are used as a “performance test,” no verbal reaction being required of the subject, and the verbal directions of the examiner are reduced to a minimum. They may be used as an imitation test, a memory test, or a learning test. In each case the examiner arranges a number of the blocks to form a design or pattern, which is to be copied by the subject, who is given at the same time an equal number of the blocks. In the imitation test the examiner ‘s pattern or design is allowed to lie on the table in view of the subject, who copies this with the blocks given him, the examiner noting his method and taking the time of his performance with a stop watch. For the memory test, the procedure is the same, except that, after the subject has observed the design until he feels sure he can remember it, (a maximum of fifteen seconds), the examiner covers or removes the model. For observation of the subject’s ability to learn, the examiner notes the reduction in time or improvement in method in execution of the same design in different color combinations, copied by imitation or from memory; or he notes the subject’s increasing ability to execute more difficult designs. As generally used for diagnostic purposes, a combination of these methods is desirable. A series of designs of increasing difficulty is used. The examiner should begin with a design which, in his judgment, can be successfully executed by the subject. If failure results, he changes to an easier design. If the subject succeeds, the examiner sets a more difficult task by using a more difficult design, or by requiring the subject to work from memory rather than from imitation. The series most convenient for work with children of early school age or under, or with adults suspected of mental deficiency, is as follows: (1) A solid color square of four blocks: ‘’ solid color square.’’3 (2) A checked square of four blocks in two colors: “checked square.’’
(3) A four-block design having a square of one color inscribed in a square of another color: 1’ inscribed square.’’ 3 A still simpler form is a straight row of blocks set with the same color in each case; this can be used with very young children. (4) A four-block design having a diagonal stripe of one color on a ground of another color “diagonal stripe.” (5) An eight-block design having a zigzag pattern of one color on a ground of another color “double chevron.” In testing intelligent adults, the examiner may require the subject to place the blocks back in the box so that one of the designs shown on the cover of the box is formed on the bottom of the blocks. In other words, the arrangement is made so that when the box is inverted upon the table and lifted off, the design then on top is like the copy chosen.
No hard and fast standardization of the method of giving the test, or of the quantitative results has been worked out (1917). From the writer’s standpoint, the qualitative aspects of the subject’s performance are more important than the mere fact of success or failure or the time taken, although these facts are, of course, recorded. The following procedure has proved successful.
Method of Procedure
Begin by having the subject make a design with which he may be reasonably expected to succeed. This success insures the certainty of his comprehension of the task set, and makes further detailed oral directions unnecessary. Let us suppose the test is being used with a fourteen year old boy in the third grade of school. The examiner will begin with design 3, the inscribed square, given as an imitation test. He places before the boy four blocks, with only one of them having the correct face upward. He takes four blocks himself and says meanwhile, “Now you take these four blocks and I’ll take these.” He then forms design 3 on the table before the boy, saying, “Now put your blocks together to make a square that looks just like this on top. Turn your blocks over so that the colors will be just like mine. Make your square look just like this.” Here the examiner pushes his square slightly toward the boy, tilting it slightly if necessary, to keep the boy’s attention on the design on top and not on the sides of the blocks. The boy looks and gives a nod of assent and usually begins at once. If he starts to form the design in different colors, repeat, “Turn the blocks over so that the colors will be just like mine.’’ Time is taken from the moment he touches his first block. Failure is counted if he does not succeed in three minutes, or if he is satisfied with an incorrect result. The examiner does not question an incorrect result if the boy himself seems satisfied, but proceeds instead to a new color combination in the same design, or to the next design. If the boy succeeds, the examiner proceeds as before, but sets a more difficult task, requiring the boy to copy the same design in other colors from memory, or using a more difficult design. If the boy fails, the examiner proceeds as before, but sets an easier task, using* the imitation method, if memory was used in the first trial, or using an easier design. It is essential to have the boy complete one design successfully and recognize his success so as to be sure that he understands the task. It is seldom necessary to ‘’ show him how,” though this may be done without invalidating the test. The examiner should not only note the time of performance and the degree of success or failure in the difficult scale, but must give close attention to the qualitative aspects of the performance. He must take into account the planfulness or the hit-or-miss method of the boy, his motor co-ordination, his quickness in noting which block requires adjustment, his persistence, and his energy. In this opportunity for observing the boy’s ‘’ mind at work,’’ lies the chief value of the test.
Some remarks on the quantitative aspects of the test may be made. The time of the performance is lengthened by poor method, lack of motor co-ordination, and by lack of interest or concentration. Generally speaking, any success requiring over thirty seconds is poor. Success merely by trial and error, even where the right surfaces are chosen, is not frequent for designs 3 and following. The adult, or child over ten years, who fails with design 3 from memory, or with designs 4 and 5 from imitation, is almost certainly mentally defective; Barr’s middle grade imbeciles (the low grade morons or high grade imbeciles of Goddard’s classification) rarely succeed easily with design 4, even by imitation. Intelligent children of seven or over usually succeed with all of the designs from imitation, though a few fail on design 5 because they work slowly. Success from memory is more variable.
If success with any design requires over thirty seconds, it is well to repeat the same design in another color combination. No hint, either verbal or by gesture, is to be given during any trial. The subject should, however, be encouraged as in all mental testing. His interest may be aroused by allowing him to watch another boy work with the blocks. The advantages of this test for clinical purposes, whether in diagnosing cases of suspected mental deficiency or precocity, or in making a mental valuation and analysis of a presumably normal individual, may be summarized as follows:
I. The examiner may be sure that the task is comprehended. In many tests the examiner is uncertain as to whether failure is due to lack of comprehension of the directions, or to inability to perform the task set. This failure may be significant as showing lack of ability in language, but this may be due to lack of ability in the English language rather than to any lack of potential language ability. Once a boy has copied one of the designs correctly and has recognized his success, the examiner may be fairly certain that the task is comprehended and that no more verbal instructions are necessary.
II. The language element is reduced to a minimum. No verbal response is required of the subject. The test is therefore useful for hearing children who do not talk, for deaf children, and for children who do not speak English. Deaf children, and children as well as adults who understand no English, comprehend the directions nearly as readily as hearing or English-speaking subjects. They appear to get the idea from the examiner’s gestures and from seeing his execution of the design. Along with other performance tests this test supplements the findings of the Binet series and other tests in which the language factor is important.
III. Shyness and self-consciousness are readily overcome and interest aroused. As in the formboard and other performance tests, shyness and self-consciousness are more readily overcome where the responses required of the subject are manual rather than oral.
IV. The test presents a graded series of a fairly wide range of difficulty. The examiner not only observes failure or success, but the degree of success. The test consists of a series of increasingly difficult tests, with the possibility of making any one of them still more difficult by changing from the imitation of a copy set before the subject, to a memory performance.
Y. A test may be repeated without increasing its intrinsic difficulty. Those who have used the Healy construction puzzles A and B, or any of the Knox construction puzzles, as for example, the Knox Moron Test, have recognized the advantage of repeating a test to see whether the subject has learned how to do it, or must solve the puzzle over again. The time required for this second trial is particularly” significant. In giving the Binet ten year drawings, the examiner often wishes that he had standardized drawings of equal difficulty so that he may observe the ability to learn a task of this kind. In these design blocks it is possible to give the same design in new color combinations, a task of approximately the same intrinsic difficulty, yet seeming to the child to be a new task. VI. The apparatus is simple, inexpensive and easily portable. VII. The test can be given to two or three subjects at the same time. If the examiner is giving the best to a very young child, he may arouse his interest by having an older brother “show him how.” This does not invalidate the test, since it is fundamentally an imitation test, and alternative designs of equal difficulty may follow. Or he may excite interest by stimulating rivalry between a dull boy and his brighter younger brother.
VIII. Most important of all, the qualitative aspects of the test method (planfulness, persistence, quick recognition of success, etc.)?may be observed and at the same time the objective standards of success or failure and time of performance may be expressed quantitatively and standardized. The qualitative aspects are more in evidence than in many of the other performance tests in common use because the examiner can observe in most cases a range of performance from easy success to failure, or at least to a difficult success.
It is probably true that in all our performance tests these qualitative aspects are more important than the time of performance, although it is obvious that the time of performance in the formboard, for example, may be lengthened by poor method or lack of concentration. In most performance tests, and in the case of these design blocks among them, a new problem or task is presented to the subject. The examiner can therefore justifiably interpret success or failure in terms of intelligence or mental ability, rather than in terms of training or habit. “When performance ranges from easy success, as in drawing a square, through difficult success with the diamond drawn from copy, to failure with the ten-year Binet figures drawn from memory, the examiner has a better basis for interpretation, mental analysis, and diagnosis, than in single tests which offer no such graduations of difficulty, in that success or failure in the latter is absolute rather than relative. Examiners find the tests which recur at different age levels in the Binet series particularly significant, on this account. In any of our so-called intelligence tests we get a result which is a performance level. In order to interpret this performance, the qualitative as well as the quantitative aspects of the performance are significant, whether the results are to be used either in planning an educational program for the child on the basis of our findings, or to secure a mental analysis for the purpose of prognosis and direction in social or industrial efficiency.
A few cases may be given to illustrate the usefulness of the design block test.
Language Difficulty.
X. N. Polish woman of twenty-four. Speaks practically no English and understands little. Reported to be mentally dull and inefficient since suicide of husband. Mental deficiency suspected. Physical examination negative. Mental Examination: Witmer formboard, first trial forty-three seconds, second twenty-eight seconds, no confusions. Healy construction puzzle A, first trial ninety seconds, second sixteen seconds. Knox Moron Test, first trial thirty-three seconds, second fifteen seconds. Witmer cylinders, first trial sixty-five seconds, second fifty-five seconds, few false moves, no final errors. Woodworth-Wells color-naming chart, in Polish, seventy seconds, no errors. Binet weights, compares correctly in each of three trials after watching examiner do this once. Design blocks, design 3, imitation, thirty-seven seconds; same design, other colors, memory, fourteen seconds; design 4, imitation, eightytwo seconds; same design, other colors, memory twenty-six seconds; design 5, memory, forty-five seconds, no failures.
In a case of this kind, many of the tests ordinarily used are out of the question. The result of these performance tests is convincing, particularly when qualitative aspects are emphasized. Although brought by a social agency because feeblemindedness was suspected, there can be little doubt that however illiterate or ignorant she may be, X. N. must be rated as having a fair degree of intelligence.
Case 2224, C. H., Polish woman of thirty-five, mother of two illegitimate children by two fathers. Brought by a social agency on account of suspected mental deficiency. Understands no EngDESIGN BLOCKS 105 lish, and either cannot or will not understand the interpreter brought by the social worker to assist in the examination. History previously obtained showed that C. H. had never attended school; had been employed as a farm laborer in Europe; emigrated to the United States in 1912 ? in this country had worked at berrypicking, house-cleaning, etc.; reported to be good laundry worker, a steady worker when employment is found for her, but not capable of finding work for herself. Physical examination: negative: no pronounced “stigmata”; expression lacking in intelligence. Mental Examination : Draws square and very poor diamond.
1Vitmer cylinders, in three minutes places fifteen of the eighteen cylinders, but only six of these are correct; on second trial in 128 seconds places all but one, though only seven are correct; instruction given by examiner, C. H. correcting all misplacements under his direction; third trial, all cylinders placed, only 2 errors, 128 seconds. Healy construction puzzle A, first trial 240 seconds; second trial twenty seconds. Woodworth-Wells color-naming chart, in Polish, 146 seconds, three errors, self-corrected. Goddard adaptation board, poor performance, correct for three turns; fails frequently on four or five turns. Design blocks: design 1, imitation, fails on first trial and is shown how to do it; design 1 in another color, imitation, ten seconds; design 2, imitation thirty-nine second ; design 3, imitation thirty-five seconds; design 4, imitation, no success in four minutes, method little better than trial and error; design 3, imitation, success in forty seconds; showing task was certainly understood and that failure on design 4 was due to lack of intelligence. Diagnosis: middle grade imbecile (Barr classification), (low grade moron, Goddard classification). Binet Test inconclusive because of language disability. Case E. X., an incorrigible, happy-go-lucky, adolescent colored girl of fifteen and one-half years; unmarried mother. Borderline case, backward and socially malconformed, and probably feebleminded. Left school at fourteen years in four A grade; attendance regular. Mental age score (Binet 1911), 10.6 years; auditory memory span, seven digits. Reads from third reader with fair expression ; reproduction of silent reading shows excellent verbal memory but meagre comprehension. Witmer cylinders, first trial sixty seconds, with seven final errors; completed correctly in 119 seconds; second trial sixty-five seconds, no final errors. Ilealy construction puzzle A, first trial 153 seconds, second trial twenty sec106 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC onds. Gives seventy words in three minutes; reconstructs sentence, solves problems from several facts, etc. Design blocks, all trials given as imitation tests; design 3, eighteen seconds, design 4, failure in three minutes, but success in 204 seconds; design 4 in other colors, success in seventy-four seconds; design 5 not given. Deaf Child. H. N., an American born boy of seven and one-half years, the child of Welsh parents; “Welsh spoken in home, although parents can speak English. Has been in a school for the feebleminded. Makes effort to talk, but uses only a few words, which are difficult to understand. Does not form sentences. No school progress.
Mental Examination: Witmer formboard; normal reaction thirty-nine seconds. Witmer cylinders, first trial failure, cylinders being placed with reference to diameter only; second trial, after watching examiner place them, ninety-three seconds with only two final errors. Draws square and diamond. Matches but fails to name colors. Design blocks: design three, imitation, forty-seven seconds; same design in other colors, imitation, forms design in colors previously used, but turns blocks over readily when his attention is called to color; design 4, imitation, failure, has three blocks in correct position, but fails to use the solid color block. This is a case of a partially but not totally deaf child, with whom tests involving language are impracticable. Diagnosis: Deaf-mutism, otherwise will probably prove to be mentally normal. Prognosis, under special instruction for deaf mutes, favorable. Wide range of application. It affords a scale of increasing difficulty with very simple and inexpensive material. It can be used to advantage with children as young as two years and is significant when given to adults.
Case W. N., two years, four months; normal mentally but not talking. Witmer form-board: (had been given four trials with this three months earlier, but had no practice in interim) seventy seconds. Second trial 139 seconds, third trial 112 seconds. Witmer cylinders proved too difficult. Matches color readily, but does not know color names. Does not distinguish between 1 and 2. Second examination before class at two years and six months. Witmer form-board: first trial 176 seconds; second trial eighty seconds; larger board (Goddard) with ten blocks, forty-four seconds. Witmer cylinders; between this and previous examination he had access to these cylinders as play material at intervals during one day; first trial (allowed no wrong placements to remain) 220 seconds. Discriminates and matches color, but does not know color names; distinguishes “one” and “two” from other numbers in giving blocks on command. Design blocks: a continuous solid color row, red; succeeds in this for four blocks, and then adds two yellow surfaces. Design 1, red; copies readily; Design 2, blue and white, uses blue and red, and places colors in adjacent rather than diagonal position.
Case 1902, D.D., girl of six in public kindergarten; mental deficiency suspected by teacher; idio-imbecile (Barr classification). Physical examination shows that she is a mouth breather with crowded teeth; very much contracted palate; of about average weight and height.
Mental Examination: Mental age score (Binet 1911) 3.3 years; repeats 2 digits; fail to copy square and to count up to 4. Enumerates objects in picture and speech development is fair. Witmer formrboard: first trial, 220 seconds; second, 110 seconds; third, ninety-six seconds. Method little better than trial and error. Discriminates and matches color, but does not know color names; idea of numbers limited to two. Design blocks: Continuous solid color row, red, places eleven blocks, nine of which are red. Same, white, performed correctly; design 1, red, arranges four blocks in form of letter L, incorrect colors; examiner calling attention to color, D changes all to red but keeps L arrangement. Examiner showed her how to complete square. Design 1, blue, after thirtyfour seconds has three blue and one red arranged in form of square. Examiner: “Is that all blue on top?” D. at first said it was, and then corrected. Design 2, red and white; chooses three red and white diagonally divided surfaces and one yellow and blue surface. Is satisfied to arrange these in square.
New problem is presented to the subject. The chances that the subject has learned to perform this test are remote since, even if he has played with these blocks as a toy, it is unlikely that he has tried these particular designs.
Case 1890, M.E., a girl of six, brought to clinic because of certain babyish and silly actions noticed by parents. Proved to be of normal mentality. Physical examination negative. Had been one year in kindergarten, and three months in first grade.
Mental Examination : Witmer formrboard: first trial, normal reaction forty-seven seconds; second trial, confuses triangles, sixty108 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC six seconds; Witmer cylinders, first trial, all correct in 184 seconds ; second trial 133 seconds. Auditory memory span five digits. Mental age score (Binet 1911) 6.6 years. Design blocks: Design 1, red, ten seconds; 2, red and white, sixteen seconds; 3, blue and yellow, thirty-six seconds.
Case 1962, N. 8., American woman of twenty-seven, illegitimately pregnant three times in the last five years, and each time by a different man. Middle grade imbecile (Barr). Has worked irregularly in domestic service. Not a prostitute. Able to give fairly connected account of her history. Left school at fourteen in fourth grade. Physical examination shows her a woman of low stature and medium build, without marked “stigmata.” Facial expression not intelligent. Apparently unconscious of her limited mentality, and fairly complacent even when obviously failing in mental tests.
Mental Examination. Witmer cylinders first trial, five correct placements out of eighteen. Instruction given by examiner; second trial completed correctly without suggestion in 140 seconds. Auditory memory span 5 digits; reads readily with good expression from second or third Reader. Aussage test, meager description with enumeration of objects in pictures; no interpretation. Fails to arrange Binet weights correctly. Cannot make change in sums over ten cents. Design Blocks: Design 3, red on white, fortyseven seconds; blue on white, twenty-six seconds; Design 4, white on red, chooses four identical surfaces, red and white, and five successive times comes to arrangement as in test 3; no success in 200 seconds. Instruction given by examiner; 4 repeated; chooses correct surfaces, but places at random to form square in fifty-four seconds.
In general the results of these tests with the design blocks are in accord with the data of other tests. Sometimes a high grade feebleminded subject will succeed readily in this test and occasionally a subject of normal mental ability will fail. The following case is given as an illustration of the former. Case 2016, E. D., attractive, adolescent, high grade feebleminded girl of nineteen and one-half. Diagnosis given largely on basis of school and social history rather than clinic tests. Physical examination negative; health excellent; menses at thirteen; no “stigmata.” Is being allowed to take first year high school work in Domestic Science; spent two terms in nearly every grade, and then was promoted “on age.” School conduct excellent, attendance regular, enjoys school and does not realize her limitations. Mental Examination. Witmer cylinders: first trial, 123 seconds; second, sixty-two seconds; third, forty-seven seconds. Compares Binet weights correctly; fair performance in Trabue language completion test. Auditory memory span seven digits. Healy Construction puzzles, A, 21 seconds; B, incomplete at four minutes, hut finished readily on slight hint from examiner. Making change: (coins used) 10 -f- 4 == 6; 25 ? 6 = 19 (gives dime and nine pennies) ; 25 ? 11 = 14; 50 ? 37 = 13; 50 ? 63 = 7, but gave orally as “eight” and added one cent. Asked how she got this result changed to 13. 50 ? 72 = 22; 50 ? $1.25 = 75. Woodworth and 1Veils controlled associations: performance excellent. Reversal of hands of clock, 2:56 = 11:15; 8:08 fails. Design blocks: Design 3, fourteen seconds. It will be observed in this case that the performance of most of these tests is good, except for the suggestibility shown in the making change test. Result with the design blocks is excellent and this case is given as an example of an instance in which this test did not point to the true diagnosis of the case. This test is particularly recommended in cases where there is a language difficulty; cases of deafness, children not yet talking, illiterate adolescents and adults, and all subjects whose mother tongue is not that of the examiner.
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.