The Correspondence of School Achievement and Industrial Efficiency with Mental Age as Obtained by the Stanford-Binet
- Author:
Catherine E. Chipman, Psychologist
Walter E. Fernald State School, Waverley, Massachusetts Iii spite of our conviction that Mental Age and I.Q. are a reliable indication of capability in school work, it must be admitted that the measure is not infallible. We have within the school a certain number of individuals whose actual achievement in academic subjects does not equal our expectation, and this studywas undertaken in an attempt to determine the special abilities and disabilities of this group as shown on the Stanford-Binet. As a preliminary investigation, a case study was made of two boys of the same chronological age who, at the time of admission, had the same mental age and I.Q. One of these boys was doing all the school work of which we would judge him capable, while the other failed to equal his mental age in any subject.
Leo, the more aggressive of the pair, is of average height and weight with an expression on his heavy set face which gives him the appearance of a potential trouble-maker. He walked and talked at the usual time, had measles, mumps and in fact was not considered peculiar by his family until he was of school age. Except for the fact that he is left-handed, the physical history contains nothing significant, but heredity and social reactions show a very different state of affairs. Leo’s paternal grandmother is a patient in the Grafton State Hospital, his maternal grandfather was a chronic alcoholic, his father notoriously sexually promiscuous, and there are three mentally defective sisters at home. This home so-called, is in an outlying section of the city, known as “Forky Pasture, and consists of a tumbled-down house of three rooms with a ladder leading to the unpartitioned attic where the nine members of the family sleep. The father being away from home the greater part of the time, Leo had free rein for his aggressiveness which he manifested in tormenting the children at home and in school. In the face of this heredity and environment, it is not surprising that the boy is described as “disobedient, resentful of authority, quarrelsome, stubborn, impulsive and unstable.” He has continued in this anti-social behavior since his admission to the institution, for the physician and head teacher report that he is troublesome in class, unreliable and a leader in mischief of all sorts.
Considering this background and character, the a priori judgment would be that this individual’s school work would be on a lower level than his mental age, but before discussing his actual attainment, let us take up the case of James, the other member of the pair.
James is a timid lad, slightly underweight and underheight, social by nature, always ready to follow the more dominant Leo, and easily amenable to institutional discipline. His family history, while not entirely negative, is far better than Leo’s, containing as it does only a rather abusive alcoholic father and a younger brother suffering from a tubercular spine. The home conditions in this case are vaguely described as “very poor,” with the addition of the information that the father intimidated James so that he dared not “express himself.” This raises the question of a possible shut-in personality, but the probability is belied by the boy’s bearing and attitude. James is characterized upon admission as “well behaved and obedient though rather talkative” and during the year he has been in the school there has been no change in this attitude or behavior. His practical knowledge is good, he is amenable to discipline, popular with the boys of his own age and generally content. On the basis of this history, one would expect James to be the type of boy who works up to capacity in school work.
As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. James with mental age 6-10 does first grade work in writing only, i.e., he can copy single letters and figures. Leo, with the same mental capacity, measured objectively, does first grade work in all subjects, he reads simple sentences, counts by l’s, 2’s and 5’s and knows simple number combinations, spells man, book, sing and knows the use of a capital letter and complete sentence.
This is a case in which mere statement of fact is of little value, the difference in attainment is self-evident; the constructive course is the investigation of possible causative factors. Prom the study of these two cases, heredity seems ruled out, the boy with the exceedingly bad family history fulfills all our expectations; environment apparently has no bearing on the matter, and social adaptability is in inverse ratio to school success. The difference in actual mental make-up which is not patent in the statement of mental age may be the solution of the problem. It is another example of the faulty diagnostic power of the Stanford-Binet in differentiating mental types; there is no indication of special abilities and disabilities, and detailed study of the examination itself is the only method of discovering them.
Inspection of the psychometric test of these two boys shows that both have a basal year of five with credits running up through eight years giving them an equal range of success. The distribution differs. Leo, whose school work equals his mental age succeeds on those tests adjudged difficult for defectives, while James passes those considered easy for them. In other words, James shows the facility in the use of language characteristic of defectives in general, while Leo demonstrates a fundamental ability in conception of numerical and spatial relationships. He succeeds in copying a diamond, counting accurately and repeating a series of digits, but fails the tests of vocabulary and descriptive ability passed easily by James.
The conclusions to be drawn from this are alternative, either the Stanford gives the verbalist a semblance of mental capacity which he does not possess or else school achievement has little relation to native ability. With this as a preliminary, the records of the school department were studied for the purpose of singling out those cases in which school work does not equal mental age. The basis for this selection was a difference of two years or more between M.A. and actual accomplishment in at least two of the following subjects, arithmetic, reading, spelling. Geography and writing were arbitrarily ruled out, due to the slighter emphasis placed upon them in the institutional school system. There were 37 such cases, 30 boys and 7 girls, an unselected group comprising all those cases which fulfill the conditions stated above. The Mental Ages range from 7-0 to 11-4 and the I.Q.’s from 50 to 77. A second selection was made to secure a control group of those whose school work was on a level with their mental age. These cases were chosen arbitrarily so that for every member of the original group, there should be an individual of corresponding M.A. and I.Q. whose school work is satisfactory. The range of M.A. and I.Q. in this control group coincides with that of the original, so the same scattering of success is obtained?each group contains 12 cases with a basal year of 6 and 10 which show at least three months’ credit at the twelve year level.
Even with these precautions the groups are not directly com24 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC parable, for the sources of error cannot be ruled out no matter how sensible one may be of them. The personal element has a double weight in this case, for the psychological and pedagogical tests have been given by different examiners. In addition, varying degrees of effectiveness in instruction, the presence of at last seven children with special reading disability, unequal periods of training in the institution and the absolute impossibility of determining the amount of effort given by the children to mastering academic subjects all aid in the destruction of the homogeneity of the group. The tests composing the Stanford-Binet from six years through fourteen were tabulated, and the percentages of success and failure within each group were figured for the tests individually. A discrepancy of less than 10 per cent between the original group and the control was not considered a significant difference. Proceeding on this plan, study of the figures shows that the group failing in school work fail the following tests more frequently than do those who equal expectation on the basis of Mental Age.
Per cent Failed Test Group A Control VII-1 No. of fingers 15 0 VII-6 Copying diamond 20 4 YIII-2 Counting backward 45 26 VIII-5 Definitions (superior to use) 30 20 IX-1 Date 49 24 X-4 Eeading and report 81 67 XII-6 Repeating digits backward 90 78
These tests may be divided into two classes (omitting the question of “reading and recall” which is automatically ruled out by the presence of non-readers), those which require associative memory and those dependent upon observation. To the first category belong counting and repeating digits backward, and definitions in terms superior to use; and to the second, number of fingers, the date, and copying a diamond. This list corresponds very closely to Doll’s selection of tests difficult for the feebleminded.
If these individuals failing to accomplish school work are unable to answer these questions, the natural inference is that their credits are gained on the easier tests. The tests passed most frequently by the atypical group are as follows:
Per cent Passed Test Group A Control VII-3 Digits repeated forward 70 60 VII-5 Differences (simple) 100 90 VHI-1 Ball and field (inferior plan) 80 40 VIII-6 Vocabulary ^0 50 IX-3 Making Change ^4 24 “VIII-4 and X-5 Comprehension ^0 15
Inspection of this table indicates the greater proportion of successes are in those tests dependent upon rote memory; facility in the use of language, and ability to deal with a simple concrete situation.
This corroborates the findings of the preliminary study and although the number of cases concerned is too small to warrant any sweeping conclusion, it seems a concrete example of the criticism so often directed against the Stanford-Binet, that it places too high a premium upon mere language facility. This does not mean the precise and accurate choice of words which is altogether admirable, but the vague and inconsequential flow of language which often covers a real ignorance of the essential fact.
The situation has an analogy in much college under-graduate work. The judicious use of catch phrases and theories repeated parrot fashion often results in a finished product far more impressive to the cursory glance than the awkwardly expressed out-come of independent thought. Similarly, a defective with a mental age of nine, may receive credit for a twelve year vocabulary, but if he belongs to the group which does not succeed in school work, there is a strong probability that the responses are of inferior quality and the sum of real knowledge small.
This lack of correspondence between mental age by the Stanford-Binet and school achievement, even in the small group under consideration, acquires real significance when their industrial and social adequacy is compared with that of those individuals whose academic work fulfills expectations. To this end the thirty-seven cases of the study group were investigated from the point of view of the etiology of the defect, social reactions as shown by conduct before and since admission to the institution, and industrial efficiency as reported by the manual training department. It was hoped that the comparison of this data with the results of a similar investigation conducted on the control group would throw some light on the relative reliability of the psychometric test and school achievement as basis for prediction of social adaptability and industrial efficiency.
Survey of the recorded cause of defect proved most inconclusive. Study and control groups contained equal numbers of intemperate or mentally irresponsible parents, and undesirable home conditions. Heredity and social background seem to have no direct connection with the discrepancy between apparent ability and actual attainment. The records of conduct before admission, being compiled from the testimony of people ranging from trained social workers to almost illiterate parents, were very meagre and not directly comparable. In spite of this, some significant differences between the groups do appear. Of those whose school work is markedly below apparent mental ability, nearly 50 per cent have a history of dishonesty and untruthfulness serious enough to cause comment, as opposed to 20 per cent of the group who equal expectation. A similar ratio is present in regard to stealing, 30 per cent of the study group and 11 per cent of the control show this failing. The incidence of sex offences shows a positive correlation with failure in school, 22 per cent compared to 6 per cent. The significance of this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the term covers various manifestations of an undesirable reaction ranging from undue interest in sexual matters to actual perversion. The presence of destructive tendencies, also, is of interest on a comparative basis. Nineteen per cent of the original group and 6 per cent of the control are charged with this delinquency.
The conclusion to be drawn from these facts is purely descriptive. Those individuals whose academic work is unsatisfactory are inclined to be asocial in their general reaction, i.e., they are unreliable, destructive, and what is vaguely termed “immoral.” In addition, there is a strong probability that this group is more stubborn and disobedient, more resentful of authority and disagreeable in disposition as well as more seclusive than the group which presents no academic problem. This is inconclusive, however, for the argument moves into a vicious circle. Is the child failing in school work because he is stubborn, disobedient and so forth, or is he exhibiting these traits as a defense against the humiliation he feels at his inability to accomplish as much as his fellows’?
In any discussion of this sort, the question of interest in the task at hand obtrudes itself at every turn, and always remains unanswerable. No one has invented an ergograph for mental effort, and until he does, this will remain an incommensurable source of error. A rather makeshift arrangement is the comparison of achievement in academic and industrial lines for each individual.
Ideally, the field in which greater efficiency is shown represents the results of maximum effort, but in actual fact, attendant circumstances serve to destroy the truth of this theory. In default of anything better, this procedure was followed and the findings tabulated for each case. Using the scale of industrial possibilities grouped according to mental age, it was found that in the study group twelve individuals (nine boys and three girls) are failing to do manual work on a par with their mental age. This constitutes 34 per cent of the group and would seem a large proportion until it is compared with the control which shows 33 per cent accomplishing less than would be expected. No deduction can be drawn, therefore, regarding the relation between academic success and industrial performance. The relative numbers in each group showing unexpected efficiency are not similar. Two boys only in the study group (6 per cent) accomplish more than would be expected in an industrial line as contrasted with a group of five (three boys and two girls) which compromise 14 per cent of the control cases. With so small a group the significance of this discrepancy is of doubtful value, but it does indicate that the group succeeding in school work is apt to be more efficient industrially than those with an unsatisfactory academic record. This contradicts the wide-spread and ever popular belief in specialized abilities. It has long been the consolation of parents to reflect that if a child fails in academic work, he will show a compensatory manual ability. On the basis of this work, one would conclude that intelligence is a general competence to deal with any situation, rather than the sum of special abilities covering various types of activity.
In comparing the quality of the work done by the two groups it is interesting to note that 48 per cent of each are described as doing “good work.” According to the theory of distribution, one would expect to find the majority under the heading “fair” with a few ‘’ good’’ and a few ‘’ poor.’’ There is an explanation for this apparent misplacement in the fact that the children attend those manual training classes whose work they can accomplish satisfactorily. The statement that a child does good work means that he is mastering the task set; not necessarily that the work is what is expected of his mental level. As a matter of fact, however, and in further support of the theory of the general nature of intelligence, inspection of the records shows that the 48 per cent doing “good” work are all found among those whose industrial efficiency is equal to their mental age.
The lack of any means of predicting on the basis of etiology of defect, environment or social reactions, the reliability of Mental Age as the measure of future academic or industrial success would seem to make the Stanford-Binet test a poor standard for prognosis, but the fact that the thirty-seven cases in the original group constitute a bare 10 per cent of those enrolled in the grades, serve to modify our judgment. The question of the atypical cases remains unanswered, but the accuracy of the measure in 90 per cent of those cases in which it has been used, is sufficient justification for its retention.
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.