The Personnel of a Children’s Home a Cumulative Psychological Study

The Psychological Clinic Copyright, 1932, by Lightner Witmer, Editor Vol. XX, No. 9 February, 1932

Author:

    1. Brotemarkle, Ph.D.

University of Pennsylvania Assisted by Dorothy M. Bassett Cornelia B. Meytrott Charlotte Easby-Grave Adele Rosenheim

PART II Case 31?M. b. May 11, 1921. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G C.A. 8.1 90 percentile 2d grade. 8 year M B.A. 7.0 2d grade reading. M.A. 7.9 I.Q. 95.8 30 percentile Ilealy A?(1) 50”, (2) 17”; B (1) DNC, (2) 60” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, 60 percentile; (2) 260”, 30 percentile Memory Span AY?5, 50 percentile; R?3, 60 percentile ; L?6 on 4th Diagnosis: Normal. Low rate of response. Imaginative, sensitive. Temper. Limited distribution of attention. Persistence good. Recommendation : Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 9.2 99 percentile 2d grade. 10 year M M.A. 8.5 4th reading, 2d I.Q. 91.8(M) 30 percentile arithmetic, 3.7 Witmer FB?(1) 40”, 1 percen- Morgan. tile; (2) 24”, 20 percentile; (3) 20” Ilealy A?DNC; B (1) DNC, (2) DNC 257 Dearborn FB?(1) 250”, 30 percentile; (2) 240”, 1 percentile Memory Span AY?4, 1 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile ; L?5 on 2d Diagnosis: Normal low. Unpleasant disposition. Anger and hurts younger children. Recommendation: Careful discipline. Corrective personality development. Case 32?M. b. Feb. 18, 1921. 1928?B C.A. 7.2 30 percentile 6 year M M.A. 6.7 I.Q. 92 20 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 13 Goddard FB?Mental Age 6.6 Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation: Allow mother to plan care for. Released in care of Mother, October 28, 1928. Case 33?M. b. Oct. 23, 1920. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G- No examination. Not in Home. 1930?R C.A. 9.8 90 percentile 4th grade. 10 year M B.A. 7.0 4th grade reading. M.A. 9.2 4th grade arithmetic. I.Q. 94.8 40 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 36”, 1 percentile; (2) 24”, 20 percentile; (3) 24” Healy A?DNC; B (1) DNC, (2) 147” Dearborn FB?(1) 210”, 40 percentile; (2) 145”, 20 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 40 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile; L?6 on 3d Diagnosis: Normal. Poor distribution of attention. Imagery deficiency.

Recommendation: Normal personality development. Case 34?F. b. Oct. 15, 1920. 1928?B C.A. 7.6 30 percentile 6 year F M.A. 7.2 I.Q. 95.5 20 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 7 Goddard FB?Mental Age 7.3 Army Designs?Mental Age 9.7 Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation: Remain in Home until relatives can care for. 1929?G C.A. 8.7 60 percentile 1A grade 8 year F B.A. 6.0 M.A. 7.3 I.Q. 84.8 10 percentile Healy A?(1) 140”, (2) 15”; B (1) 315”, (2) 50” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, 70 percentile; (2) 125”, 80 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 50 percentile; R?3, 50 percentile ; L?6 on 5th Diagnosis: Normal retarded. Mentally and educationally retarded. Fluctuating attention. Trainable. Manual. Talkative. Recommendation : Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 9.8 90 percentile 3B grade. 10 year F B.A. 7.0 3d grade reading. M.A. 8.3 2d grade arithmetic. I.Q. 85.3 20 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 37”, 1 percentile; (2) 25”, 20 percentile; (3) 23” Healy A?58”; B (1) 101”, (2) 70” Dearborn FB?(1) 235”, 50 percentile; (2) 180”, 20 percentile Memory Span AY?6, 80 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile ; L?0 Diagnosis: Dull normal. Educationally and mentally retarded. Poor concentration. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Case 35?M. b. Sept. 21, 1920. 1928?B C.A. 7.6 90 percentile 8 year M M.A. 7.3 I.Q. 96.0 20 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 11.5 Goddard FB?Mental Age 7.3 Diagnosis : Normal.

Recommendation: Remain at Home. 1929?G C.A. 8.8 70 percentile 1st grade 8 year M B.A. 9.0 M.A. 9.3 I.Q. 106.7 60 percentile Memory Span AY?5, 50 percentile; R?4, 90 percentile ; L?6 on 5th Diagnosis: Normal. Needlessly retarded.

Recommendation : Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 9.9 99 percentile 2d grade. 10 year M B.A. 8.0 5th grade reading. M.A. 10.2 2d grade arithmetic. I.Q. 104.1 60 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 35”, 1 percentile; (2) 26”, 10 percentile; (3) 27” Healy A?(1) 12”, (2) 11”; B (1) 40”, (2) 35” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, 1 percentile; (2) 145”, 20 percentile Memory Span AY?5, 40 percentile; R?5, 99 percentile; L?6 on 5th Diagnosis: Normal. Friendly, popular. Understanding reader. Recommendation: Normal personality development. Case 36?M. b. July 15, 1920. 1928?B C.A. 7.9 99 percentile 8 year M M.A. 6.0 I.Q. 77.4 1 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 9 Goddard FB?Mental Age 7.8 Diagnosis : Borderline. Recommendation: Medical care. Care under American Legion. 1929?G C.A. 8.10 50 percentile 1A grade 8 year M B.A. 6.0 M.A. 7.3 I.Q. 82.0 10 percentile Memory Span AY?4, 1 percentile; R?3, 60 percentile ; L?5 on 4th Diagnosis : Normal retarded. School progress not likely without help. THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 261 Recommendation: Normal personality development. Educational help. 1930?R C.A. 9.11 90 percentile 2d grade. 10 year M B.A. 8.0 2d grade reading. M.A. 9.6 IB grade arithmetic. I.Q. 95.7 40 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 22”, 60 percentile; (2) 16”, 90 percentile; (3) 15” Healy B?(1) 65”, (2) 35” Dearborn FB?(1) 255”, 30 percentile; (2) 240”, 1 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 1 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile ; L?5 on 4th Diagnosis: Normal. Discontented. Sullen. Recommendation: Corrective personality development. Case 37?M. b. Aug. 7, 1920. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G C.A. 8.10 50 percentile 3d grade 8 year M B.A. 9.0 M.A. 10.6 I.Q. 118.8 80 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 50 percentile; R?4, 90 percentile; L?6 on 2d Diagnosis : Superior. Alert. Observant. Language ability good. Recommendation : Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 9.11 90 percentile 5th grade. 10 year M B.A. 9.0 Excellent reading. M.A. 11.10 Good arithmetic. I.Q. 119.7 80 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 40”, 1 percentile; (2) 16”, 90 percentile; (3) 20” Healy A?DNC; B (1) 95”, (2) 35” Memory Span AY?5, 40 percentile; R?I, 80 percentile; L?6 on 3d Diagnosis: Superior. Excellent languageability and vocabulary. Recommendation: Normal personality development. Develop high abilities. 262 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC Case 38?M. b. June 30, 1920. 1928?B C.A. 7.9 99 percentile 8 year M M.A. 6.2 I.Q. 80 1 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 10 Goddard FB?Mental Age 7.1 Army Designs?Mental Age 10.7 Diagnosis : Dull normal. Recommendation : Remain in Home until family can be brought together. 1929?G C.A. 8.11 50 percentile 2B grade 8 year M B.A. 6.2 M.A. 8.0 I.Q. 89.9 20 percentile Ilealy A?(1) F (Gave up), (2) 40”, (3) 8”; B (1) 220”, (2) 40” Dearborn FB?(1) 280”, 60 percentile; (2) 230”, 30 percentile Memory Span AY?5, 50 percentile ; R?3, 60 percentile; L?6 on 4th Diagnosis: Normal retarded. Low intelligence. Rate of response low. Slow in group response. Recommendation: Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 10.0 90 percentile 3d grade. 10 year M M.A. 8.2 3.4 Morgan. I.Q. 81.6 10 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 23”, 60 percentile; (2) 20”, 60 percentile; (3) 21” Ilealy A?160”; B (1) 100”, (2) 30” Dearborn FB?(1) 210”, 40 percentile; (2) 105”, 40 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 1 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile ; L?5 on 2d Diagnosis: Dull normal. Unobservant. Trainable in manual work. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Manual training. Case 39?F. b. Feb. 12, 1920. 1928?B C.A. 8.2 90 percentile 8 year F M.A. 8.0 THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 263 I.Q. 98.0 40 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 8 Army Designs?Mental Age 11.2 Diagnosis: Normal. Recommendation: Allow mother, sincere interest, plan for. Released in care of Mother 1929. Case 40?M. b. Aug. 16, 1919. 1928?B C.A. 8.8 70 percentile 8 year M M.A. 8.0 I.Q. 92.0 20 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 15 Army Designs?Mental Age 14.8 Diagnosis: Normal. Speech defect. Sneaky. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. Return to parents. 1929?G C.A. 9.9 99 percentile 2d grade. 10 year M B.A. 8.0 M.A. 9.0 I.Q. 92.3 30 percentile Healy A?(1) 60”, (2) 25”; B (1) 85”, (2) 45” Dearborn FB?(1) 120”, 70 percentile; (2) 55”, 80 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 40 percentile; R?2, 1 percentile; L?6 on 5th Diagnosis: Normal. Slightly retarded. Hyperactive and nervous. Elusive. Concrete material discrimination and comprehension good. Recommendation : Physical exaction. Manual training?capacity. 1930?R C.A. 10.11 50 percentile 5th grade. 10 year M M.A. 10.7 5th grade Morgan. I.Q. 96.9 (M) 40 percen- 5th grade arithmetic. tile 5th grade reading. Witmer FB?(1) 25”, 50 percentile; (2) 15”, 90 percentile; (3) 12” Ilealy A?77”; B (1) 30”, (2) 24” Dearborn FB?(1) 170”, 50 percentile; (2) 55”, 80 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 1 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile; L?5 on 1st 264 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC Diagnosis: Normal. Corrective punishment imposed. Recommendation: Corrective speech. Corrective personality development. Case 41?F. b. April 12, 1919. 1928?B C.A. 9.0 40 percentile 8 year F M.A. 8.5 I.Q. 95.0 30 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 9 Goddard FB?Mental Age 7.8 Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation : Allow mother plan care for. Released Jan. 29, 1929. Case 42?M. b. April 4, 1919. 1928?B C.A. 9.0 40 percentile 8 year M M.A. 7.5 I.Q. 83.0 10 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 10 Goddard FB?Mental Age 7.1 Diagnosis : Dull normal. Extreme neglect. Infancy at Home. Recommendation: Remain at Home. 1929?G C.A. 10.2 90 percentile 2A grade 10 year M B.A. 7.0 M.A. 8.6 I.Q. 83.6 10 percentile Healy A?(1) DNC, (2) 15”; B (1) 65”, (2) 30” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, 1 percentile; (2) 50”, 90 percentile Memory Span AY?5, 40 percentile; R?4, 80 percentile ; L?6 on 4th Diagnosis : Dull normal. Resentful uncontrolled temper. Retarded. Fluctuating attention. Fair persistence. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. 1930?R C.A. 11.2 80 percentile Promoted to 4th grade. 12 year M M.A. 8.8 3.9 Morgan. I.Q. 84.3(M) 20 percen- 4th grade arithmetic. tile 4th grade reading. Witmer FB?(1) 25”, 30 percentile; (2) 26”, 10 percentile; (3) 14” Healy B?(1) DNC, (2) 30” Dearborn FB?(1) 170”, 40 percentile; (2) 75”, 60 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 1 percentile; R?4, 70 percentile ; L?5 on 4th Diagnosis: Normal retarded. Infancy in school. Recommendation: Normal personality development. Case 43?F. b. Nov. 15, 1918. 1928?F C.A. 9.6 99 percentile 10 year F M.A. 5.3 I.Q. 55.5 0 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 5.5 Goddard FB?Mental Age 5.9 Diagnosis : Moron Recommendation : Transfer for institutional vocational training. 1929?G C.A. 10.7 60 percentile 2d grade promoted to 3d. 10 year F M.A. 8.6 I.Q. 80.1 (M) 10 percentile Diagnosis: Mental defective. Recommendation : Transfer for institutional vocational training. Released in care of Father, July 6, 1929. Case 44?M. b. July 14, 1918. 1928?B C.A. 9.10 99 percentile 10 year M M.A. 7.8 I.Q. 77.0 1 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 13 Army Designs?Mental Age 11.2 Diagnosis: Dull normal. Recommendation : Stay at Home. Correct stammer. 1929?G C.A. 10.10 60 percentile 2A grade 10 year M B.A. 8.0 M.A. 10.1 I.Q. 93.0 30 percentile Healy A?(1) 185”, (2) 20”; B (1) 65”, (2) 35” Dearborn FB?(1) 235”, 30 percentile; (2) 80”, 60 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 1 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile; L?5 on 3d Diagnosis: Normal retarded. Planfulness and comprehension good.

Recommendation: Make up school retardation. Behavior adjustment through responsibility. Vocational training?mechanical. 1930?R C.A. 11.11 60 percentile 5th grade. 12 year M M.A. 9.5 4.4 Morgan. I.Q. 79.0(M) 10 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 25”, 30 percentile; (2) 15”, 90 percentile; (3) 17” Healy B?(1) 45”, (2) 27” Dearborn FB?(1) 120”, 60 percentile; (2) 50”, 80 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 20 percentile; R?3, 30 percentile; L?6 on 1st Diagnosis: Dull normal. Mechanical and manual. Planful. Recommendation: Vocational training. Normal personality development. Case 45?F. b. Aug. 8, 1918. 1928?B C.A. 9.8 90 percentile 10 year F M.A. 5.8 I.Q. 58.6 0 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 4 Goddard FB?Mental Age 6.7 Diagnosis: Moron. Physical inferior. Parents d. TB. Recommendation : Transfer to Vineland or State Board of Children’s Guardians at once?safety other children. 1929?G C.A. 10.9 50 percentile 1A grade 10 year F B.A. 6.0 M.A. 6.9 I.Q. 62.7 1 percentile Healy A?(1) 45”, (2) 15”; B (1) DNC, (2) 53” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC (help), 1 percentile; (2) 220”, 10 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 1 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile ; L?5 on 4th Diagnosis : Mental defective. Trainable at low level. Not educable. Limited comprehension and concentration. Recommendation : Not behavior problem. Might remain at Home. Needs protection as approaches age 16. 1930?R C.A. 11.11 50 percentile 3d grade. 11 year F B.A. 7.0 2d grade reading poor. M.A. 7.3 1st grade arithmetic THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 267 I.Q. 60.8 0 percentile (addition only). Witmer FB?(1) 33”, 10 percentile; (2) 27”, 10 percentile; (3) 21” Ilealy A?185”; B (1) 125”, (2) 40” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, 20 percentile; (2) DNC, 1 percentile Memory Span AY?4, 1 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile ; L?0 Diagnosis: Mental defective. Inactive judgment. Trainable in simple manual. Recommendation : Placement as determinates mentally with age. Case 46?F. b. June 20, 1918. 1928?B C.A. 9.10 90 percentile 10 year F M.A. 7.3 I.Q. 73.7 1 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 11 Goddard FB?Mental Age 7.5 Army Designs?Mental Age 8.7 Diagnosis : Borderline. Recommendation: Training in North Jersey Training School, Tatoma. 1929?G C.A. 10.11 50 percentile 2d grade. 10 year F M.A. 6.7 Promoted to 3d. I.Q. 67.1 (M) 1 percentile Ilealy A?(1) 285”, (2) 80”, (3) 8”; B (1) DNC, (2) 40” Dearborn FB?(1) 145”, (2) 200” Memory Span AY?5, 40 percentile; R?2, 0 percentile; L?0 Diagnosis : Mental defective. Recommendation : Institutional training. Released in care of Father, Aug. 3, 1929. Case 47?F. b. July 8, 1918. 1928?B C.A. 9.9 90 percentile 10 year F M.A. 7.0 I.Q. 71.7 1 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 9 Goddard FB?Mental Age 7.4 268 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC Army Designs?Mental Age 10 Diagnosis : Borderline. Recommendation : Transfer to training school or State Board of Children’s Guardians. 1929?G C.A. 10.10 50 percentile 2B grade. 10 year F B.A. 8.0 M.A. 8.6 I.Q. 78.4 Healy A?(1) DNC, (2) 30”, (3) 7”; B (1) DNC (2) 420” Dearborn PB?(1) DNC, 10 percentile; (2) DNC, 1 percentile Memory Span AY?4, 1 percentile; R?2, 0 percentile ; L?5 on 3d Diagnosis: High grade moron. Little school proficiency. Irritable. Inefficient. Recommendation: Transfer to Totoma or elsewhere. 1930?R C.A. 12.0 50 percentile. Not attending school. 12 year F M.A. 7.8 1st grade reading. I.Q. 63.7 (M) 0 percentile 1st grade arithmetic. Witmer FB?(1) 40”, 1 percentile; (2) 25”, 10 percentile; (3) 25” 3.2 grade Morgan. Ilealy A?DNC; B (1) 75”, (2) 35” Dearborn FB?DNC, 20 percentile Memory Span AY?5, 20 percentile; R?2, 1 percentile; L?0 Diagnosis: Mental defective. Temper tantrums. Recommendation: Removal to institution. Case 48?M. b. May 29, 1918. 1928?B C.A. 9.9 99 percentile 10 year M M.A. 9.2 I.Q. 94.0 30 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 8.5 Army Designs?Mental Age 10.2 Diagnosis: Normal. Recommendation : Remain at Home until relatives can take care. 1929?G C.A. 10.11 50 percentile 4A grade. THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 269 10 year M M.A. 8.9 3.9 Morgan. I.Q. 80.1 (M) 10 percentile Diagnosis : Mentally retarded. Recommendation : Physical examination. Stress education. Corrective personality development. 1930?R C.A. 12.1 50 percentile Promoted to 6th grade. 12 year M M.A. 9.5 4.4 Morgan. I.Q. 77.9 (M) 10 percentile 5th grade reading. Witmer FB? (1) 23”, 40 percentile; (2) 19”, 60 percentile; (3) 20” 4th grade arithmetic. Healy B?(1) 60”, (2) 11” Dearborn FB?(1) 240”, 20 percentile; (2) 160”, 10 percentile Memory Span AV?7, 90 percentile; II?3, 30 pertile; L?8 on 5th Diagnosis: Dull normal. Manual ability. Wants leave school. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Manual training. Case 49?F. b. May 5, 1918/ 1928?B C.A. 9.9 10 percentile 10 year F M.A. 9.6 I.Q. 96.0 40 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 5.5 Army Designs?Mental Age 6.5 Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation: Continue at Home. 1929?G C.A. 11.0 60 percentile 5B grade. 12 year F M.A. 9.3 4.2 grade Morgan. I.Q. 84.0(M) 20 percentile Diagnosis: Mentally retarded. Easily influenced. Willing. Poor comprehension of written or printed material. Recommendation: Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 12.1 40 percentile Promoted to 7th grade. 12 year F M.A. 9.8 4.7 Morgan. I.Q. 80.0 (M) 10 percentile 4th grade arithmetic. Witmer FB?(1) 31”, 10 percentile; (2) 21”, 30 percentile; (3) 20” Healy A?105”; B (1) DNC; (2) 50” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, 20 percentile; (2) DNC, 1 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 20 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile ; L?6 on 3d Diagnosis: Dull normal. Acquiescent. Comprehension poor. Trainable in routine. Poor judgment. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Manual routine training. Case 50?F. b. May 8, 1918. 1928?B C.A. 9.11 90 percentile 10 year F M.A. 7.5 I.Q. 74.9 1 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 11 Goddard FB?Mental Age 7.9 Army Designs?Mental Age 11.8 Diagnosis : Borderline. Recommendation : Remain at Home until mother can care for. 1929?G C.A. 11.1 90 percentile 2A grade. 12 year F B.A. 8.0 M.A. 8.9 I.Q. 79.9 10 percentile Healy A?(1) 25”, (2) 8”; B (1) DNC, (2) 140” Memory Span AV?5, 20 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile; L?6 on 3d Diagnosis : Dull normal. Trainable for somewhat complicated tasks. Lack of energy. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Manual training. 1930?R C.A. 12.1 40 percentile 4th grade. 12 year F M.A. 8.8 3d grade reading. I.Q. 71.7(M) 1 percentile 3d grade arithmetic. Witmer FB?(1) 24”, 50 per- 3d grade Morgan, centile; (2) 24”, 90 percentile; (3) 14” Healy A?(1) 155”; B (1) 44”, (2) 14” Dearborn FB?(1) 170”, 50 percentile; (2) 56”, 80 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 20 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile ; L?6 on 3d THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 271 Diagnosis : Dull normal. Systematic and efficient when trained. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Case 51?F. b. May 3, 1918. 1928?B C.A. 10.1 80 percentile 10 year F M.A. 8.0 I.Q. 79.3 10 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 10 Goddard FB?Mental Age 7.2 Diagnosis : Dull normal. Recommendation : Re-examination. Transfer to State Board of Children’s Guardians. 1929?G C.A. 11.1 90 percentile 12 year F B.A. 8.0 M.A. 9.6 I.Q. 85.7 30 percentile Memory Span AY?7, 90 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile; L?8 on 5th Diagnosis: Mentally retarded. Imitative. Recommendation: Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 12.2 40 percentile 5th grade. 12 year F M.A. 10.2 5.1 grade Morgan. I.Q. 83.5 (M) 20 percentile 5th grade reading. Witmer FB?(1) 17”, 90 percentile; (2) 15”, 90 percentile; (3) 10” 4tli grade arithmetic. Ilealy A?150”; B (1) DNC, (2) 30” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, 20 percentile; (2) DNC, 1 percentile Memory Span AY?6, 70 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile; L?7 on 4th Diagnosis : Dull normal. Infantile responses. Poor judgment. Recommendation : Institutional transfer. Case 52?M. b. Dec. 20, 1917. 1928?B C.A. 10.3 80 percentile 10 year M M.A. 9.4 I.Q. 90.0 30 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 8.5 Army Designs?Mental Age 11.8 Diagnosis: Normal. Behavior problem. Recommendation: Medical and psychiatric examination. Reestablish contact with mother. 1929?G C.A. 11.5 70 percentile 4A grade. 12 year M M.A. 9.3 4th grade Morgan. I.Q. 81.0(M) 20 percentile Ilealy A?(1) 40”, (2) 7”; B (1) 100”, (2) 30” Dearborn FB?(1) 280”, 10 percentile; (2) 150”, 10 percentile Memory Span AV?6, 70 percentile; R?5, 90 percentile; L?7 on 5th Diagnosis : Mentally retarded. Unobservant. Trainable. Lack of control. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. Suppression and discipline. 1930?R C.A. 12.6 40 percentile 6th grade. 12 year M M.A. 10.2 I.Q. 81.3(M) 20 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 20”, 60 percentile; (2) 12”, 100 percentile; (3) 12” Healy B?(1) 50”, (2) 27” Memory Span AY?7, 90 percentile; R?3, 30 percentile; L?0 Diagnosis : Retarded. Intelligent. Unoccupied. Recommendation: Corrective personality development. Masculine authority and discipline. Challenge intelligence. Boy Scout Master: Misdemeanors. Hard to interest. Good personality. Quick. Case 53?F. b. June 9, 1917. 1928?B C.A. 10.10 50 percentile 10 year F M.A. 6.8 I.Q. 60.1 0 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 11.5 Diagnosis: Moron. Possibility of TB tendency. Recommendation : Transfer to institution. 1929?G C.A. 11.11 50 percentile 2B grade. 12 year F B.A. 8.0 M.A. 8.0 I.Q. 67.1 1 percentile Healy A?(1) 65”, (2) 8”; B (1) DNC, (2) 150” THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 273 Dearborn FB?(1) 220”, 40 percentile; (2) 95”, 50 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 20 percentile; R?3, 20 percentile ; L?0 Diagnosis: Mental defective. Trainable manual. Poor judgment. Infantile attitude. Recommendation: Institutional care. 1930?R C.A. 13.0 99 percentile 15 year F B.A. 7.0 M.A. 9.0 I.Q. 69.2 1 percentile WitmerFB?(1) 20”, (2) 16”, (3) 17” Healy A?29”; B (1) 30”, (2) 29” Dearborn FB?(1) 125”, 70 percentile; (2) 57”, 70 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 0 percentile; R?2; L?5 on 2d Diagnosis: Mental defective. Trainable manual. Recommendation: Vocational manual training. Case 54?M. b. June 10, 1917. 1928?B C.A. 10.10 60 percentile 10 year M M.A. 9.1 I.Q. 83.6 10 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 12.5 Army Designs?Mental Age 12.4 Diagnosis: Dull normal. Recommendation : Allow mother to plan for care. Released, Jan. 29, 1929. Case 55?M. b. June 30, 1917. 1928?B C.A. 10.8 60 percentile 10 year M M.A. 10.9 I.Q. 101.0 50 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 11.5 Diagnosis : Normal. Temperament and physical defects. Nervous. Recommendation: Foster home. 1929?G C.A. 11.10 60 percentile Promoted to 6A grade. 12 year M M.A. 9.9 4.7 grade Morgan I.Q. 82.3(M) 20 percentile Healy A?(1) 25”, (2) 10”; B (1) 30”, (2) 20” Dearborn FB?(1) 220”, 20 percentile; (2) 75”, 60 percentile Diagnosis: Slight retardation. Normal competency. Evasive. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. Responsibility. 1929?R C.A. 13.0 70 percentile Promoted to 7th grade. 12 year M M.A. 12.4 7.1 Morgan. I.Q. 94.8 (M) 50 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 22”, 50 percentile; (2) 21”, 30 percentile; (3) 18” Healy B?(1) 40”, (2) 26” Dearborn FB?(1) 135”, 50 percentile; (2) 55”, 80 percentile Memory Span AV?7, 90 percentile; R?5, 90 percentile; L?8 on 1st Diagnosis: Normal. Good imagery. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Art. Boy Scout Master: Slow. Not responsible. Lacks interest. Case 56?M. b. Jan. 27, 1917. 1928?B C.A. 11.3 40 percentile 10 year M M.A. 9.5 I.Q. 84.0 10 percentile Portens Maze?Mental Age 7.5 Army Designs?Mental Age 7.5 Diagnosis : Dull normal. Recommendation : 1929?G C.A. 12.3 40 percentile 5th grade not promoted. 12 year M M.A. 9.9 4.7 grade Morgan. I.Q. 79.5(M) 20 percentile Ilealy A?(1) DNC, (2) 15”; B (1) 200”, (2) 60” Dearborn FB?(1) 305”, 10 percentile; (2) 110”, 30 percentile Memory Span AY?5, 20 percentile; R?3, 30 percentile; L?6 on 5th Diagnosis: Mentally retarded. Slow response. Unobservant. Low trainability. Recommendation: Normal personality development. Vocational training. THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 275 1930?R C.A. 13.5 90 percentile 6th grade. 15 year M M.A. 10.7 5.5 grade Morgan I.Q. 78.3(M) 10 percentile 5th grade reading Witmer FB?(1) 33”, (2) 28”, and arithmetic. (3) 18” Healy A?125”; B (1) 60”, (2) 53” Dearborn?(1) DNC, 1 percentile; (2) DNC, 1 percentile Memory Span AY?6, 20 percentile, R?2, L?7 on 4th Diagnosis: Borderline. Low trainability. Recommendation : Vocational training in routine work. Boy Scout Master: Slow. Trainable. Average ambition, courtesy, etc. Case 57?M. b. Jan. 22, 1917. 1928?B C.A. 11.3 80 percentile 12 year M M.A. 8.5 I.Q. 74.0 10 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 9.5 Army Designs?Mental Age 7.5 Diagnosis : Borderline. Unstable. Recommendation : Opportunity for more manual work. Group activity. 1929?G C.A. 12.3 50 percentile Promoted to 6B. 12 year M M.A. 9.3 I.Q. 75.5(M) 10 percentile Healy A?(1) DNC, (2) 20”; B (1) DNC, (2) 30” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, 10 percentile; (2) 170”, 10 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 20 percentile; R?5, 90 percentile; L?6 on 4th Diagnosis: Dull unobservant careless worker both with intellectual and concrete materials. Impatient. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. 1930?R C.A. 13.5 90 percentile 7th grade. 15 year M M.A. 10.2 7th grade reading and I.Q. 75.7(M) 10 percentile spelling. Witmer FB?(1) 30”, (2) 25”, (3) 22” 5th grade arithmetic. Healy B (1) 51”, (2) 28” 5.1 grade Morgan. 276 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC Dearborn FB? (1) DNC, 1 percentile; (2) 180”, 1 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 1 percentile; R?3 ; L?6 on 3d Diagnosis : Dull careless worker. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. Boy Scout Master: Slow. Trainable. Average ambition, courtesy, etc. Case 58?F. b. Dec. 11, 1916. 1928?B C.A. 11.3 80 percentile 12 year F M.A. 9.4 I.Q. 84.0 20 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 10.5 Army Designs?Mental Age 14.5 Diagnosis: Dull normal. Recommendation : Place in private home. 1929?G C.A. 12.4 100 percentile 4th grade. 15 year F M.A. 11.0 Promoted to 5th. I.Q. 89.3 (M) 20 percentile Memory Span AY?6, 20 percentile; R?4; L?7 on 5th Diagnosis : Normal retarded. Recommendation : Has left Home. Released in care of Father, July 6, 1929. Case 59?F. b. Oct. 2, 1916. 1928?B C.A. 11.5 70 percentile 12 year F M.A. 9.9 I.Q. 84.0 20 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 15.5 Army Designs?Mental Age 12.4 Diagnosis: Dull normal. Manual trainability. Recommendation : Re-examination. 1929?G C.A. 12.7 30 percentile 7th grade. 12 year F M.A. 10.9 5.5 grade Morgan. I.Q. 85.4(M) 30 percentile Ilealy A?(1) 25”, (2) 15”; B (1) 25”, (2) 30” Dearborn FB?(1) 130”, 70 percentile; (2) 55”, 80 percentile Memory Span AV?6, 70 percentile; R?5, 90 percentile L?7 on 2d Diagnosis: Retarded mentally. Lacks analytical discrimination. Planful. Resents family situation and sullen. Recommendation: Corrective personality development. 1930?R C.A. 13.9 90 percentile 8th grade. 15 year F M.A. 11.8 6.6 grade Morgan. I.Q. 84.8(M) 20 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 20”, (2) 15”, (3) 13” Ilealy A?60”; B (1) 32”, (2) 29” Dearborn FB?(1) 60”, 90 percentile; (2) 37”, 90 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 1 percentile; R?4; L?6 on 1st Diagnosis: Dull normal. Rapid and efficient manual worker. Recommendation : More stimulating surroundings. Case 60?F. b. Dec. 31, 1915. 1928?B C.A. 12.3 40 percentile 12 year F M.A. 10.0 I.Q. 81.0 20 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 12.5 Army Designs?Mental Age 11.8 Diagnosis: Dull normal. Recommendation: Placement in private home?mother’s helper. Continue school. 1929?G C.A. 13.4 90 percentile 6th grade. 15 year F M.A. 10.8 Promoted to 7th. I.Q. 80.6 (M) 10 percentile Diagnosis: Normal retarded. Recommendation : Placement. Released in care of Father, August 3, 1929. Case 61?M. b. Dec. 26, 1915. 1928?B C.A. 12.3 50 percentile 12 year M M.A. 10.8 I.Q. 87.0 30 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 13.5 Army Designs?Mental Age 12.4 Diagnosis: Dull normal. Recommendation : Placement under supervision of Home. Placed Sept. 16, 1928. 278 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC Case 62?F. b. May 11, 1915. 1928?B C.A. 12.8 70 percentile 12 year F M.A. 12.0 I.Q. 94.0 50 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 9 Army Designs?Mental Age 11.2 Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation: Father resident of Philadelphia. Refuse care for. Released in care of Father, July 6, 1928. Case 63?F. b. April 21, 1915. 1928?B C.A. 13.0 90 percentile 15 year F M.A. 7.7 I.Q. 59.0 0 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 7 Goddard FB?Mental Age 7.7 Army Designs?Mental Age 11.2 Diagnosis: Moron?possible TB tendency. Recommendation : Transfer to another institution. 1929?G C.A. 14.1 80 percentile 15 year F M.A. 7.11 I.Q. 56.8(M) 0 percentile Diagnosis: Mental defective. Unstable. Poor judgment. Recommendation : Transfer to institution for mental defectives. 1930?R C.A. 15.2 40 percentile Left school 3d grade. 15 year F M.A. 8.2 Chorea. I.Q. 53.8 (M) 0 percentile 4th grade proficiency Witmer FB?(1) 25”, (2) in reading. Man20”, (3) 14” ual service in home. Healy A?DNC; B (1) DNC, (2) 23”, (3) 21” Dearborn FB?(1) 300”, 20 percentile; (2) 95”, 50 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 0 percentile; R?3 ; L?5 on 1st. Diagnosis: Mental defective. Trainable in manual. Recommendation: Transfer to institution for mental defectives. Train for household manual. Transfer arranged for Sept., 1930. Case 64?M. b. Feb. 14, 1915. 1928?B C.A. 13.1 90 percentile 15 year M M.A. 9.1 I.Q. 70.0 1 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 13.5 Army Designs?Mental Age 12.9 Diagnosis : Borderline. Recommendation : Re-examination. May need institutional training. Needs group activity. More individual work for energy. Released in care of Father, Jan. 6, 1929. Case 65?F. b. Jan. 12, 1914. 1928?B C.A. 14.3 80 percentile 15 year F M.A. 10.5 I.Q. 78.0 10 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 12.5 Army Designs?Mental Age 11.8 Diagnosis : Borderline. Recommendation: Transfer North Jersey Training School Totoma. Training. Probably social problem without special training. 1929?G C.A. 15.4 30 percentile 15 year F I.Q. 67.1 (M) 1 percentile Diagnosis: Mental defective. Recommendation: Placement. Left home. Released in care of Father, Aug. 3, 1929. Case 66?M. b. Dec. 22, 1913. 1928?B C.A. 14.3 80 percentile 15 year M M.A. 12.7 I.Q. 94.0 30 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 12 Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation : Meet advanced interests and needs direction of adolescent inclination. Placed June, 1928. Case 67?M. b. Aug. 20, 1913. 1928?B C.A. 14.7 70 percentile 15 year M M.A. 12.0 I.Q. 80.2 10 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 11 Army Designs?Mental Age 14.5 Diagnosis: Dull normal. Recommendation : Needs advanced interests. Farm home placement. 1929?G C.A. 15.8 30 percentile 7th grade. 15 year M M.A. 14.6 Promoted to 8th. I.Q. 92.5 (M) 30 percentile Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation : Allow out and order to plan care for. Continue school?more retarded than need be. Released in charge of Uncle, Oct. 20, 1929. Comparative Results The following tables presenting various analyses of the cumulative records will be discussed in their order as far as possible. Table I Comparison of Diagnoses (Terman Classification) B-1928 Cases % G-1929 Cases R-1930 Cases % Superior…. Normal Dull Normal. Borderline. . Moron 1 20 12 11 4 2 [43% 41 J 25 23 1 32% 9J 2 24 13 6 5 52% 22% 6 23 12 4 5 58% 18% 48 50 50 Table II Comparison of Diagnoses (Individual Classifications) B-1928 Cases G-1929 Cases % R-1930 Cases % Superior Normal Normal Retarded . Sub Normal Dull Normal Borderline High Grade Moron Moron Mental Defective . 21 x X 12 11 x 4 x 48 24 12 1 3 1 x 6 50 48 86% 24 J 1} 8% 2 2 } 16% 12 22 4 x 13 x X 4 50 | 62% 26% 12% Diagnoses based primarily upon the Terman Classification would indicate that the personnel of the Home is improving so far as intellectual ability is concerned, but do not present the true facts of the intellectual types in the group. While Bassett uses the Terman Classification almost entirely as her guide her recommendations indicate a tendency to raise certain individuals to a higher level. At the hands of Grave and Rosenheim the clinical analysis of the qualitative performance shows that the actual distribution of personnel still includes too large a percentage of both Dull or SubNormal individuals and Mental Defectives who can be cared for more properly in other types of institutions. It is questionable whether a Home can refuse to accept some Dull Normal case problems, but certainly it is out of the province of such Homes to attempt the education or training of Mental Defectives. Table III indicates a reasonable stability of diagnostic grading on the basis of the Terman Classification.

Table III Fluctuations in Terman Classifications One Class Change Two Class Change Three Class Change No Change Higher Lower Higher Lower Lower B-G BG 2 33.3% BGR 3 9.6% BG 2 33.3% BGR 5 16.1% BG 2 33.3% BGR 7 22.5% BG 0 BGR 1 3.2% BG 0 BGR 0 BG 0 BGR 0 G-R GR 9 69.2% BGR 7 22.5% GR 3 23.0% BGR 4 12.9% GR 1 7.6% BGR 5 16.1% GR 0 BGR 0 GR 0 BGR 1 3.2% GR 0 BGR 0 B-R BGR 5 16.1% BR 0 BGR 5 16.1% BR 0 BGR 6 19.3% BR 0 BGR 1 3.2% BR 0 BGR 0 BR BGR 1 3.2% B-G-R BGR 14 45.1%

Such fluctuations are indicated by the individual recommendations of the three examining psychologists, especially among the large number who were retarded in their education beyond the functioning level of their mental ability. Tables IV (a), (&), (c) and (d) present an analysis of the chronological age of the group. The average age remains about the same, although unfortunately the range is slowly increasing, bringing too large a difference in age range for the best social relation282 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC ships within the group. (This condition will shortly be cared for by the institution of a cottage system.)

The gradual elimination of some of the older defectives by return to their parents still leaves, at the end of the third survey, nine of these individuals for whom definite recommendations of disposition have been made. The selection of Dull or Sub-normal individuals in the younger age levels means an ever increasing

Table IV (a) Comparison of Chronological Ages B-1928 G-1929 R-1930 3 4 5 6 7. 8. 9 10 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. x 4 9 6 2 10 5 4 3 2 3 0 Maximum. Average. . Minimum. 14.7 9.2 5.3 15.8 9.3 5.1 15.2 9.3 3.4 Table IV (6) B-1928 Chronological Age 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Total Superior?Boys… . ^ Girls…. a O Normal?Boys g Girls ?c ? Dull Normal?Boys. ?3 Girls. a 2 Borderline?Boys. . 5 Girls… a> H Moron?Boys S Girls o o Total?Boys 5 Girls Q Total 0 1 12 8 8 4 5 6 0 4 25 23 48 1 20 12 11 4 48 THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 283 Table IV (c) G-1929 Chronological Age Superior?Boys…. Girls…. c .2 “S Normal?Boys g Girls j? Dull Normal?Boys. O Girls, c c Borderline?Boys… ? Girls… H ^ Moron?Boys 3 Girls o ? 2 Total?Boys ?S Girls Total 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total 2 0 15 9 7 6 2 4 0 5 26 24 50 Total 2 24 13 6 5 50 Table IV (d) R-1930 Chronological Age 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Total Superior?Boys…. Girls…. a o Normal?Boys ? Girls Dull Normal?Boys. O Girls, c e Borderline?Boys… ? Girls… QJ ^ Moron?Boys ? Girls o pr o Total?Boys ^ Girls Q Total 4 2 17 6 3 1 1 4 29 21 50 6 23 12 4 5 50 group of the older age, who, by natural deterioration of the mental decrement, must be eliminated by definite institutional care. The moral risk of social and individual misconduct of these cases demands definite refusal of admission at an earlier age upon the basis of psychological examinations, or the willingness of the Board to take steps toward a consistent removal program upon the basis of proper recommendations. The fact that some of these older Subnormals and Defectives are no longer attending school and give some relief to the employment problem in the home labor does not alter the complicated risk of a poor program of individual and group discipline and socio-moral danger. The immediate corrective lies in the proper disposition of these cases to other institutions either by the Board of Managers or by the State Board of Children’s Guardians.

The folly of attempting the education of these latter individuals under the present public school arrangement of the home is more definitely indicated by the following tables which show the school retardation and advance of the entire group.

The separate survey reports have indicated several causes which may account somewhat for this large amount of retardation, such as “late entering,” “irregular attendance,” “difference in school grading systems,” “failure to bring children up to grade,” etc. However, the records of the Home are so inadequate that much of this information is not available. Under the stimulus of the recommendations of the G-1929 survey a slight improvement is noted in the K-1930 Normal and Dull levels; however, the retardation of the Sub-normal and Defectives must continue to increase. The fact that some of these latter continue to move ahead in the grade system surely cannot be traced to their scholastic achievement, but must be based on age and other school functional factors. Table V (a)

B-1928 School Retardation (According to Chronological Age) 0 yr. 1 yr, 2 yrs. 3 yrs. 4 yrs. 5 yrs. Total Total Normal?Boys Girls Dull Normal?Boys. Girls. m Borderline?Boys.. ? Girls. . o z Moron?Boys ? Girls Total?Boys. Girls. Total 6 4 10 10 6 16 4 6 10 13 9 8 5 4 5 25 23 48 22 13 9 4 48 THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 285 Table V (6) G-1929 School Retardation (According to Chronological Age) 0 yr. 1 yr. 2 yrs. 3 yrs. 4 yrs. 5 yrs. Not Attending Total Total Superior?Boys…. ~ Girls…. a _o Normal?Boys Girls Ja Dull Normal?Boys U Girls c q Borderline?Boys g Girls H ^ Moron?Boys…. Girls…. o o Total?Boys… . ^ Girls… . Total 8 2 10 5 7 12 7 3 10 2 0 15 9 7 6 2 4 0 5 26 24 50 2 24 13 6 5 50 Table V (c) R-1930 School Retardation (According to Chronological Age) 0 yr. 1 yr. 2 yrs. 3 yrs. 4 yrs. 5 yrs. 6 yrs, Not Attending Total Total Superior? Boys ‘c Girls .2 Normal? g Boys in Girls g Dull Normal~ Boys ^ Girls ? Borderline? fi Boys S Girls ^ Moron? ? Boys g Girls z Total? < Boys q Girls Total 13 8 3 11 12 4 2 17 6 3 1 1 4 29 21 50 6 23 12 4 5 50

When school placement is considered on the basis of mental ability, as rated by the Binet Mental Age, a decided improvement of standing is indicated. However, interest, effort and time nsed in pushing the lower mental levels ahead of their actual capacity has apparently left little energy to apply to getting the Normal and Normal-retarded up to their grade level capacity. The latter cases Table VI (a) School Retardation and Advance (According to Binet M.A.) 0 -1 yr. -2 yrs. + 1 yr. Total Total Normal?Boys Girls Dull Normal?Boys. Girls. CO o Borderline?Boys… ? Girls… Q Moron?Boys Girls Total?Boys Girls Total 14 9 23 8 8 16 13 9 8 5 4 5 25 23 48 22 13 9 4 48 Table VI (b) 1929-G School Retardation and Advance (According to Binet M.A.) -1 yr-2 yrs. -3 yrs. + 1 yr. +2 yrs. Not Attending Total Total Superior?Boys Girls e o Normal?Boys | Girls Js Dull Normal?Boys. 0 Girls. d ? Borderline?Boys… S Girls… ^ Moron?Boys 1 Girls o o Total?Boys ? Girls Q Total 5 9 14 2 0 15 9 7 6 2 4 0 5 26 24 50 24 13 6 5 50 THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 287 Table VI (c) 1930-R School Retardation and Advance (According to Binet M.A.) 0 -1 yr-2 yrs. +1 yr+2 yrs. Not Attending Total Total G Superior?Boys. Girls. Normal?Boys. Girls. j? Dull Normal?Boys. O Girls. a a Borderline?Boys.. . | Girls… H, ^ Moron?Boys 55 Girls o o Total?Boys ? Girls Q Total 10 5 15 4 2 17 6 3 1 1 4 29 21 50 23 12 50

should be the main point of educational effort. At the end of the third survey 15 Normals are still 1 or 2 years below their capacity, while the Dull Normals and lower mental levels are either up to their level or beyond it. A change of emphasis in school direction on the part of the Home is clearly indicated. Such a group of individuals requires the most careful individual school guidance on the basis of detailed clinical examinations and recommendations, if the best achievement of each individual is to be attained. This study, while interested in and concomitant with the general personality development program of the Home, has left this detail to the separate survey recommendations. The Board and Staff of the Home is to be commended for the sincere effort which it sustains in individual personality development. However, a more definite effort should be put forth in carrying out the recommendations of the survey reports, both as to individual development and case disposition.

Conclusions

The following conclusions are clearly indicated: 1. The selection of children should be based upon a psychological examination with recommendations for personality development. More adequate information of the child’s education and training to date should be secured by a Social Investigator for aid in this recommendation.

2. Sustained effort should be given by the staff in understanding and carrying out the recommendations to give each individual the highest possible personality development and social employability. 3. A definite policy and procedure of disposition is needed. “Return to guardians or parent,” “Institutional placement,” or “Adoption procedure” should be carried out in light of the cumulative record of the child. 4. A more definite set of cumulative records should be established. A family, a socio-behavior, an educational record, and a mental develoment record should parallel the present excellent health or physical records to form a complete cumulative personality record of each individual.

5. The maintenance of such a policy, established by the Board of Managers, can only be attained by the persistent effort of a specifically trained director with a sufficient staff of capable workers. Author’s Note (March 4, 1932) : During the fall of 1930 the author had a conference with the Board of Directors of the Home surveyed in which the analysis and recommendations of this survey were discussed and enlarged upon. Subsequent to this date marked changes have occurred which should be reported. A reconstruction of the administration of the Home has been carried out to make possible the execution of the recommendations. All mentally deficient children have been removed from the Home, and all applicants are now examined in order to bar such admission. A cottage system (two recently built) has given the opportunity of more definite emphasis on personality development. The entire group of children are showing marked improvement in school work. A reorganization of personnel records is under wayOne seldom has the pleasure of reporting such progress in the fulfillment of a survey’s recommendations with results attained. The Author.

Disclaimer

The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:

  1. Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.

  2. Material that is in the public domain

  3. 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.

See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/scanning/