The Personnel of a Children’s Home a Cumulative Psychological Study
The Psychological Clinic Copyright, 1932, by Lightner Witmer, Editor Vol. XX, No. 8 January, 1932
- Author:
Bkotemabkle, Ph.D.
University of Pennsylvania Assisted by Dorothy M. Bassett Cornelia B. Meytroti Charlotte Easby-Grave Adele Rosenheim The policies and procedures of selection, guidance and disposition of the personnel of a children’s home determine its value in the social order. We are presenting, in evidence, a cumulative psychological study of a typical local or County Children’s Home. Space will necessitate the reduction of much of the individual case data to a minimum. However, we shall hope to bring out of our results and discussion several important conclusions concerning the personnel of this and typical foster homes. The Home in which this investigation was carried 011 is a typical small (40-60 children) semi-private county home, receiving aid from the public tax source, partially supported by public and private donations and with a reasonably large private endowment. It is managed by a self-perpetuating Board of (Women) Managers, who have an Advisory Board of Men. Both groups are representative social-minded, public-spirited citizens of the county. The author, through personal contacts, has for years urged such a study and detailed psychological examinations for selection and guidance. In April 1928 the first survey was made at the request of the Department of Institutions and Agencies of the State of New Jersey. The survey was conducted by Mrs. Cornelia B. Meytrott of the Department. The psychological examinations were in charge of Miss Dorothy M. Bassett, Psychologist of the Vineland State
School, Vineland, New Jersey, assisted by Miss Lucile D. Moore and Miss Margaret E. Lawler. In May 1929 a second survey was made under tlie direction of the author, the psychological examinations being in charge of Dr Charlotte Easby-Grave, Clinical Psychologist and Consultant. In June 1930 a third survey was made under the direction of the author, the psychological examinations being in charge of Miss Adele Rosenheim, a student in the Department of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. The surveys were approximately one year and one month apart and included the following distribution of individual cases. (Hereafter the three surveys will be designated by the abbreviations B-1928, G-1929 and R-1930, to indicate the examining psychologist and year of survey.)
Cases in Study Yearly Overlapping Total B-1928?48 B-1928 ?11 67 G-1929?50 B-1928] R-1930?50 G-1929 ( B-19291 G-1929 1?31 R-1930j G-1929 ? 0 G-1929) R-19201 R-1930 ? G ?13
The individual case studies are presented in chronological age order as a cumulative record. The tests used each year are readily identified. All tests were used under the standard procedures and scoring methods as presented by their authors. The standard Terman Revision Classification on the basis of Intelligence Quotients has been used in the comparative studies, although in several instances the examiners have varied their individual diagnosis because of qualitative analyses. The percentile standing in certain tests has been taken from the several Educational-Intellectual Proficiency Levels established under the direction of Dr Lightner Witmer in the Psychological Clinic of the University of Pennsylvania. The percentile ratings are taken from the year or school grade level indicated in italics with each yearly examination record, i.e. 6 yr., as follows:
5.4 yr. to 3.7 yr.?Mental Tests for Pre-Scliool Children, Dorothy Kern Hallowel, Psycliol. Clinic, 1928, 16, 235-276. C yr. ?Tests and Norms at the Six Year Old Performance Level, Charlotte Easby-Grave, Psychol. Clinic, 1924, 15, 261-300. 8 yr- ?The Eight Year Level of Competency, Genevieve McDermott-Murphy (an unpublished Mss. in Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania). 10 yr. ?The Ten Year Level of Competency, Miles Murphy, Psychol. Clinic, 1928, 17, 33-60. J2 yr. ?The Performance Level of Children in the Fifth Grade in Two Philadelphia Public Schools, Carl L. Altmaier, Jr., Psychol. Clinic, 1931, 19, 233?257. *”r> yr. ?Tests and Norms for Vocational Guidance at the Fifteen Year Old Performance Level, Learning, E.E., Psychol. Clinic, 1924, 15, 261-300.
At the conclusion of each survey the examining psychologist has presented to the Board of Managers a comprehensive record of each child including specific recommendations for guidance or disposition. These are not of immediate interest and have been reduced to a minimum of specific recommendations in certain cases, while in others a general type of procedure has been indicated.
The Cumulative Case Records Case 1?F. b. Feb. 19, 1927. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G No examination. Not in Home. 1930?R C.A. 3.4 3.4 year B.A. 3.0 M.A. 4.0 I.Q. 120.0?100 percentile?2 year Witmer FB?(1) 120”, 80 percentile; (2) DNC; (3) 105” Healy A?DNC Memory Span Audito-Vocal?0 10 percentile Diagnosis : Superior. Recommendation : Place in foster home with adoption to rear as daughter. Case 2?F. b. March 11, 1926. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G C.A. 3.7 40 percentile (3 year) 3.7 year B.A. 3.0 M.A. 3.3 I.Q. 92.8 Witmer FB?(1) 160”, 80 percentile; (2) 60”- (3) 105” Memory Span Audito-Vocal?4 90 percentile Diagnosis: Normal. Speech defect. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. Corrective speech. 1930?R C.A. 4.3 6 year F B.A. 3.0 M.A. 4.6 I.Q. 105.8 50 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 75”, 20 percentile; (2) 51”, 10 percentile; (3) 59” Healy A?DNC Memory Span Audito-Vocal?0 50 percentile Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation : Speech defect should be corrected at once. Case 3?F. b. Oct. 29, 1925. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G No examination. Not in Home. 1930?R C.A. 4.8 100 percentile 6 year F B.A. 3.0 M.A. 3.9 I.Q. 80.3 1 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 115”, 1 percentile; (2) 80”, 1 percentile; (3) 62” Healy A?DNC Memory Span AV?3 1 percentile Diagnosis: Dull normal. Recommendation : Re-examination 1931. Case 4?M. b. Oct. 31, 1925. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. .1929?G No examination. Not in Home. 1930?R C.A. 4.8 100 percentile 6 year M B.A. 4.0 M.A. 4.6 I.Q. 96.4 20 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 37”, 40 percentile; (2) 60”, 10 percentile; (3) 45” Healy A?2 trials in 5’ Memory Span AV?4 30 percentile Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation : Normal personality development. THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 229 Case 5?M. b. May 7, 1925. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G No examination. Not in Home. 1930?R C.A. 5.1 100 percentile 6 year M B.A. 5.0 M.A. 5.6 I.Q. 108.1 50 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 45”, 50 percentile; (2) 60”; (3) 50” Healy A?110”, B?DNC Memory Span AV?4 30 percentile Diagnosis: Normal. Upper group. Good intelligence. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Case 6?M. b. April 13, 1924. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G C.A. 5.1 100 percentile 6 year M B.A. 4.0 M.A. 4.9 I.Q. 93.4 20 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 30 percentile; R?0, 1 percentile; L?5 on 5th, 60 percentile Diagnosis: Normal. Shy. Infantile speech. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. 1930?R C.A. 6.2 70 percentile 1st grade 6 year M B.A. 6.0 M.A. 7.3 I.Q. 117.5 80 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 37” 70 percentile; (2) 31”, 60 percentile; (3) 34” Healy A?DNC, B (1) 193”, (2) 89” Memory Span AV?5, 40 percentile; R?3, 70 percentile; L?6 on 3d, 80 percentile. Diagnosis: Superior. Poor persistence. Recommendation : Directive personality development. Case 7?M. b. May 2, 1924. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G C.A. 5.1 100 percentile Kindergarten 230 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC 6 year M B.A. 3.0 M.A. 4.9 I.Q. 93.4 20 percentile Memory Span AV?3, 1 percentile; R?0, 1 percentile ; L?4 on 5th, 60 percentile. Diagnosis: Normal. Very infantile speech. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. 1930?R C.A. 6.2 70 percentile Promoted to 1st grade. 6 year M B.A. 5.0 1st reading and arithmetic M.A. 6.9 I.Q. 109.4 50 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 65”, 20 percentile; (2) 36”, 40 percentile; (3) 24” Iiealy A?DNC, B?DNC Memory Span AV?4, 30 percentile; R?3, 90 percentile ; L?0, 20 percentile Diagnosis: Normal. Intellectual ability above manual. Recommendation : Speech defect corrected. Normal personality development. Case 8?F. b. Nov. 22, 1923. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?Gr C.A. 5.6 100 percentile Kindergarten 6 year F B.A. 5.0 M.A. 5.9 I.Q. 104.2 40 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 30 percentile; R?0, 40 percentile; L?0, 20 percentile. Diagnosis: Normal. Good language equipment. Recommendation : Normal personality development. 3930?R C.A. 6.7 50 percentile Promoted to 1st grade 6 year F B.A. 6.0 M.A. 7.0 I.Q. 106.3 50 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 58”, 30 percentile; (2) 29”, 70 percentile; (3) 25” Healy A?240”; B (1) DNC, (2) 145” Memory Span AV?4, 30 percentile; R?3, 90 percentile; L?5 on 2d, 99 percentile. Diagnosis: Normal. Shy. Trainability excellent. Recommendation: Normal personality development. THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 231 Case 9?M. b. Sept. 18, 1923. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G C.A. 5.8 90 percentile Kindergarten 6 year M B.A. 4.0 M.A. 5.6 I.Q. 97.0 30 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 60 percentile; R?2, 60 percentile; L?0, 40 percentile. Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation : Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 6.9 40 percentile Promoted to 1st grade 6 year M B.A. 6.0 M.A. 6.6 I.Q. 96.2 20 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 45”, 50 percentile; (2) 21”, 90 percentile; (3) 25” Ilealy A?DNC; B (1) DNC, (2) 58” Memory Span AY?5, 60 percentile; R?0, 40 percentile ; L?6 on 4th, 70 percentile Diagnosis: Normal. Lacks concentration and persistence. Trainable. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Case 10?M. b. June 28, 1923. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G C.A. 5.11 90 percentile IB grade 6 year M B.A. 4.0 M.A. 6.3 I.Q. 105.6 50 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 60 percentile; R?0, 40 percentile ; L?0, 20 percentile. Diagnosis: Normal. Rather dependent. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Stress self-responsibility. 1930?R C.A. 7.0 30 percentile 2d grade 6 year M B.A. 7.0 1st grade reading poor M.A. 7.8 2d grade arithmetic I.Q. 114.2 70 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 25”, 90 percentile; (2) 25”, 80 percentile; (3) 25” 232 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC Healy A?120”; B (1) 180”, (2) 63” Dearborn (1) DNC; (2) DNC Memory Span AY?4, 30 percentile; R?3, 90 percentile ; L?5 on 1st, 100 percentile. Diagnosis: Superior. Lacks assurance. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. Case 11?M. b. Feb. 13, 1923. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G C.A. 6.8 50 percentile B.A. 5.0 M.A. 6.6 I.Q. 97.5 20 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 45”, 99 percentile; (2) 23”, 100 percentile; (3) 20” Healy A?(1) 35”; (2) 20”; (3) 18” Memory Span AV?4, 30 percentile; L?5 on 5th, 60 percentile. Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation : Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 7.4 20 percentile To repeat 1st grade. 6 year M B.A. 5.0 Reading inferior. M.A. 6.9 1st grade arithmetic. I.Q. 92.0 20 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 35”, 80 percentile; (2) 25”, 80 percentile; (3) 30” Healy A?100”; B (1) 244”; (2) DNC Dearborn?(1) 300”; (2) 110”. Memory Span AV?2, 1 percentile; R?3, 90 percentile ; L?4 on 3d, 80 percentile. Diagnosis: Normal. Lack of application. Recommendation : Re-examination 1931. Case 12?M. b. Jan. 19, 1923. 1928?B C.A. 5.3 100 percentile 6 year M M.A. 4.8 I.Q. 92.0 20 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 4 Goddard FB?Mental Age 5.3 Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation : Child remain in Home. Social investigator to decide guardianship of mother. THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 233 1929?Gr C.A. 6.4 60 percentile Kindergarten 6 year M B.A. 5.0 M.A. 6.3 I.Q. 98.6 30 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 50 percentile; R?3, 90 percentile; L?5 on 4th, 70 percentile. Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation : Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 7.5 99 percentile 1st grade 8 year M B.A. 7.0 M.A. 7.3 I.Q. 97.7 4 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 36”, 30 percentile; (2) 35”, 10 percentile; (3) 30” Ilealy A?DNC; B (1) 210”, (2) 45” Memory Span AV?5, 50 percentile; R?4, 90 percentile ; L?6 on 2d Diagnosis: Normal. Low average group. Recommendation : Corrective health. Distractable and lacks concentration. Corrective personality development. Case 13?M. b. Dec. 16, 1922. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?Gr C.A. 6.6 50 percentile M.A. 6.6 I.Q. 100 30 percentile Ilealy A?(1) 25”, (2) 15”; B (1) 100”, (2) 35” Dearborn FB?(1) 240”, (2) 150” Memory Span AY?4, 30 percentile; R?0, 40 percentile ; L?5 on 4th, 70 percentile. Diagnosis: Normal. Distractable and lacks concentration. Control and coordination good. Rapid learner. Talkative and engaging. Recommendation : Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 7.6 99 percentile Promoted to 1st grade. 8 year M B.A. 7.0 No reading. M.A. 7.0 1st arithmetic (subI.Q. 93.3 30 percentile traction poor). Witmer FB?(1) 29”, 60 percentile; (2) 21”, 80 percentile; (3) 19” Ilealy A?205”; B (1) 100”, (2) 27” 234 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC Dearborn FB?(1) 105”, 90 percentile; (2) 65”, 90 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 1 percentile; R?3, 60 percentile; L?5 on 3d Diagnosis: Normal. Affectionate and willing. Good analyti? cal discrimination. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Re-examination 1931 on basis of low memory span. Case 14?M. b. Nov. 22, 1922. 1928?B C.A. 5.6 99 percentile 6 year M M.A. 5.2 I.Q. 93.9 20 percentile Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation : Allow mother and relatives to plan for care. Released in care of Mother, October 28, 1928. Case 15?M. b. Nov. 10, 1922. 1928?B C.A. 5.5 100 percentile 6 year M M.A. 4.2 I.Q. 76.9 1 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 7.5 Goddard FB?Mental Age 6 Diagnosis: Dull normal. Health background constitutional TB. Recommendation : Re-examination and commitment to Children’s Guardians for permanent supervision. 1929?G C.A. 6.6 50 percentile Kindergarten 6 year M B.A. 6.0 M.A. 6.0 I.Q. 92.2 20 percentile Healy A?(1) DNC, (2) 15”; B (1) 205”, (2) 50” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, (2) 270” Memory Span AV?3, 20 percentile; R?0, 40 percentile; L?0, 20 percentile Diagnosis: Normal. Behavior problem. Temper. Mental deficiency background in father and brother. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. Placement institution. 1930?R C.A. 7.7 99 percentile 1st grade. 8 year M B.A. 7.0 1A reading poor. M.A. 7.3 1st grade arithmetic I.Q. 95.6 30 percentile (subtraction poor). Witmer FB?(1) 30”, 60 percentile; (2) 25”, 60 percentile; (3) 27” Healy A?95”; B (1) 240”, (2) 45” Dearborn FB?(1) 180”, 80 percentile; (2) 120”, 60 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 1 percentile; R?3, 60 percentile ; L?5 on 4th Diagnosis: Dull normal. Behavior problem. Tantrums. I.Q. above actual ability. Mean to other children. Resents authority. Recommendation: Placement in institution. Bad influence on other children. Case 16?M. b. Sept. 29, 1922. 1928?B C.A. 5.7 90 percentile 6 year M M.A. 4.7 I.Q. 82.0 1 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 4.5 Diagnosis: Dull normal. Medical and dental care. Recommendation: Remain at home until mother can care for. 1929?G C.A. 6.8 50 percentile 6 year M B.A. 4.0 M.A. 6.6 I.Q. 97.5 20 percentile Memory Span AY?4, 30 percentile; R?0, 10 percentile ; L?5 on 3d, 90 percentile Diagnosis: Normal. Infantile speech. Self-willed. Recommendation : Normal corrective personality development. 1930?R C.A. 7.9 90 percentile 8 year M B.A. 7.0 M.A. 7.3 I.Q. 93.5 30 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 53”, 1 percentile; (2) 29”, 30 percentile, (3) 23” Healy A?105”; B (1) 180”, (2) 96” Memory Span AY?5, 50 percentile; R?0, 0 percentile ; L?0 Diagnosis: Normal. Probably dull normal. I.Q. above actual ability. Recommendation: Normal personality development. 236 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC Case 17? F. b. July 14, 1922. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G C.A. 6.10 30 percentile 1st grade 6 year F B.A. 6.0 M.A. 7.0 I.Q. 102.4 40 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 70 percentile; R?8, 90 percentile; L?0, 20 percentile Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Possible adoption. 1930?R C.A. 7.11 90 percentile Promoted to 3d grade. 8 year F B.A. 7.0 2d grade reading. M.A. 8.0 I.Q. 101.0 50 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 37”, 10 percentile; (2) 22”, 70 percentile; (3) 27” Healy A?DNC; B (1) 140”, (2) 38” Memory Span AV?5, 50 percentile; R?3, 60 percentile ; L?6 on 1st. Diagnosis: Normal. Friendly, talkative. Curious. Lazy. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Better in normal home. Case 18?F. b. June 13, 1922. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G C.A. 6.11 30 percentile B.A. 5.0 M.A. 6.6 I.Q. 93.9 20 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 25”, 100 percentile; (2) 30”, 70 percentile; (3) 15” Healy A?(1) 60”, (2) 20”; B (1) DNC, (2) DNC Memory Span AV?5, 70 percentile; R?2, 50 percentile Diagnosis: Normal retarded. Trainable. Good persistence. No reason for statement ” cruel to other children.” Recommendation: Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 8.0 90 percentile 1st grade. 8 year F B.A. 7.0 1st grade reading and M.A. 8.0 addition; nosubtracI.Q. 87.5 10 percentile tion or tables. THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 237 Witmer FB?(1) 26”, 80 percentile, (2) 16”, 99 percentile; (3) 22” Healy A?155”; B (1) 230”, (2) 46” Dearborn FB?(1) 180”, 90 percentile; (2) DNC, 30 percentile Memory Span AV?4, 1 percentile; R?3, 50 percentile; L?5 on 4tli Diagnosis: Dull normal. Limited comprehension. Trainable. Recommendation : Normal personality development. House work. Ca.se 19?M. b. March 21,1922. 1928?B C.A. 6.1 80 percentile 6 year M M.A. 6.0 I.Q. 99.0 30 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 9.5 Goddard FB?Mental Age 6.9 Diagnosis: Normal. Recommendation: Mother continues sincere interest. Allow to plan for care. Released in care of Mother, 1929. Case 20?F. b. March 14, 1922. 1928?B C.A. 6.1 80 percentile 6 year F M.A. 6.2 I.Q. 101 40 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 5.5 Goddard FB?Mental Age 5.8 Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation : Remain in Home. Father not suitable care. 1929?G C.A. 7.2 20 percentile 1st grade 6” year F B.A. 7.0 M.A. 7.6 I.Q. 104.6 40 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 70 percentile; R?4, 90 percentile ; L?6 on 4th, 70 percentile Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation: Normal personality development. Speed up school progress. 238 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC 1930?R C.A. 8.3 80 percentile 3d grade. 8 year F B.A. 7.0 5th grade reading. M.A. 9.1 2d grade arithmetic. I.Q. 110.1 70 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 39”, 20 percentile; (2) 43”, 1 percentile; (3) 26” Ilealy A?DNC; B (1) DNC, (2) 65” Dearborn?(1) 245”, 70 percentile; (2) 250”, 30 percentile Memory Span AY?5, 50 percentile; R?4, 90 percentile ; L?6 on 4th Diagnosis: Normal. Good observation. Good loyalty. Takes things from other children. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. Case 21?F. b. Jan. 20, 1922. 1928?B C.A. 6.3 70 percentile 6 year F M.A. 6.2 I.Q. 99.0 30 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 5.5 Goddard FB?Mental Age 6.5 Diagnosis: Normal. Empyema?temperative during school. Constitutional TB background father and brother. Recommendation : Physical examination. Commitment care of State Board of Children’s Guardians for permanent supervision. 1929?G C.A. 7.4 10 percentile IB grade 6 year F B.A. 5.0 M.A. 7.0 I.Q. 95.4 20 percentile Ilealy A?(1) 33”, (2) 12”; B (1) 300”, (2) 40” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, (2) 340” Memory Span AV?4, 30 percentile; R?2, 50 percentile; L?0, 20 percentile. Diagnosis : Normal. Overactive. Planful and analytical ability good. Vindictive in background of lies. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. Strict discipline. 1930?R C.A. 8.5 80 percentile 2d grade. 8 year F B.A. 8.0 2d grade reading. M.A. 9.1 1st grade arithmetic. I.Q. 107.9 70 percentile THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 239 Witmer FB?(1) 37”, 20 percentile; (2) 22”, 70 percentile; (3) 24” Healy A?100”; B (1) 60”, (2) 39” Dearborn FB?(1) 200”, 80 percentile; (2) 110”, 70 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 50 percentile; II?3, 60 percentile ; L?6 on 2d Diagnosis: Normal. Hyperactive. Insistent bossy leader. Recommendation : Corrective normal personality development. Strict discipline. Case 22?F. b. Jan. 22, 1922. 1928?B C.A. 6.3 70 percentile 6 year F M.A. 6.5 I.Q. 104 40 percentile Diagnosis: Normal. Recommendation : Remain in Home. 1929?G C.A. 7.4 10 percentile IB grade 6 year F B.A. 6.0 M.A. 7.9 I.Q. 105.6 50 percentile Memory Span AY?6, 80 percentile; R?4, 90 percentile; L?7 on 4th, 70 percentile Diagnosis: Normal. No reason for retardation in school. Recommendation : Stress make-up of school retardation. 1930?R C.A. 8.5 80 percentile 1st grade. 8 year F B.A. 7.0 1st grade reading. M.A. 8.6 1st grade arithmetic. I.Q. 100.9 50 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 47”, 1 percentile; (2) 11”, 100 percentile; (3) 20” Healy A?(1) DNC, (2) 105”; B (1) 135”, (2) 45” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, 60 percentile; (2) 155”, 50 percentile Memory Span AV?6, 80 percentile; R?4, 90 percentile; L?7 on 3d Diagnosis: Normal. Affectionate. Alert. No reason for retardation. Former sex problem. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Stress school advance. 240 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC Case 23?F. b. Jan. 2, 1922. 1928?B C.A. 6.3 70 percentile 6 year F M.A. 5.5 I.Q. 88 10 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 6 Goddard FB?Mental Age 6.3 Diagnosis: Dull normal. Recommendation : Physical and dental care. Board with relatives as brothers and sisters. 1929?G C.A. 7.4 20 percentile IB grade 6 year F B.A. 5.0 M.A. 6.9 I.Q. 92 20 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 70 percentile; R?0, 10 percentile; L?0, 20 percentile. Diagnosis: Normal retarded. Speech defect. Dental attention. Recommendation : Dental care. Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 8.5 80 percentile 1st grade. 8 year F B.A. 7.0 1st grade reading. M.A. 7.0 1st grade arithmetic. I.Q. 83.1 10 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 52”, 1 percentile; (2) 60”, 1 percentile; (3) 22” Ilealy A?(1) 30”, (2) 15”; B (1) 180”, (2) 32” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, 60 percentile; (2) DNC, 20 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 50 percentile; R?4, 90 percentile; L?0 Diagnosis: Dull normal. Speech defect. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Case 24?F. b. Dec. 29, 1921. 1928?B C.A. 6.5 60 percentile 6 year F M.A. 7.2 I.Q. 111.7 60 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 4 Goddard FB?Mental Age 5.8 Army Designs?Mental Age 7.5 Diagnosis: Normal with high I.Q. Recommendation: Remain in Home.
1929?G C.A. 7.6 10 percentile IB grade 6 year F B.A. 7.0 M.A. 8.0 I.Q. 106.6 50 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 70 percentile; R?4, 50 percentile ; L?6 on 3d, 90 percentile Diagnosis: Normal. Educational retardation. Well poised and confident. Recommendation : Speed up education. Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 8.6 70 percentile 3d grade. 8 year F B.A. 7.0 4th grade reading. M.A. 9.8 I.Q. 113.7 80 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 47”, 1 percentile; (2) 26”, 50 percentile; (3) 31” Healy A?175”; B (1) 195”, (2) 35” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, 70 percentile; (2) 190”, 50 percentile Memory Span AV?6, 80 percentile; R?5, 100 percentile ; L?7 on 3d Diagnosis: Superior intellectually. Stubborn and nasty. Inaccurate. Lacks visual imagery. Recommendation : Corrective personality development. Case 25?M. b. Sept. 28, 1921. 1928?B C.A. 6.7 50 percentile 6 year M M.A. 6.5 I.Q. 97.5 20 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 8 Goddard FB?Mental Age 7.8
Diagnosis: Normal. Nervous high strung temperament. Recommendation : Rest period during day. Remain in Home until return to parents. 1929?G C.A. 7.8 99 percentile Promoted to 2B grade. 8 year M M.A. 9.11 I.Q. 120.6 90 percentile Healy A?(1) 80”, (2) 90”, (3) 10”; B (1) 225”, (2) 32” Dearborn FB?(1) 185”, 80 percentile; (2) 165”, 50 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 50 percentile; R?4, 90 percentile ; L?6 on 2d Diagnosis: Normal. Quick learner. Hyperactive. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Place in private home for best care and development. Not easily handled in group. 1930?R C.A. 8.9 60 percentile 2d grade 8 year M B.A. 8.0 M.A. 9.7 I.Q. 109.5 70 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 28”, 70 percentile; (2) 20”, 90 percentile; (3) 17” Healy A?140”; B (1) 56”, (2) 38” Dearborn FB?(1) 170”, 80 percentile; (2) 130”, 90 percentile Memory Span AY?5, 50 percentile; R?3, 60 percentile ; L?2 on 2d. Diagnosis: Highly trainable normal. Hyperactive physically and mentally. Leader of gang. Outwits matrons. Recommendation : Private home for normal personality development under masculine authority and feminine interest. Case 26?M. b. July 9, 1921. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G No examination. Not in Home. 1920?R C.A. 8.11 50 percentile 8 year M B.A. 7.0 M.A. 7.3 I.Q. 81.3 1 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 36”, 30 percentile; (2) 21”, 80 percentile; (3) 25” Healy A?187”; B (1) 90”, (2) 45” Dearborn FB?(1) 280”, 90 percentile; (2) 105”, 70 percentile Memory Span AY?5, 50 percentile; R?3, 60 percentile; L?6 on 1st Diagnosis : Dull normal. Not educable. Trainable in manual. Recommendation: Training in manual. THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 243 Case 27?F. b. July 13, 1921. 1928?B C.A. 6.9 40 percentile 6 year F M.A. 5.3 I.Q. 77.7 1 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 5 Goddard FB?Mental Age 6.5 Diagnosis : Dull normal. Recommendation : Needs constant supervision. Stay in Home until mother can make other plans. 1929?G C.A. 7.10 10 percentile IB grade 8 year F B.A. 5.0 M.A. 6.0 I.Q. 76.5 1 percentile Healy A?(1) 80”, (2) 120”, (3) 60”; B (1) 270”, (2) 45” Dearborn FB?(1) 310”, 70 percentile; (2) 240”, 40 percentile Memory Span AY?4, 1 percentile; R?3, 50 percentile ; L?5 on 4th Diagnosis : Subnormal not educable. Manual trainability low. Sulky?due to feeling of inadequacy. 1930?R C.A. 8.11 50 percentile 2d grade. 8 year F B.A. 7.0 1A reading poor. M.A. 7.3 1A arithmetic poor. I.Q. 81.3 1 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 36”, 30 percentile; (2) 26”, 50 percentile; (3) 23” Healy A?DNC; B (1) DNC, (2) 64” Memory Span AV?5, 50 percentile; R?3, 50 percentile ; L?0 Diagnosis : Low dull normal. Behavior problem. Temper tantrums. Distractable, unobservant. Recommendation : Manual training as far as can. Case 28?M. b. May 20, 1921. 1928?B C.A. 6.11 30 percentile 6 year M M.A. 5.2 I.Q. 74.7 1 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 6 Diagnosis : Borderline. Recommendation: Continue at Home until mother can plan care. Released January 29, 1929. 244 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC Case 29?M. b. April 9, 1921. 1928?B No examination. Not in Home. 1929?G C.A. 8.2 90 percentile IB grade 8 year M B.A. 6.0 M.A. 7.0 I.Q. 85.6 10 percentile Memory Span AV?5, 50 percentile; R?2, 1 percentile; L?0 Diagnosis: Normal. Retarded mentally and educationally. Recommendation: Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 9.2 99 percentile 2d grade. 10 year M B.A. 8.0 1st grade arithmetic. M.A. 8.9 3d grade reading. I.Q. 95.4 40 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 40”, 1 percentile; (2) 35”, 1 percentile; (3) 26” Healy A?(1) 18”, (2) 12”; B (1) 240”, (2) 50” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, 1 percentile; (2) 195”, 10 percentile Diagnosis : Normal. Educationally retarded. Muscular coordination poor. Recommendation : Normal personality development. Case 30?M. b. April 8, 1921. 1928?B C.A. 7.0 30 percentile 6 year M M.A. 7.3 I.Q. 104 40 percentile Porteus Maze?Mental Age 6 Diagnosis : Normal. Recommendation : Remain at Home until mother can care for. 1929?G C.A. 8.2 90 percentile 1A grade 8 year M B.A. 7.0 M.A. 8.3 I.Q. 101.0 50 percentile Healy A?(1) 190”, (2) 25”; B (1) 75”, (2) 30” Dearborn FB?(1) DNC, 60 percentile; (2) 70”, 90 percentile Memory Span AV?6, 80 percentile; R?2, 1 percentile; L?7 on 5th Diagnosis: Normal. Analytical discrimination poor. Infantile stammer. THE PERSONNEL OF A CHILDREN’S HOME 245 Recommendation: Make up school retardation. Normal personality development. 1930?R C.A. 9.2 99 percentile 3B grade. 10 year M B.A. 9.0 4th grade reading. M.A. 10.6 3d grade arithmetic. I.Q. 114.5 80 percentile Witmer FB?(1) 26”, 40 percentile; (2) 18”, 80 percentile; (3) 17” Healy B?(1) 37”, (2) 30” Dearborn FB?(1) 210”, 40 percentile; (2) 80”, 60 percentile Memory Span AV?6, 80 percentile; R?5, 99 percentile ; L?7 on 3d Diagnosis : Normal. Uncommunicative and retarded. No reason for retardation. Former sex problem. Recommendation: Normal personality development. (Part II in February Number)
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.