<^ 
 
J 
 
 8061 'u m -m 
 'A 'N 'asnoBjAs 
 
 SJ931EM 
 
 so-ig pioiX^f) 
 )unouJO)04d 
 
r.v.' 
 
 m 
 
 \^ 
 
 
 SOME WELL-KNOWN 
 
 MENTAL TESTS EVALUATED 
 
 AND COMPARED 
 
 BY 
 DOROTHY RUTH MORGENTHAU 
 
 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the 
 
 degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty of 
 
 Philosophy,! Columbia University 
 
 t 
 
 REPRINTED FROM 
 
 ARCHIVES OF PSYCHOLOGY 
 
 R. S. WOODWORTH, Editob 
 
 No. 52 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 May, 1982 
 
SOME WELL-KNOWN 
 
 MENTAL TESTS EVALUATED 
 
 AND COMPARED 
 
 BY 
 DOROTHY RUTH MORGENTHAU 
 
 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the 
 
 degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty of 
 
 Philosophy, Columbia University 
 
 REPRINTED FROM 
 
 ARCHIVES OF PSYCHOLOGY 
 
 No. 52 
 
 NEW YORK 
 Mat, 1922 
 

 v\ 
 
 cxcHAr^u^ 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 Introduction 5 
 
 Subjects 8 
 
 Tests Briefly Described and Reasons for Their Selection 14 
 
 Method — Applying Tests to Subjects 21 
 
 General Considerations 
 
 Specific Observations on the Application of the Test 
 Selected 
 
 Results 25 
 
 Conclusion 52 
 
 507 7G3 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT. 
 
 For the advice of Professor Edward Lee Thorndike of 
 Teachers College, Columbia University, and of Dr. William 
 Healy and Dr. Augusta Bronner of Judge Baker Foundation, 
 Boston, the v^riter wishes to express appreciation. Special 
 thanks are due for the painstaking assistance given by Pro- 
 fessor Robert S. Woodworth of Columbia University, New 
 York City. 
 
Some Weil-Known Mental Tests 
 Evaluated and Compared 
 
 ONE who approaches the subject of the measuring of 
 children's mentality will find that the mind of the nor- 
 mal child has received attention in what we may call 
 vertical and parallel respects. There have been a considerable 
 number of tests developed by students of psychology in the en- 
 deavor to secure mental measurements independent of the 
 experience and judgment of the clinician. The development 
 has been in a vertical manner, that is, the best recognized 
 psychologists who have undertaken this work have each de- 
 veloped tests, have each put them into extensive practice and 
 have published the results of that experience. But each of 
 these psychologists has developed his test on his own suppo- 
 sitions, and, basing the nature of his test on his own experi- 
 ence, has tried to evolve a plan of testing which is supposed to 
 be useful in determining mental conditions of such general ex- 
 tent that they may roughly be called intelligence. Thus we 
 have the Stanf ord-Binet scale, the most generally used of any 
 one of the mental tests. Then there are the Porteus tests, the 
 Pintner-Patterson performance scale, and a dozen or more of 
 others which are known to every clinical psychologist. 
 
 The development of mental tests has been parallel in that 
 none of these psychologists in developing their own ideas 
 have carried them to the point of thoroughly comparing the re- 
 sults obtained by their tests to the results obtained by the 
 simultaneous use of a number of the other tests all with re- 
 spect to normal children. There has been some comparison of 
 results of the various tests when applied to abnormal children 
 but this has not been thoroughgoing and has been done not by 
 making the tests with the idea of eventually combining the re- 
 sults and of placing valuations upon them, but merely in the 
 course of clinical work with abnormal children. It is question- 
 able whether such results are sufi» "icntly thorough to be con- 
 sidered the basis for a convincing answer as to the relative 
 value of the respective tests, and inasmuch as they were made 
 on abnormal minds, one would not dare to trust even those 
 
:6' -' '•': ''"'''-■' ^OME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 comparative results with respect to what the test will show as 
 to normal minds. 
 
 Those who have developed their respective tests have com- 
 pared them with some other mental test, most frequently one of 
 the Binet revisions. But, no considerable number of the tests 
 which have been so developed in parallel fashion have been ap- 
 plied purposely to obtain comparative results and to ascertain 
 which if any of them can be shown to be untrustworthy and 
 what group of them can be relied upon as furnishing a satis- 
 factory schedule for testing and comparing the common ele- 
 ments of mentality in normal children. 
 
 Upon perceiving that there was a lack of any purposely 
 made comparative study of mental tests it was proposed here- 
 in to set forth the results of such a study of about a dozen of 
 the most commonly used mental tests. The tests were applied 
 to a large number of unselected normal children, in general 
 each child receiving the full schedule of tests. By means of the 
 results to be obtained from this comparative study it was an- 
 ticipated : 
 
 1. That the degree of reliability of each test would be indi- 
 cated. 
 
 2. That the same purposes could be effected with respect to 
 the value of each test. 
 
 3. That the information obtained under the first and sec- 
 ond headings would make it possible to select a schedule of 
 tests of indicated reliability for application to normal minds, 
 or further, whether the Stanf ord-Binet alone would suffice. 
 
 4. That by restricting the ages of children tested in general 
 to from ten to sixteen years, the period in which individual 
 capacities first assume importance for vocational determina- 
 tion, it would be possible to guide the vocational training with 
 some degree of success. 
 
 A brief statement of the results can now be given reserving 
 the more detailed statement involving the basis and methods 
 for the results for future pages. The first aim, to secure an 
 estimate of the reliability of the tests used, was largely suc- 
 cessful. Of the thirteen tests, the reliability of which was 
 investigated, one class, the four construction tests, Healy A 
 and B. and Knox Moron tests, and diamond shaped frame, were 
 found to be unreliable ; five other tests were found to be relia- 
 ble, namely the Stanford-Binet, Pintner Non-Language group 
 test, Thorndike Reading Scale Alpha 2, Porteus Maze test, and 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 7 
 
 Tapping test; while the reliability of four tests, the Myers 
 Mental Measure, Healy Pictorial Completion test II, Healy- 
 Bronner learning tests, and the Crossline test was undeter- 
 mined for various reasons. 
 
 The results obtained as to value of the tests were as follows : 
 Stanford-Binet, Pintner, Alpha II, and Porteus are valuable 
 tests and should be included in individual case studies. In 
 spite of their unmeasured reliability, Myers and Pictorial 
 Completion II are also valuable tests and should likewise be 
 included. Judgment should be suspended with regard to 
 learning tests. The Tapping test is of doubtful, value and its 
 use should be left to the discretion of the examiner. The Con- 
 struction tests because of their unreliable character do not 
 give valuable results. 
 
 As to the schedule of tests to be used in testing normal minds 
 it was found best not to use the Stanford-Binet alone but to 
 have the schedule composed of that test and the five others 
 which were found valuable. From the tests used and results 
 obtained it cannot be stated here whether this schedule is of 
 value as to vocational guidance for the reason that the factors 
 involved in each test are not known with certainty and until 
 they are known, definite valid conclusions about the abilities 
 of the individuals concerned cannot be reached. 
 
SUBJECTS. 
 
 It was desired to test one hundred normal but otherwise un- 
 selected children. In order to obtain an unselected group it 
 proved necessary to select the subjects very carefully, for, if 
 all the children tested had been from a Children's Home, or 
 from a Settlement, or from any one school, the result would 
 have been a highly selected group. To avoid this a few were 
 taken from many different sources and in this respect the dis- 
 tribution proved to be reasonably satisfactory. 
 
 As to age, originally the plan was to have about ten children 
 at each of the ten periods of one year each, from seven to six- 
 teen inclusive. But this plan was given up because our inter- 
 est is not with the six or seven year old who has to go to school 
 and learn fundamentals, no matter wherein his is gifted and 
 who rarely shows talents or handicaps at such an early age. 
 Our chief concern is with children in the sixth, seventh or 
 eighth grades and in high school, because they are the adjust- 
 ment problems, and because it is important to aid them if pos- 
 sible in deciding whether they should remain in school or go 
 to work. If the latter what should they do, if the former what 
 sort of training do they need? So the attempt was made to 
 lay all the emphasis here and reduce the number of children 
 under eleven to a minimum. Another objection to the origin- 
 al plan is that ten in a group is too small for any kind of gen- 
 eralization. 
 
 The total number tested was 128, of which 116 usable rec- 
 ords were retained. For various reasons many of these rec- 
 ords are incomplete so that this number was necessary in or- 
 der to have a minimum of 100 scores on each test. There still 
 remain some tests which were given to less than 100 children, 
 but the number is in each case sufficiently large to give valu- 
 able results. 
 
 All defectives were excluded, for in mixing their records 
 with those of normal children many confusions would have 
 arisen, and the issues would have been less clear. Much in- 
 tensive work has been done in testing defectives, so that we 
 kr;cw a great deal about their reactions to a group of tests 
 such as we have chosen. To be sure, they vary considerably in 
 their results, but we know in general the points where they are 
 weakest as in abstract reasoning and formal generalization, 
 
 8 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 9 
 
 and also the points in which proportionately they excel. By 
 narrowing the field to normals the significance of the conclu- 
 sions can be made more pertinent. This was an arbitrary pro- 
 cedure dependent largely upon the judgment of the writer, and 
 subject to criticism on this basis. It is quite possible that some 
 very dull normals were also excluded, this being justified on 
 the grounds that their normality might reasonably have been 
 called in question by more severe examiners, With reference 
 to the three cases whose I. Q.'s fall below 80, there seems to 
 be no doubt that they are to be considered as dull normals. 
 The grade they attained in school for their age, their response 
 on the other tests and their behavior in the community all 
 argue for including them in our study. The boy receiving the 
 lowest I. Q. — 73 — was born in the United States but; taken to 
 Italy at the age of five, and remained there six years. In spite 
 of this he was in the eighth grade. He did very well with all 
 the construction tests. 
 
 As no limitations were set at the other end, the grade and I. 
 Q. distributions are higher than one would otherwise expect 
 in a general sampling of the population. 
 
 I. Thirty-seven children, twelve girls and twenty-five boys, 
 were tested at the Home for Jewish Children in Dorchester, 
 Massachusetts. Many of these children were half orphans, 
 some had lost both parents — most of them were in the Home 
 temporarily. They were chosen from the total number entire- 
 ly by chance. They all attended public school in the vicinity 
 and all but two or three had come to the Home within two 
 years. All were able to speak and understand English, this 
 being the only language used at the institution, although in 
 many of their homes no English was spoken. Their ages 
 ranged from 7-0 to 15-1. 
 
 II. Twenty-four girls came from Frances Willard Settle- 
 ment in Boston, Massachusetts. These were divided into three 
 clubs — one consisting of one seventh grade and ten eighth 
 grade girls, the youngest being 12-7 and the oldest 14-2. They 
 came one evening a week for the express purpose of taking 
 the tests. They were the first ones to volunteer from a large 
 group. The other two groups of seven and six respectively 
 were younger girls who happened to meet on afternoons which 
 were convenient for the examiner. 
 
 III. Six high school girls in New York volunteered to take 
 the tests. 
 
10 
 
 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 IV. The ninth grade consisting of six boys and five girls in 
 the Woodmere School (private) at Woodmere, Long Island, 
 were tested. The ages ranged from 13-1 to 15-2. 
 
 V. The poorer section of the 8B class of Public School 11, 
 New York, were tested. There were thirty boys in the class 
 ranging in age from 13-2 to 16-11. 
 
 VI. Finally eight miscellaneous children were tested. 
 
 The subjects selected appeared to give a satisfactory differ- 
 ence in quality so as to bring out the capacities of the tests to 
 meet a variety of normal mental conditions. 
 
 Yrs. 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 
 Mos. 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 TABLE 
 Frequency 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 I AGE DISTRIBUTION 116 
 
 Yrs. Mos. Frequency 
 4 
 5 
 
 CASES 
 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 
 10 
 
 21 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 13 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 13 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 13 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 44 
 
 Yrs. 
 13 
 13 
 13 
 13 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 15 
 15 
 15 
 15 
 15 
 15 
 15 
 15 
 15 
 15 
 15 
 15 
 16 
 16 
 16 
 16 
 16 
 16 
 16 
 16 
 16 
 16 
 16 
 16 
 
 Mos. 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 
 Frequency 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 5 19 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 
 1 
 6 
 
 21 
 
 16 
 
 10 
 
 57 
 
 Distribution of the subjects by age. 
 
 It will be noted that only 19 of the 116 subjects are under eleven years 
 old. 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 
 
 11 
 
 TABLE II 
 Grade Distribution — 114 Cases. 
 
 Grade 
 I 
 
 II 
 III 
 IV 
 V 
 VI 
 VII 
 VIII 
 
 IX or I H. S. 
 
 X or II H. S. 
 
 XI or III H. S. 
 XIIorlVH.S. * 
 
 Left School 
 
 VIII 1 
 
 II H. S. 1 
 
 The vast majority of subjects were in the Vlth to IXth grades in- 
 clusive. 
 
 2 had left school. 
 Frequency 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 11 
 
 7 
 16 
 10 
 44 
 12 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT DISTRIBUTION. 112 CASES. 
 
 Scale: — 1 square to 1 child 
 
 70 means 70.000 to 79.999 etc. 
 The curve of distribution is skewed positively. 
 
 100 
 
 uo 
 
 130 
 
 130 
 
 140 
 
12 
 
 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 
 
 TABLE III 
 
 
 
 
 DISTRIBUTION 
 
 OF INTRTJ.IGBNCE QUOTIENTS — 112 
 
 CASES. 
 
 I. Q. 
 
 Frequency 
 
 I. Q. 
 
 Frequency 
 
 I. Q. 
 
 Frequency 
 
 70 
 
 
 
 95 
 
 2 
 
 120 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 
 
 96 
 
 3 
 
 121 
 
 1 
 
 72 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 4 
 
 122 
 
 2 
 
 73 
 
 1 
 
 98 
 
 2 
 
 123 
 
 
 
 74 
 
 1 
 
 99 
 
 3 
 
 124 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 7 
 
 125 
 
 1 
 
 76 
 
 1 
 
 101 
 
 7 
 
 126 
 
 2 
 
 77 
 
 
 
 102 
 
 4 
 
 127 
 
 2 
 
 78 
 
 
 
 103 
 
 2 
 
 128 
 
 1 
 
 79 
 
 
 
 104 
 
 
 
 129 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 1 
 
 105 
 
 5 
 
 130 
 
 3 
 
 81 
 
 
 
 106 
 
 4 
 
 131 
 
 1 
 
 82 
 
 
 
 107 
 
 3 
 
 132 
 
 1 
 
 83 
 
 
 
 108 
 
 2 
 
 133 
 
 
 
 84 
 
 1 
 
 109 
 
 2 
 
 134 
 
 1 
 
 86 
 
 2 
 
 110 
 
 1 
 
 135 
 
 
 
 86 
 
 2 
 
 111 
 
 1 
 
 136 
 
 1 
 
 87 
 
 1 
 
 112 
 
 1 
 
 137 
 
 
 
 88 
 
 2 
 
 113 
 
 3 
 
 138 
 
 
 
 89 
 
 3 
 
 114 
 
 2 
 
 139 
 
 
 
 90 
 
 1 
 
 115 
 
 1 
 
 140 
 
 
 
 91 
 
 2 
 
 116 
 
 4 
 
 141 
 
 1 
 
 92 
 
 1 
 
 117 
 
 1 
 
 142 
 
 
 
 93 
 
 4 
 
 118 
 
 2 
 
 143 
 
 
 
 94 
 
 4 
 
 119 
 
 2 
 
 144 
 
 
 
 4 were not given the Stanford-Binet test. 
 
 Average 104.5 
 
 Mental age in months 
 
 Average 154.8 
 
 Mean Square Deviation 34.54 
 
 The table shows that very few of the children tested had I. Q.'s below 
 normal. 
 
 Age-Grade Distribution 
 
 CHRONOLOGICAL AGE 
 
 
 6.5 
 
 7.5 
 
 8.5 
 
 9.5 
 
 10.5 
 
 11.5 
 
 12.5 
 
 13.5 
 
 14.5 
 
 15.5 
 
 16.5 
 
 Total 
 cases 
 
 I 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 II 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 III 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 IV 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 VI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 VII 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 VIII 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 15 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 46 
 
 IX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 
 11 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 5 
 
 XI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 
 Total 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 21 
 
 19 
 
 22 
 
 15 
 
 10 
 
 116 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 
 
 13 
 
 CHRONOLOGICAL AGE 
 
 Chronological age — mental age distribution. 
 
 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 Total 
 
 6.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cases 
 
 7.5 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 8.5 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 9.5 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 10.5 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 11.5 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 1 6 
 
 12.5 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 
 1 15 
 
 13.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 14.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 3 22 
 
 15.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 14 
 
 16.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 11 
 
 17.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 4 
 
 18.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 5 
 
 19.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 2 3 
 
 Total 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 17 
 
 20 
 
 16 
 
 10 112 
 
 Mental age — grade distribution. 
 
 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI 
 
 6.5 
 
 7.5 
 
 8.5 
 
 9.5 
 
 10.5 
 
 11.5 
 
 12.5 
 
 13.5 
 
 14.5 
 
 15.5 
 
 17.5 
 
 16.5 
 
 18.5 
 
 19.5 
 
 Total 
 
 11 
 
 7 17 
 
 1 
 6 
 5 
 
 15 2 
 
 11 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 4 5 
 
 1 2 
 
 1 
 
 44 12 
 
 Total 
 cases 
 
 1 
 6 
 
 7 
 10 
 
 7 
 14 
 10 
 22 
 13 
 
 4 
 11 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
TESTS BRIEFLY DESCRIBED AND REASONS FOR 
 THEIR SELECTION 
 
 The large number of tests available had to be classified so 
 as to find which tests covered identical ground; only one of 
 these was then selected. Time M^as an element particularly to be 
 recorded since preferably less than three hours should be de- 
 voted to each child for the completion of all tests. This allot- 
 ment of time is considered by most authorities to be generous, 
 particularly since the Stanford-Binet takes nearly three quar- 
 ters of an hour, thus leaving only tv^o hours for all the other 
 tests. Consequently between alternate tests apparently serv- 
 ing the same purpose the briefer one was chosen. The same 
 limitation on the amount of time to be spent on any one indi- 
 vidual caused the necessary omission of some tests which were 
 highly desirable except as to their length. In the last men- 
 tioned class are group tests requiring an hour or more to be 
 applied. Where the results that are sought can be reached by 
 group tests doubtless much time can be saved in using them, 
 but the inquiries involved herein were such as to necessitate 
 largely individual testing. 
 
 In selecting the tests another danger that was realized and 
 that it was attempted to avoid, although, as the results show, 
 not with entire success, was that a great many tests involved 
 many sides of mental activity so that the final result expressed 
 numerically would not be indicative of which mental abilities 
 had tested favorably and which unfavorably. For instance, 
 ability to deal with abstract and with concrete material may 
 be extreme opposites giving a correlation of minus 100. If 
 both kinds of material are combined in one test, the child who 
 succeeds in one may fail in the other and vice versa. In com- 
 puting the final scores compensation will give the same net re- 
 sult to two children of exactly opposite capabilities. If gen- 
 eral intelligence is what we want we may find it in this way, 
 but if we are interested in special abilities or disabilities these 
 tests which hide them must not be used. We have found this 
 confusion to exist in many tests, of course, never in such an 
 extreme form as in the illustration above, and undoubtedly 
 introduced on purpose, but we feel that its value is at all times 
 questionable. This error is extremely difficult to eliminate 
 
 14 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 15 
 
 completely, in fact we can not be sure even now, as it will ap- 
 pear later in the results, that we have successfully done so. 
 
 Another source of error too often overlooked was borne in 
 mind in selection of the tests, namely the variability of the 
 test that is being considered. Where the same test is applied 
 to a person at intervals and it is found that the resulting 
 scores are not identical the question arises whether the vary- 
 ing scores can be combined so as to give a reliable standard for 
 use and comparison with the results obtained when the test is 
 applied to other children, or whether the variation indicates an 
 unreliability in the test itself sufficiently serious to warrant 
 the test being discarded. As an example of variations of such 
 minor character that their existence does not indicate unre- 
 liability, and which can be compeijsated, we can take the tap- 
 ping test where there may be a variation of about five taps in 
 each direction from the average, which would be entirely sat- 
 isfactory. Such variations are due to unessential and insig- 
 nificant details of the conditions under which the test is re- 
 peated, such as posture of the child being tested, kind of pen- 
 cil or stylus being used, etc. Taking ten or more measures of 
 tapping ability would increase the reliability but the final re- 
 sults would show such slight difference from the result of one 
 or two trials that the frequent repetition is entirely uncalled 
 for to secure reasonable reliability. 
 
 On the other hand, if the variations in result obtained by re- 
 peated use of a test on the same individual are not of a minor 
 character and if the day-to-day variability is so erratic that 
 the variation is all the way from good performance to poor 
 performance, then the situation is either that the child tested 
 is shown to be subject to mental disturbance, or that the test 
 itself shows a high and dangerous variability. If it is the test 
 that is variable, it is obviously essential to weed it out ab initio. 
 Such variability has been found to exist in the Knox cube test, 
 in the application of which a uniformly normal child may 
 make the record of an imbecile one day and of a super-normal 
 child the next day. Of course, such a test, if not eliminated, 
 would lead to results that are valueless for comparative pur- 
 poses and dangerous for diagnostic ones. 
 
 As to variability, the reliability of a number of tests was es- 
 tablished and recorded before the study was undertaken. As 
 to the remaining tests, in order to overcome the possible exist- 
 ence of variations indicating unreliability it was necessary to 
 
16 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 retest each child with the same or with a similar test after an 
 interval of a week — no less or practice effect would be met, no 
 more to avoid the effect of any mental growth in the interval. 
 
 The necessity of retesting caused by possible variability in 
 the test itself, led to the subordinate but difficult problem of 
 determining what methods of retesting would avoid errors 
 due to the process itself. Thus, as has been mentioned, retest- 
 ing must be done in such a manner as to avoid practice effect. 
 It has been shown by various workers that certain types of 
 tests once solved, such as most puzzles, are no longer tests at 
 all, whereas others, such as auditory memory for digits and 
 psychomotor control, show a minimum effect, which, after the 
 week between tests, is negligible. Those of our tests which 
 come within the last-mentioned class were similarly repeated. 
 Those which were of the former type had similar tests substi- 
 tuted for them in the second trial, while still others falling be- 
 tween these classes were altered in details so that the same 
 test could be repeated, avoiding the memory aspect. 
 
 The tests finally selected were: 
 
 1. The Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon scale. This 
 test is so widely known that it does not seem to be necessary 
 to describe it here. 
 
 2. Pintner's mental survey non-language group test, with 
 Myers Mental Measure as an alternate for repeating. These 
 tests involved a minimum use of language. In the Pintner 
 test no language is used in the performance, and in fact it is 
 possible to give this test to foreigners or deaf children through 
 the medium of signs, while in giving the Myers Mental Meas- 
 ure it is necessary for the subject to understand simple lan- 
 guage, but none is used in executing the test. The Pintner test 
 has six parts, the first resembling the Knox cube test, the sec- 
 ond and third being substitution tests, the fourth a drawing 
 completion, while the fifth is a reversed drawing test, and the 
 sixth a picture reconstruction. Following directions. Pictori- 
 al Completion, and two tests of picking out objects with com- 
 mon elements, compose the Myers test. 
 
 3. Thorndike's reading scale Alpha 2. This is a test in 
 which language plays a prominent part. The subject reads 
 a paragraph and then reads certain questions based upon the 
 paragraph to which he writes his answer. To succeed he must 
 
 understand the context of the paragraph, he must understand 
 the question and know what it calls for, and he must be able 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 17 
 
 to find the answer in the context and write it down. This is a 
 graded test which is applicable from the second grade through 
 high school. Since the practical work of this research was 
 undertaken, Dr. McCall of Teachers College has considerably 
 increased the usefulness of this test by devising ten sets iden- 
 tical in method but with different contents, of which the test 
 here used is one. It is now known as the Thomdike-McCall 
 reading scale and its reliability has been thoroughly estab- 
 lished. 
 
 4. Healy's Pictorial Completion Test B is an apperception 
 test with the language element omitted. The ten pictures 
 (plus one sample) present a day's activities of a young school 
 boy, in which each picture contains a situation known to every 
 child, such as eating breakfast, the school cloak room, a street 
 accident, etc. In each picture one important element is lack- 
 ing; pieces which complete the picture, plus fifty more of the 
 same size being arranged in a definite order in a box from 
 which the subject is at liberty to choose those which he desires. 
 A clue to the missing piece is furnished by the pictures. 
 
 5. Porteus Maze Tests. Vineland Revision 1919. These 
 tests are supposed to measure social fitness and common sense. 
 Among the capacities which they were devised to measure are 
 forethought and planning capacity, prudence and mental 
 alertness in meeting a situation new to experience. There are 
 eleven mazes, graded in difficulty from year three to fourteen. 
 Beginning with year five, avoidance of blind alleys is the main 
 requirement for a successful performance. The more complex 
 the maze, the further ahead must one look in order to be cer- 
 tain that one is choosing the correct path. There is no time 
 limit; in fact no mention of speed is made, and if the child 
 asks he is told to do it as well as possible, taking as long as he 
 likes. Porteus says that children fail mainly because of im- 
 pulsiveness in action, overconfidence and carelessness, lack 
 of pre-consideration, lack of planning capacity, irresolution 
 and mental confusion, inability to sustain attention, or to 
 profit by past mistakes. 
 
 6. Tapping Tests — Healy's Form. This consists of a sheet 
 containing one hundred and fifty half inch squares, arranged 
 ten in a row — fifteen rows. The subject taps once in each 
 square, vdthout touching the lines and covers as much ground 
 as he can in thirty seconds. This is a simple test of psycho- 
 motor control which was repeated without alteration. 
 
18 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 This test in a slightly different form was first introduced by 
 Cattell in 1896, for testing freshmen at college. He had one 
 hundred 1 cm. squares, into each of which the student must 
 put a dot, completing the task as quickly as possible. Time 
 was recorded ; evidently there were no errors. This test was 
 supposed to measure rate of movement. Clark Wissler used 
 it with many of Cattell's other tests in his "Correlation of 
 Mental and Physical Tests" on college freshmen in 1901. He 
 found that the average time for men was 34 seconds, for wom- 
 en 30.8 seconds. In 1911 Whitley: (M. T. Whitley, An Em- 
 pirical Study of Certain Tests for Individual Differences) re- 
 ports results on Cattell's test, in which she kept the time 
 constant (30 seconds) but computed the length of time which 
 it would take to complete the blank. We have found the ad- 
 ditional fifty squares useful in that some of our cases marked 
 over one hundred squares in the thirty second time limit. 
 
 7. Healy's Construction Tests A. and B. The Knox-Moron 
 test and Knox Modification of Healy A — a diamond-shaped 
 frame, were used as alternates. We have called these A 
 and B respectively to correspond with the Healy tests and for 
 convenience. The equipment for these tests consists of a board 
 containing one or more openings into which the child tested 
 is supposed to fit pieces of wood so shaped that when properly 
 arranged they will just close up the apertures. An advantage 
 of these tests is the convenient size of the materials required. 
 As all materials had to be carried from place to place the use 
 of clumsy form boards or the tapping board with its dry bat- 
 teries, metal plate and stylus, was practically out of the ques- 
 tion. Where other things were equal, tests having the least 
 paraphernalia were to be preferred. 
 
 8. The Crossline Tests shown in the figure were also given. 
 
 The crossline tests were included because they are a modi- 
 fication of the famous Code test, which is generally considered 
 one of the best in the whole Stanf ord-Binet series. They take 
 very little time to give and can easily be modified for repeti- 
 tion. 
 
 9. Healy and Brenner Learning Tests. — These tests were de- 
 vised to test learning ability, not as in the skill experiment, but 
 as it is found essential in the elementary school subjects. 
 Learning test A — the association of two symbols, a figure and 
 a number, resembles other substitution tests such as those of 
 Woodworth and Wells, Pintner, and especially Woolley. The 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 
 I. Crossline Test 
 
 19 
 
 II. Crossline Test 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 I 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 (c) 
 
 (a) and 
 
 (d) 
 
 (c) are the forms used generally. 
 (b) and (d) were used for retesting. 
 
 difference lies in the fact that three trials were given and speed 
 of learning determined success. Learning test B is the associa- 
 tion of a symbol with a sound, as in learning a language. The 
 sjmibols are from the Phoenician alphabet, and the sounds con- 
 sist of one or two consonants and a vowel, simple enough to 
 pronounce but without meaning. This prevents older children 
 from forming associations which would be impossible for those 
 who did not know the meaning of the syllables. Test C is the 
 association of a symbol and a value presented audibly, and test 
 D is the association of ideas with a picture. The first three 
 test a sort of rote ability whereas the latter tests learning of 
 ideas. 
 
 It seems reasonable that success in school work may depend 
 as largely upon learning ability as upon mental capacity, es- 
 pecially in the early grades where the chief requirement in 
 most of our schools is a good rote memory, as in learning mul- 
 tiplication tables, and these two do not necessarily go together. 
 Certain clinical cases bear out this suggestion, and these tests 
 
20 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 were included to ascertain the reactions of normal unselected 
 children in this respect. 
 
 National Intelligence tests were not yet published in Novem- 
 ber and December, 1919, when this study was begun, or they 
 would surely have been considered and very likely used. 
 
METHOD— APPLYING TESTS TO SUBJECTS 
 General Considerations 
 
 All of the tests except the non-language group tests and the 
 Thorndike Alpha 2 were given to the subjects individually. 
 The non-language tests were given sometimes individually 
 and sometimes in groups of about ten with one exception 
 where thirty eighth grade boys were tested in a group. 
 
 The time of day at which the tests were given varied consid- 
 erably. About fifty of the subjects, from the Children's Home 
 and from the Settlement, were tested in the evening. All 
 others were tested in the daytime. 
 
 Care .was taken to avoid giving any tests while the subject 
 might be fatigued. Each child was questioned regarding the 
 matter and whenever there were indications of fatigue the 
 testing was always postponed. 
 
 Usually a subject was tested for only an hour and a half at 
 one time; frequently the duration of the testing was shorter 
 and only occasionally was it longer. 
 
 The tests were all scored according to the directions laid 
 down by their respective authors. They were all scored per- 
 sonally by the examiner twice. In all of the tests selected for 
 use the scoring is objective and requires no technique. Where 
 possible, score cards or keys were used. Where the time taken 
 by a subject to complete a test was to be recorded, the timing 
 was done by means of a stop watch. 
 
 Much effort was expended in persuading the subjects to give 
 an equal amount of attention and concentration to all of the 
 tests, so that the results would not be affected by individual 
 preferences. For a large proportion of the subjects the incen- 
 tive of vocational guidance was offered and some general voca- 
 tional advice, based partly on the experience of the examiner 
 as well as on the tests, was given at the conclusion of the test- 
 ing. Younger children needed no incentive and their enthusi- 
 asm was so pronounced that they continually applied to take 
 more than the regular number of tests. 
 
 Supplementary information concerning the subjects was 
 gathered and recorded, especially age in months, school grade, 
 success in school work, marks, standing in class, whether a 
 
 21 
 
22 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 repeater and how often, whether subject skipped any grades, 
 etc. The vocational plans and interests of the older children 
 were obtained whenever they had any. Results of physical ex- 
 amination were obtainable for a large per cent of the cases. 
 Several subjects had also been given neurological examina- 
 tions. Occasionally some result can be explained by reference 
 to these findings, as for instance an unaccountably poor per- 
 formance on the Healy Pictorial Completion test which was 
 probably due to uncorrected vision. One case where peculiar 
 results were obtained from the tests was explained by the 
 physical examination which showed a history of epilepsy 
 and thereupon the case was no longer considered. 
 
 Specific Observations on the Application of the 
 Tests Selected 
 
 Stanford-Binet. — In the United States there have been sev- 
 eral revisions of the Binet-Simon test, the most recent and well 
 the best of these being that by Professor Lewis M. Terman of 
 Leland Stanford University, California, published in its final 
 form in 1916. This revision, called the Stanford-Binet, was 
 the one used in this study. The score obtained in the Stanford- 
 Binet test is expressed in years and months, mental age. This 
 mental age, when divided by the life age, results in the intel- 
 ligence quotient, which is expressed as a decimal. There have 
 been some wrongful uses of the intelligence quotient. It is an 
 attractive but erroneous idea that a certain intelligence quo- 
 tient can be found below which all can be considered feeble 
 minded while all above are normal or supernormal. The error 
 in this idea has been pointed out by Fernald, Mateer, Kohs, 
 and others, who demonstrate the degree of overlapping, and 
 show how valueless the I. Q. is when reported without refer- 
 ence to life age. 
 
 The Stanford-Binet results can be analyzed, as well as 
 summed up in the I. Q., and it is possible that a detailed analy- 
 sis of the data would yield all the information required. The 
 plea that general intelligence scales have a right to be so called 
 is largely based upon the supposition that the functions which 
 are tested are manifold. Auditory memory for rote material 
 and for ideas, visual memory, language ability, reasoning abil- 
 ity, apperceptions, general information and many other abili- 
 ties — all are found within the total range of tests. Unfor- 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 23 
 
 tunately, in the Stanford scale no child gets tested in all these 
 fields, and further, since they are not standardized separately 
 the significance of success or failure in one part is difficult to 
 determine. 
 
 The Stanford-Binet tests were all given by the writer in 
 the manner described by Terman. It is unnecessary to repeat 
 this test in order to establish its reliability as the reliability 
 has been independently reported upon by Terman. 
 
 The vocabulary and memory span for digits of the Stanford- 
 Binet were given with the Porteus tests, the remainder of the 
 Stanford-Binet taking only one session. 
 
 The Alpha 2 Reading Scale was scored by the method 
 worked out by Kelley and his tables were used. 
 
 The tapping test was scored for number of taps and errors. 
 
 In the construction tests number of moves and time were 
 taken and when the test was not completed within the limit of 
 five minutes it was scored as a failure and the number of 
 moves up to that time was noted. 
 
 A construction test — once solved — is much easier to solve 
 a second time unless the first solution was due to chance. 
 Healy A was repeated in order to check the first performance. 
 In Healy's construction test B a second trial generally brings 
 a result as near perfect as possible (that is, dependent only on 
 skill and speed in motor performances), even if the first solu- 
 tion was hit upon by chance. It is impossible to do away with 
 the chance element in performance tests, but in order to guard 
 against it as much as possible, two tests were used each time, 
 and the selection was made after a study of many types. 
 There are several difficulties in making this choice and we 
 were impressed by the fact that most performance tests have 
 not been standardized and that there are very few tests of this 
 kind which are sufficiently difficult for older subjects. The 
 Healy and Knox tests satisfied both of these conditions. 
 
 The scoring for the learning tests is rather complicated. 
 A perfect score on all four tests is four hundred, one hundred 
 being the perfect score for each test. Learning test A has 
 twelve elements, and if these were all correct on the three 
 trials, thirty-six elements would receive a mark of one hun- 
 dred, or each would get 2.8. Thus the score equals the number 
 correct multiplied by 2.8. When a perfect score is made on the 
 first or second trial, it is assumed that further trials would 
 give a perfect score also. In learning test B there are five 
 
24 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 symbols in each of the three trials, — consequently each re- 
 ceives a value of 6.7. In test C there are seven symbols and 
 three trials. Dividing one hundred by three times seven 
 there results a value of 4.7 for each, vi^hile in test D, which has 
 ten items, the total number is thirty, with a value of 3.3 each. 
 The total for all the tests is the sum of the score on each of the 
 four. 
 
RESULTS 
 
 Where a clinician is generally satisfied to take the score ob- 
 tained by applying- a test as a final goal, if in fact he goes so 
 far as to work out a score, it is obvious that to attain the pur- 
 poses here in mind the scores of the various tests used must be 
 compared to gather statistics reflecting their qualities. That 
 is, M^hen the one hundred and sixteen children had been given 
 the tests that were selected and when the scores were recorded, 
 the field work was completed, but there remained to investi- 
 gate in a laboratory manner what a combination of the re- 
 sults would show with reference to the purposes of this study. 
 
 This comparison of results was made by correlation, that is, 
 by measuring the mutual implications (see Thorndike, Mental 
 and Social Measurements, pp. 156-185). A test is to be evalu- 
 ated in three ways; its correlation with criteria other than 
 results of tests; its self -correlation, and its correlation with 
 other tests. In the present inquiry we obtained no outside 
 criteria with which to correlate our tests, because no outside 
 criteria available could be relied upon. In the field of mental 
 abilities, the only criteria which have been widely used are 
 teachers' opinions, school marks, etc. These are unsatisfac- 
 tory at best. Although we possess all these data for our cases 
 we consider them useless since the children attended eight dif- 
 ferent schools in four places, with the marking systems vary- 
 ing for each. We compared judgments as to intelligence made 
 by the teacher of the ninth grade of the Woodmere school with 
 those made by the eighth grade teacher of the New York Pub- 
 lic School. In the former the I. Q.'s varied from 95 to 141 ; in 
 the latter from 73 to 116. In the former all but two children 
 tested as supernormal and the class average was 121, where- 
 as in the latter only one tested above 110 with a class average 
 of 96. But to read the teachers' judgments one would think 
 that the pupils of the latter school were considerably more in- 
 telligent than those of the former. Even the comparative rat- 
 ings within one group were markedly unreliable. They showed 
 all the errors of judgment pointed out by Terman. No account 
 was taken of age; the best behaved, most conscientious pupil 
 was invariably considered the most intelligent, etc. What is 
 the use of making correlations with this kind of material, 
 
 25 
 
26 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 when one knows in advance that all the fault of a low correla- 
 tion will be attributed to the criterion, and the tests will stand 
 as before — unknown quantities! Moreover, these criteria 
 could only be used to represent a measure of general intelli- 
 gence. The teachers admittedly knew practically nothing 
 about the special abilities of their pupils ; the parents, where 
 consulted, knew very little more. A rating on general intelli- 
 gence has been frequently correlated with general intelligence 
 tests, and the results published. Our data would present no 
 new factors. 
 
 Consequently we have not evaluated the tests by means of 
 correlation with outside criteria but we do have the data for 
 self-correlations and for inter-correlations. Where various 
 tests which we used intercorrelate extremely highly, we may 
 feel that they are measuring the same thing. On the other 
 hand, if the intercorrelations approach zero or are negative, 
 the results indicate that we have no evidence that aspects of 
 intelligence are being measured at all. Only if the correla- 
 tions are sufficiently high to indicate that intelligence is being 
 measured and low enough to show that different factors are 
 entering into the different tests, can we consider the tests 
 worthy of being included in mental examination. In judging 
 our correlations we must remember that we are testing nor- 
 mal children only, — ^therefore our coefficients are lowered — 
 and that our ages do not cover a large area, which also lowers 
 the coefficients of correlation. 
 
 Our conclusions are limited to the tests we used but the gen- 
 eral method of dealing with the scores has a wide applicability. 
 
 Table IV 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF PINTNER SCORES — 100 CASES 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 200-209.9 
 
 
 
 370-379.9 
 
 3 
 
 210-219.9 
 
 
 
 380-389.9 
 
 5 
 
 220-229.9 
 
 1 
 
 390-399.9 
 
 2 
 
 230-239.9 
 
 
 
 400-409.9 
 
 4 
 
 240-249.9 
 
 
 
 410-419.9 
 
 5 
 
 250-259.9 
 
 1 
 
 420-429.9 
 
 5 
 
 260-269.9 
 
 
 
 430-439.9 
 
 7 
 
 270-279.9 
 
 1 
 
 440-449.9 
 
 4 
 
 280-289,9 
 
 1 
 
 450-459.9 
 
 5 
 
 290-299.9 
 
 2 
 
 460-469.9 
 
 7 
 
 300-309.9 
 
 1 
 
 470-479.9 
 
 5 
 
 310-319.9 
 
 1 
 
 480-489.9 
 
 1 
 
 320-329.9 
 
 2 
 
 490-499.9 
 
 4 
 
 330-339.9 
 
 4 
 
 500-509.9 
 
 6 
 
 340-349.9 
 
 2 
 
 510-519.9 
 
 4 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 
 
 27 
 
 Score 
 350-359.9 
 360-369.9 
 
 TABLE IV- 
 Frequency 
 6 
 8 
 
 -Continued 
 Score 
 520-529.9 
 530-539.9 
 
 16 were not given the Pintner Test. 
 
 The evenness of distribution of scores is noticeable. 
 Average=420.964. Unreliability 6.9. 
 
 Mean Square Deviation=r68.96. Unreliability 4.9. 
 
 Table V 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF MYERS SCORES — 90 CASES 
 
 Frequency 
 1 
 2 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 46 
 
 
 
 76 
 
 1 
 
 17 
 
 1 
 
 47 
 
 1 
 
 77 
 
 1 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 48 
 
 3 
 
 78 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 49 
 
 1 
 
 79 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 1 
 
 50 
 
 2 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 51 
 
 1 
 
 81 
 
 2 
 
 22 
 
 1 
 
 52 
 
 4 
 
 82 
 
 1 
 
 23 
 
 1 
 
 53 
 
 4 
 
 83 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 54 
 
 2 
 
 84 
 
 1 
 
 25 
 
 1 
 
 55 
 
 2 
 
 85 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 1 
 
 56 
 
 
 
 86 
 
 
 
 27 
 
 1 
 
 57 
 
 3 
 
 87 
 
 2 
 
 28 
 
 2 
 
 58 
 
 2 
 
 88 
 
 
 
 29 
 
 2 
 
 59 
 
 2 
 
 89 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 2 
 
 90 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 1 
 
 61 
 
 1 
 
 91 
 
 1 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 62 
 
 3 
 
 92 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 2 
 
 63 
 
 3 
 
 93 
 
 
 
 34 
 
 2 
 
 64 
 
 3 
 
 94 
 
 1 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 65 
 
 2 
 
 95 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 3 
 
 66 
 
 
 
 96 
 
 
 
 37 
 
 1 
 
 67 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 
 
 38 
 
 1 
 
 68 
 
 2 
 
 98 
 
 
 
 39 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 3 
 
 99 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 1 
 
 70 
 
 1 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 41 
 
 1 
 
 71 
 
 1 
 
 101 
 
 
 
 42 
 
 
 
 72 
 
 1 
 
 102 
 
 
 
 43 
 
 4 
 
 73 
 
 1 
 
 103 
 
 1 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 74 
 
 
 
 104 
 
 
 
 45 
 
 2 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 105 
 
 
 
 26 were 
 
 not given test 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average=53,325 
 
 
 Unreliability 1.8. 
 
 
 Mean Square Deviation^ 
 
 il7.88. 
 
 Unreliability 
 
 1.3. 
 
 
 Table VI 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF ALPHA SCORES — 107 CASES 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 3.6 
 
 2 
 
 5.4 
 
 1 
 
 7.3 
 
 7 
 
 3.7 
 
 
 
 5.5 
 
 1 
 
 7.4 
 
 6 
 
 3.8 
 
 
 
 5.6 
 
 1 
 
 7.5 
 
 12 
 
 3.9 
 
 
 
 5.7 
 
 1 
 
 7.6 
 
 2 
 
 4.0 
 
 
 
 5.8 
 
 
 
 7.7 
 
 6 
 
 4.1 
 
 3 
 
 5.9 
 
 2 
 
 7.8 
 
 1 
 
 4.2 
 
 1 
 
 6.0 
 
 
 
 7.9 
 
 2 
 
 4.3 
 
 
 
 6.15 
 
 1 
 
 8.0 
 
 2 
 
28 
 
 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 Table VI — Continued 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 4.4 
 
 
 
 6.2 
 
 3 
 
 
 8.1 
 
 1 
 
 4.66 
 
 1 
 
 6.3 
 
 
 
 
 8.2 
 
 2 
 
 4.6 
 
 
 
 6.4 
 
 2 
 
 
 8.3 
 
 2 
 
 4.7 
 
 3 
 
 6.5 
 
 1 
 
 
 8.4 
 
 1 
 
 4.8 
 
 1 
 
 6.6 
 
 3 
 
 
 8.5 
 
 2 
 
 4.9 
 
 2 
 
 6.7 
 
 6 
 
 
 8.6 
 
 
 
 6.0 
 
 1 
 
 6.8 
 
 4 
 
 
 8.7 
 
 
 
 5.1 
 
 3 
 
 6.9 
 
 3 
 
 
 8.8 
 
 1 
 
 5.2 
 
 6 
 
 7.0 
 
 1 
 
 
 8.9 
 
 
 
 5.3 
 
 
 
 7.1 
 7.2 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 9.0 
 
 1 
 
 9 were not given The Alpha Test. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average=6.834. 
 
 Unreliability 
 
 .116. 
 
 
 Mean Square Deviation: 
 
 =1.20. Unreliability 
 
 .082. 
 
 
 
 
 TABLE 
 
 VII 
 
 
 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF PICTORIAL COMPLETION TEST 
 
 SCORES — 110 
 
 CASES 
 
 Score Frequency 
 
 Score Frequency 
 
 
 Score Frequency 
 
 ^15 to 
 
 2 
 
 30 to 34.99 
 
 6 
 
 
 65 to 69.99 
 
 12 
 
 Oto +5 
 
 2 
 
 35 to 39.99 
 
 6 
 
 
 70 to 74.99 
 
 7 
 
 5 to 9.99 
 
 2 
 
 40 to 44.99 
 
 6 
 
 
 75 to 79.99 
 
 4 
 
 10 to 14.99 
 
 1 
 
 45 to 49.99 
 
 10 
 
 
 80 to 84.99 
 
 9 
 
 15 to 19.99 
 
 4 
 
 50 to 54.99 
 
 8 
 
 
 85 to 89.99 
 
 4 
 
 20 to 24.99 
 
 4 
 
 55 to 59.99 
 
 12 
 
 
 90 to 94.99 
 
 2 
 
 25 to 29.99 
 
 
 
 60 to 64.99 
 
 8 
 
 
 95 to 99.99 
 
 1 
 
 6 were not given test. 
 Average=54.527. 
 Mean Square Deviation=22.69. 
 
 Unreliability 2.16 
 Unreliability 1.5. 
 
 Score 
 
 170-179.9 
 
 180-189.9 
 
 190-199.9 
 
 200-209.9 
 
 210-219.9 
 
 220-229.9 
 
 230-239.9 
 
 240-249.9 
 
 LEARNING 
 
 Frequency 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 1 
 4 
 1 
 
 TABLE VIII 
 
 TESTS DISTRIBUTION — 106 CASES 
 
 Score 
 
 250-259.9 
 
 260-269.9 
 
 270-279.9 
 
 280-289.9 
 
 290-299.9 
 
 300-309.9 
 
 310-319.9 
 
 320-329.9 
 
 Frequency Score Frequency 
 
 4 
 7 
 6 
 5 
 8 
 10 
 
 330-339.9 
 340-349.9 
 350-359.9 
 360-369.9 
 370-379.9 
 380-389.9 
 390-399.9 
 400-409.9 
 
 10 were not given the 
 Average=300.66. 
 Mean Square Deviation= 
 
 tests; 3 none at all; 7 not all four. 
 
 Unreliability=5.08. 
 :52.31. Unreliability=3.6. 
 
 TABLE IX 
 
 
 
 PORTEUS 
 
 SCORES 
 
 DISTRIBUTION — 
 
 •113 CASES 
 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 Score 
 
 Frequency 
 
 5 
 
 
 2 
 
 8.5 
 
 4 
 
 11.5 
 
 14 
 
 5.6 
 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 9.5 
 
 6 
 
 12.5 
 
 15 
 
 6.5 
 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 15 
 
 7 
 
 
 3 
 
 10.5 
 
 8 
 
 13.5 
 
 4 
 
 7.5 
 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 14 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 were not ] 
 
 give this test. 
 
 
 
 
 Avera; 
 
 ge=11.09. 
 
 
 Unreliability 
 
 .19. 
 
 
 Mean 
 
 Square 
 
 Deviatioi] 
 
 1=2.02. 
 
 Unreliability 
 
 .13. 
 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 29 
 
 TABLE X 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OP CROSSLINE TEST SCORES — 114 CASES 
 
 Score Frequency Score Frequency Score Frequency 
 
 I II I II I II 
 
 Both OK' 70 OK'-OK' 1 OK*-F 3 
 
 OK'-OK' 13 OK'-OK' 2 OK'-F 1 
 
 OK'-OK> 5 OK'-OK" 1 OK'-F 2 
 
 OK'-OK* 5 OK*-OK* 2 OK*-F 1 
 
 OK'-OK' 2 OK=-OK* 1 F -F 5 
 
 OK'=Correct on first trial. 
 
 OK'=Correct on second trial. 
 
 F=Failure on fourth trial. 
 
 TABLE XI 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF TAPPING SCORES. AVERAGE OP 2 TRIALS — 113 CASES 
 
 Score Frequency Score Frequency Score Frequency 
 
 40 to 44.99 1 65 to 69.99 11 90 to 94.99 5 
 
 45 to 49.99 3 70 to 74.99 13 95 to 99.^9 5 
 
 50 to 54.99 5 75 to 79.99 23 100 to 104.99 2 
 
 55 to 59.99 9 80 to 84.99 20 105 to 109.99 
 
 60 to 64.99 9 85 to 89.99 6 110 to 114.99 1 
 
 Average=73.43. Unreliability 1.26. 
 
 Mean Square Deviation=13.39 Unreliability .89. 
 
 TABLE XII 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OP CONSTRUCTION AND KNOX — TIME 108 CASES 
 
 Score Frequency Score Frequency Score Frequency 
 
 50 to 99.99 
 
 1 
 
 350 to 399.99 
 
 12 
 
 650 to 699.99 
 
 6 
 
 100 to 149.99 
 
 7 
 
 400 to 449.99 
 
 8 
 
 700 to 749.99 
 
 4 
 
 150 to 199.99 
 
 5 
 
 450 to 499.99 
 
 8 
 
 750 to 799.99 
 
 2 
 
 200 to 249.99 
 
 10 
 
 500 to 549.99 
 
 9 
 
 800 to 849.99 
 
 3 
 
 250 to 299.99 
 
 10 
 
 550 to 599.99 
 
 5 
 
 850 to 899.99 
 
 2 
 
 300 to 349.99 
 
 8 
 
 600 to 649.99 
 
 7 
 
 900 to 949.99 
 950 to 999.99 
 
 
 1 
 
 Averagez=420 to 480 or 7.685. 
 Mean Square Deviation=3.39. 
 
 Tables 4 to 12 inclusive show the distribution of scores on 
 the various tests. The average, or more properly speaking 
 the arithmetic mean and mean square deviation, are also given 
 for each. 
 
 That we have sufficient cases is shown by the relation of the 
 variability to the average. In only a few instances is it large 
 enough to raise a doubt as to whether enough cases were used. 
 These are the Pictorial Completion test, the Construction tests, 
 and the Myers Mental Measure. The formula for the unreli- 
 
 adis. 
 
 ability of an average is aT-obt.av.=: for the unreliability 
 
 vn 
 
 adis. 
 of a mean square deviation it is o-T-obtcrrr: These data 
 
 \/2ir 
 are also included in the tables. (See Thorndike, Mental and 
 Social Measurements). 
 
30 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 A few special considerations arose at once with reference to 
 the crossline tests, the tapping test and the construction tests. 
 
 The crossline test has no value for our subjects (see table 
 X.) ; one hundred and fourteen cases were tested, out of 
 which 70, or over 60 per cent, made perfect scores ; the remain- 
 ing 40 per cent ranging almost indifferently from one error to 
 complete failure. This test is, then, far too easy for our sub- 
 jects, and the results are useless for our purposes. We will 
 disregard it completely from now on. 
 
 In dealing with the tapping test we were confronted with 
 the problem of how to handle the errors. Since a perfect cor- 
 relation would be expected between two absolutely perfect tests 
 of tapping ability, the highest correlation obtainable is pre- 
 sumably the one which best accounts for the errors. On this 
 assumption the two trials of fifty cases of the tapping test 
 were correlated both by Pearson and Spearman formulae, first 
 disregarding the errors, then weighting them one each, and 
 finally weighting them two points each, with the following 
 results : 
 
 Pearson Spearman 
 
 Erors disregarded r = .794 r = .917 
 
 Errors weighted one each r = .773 r = .90 
 
 Errors weighted two each r = .764 r = .82 
 
 It would seem then that the errors are of comparatively 
 little importance, but as disregarding them gives the highest 
 self-correlation, they will be omitted in any correlations in 
 which the tapping test is involved. 
 
 A similar problem is presented by the construction tests, 
 where we have scores for time and moves: Should they be 
 combined and if so, how? If not, are they both important, 
 or only one, and if the latter, which one? In order to arrive 
 at an unbiased conclusion — for it was the writer's opinion 
 that time was by far the most valuable measure — the advice 
 of fifteen other persons was sought. These others were all 
 familiar with the tests, and had used them extensively in 
 clinical work. By far the majority were in favor of using 
 both time and moves, each independently of the other. Two 
 of these considered the moves decidedly more important than 
 time ; two others stated that time alone was sufficient, because 
 time and moves had been found to correlate so highly, that 
 the difference between using them and not doing so was within 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 31 
 
 the probable error of either one. None recommended at- 
 tempting to combine them. 
 
 The following correlations were therefore made : 
 Construction A with B-time. 
 Construction A withB-moves. 
 Knox A with B-time. 
 Knox A with B-moves. 
 Average Construction A and B with average Knox A and B- 
 
 time. 
 Average Construction A and B with average Knox A and B- 
 
 moves. 
 
 If the test was not completed in five minutes it was scored 
 as a failure and the number of moves up to that time re- 
 corded. Some children who solve the test in three minutes 
 make more moves than others who fail in five minutes. How 
 can one tell how many moves the latter would have made, 
 had they completed the test? Obviously, the number they 
 made until they were arbitrarily stopped is not a fair measure. 
 It was finally decided to omit all cases where any construction 
 test was a failure, from the moves correlations. 
 
 The crude scores were not used in the time correlations, 
 but the three hundred seconds were divided into twenty groups 
 of fifteen seconds each. Anyone succeeding with a test in 
 fifteen seconds or less, was put in group one; if he took more 
 than fifteen seconds and less than thirty-one seconds he was 
 put in group two, and so forth. All who failed the test were 
 put in group twenty, thus making it possible to include in 
 these correlations many cases which had to be excluded from 
 the correlations of number of moves made. 
 
 Taking up first the self-correlations, that is, the correla- 
 tions of our alternate tests, with each other or the correlations 
 of the scores obtained by repeated use of the same test, the 
 results were as follows: 
 
 As only a few Stanford-Binet's were repeated, the results 
 are of little significance. We obtain a correlation of .89 on 
 our fourteen cases. L. M. Terman ("The Intelligence 
 of School Children" ch. IX.) had retests given to three hun- 
 dred and fifteen children, out of which forty-six were given 
 three or more tests. The interval between the first and sec- 
 ond testing ranged from one day to seven years. The central 
 tendency of change is represented by an increase of 1.7 in 
 
32 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 I.Q. ; the middle fifty per cent of change lies between the limits 
 of 3.3 decrease and 5.7 increase. Consequently the probable 
 error of a prediction based on the first test is 4.5 points in 
 terms of I.Q. The correlation between all the testings is .933. 
 Apparently whether the interval be a few months or several 
 years does not influence the result. If the re-examination be 
 within a few days, the I. Q. will — on the average — be raised 
 only two or three points, and this when no restriction has 
 been put on the children communicating with one another. 
 There are several exceptions to this general rule, one being 
 that young feeble-minded children tend to show their feeble- 
 mindedness more as they grow older ; that is, they test lower 
 on the Stanford-Binet. We need not concern ourselves with 
 this, as only normal children were included in this study. 
 Another obvious factor which tends to make the I. Q. appear 
 unstable, is due to the fact that the test is limited at the upper 
 end. As a child with a high I. Q. grows older, the I. Q. drops 
 until at the age of sixteen years the highest I. Q. obtainable 
 is 122. In many pathological cases such as children suffering 
 from epilepsy, chorea, etc., the I. Q. fluctuates considerably. 
 But even within the ranges of normality, Terman thinks that 
 fluctuations occur for at least three reasons. 
 
 1. There may be a certain amount of irregularity in the 
 actual rate of mental development. 
 
 2. The results of a test may be influenced to some extent 
 by the conditions under which it is given, the state of the 
 child's health, his attitude toward the test, fatigue and other 
 temporary and accidental features. 
 
 Retests after a brief interval indicate that errors from 
 this source are ordinarily not large. 
 
 3. There is inevitably a certain amount of error in every 
 I. Q. rating due to imperfections in the scale used. 
 
 What has been generally criticized in the Stanford-Binet 
 scale, namely that it measures different things at different 
 years and consequently that a subject might do very well 
 when his memory ability for example was tested, and very 
 poorly when his reasoning ability came into the foreground 
 a couple of years later, does not seem to be valid on actual 
 findings. The theoretical argument against such a criticism 
 is that so many age levels are tested each time that a subject 
 will win and lose points in every branch which the test in- 
 cludes. 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 33 
 
 The Pintner and Myers tests were chosen to measure the 
 same thing, and so we expected to find a high correlation be- 
 tween them. The Pearson coefficient of .584 was so unex- 
 pected that we felt that further investigation was needed. 
 A closer study of the tests revealed the fact that their likeness 
 rested on negative similarity; neither involved the use of 
 language, but in other respects they apparently required dif- 
 ferent abilities. The Pintner test appeared more limited, more 
 mathematical, involving concrete situations rather than gen- 
 eralizations while the Myers on the other hand was more 
 general, but rather sketchy. In order to test the truth of 
 this hypothesis, the six Pintner tests were intercorrelated and 
 also the four Myers tests — see table. The average of the 
 Pintner intercorrelations was .234, of the four Myers tests 
 correlated each with all the others, .445. It will therefore be 
 seen that the above explanation is unsatisfactory. 
 
 TABLE XIII 
 
 PINTNER TESTS INTERCORRELATED 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 G Composite 
 
 1 
 
 
 -.009 
 
 .392 
 
 .325 
 
 .183 
 
 .337 
 
 .618 
 
 2 
 
 -.009 
 
 
 .470 
 
 .022 
 
 -.022 
 
 .107 
 
 .396 
 
 3 
 
 .392 
 
 .470 
 
 
 .361 
 
 .224 
 
 .316 
 
 .757 
 
 4 
 
 .325 
 
 .022 
 
 .361 
 
 
 .035 
 
 .456 
 
 .625 
 
 5 
 
 .183 
 
 -.022 
 
 .224 
 
 .035 
 
 
 .307 
 
 .540 
 
 6 
 
 .337 
 
 .107 
 
 .316 
 
 .456 
 
 .307 
 
 
 .670 
 
 Average 
 
 .249 
 
 .126 
 
 .353 
 
 .240 
 
 .154 
 
 .305 
 
 
 Composite 
 
 .618 
 
 .396 
 
 .757 
 
 .625 
 
 .540 
 
 .670 
 
 
 Average of all above correlations, regarding signs + .234. 
 Average of all above correlations, without regarding signs + .238. 
 Probable Error of each correlation, approximately .05. 
 Number of cases 100. 
 
 The fact that correlations between the separate Tests are low, while 
 those of each Test with the composite of all 6, are high, indicates merit 
 in the Test as a whole. 
 
 TABLE XIV 
 
 MYERS MENTAL MEASURE INTERCORRELATIONS 
 
 12 3 4 Composite Average of all 
 
 above correlations — 
 + .445 
 1 .470 .469 .564 .786 Number of cases— 89 
 
 2 
 
 .470 
 
 
 .346 
 
 .424 
 
 .796 
 
 3 
 
 .469 
 
 .346 
 
 
 .403 
 
 .477 
 
 4 
 
 .564 
 
 .424 
 
 .403 
 
 
 .775 
 
 Composite 
 
 .786 
 
 .796 
 
 .477 
 
 .775 
 
 
 The comment made concerning the previous Table — Pintner Tests — 
 applies to some extent to the Myers Test also. However, the correla- 
 tions between the separate tests are much higher than those found be- 
 tween the Pintner Tests. 
 
34 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 For if the Pintner tests were all of the same nature, includ- 
 ing the same factors, their intercorrelations would be high. 
 On the other hand, if the Myers tests were general, their 
 inter-correlations would be lowered. Just the opposite occurs ; 
 the Pintner intercorrelations are lower than the Myers. These 
 correlations can probably be explained on another basis. In 
 the Pintner series certain tests are easier than others, most 
 esspecially the second and fourth, which lowers the intercor- 
 relations. In the Myers Mental Measure all the tests with the 
 exception of the third are of about the same difficulty, the 
 grading being within the test, and this raises the correlations. 
 It also seems probable that while the Pintner tests do 
 measure more limited factors, each test may measure a dif- 
 ferent one, the type of material alone remaining the same. 
 
 On a priori grounds something of this sort seems likely, for 
 the material is practically the same, the correlations are low, 
 so the factors measured must be different. 
 
 It is true that in the Myers Mental Measure the ability to 
 respond to the spoken word (directions) is part of the test, 
 and it is possible that this is a special ability — calling forth 
 something akin to the abilities necessary for success with the 
 Stanford-Binet, even where the language itself is easily under- 
 stood. Such a factor our data are unable to measure, but it 
 is interesting in this connection to compare the correlation of 
 the Stanford-Binet with Pintner and of the Stanford-Binet 
 with Myers. 
 
 In devising the Pintner non-language test, the effort was 
 made to have it extend from the lowest to the highest grades. 
 This meant introducing tests such as the second, which is 
 far too easy for a child after he has reached the fourth or 
 fifth grade, and also others which were almost incompre- 
 hensible to the young child, as tests four and six. Since our 
 subjects are for the most part past the fourth or fifth school 
 grade, we would expect to find some sign of their maturity in 
 the correlations. Reference to the table shows that test two 
 correlates lower with all the other tests than any other single 
 test. The one exception is the correlation of tests two 
 and three, which — it will be remembered — are identical in 
 form, the latter being different from the former only in 
 degree of difficulty. Test six, on the other hand, correlates 
 higher with every other test, than test two. This is as it 
 .should be: had we tested younger children the table would 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 35 
 
 probably have shown entirely different results. Incidentally, 
 these findings show the importance of bearing in mind the 
 nature of the group that is being studied when interpreting 
 correlations. Each part was also correlated with the total test 
 score, with high results throughout, with the exception of 
 test 2. In looking at this table, one must feel that the test 
 is a good one, for the intercorrelations of the separate tests 
 are low, but with the composite they are high. 
 
 Before leaving the Pintner test, mention should be made of 
 a study by Jeanette Chase Reamer, in which she retested 
 over four hundred children with this test with slightly less 
 than a two-year interval, and found a correlation of .726 
 between the relative positions which they occupied at each 
 testing. The closeness of this correlation was a complete sur- 
 prise to both her and to Professor Pintner. 
 
 With regard to the Myers Mental Measure intercorrelations, 
 we find them all fairly high and regular. The most surprising 
 thing about them is that tests three and four which appear 
 far more similar than any other two tests in this series, 
 should have one of the lowest correlations, — lower than four 
 with one or four with two. Also, we see no reason why one 
 and four should correlate higher than any other two. If the 
 language factor were significant, we should find one and three 
 (where audible directions must be followed for each separate 
 unit of the test) correlating highly, and also two and four 
 (where after the original directions the subject is left to him- 
 self). But as a matter of fact, one and two, and one and 
 four are higher than one and three, and two and four. How- 
 ever the degree of difference between the various correla- 
 tions is so small that these comparisons must be taken in a 
 negative rather than a positive sense; that is, we might have 
 expected the correlations to prove something, instead of which 
 they prove nothing! With the composite the separate tests 
 correlate very highly, as would be expected since the com- 
 posite includes always the test being correlated with it, thus 
 giving a perfect relation between two out of the five factors. 
 Test three proves an exception here also, and we feel that 
 the fault is the same as with Pintner two: it is too easy for 
 our subjects. 
 
 The Porteus Maze Test when correlated with itself gives a 
 correlation of .95, which is high and satisfactory. 
 
 The intercorrelations of the construction tests gave the 
 
36 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 most disconcerting results of all. They seem to prove Pro- 
 fessor Thorndike's assertion that no matter how many con- 
 struction tests are used, one cannot do away with the chance 
 element. If four construction tests, when correlated for time 
 and moves, give only .16 for the former and .08 for the latter, 
 it seems like a hopeless task to give sufficient tests to raise 
 the correlation to the high 70's or 80's. This is indeed a 
 problem, for the construction test as such is undoubtedly de- 
 sirable. 
 
 Perhaps more important than these low numerical results, 
 is the fact that combining the individual tests does not seem 
 to operate to raise the correlations. Thus the two Healy tests 
 when correlated for time, give a result of .21, the two Knox 
 tests similarly correlated give .27, but the average of Healy 
 tests with average of Knox tests shows a correlation of only 
 .16. In attempting to explain these findings, it must be re- 
 membered that the Healy tests were given on one occasion, and 
 the Knox tests at least one week later, both A and B on the 
 same day. 
 
 If our results were due primarily to lack of reliability of 
 the construction tests from day to day then scores from two 
 construction tests given on the same day ought to show higher 
 correlations than we found. If the lack of reliability of con- 
 struction tests from day to day is not to be considered because 
 of the generally low correlations, and so if it makes no dif- 
 ference whether all four tests are given on the same day or 
 different days, then our average correlations should not turn 
 out to be lower than the correlations of tests given on the 
 same day because an increase in the number of factors gen- 
 erally operates to raise the correlations. Other correlations 
 between various combinations of the construction tests were 
 made and are recorded in table 16, but the results are no 
 more enlightening than the ones we have discussed here. 
 
 We are assuming here that the solution of each of the four 
 construction tests involves the same abilities, not that they 
 are of equal difficulty. We have no evidence to prove that 
 this is the case, but we do not see how any construction tests 
 could be devised which, though different, were apparently 
 more similar than these. However, Healy test A and Knox 
 test B are more similar than any other combination. Knox's 
 test was modelled directly from Healy's and is supposed to 
 be more difficult. A correlation between these two gives us 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 37 
 
 minus .055 for time and .126 for moves. In other words, the 
 correlation between the two is about what one would obtain be- 
 tween two factors having no relationship to each other at all. 
 If this is true of Healy Construction test A and the Knox 
 diamond-shaped frame test, we conclude that construction 
 tests have no constant value for intelligence testing. 
 
 It will be recalled that the Thorndike Reading Scale, Alpha 
 2, was not repeated as the alternate scales now available had 
 not yet been published, but we might quote Dr. McCall's state- 
 ment to the effect that a high correlation was obtained be- 
 tween our scale and the more recently devised alternate on 
 representative subjects. 
 
 No correlation was obtained between two trials of the 
 Healy Pictorial Completion test II because the number of 
 cases who were retested was small, about twenty-five, no fur- 
 ther retesting being done because the attitude of the subjects 
 was so different on the second testing that the repetition was 
 more a matter of memory than anything else. 
 
 In repeating this test a week or more after the first pres- 
 entation it was found that the correct pieces were again put 
 in. Of those that were incorrect about half were the same, 
 the other half being pictures having about the same value 
 in scoring, so that the total score was very little altered. It 
 was generally slightly increased, rarely lowered. The only 
 other test of this kind available is Healy's Pictorial Com- 
 pletion test A, which is so simple that almost all of our sub- 
 jects would make perfect scores on it. The attitude of the sub- 
 jects, when this test was offered a second time, was not good. 
 The test appeals because it is a new situation presenting a 
 problem in an attractive form. The second time, the newness 
 has worn off. The usual response is, "I've done that before," 
 or words to that effect. If the child is urged to attempt a 
 better performance, he will often ask in a surprised tone of 
 voice, "Didn't I do it perfectly before?" Even when one suc- 
 ceeds in getting a child to try again, he rarely makes any 
 effort, but puts in at once the pieces selected before or similar 
 ones. If he comments audibly on his performance, it runs 
 something like this, "Oh, that one, — a book was missing there ; 
 where is it? Here — why there are two — well it doesn't matter, 
 it's a book he dropped." Occasionally one will notice that it 
 does matter, but even this is due largely to chance, to his 
 happening to have spied two books this time. 
 
38 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 As a whole it was felt that what was gained by repeating 
 this test in the way of establishing its reliability, was not 
 equivalent to what was lost in the attitude of the subjects to 
 the tests as a whole. If repeated at the very end of the test- 
 ing, this difficulty would be in part eliminated, but it was 
 decided to omit its repetition completely. 
 
 The reliability of the Healy and Bronner learning tests 
 was not ascertainable as no alternate series has been devised, 
 and as no other test could be found which appeared sufficiently 
 similar to warrant the hypothesis that it measured the same 
 thing. 
 
 The tapping test was repeated in exactly the same form, 
 and showed an intercorrelation of .81 with a P. E. of .022. 
 This we may consider a satisfactory correlation, showing 
 that the test has a high degree of reliability. 
 
 The self-correlations having been thus completed and ana- 
 lyzed, the next step is to consider the intercorrelations of the 
 tests. Let us now consider the correlation of each test with the 
 Stanford-Binet mental age. As all the tests are given crude 
 scores regardless of age, in order to have comparable data, 
 the mental age must be used instead of the I. Q. 
 
 Number of 
 Cases 
 
 97 
 
 89 
 106 
 110 
 105 
 110 
 112 
 107 
 
 83 
 110 
 
 88 
 110 
 
 88 
 111 
 103 
 111 
 103 
 
 Total number of tests correlated with Stanford-Binet r = 
 .5976. Woodworth's method of combining the results of 
 
 M Av.S^-1 
 several tests used, Av. r= — (Woodworth: Combin- 
 ing the Results of Several Tests). 
 
 The first column stands for the Pearson coefficient obtained 
 
 
 
 TABLE 
 
 XV 
 
 
 Stanford-Binet 
 
 (probable error) 
 
 Pintner 
 
 .439 
 
 
 ±.055 
 
 Myers 
 
 .686 
 
 
 ±.037 
 
 Alpha 2 
 
 .757 
 
 
 ±.027 
 
 P. C. II 
 
 .541 
 
 
 ±.045 
 
 Learning 
 
 491 
 
 
 ±.049 
 
 Porteus 
 
 .536 
 
 
 ±.045 
 
 Tapping 
 
 .604 
 
 
 ±.040 
 
 4 Construction 
 
 .426 
 
 (Time) 
 
 ±.078 
 
 4 Construction 
 
 .326 
 
 (moves) 
 
 ±.097 
 
 Healy A 
 
 .410 
 
 (Time) 
 
 ±.079 
 
 Healy A 
 
 .374 
 
 (moves) 
 
 ±.092 
 
 Healy B 
 
 .281 
 
 (Time) 
 
 ±.088 
 
 Healy B 
 
 .088 
 
 (moves) 
 
 ±.105 
 
 Knox A 
 
 .046 
 
 (Time) 
 
 ±.095 
 
 Knox A 
 
 .009 
 
 (moves) 
 
 ±.099 
 
 Knox B 
 
 .216 
 
 (Time) 
 
 ±.090 
 
 Knox B 
 
 .112 
 
 (moves) 
 
 ±.098 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED Z9 
 
 2 (x.y) 
 from the formula r = ^^f — a — 5 or, as it is usually stated, 
 
 ^ — -^ V - ^ rj^Yie P, E. in this case means the probable 
 
 divergence of the true coefficient of correlation from that 
 
 obtained from a limited random selection of cases. The for- 
 
 l-r== 
 mula was was aT-obt. r= . If the median deviation of the 
 
 probable divergence is desired it may be obtained by multi- 
 plying the figures in the second column by.6754. For a dis- 
 cussion of these formulae and any other statistical methods 
 here used, see E. L. Thorndike, Mental and Social Measur- 
 ments. 
 
 It is interesting to find the Alpha test correlating most 
 closely with the Standford-Binet of all the tests used. It cor- 
 roborates to some extent the current opinion that the Stan- 
 ford-Binet is largely a test of language ability. 
 
 The next highest correlation, that of the Myers Mental 
 Measure, is more difficult to explain. Although intended as 
 a non-language group intelligence test, it involved more 
 language than any of the other tests employed. Still it would 
 seem surprising if this were such a tremendous factor. It 
 tends to indicate the validity of group tests as does also Alpha, 
 in that these two tests were given to nearly all of the subjects 
 in groups, and yet correlate more highly with the individual 
 Stanford-Binet than any of the other tests do, practically all 
 of which were given individually. 
 
 One of the most surprising results is the high correlation 
 of tapping with the Stanford-Binet. One would generally 
 assume that the type of motor ability required in our tapping 
 test had little to do with intelligence — especially with older 
 subjects. Our data apparently contradict this hypothesis, 
 and we are confronted with the necessity of explaining the 
 data. It is known that tapping ability increases with chrono- 
 logical age at least up to maturity in the absence of tremors, 
 epilepsy, chorea and other diseases affecting the co-ordinat- 
 ing mechanisms. When we consider that our subjects were 
 all normal and therefor^ their mental ages tended to increase 
 with their chronological ages, and that all our cases were 
 treated together regardless of age, it at once seems plausible 
 that we have here a spurious correlation due to increase in 
 both scores with chronological age, rather than intelligence. 
 
40 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 We have therefore correlated tapping with the Stanf ord-Binet 
 I. Q.'s, which represent intelligence regardless of age, the 
 coefficient obtained being .069, and find that our assumption 
 is justified. 
 
 The correlations between the construction tests and 
 Stanford-Binet are very low, the only reasonably high 
 coefficient being obtained with Healy A. This correlation was 
 about the same as the composite of construction tests with 
 Stanford-Binet. It is interesting to note that Healy A was 
 the only construction test which Professor Terman used in 
 his revision inasmuch as he considered that one only to meet 
 the requirements sufficiently to be included. 
 
 The remaining tests, Pintner, Porteus, Learning, and P. 
 C. 2, that have been correlated with Stanford-Binet, each 
 show a correlation very close to .50. This we consider signifi- 
 cant in that they are sufficiently high to show that we are 
 measuring intelligence, restricting that term to its generally 
 used meaning with reference to mental testing. In addition 
 the coefficients of correlation are low enough so that we may 
 conclude that different abilities of the subjects tested are 
 being measured, that is, the use of different tests does not 
 result in a repeated measurement of the same abilities. Con- 
 sequently the use of these tests in addition to the Stanford- 
 Binet, means the measurement of more varieties of ability 
 than can be tested by the Stanford-Binet alone. It remains 
 to be determined whether Pintner, Porteus, Learning, and 
 P. C. 2 all measure the same factor or whether some if not all 
 of them can be used to distinguish special abilities which the 
 others do not test. The answer to this inquiry lies in the 
 results obtainable by the correlation of all of these tests with 
 each other. These results are recorded in Table 16 and they 
 are results so unexpected that they call for interpretation. 
 
 Many of the correlations recorded in the table show that the 
 importance of the language factor has been overestimated in 
 dealing with older school children. The correlation between 
 language and non-language tests are high enough to show that 
 the language factor need not be avoided to have a test which 
 can be said to measure intelligence. 
 
 Let us first consider the correlation between Myers and 
 Alpha 2; the former is supposed to be a non-language test, 
 the latter a test of understanding of sentences. If language 
 were an important factor it would be hard to account for a 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 41 
 
 correlation of .733, the second highest obtained aside from the 
 self-correlations. P. C. II is a performance test dealing with 
 pictures ; it is concrete where the Alpha 2 deals with abstract 
 ideas, — yet these two give a correlation of .709 — likewise un- 
 questionably high. We have stated elsewhere that some 
 language enters into the Myers Mental Measure, and that 
 ability to respond to the spoken word may be an exceedingly 
 important factor. If so, why does P. C. II give a coefficient 
 of .714 with Myers Mental Measure? If the Myers Mental 
 Measure is a non-language test, why is the correlation of 
 Pintner, a thorough going non-language test, with Myers 
 lower than Pintner with Alpha 2, a test involving so much 
 language? Again, when we compare the correlation of Alpha 
 2 and Porteus— .701— with that of P. C. II and Porteus— .702 
 — we are at a loss to explain the similarity in result unless we 
 discard the idea of the importance of the language factor. 
 For the Porteus test requires no language. 
 
 One must not overlook the importance of language as a 
 handicap in giving tests to foreigners, etc., but where older 
 school children are being tested it cannot be vital. For in 
 order to succeed in the higher grammar school grades, it is 
 essential that they have a fairly good working knowledge of 
 the English language, and this is all that is needed to suc- 
 ceed with the so-called language tests. 
 
 Coming to the selection of a schedule of tests we conclude 
 that: 
 
 1. Reading scale Alpha 2 should be included. In the first 
 place because of its high correlations with other tests, the 
 highest of any test with all the others, and also because of 
 special considerations. It must be remembered that Alpha 2 
 is entirely a reading and writing test and therefore one would 
 not expect so uniformly high a correlation as exists between 
 it and the other tests which are supposed each to be specially 
 adapted toward bringing out certain abilities. The high 
 correlations remind us of Binet's constant contention that 
 intelligence, broadly speaking, can be tested by language tests. 
 This conclusion, however, does not imply that a non-language 
 test cannot serve a like purpose. Our intercorrelations show 
 that there was no reason to avoid language tests inasmuch as 
 they correlated highly with the non-language tests. This is 
 interesting in that the tendency in devising tests is towards 
 making them language tests. For causes of this tendency 
 
42 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 we can ascribe first, the simplicity and lack of apparatus 
 inherent in them and second, that the difficulty or ease of the 
 test is far more readily regulated than in the non-language 
 tests. In scrutinizing a test to forecast the results of its 
 use our results seem to show that it is not necessary to dwell 
 upon whether or not the tests involve the use of language. 
 
 2. The list of tests selected includes both Myers and 
 Pintner. Myers correlates more highly with every other test 
 than does Pintner, with the exception of their respective cor- 
 relations with Porteus. As has been stated, both of these 
 tests are valuable and in addition they have the merit of 
 yielding different results. 
 
 3. The intercorrelations of P. C. II with such of the other 
 tests as we found to be reliable were sufficiently high to make 
 us believe that this test should be included in our schedule 
 in spite of the uncertainty as to whether it is reliable. 
 
 4. Definite judgment upon the learning tests should be 
 reserved for the present. Their highest correlation is un- 
 der 50 and we have no evidence that they are reliable. Before 
 the learning tests have a right to be so called they must be 
 shown really to measure learning ability; they must also be 
 tested for reliability. It is a question whether learning ability 
 of a given individual is uniform in all fields. The uniformity 
 of learning ability cannot be assumed, for a mere assumption 
 as to the uniformity of motor ability proved to be wrong 
 (See Perrin, An Experimental Study of Motor Ability). If 
 learning ability is found not to be so, combining the various 
 tests may operate to conceal what is valuable in them. 
 
 5. The tapping test should be included, in the discretion of 
 the examiner, not because the results can be relied upon to 
 indicate intelligence but because giving this test, which takes 
 only a minute, may disclose latent defects in motor control. 
 
 In an attempt to reach some definite conclusion about the 
 construction tests we have made many correlations of different 
 combinations. Healy A is the only test which gives a corre- 
 lation as high as .40 and that with the Stanford-Binet. Nor 
 does combining the tests raise the correlations, for the four 
 construction tests correlated with Stanford-Binet give a result 
 practically no higher than Healy A alone. It seemed useless 
 to correlate the construction tests with the other tests when 
 they gave such unsatisfactory results with each other, and 
 with the Stanford-Binet. We have no evidence that these four 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 43 
 
 tests are valuable either as intelligence tests, or for any other 
 purpose. 
 
 The Porteus test is one of the most interesting. Since no 
 language enters into the test, one would expect it to correlate 
 more highly with Pintner and Myers than with the Stanf ord- 
 Binet and Alpha 2. Just the opposite occurs; of the four, 
 by far the highest correlation is with Alpha 2. The cor- 
 relation of Porteus and P. C. II is practically the same. These 
 three tests all seem to call for one kind of ability. Is it good 
 judgment, common sense ability, planfulness, deliberation, 
 carefulness, foresight, good apperceptions? Probably it con- 
 tains these and other similar traits. It is the difference be- 
 tween these tests which brings the correlations down to .70, 
 and which causes them to correlate differently with the other 
 tests. Alpha 2 and Stanford-Binet, both requiring language, 
 correlate more highly than Porteus and Stanford-Binet, or 
 P. C. II and Stanford-Binet. Some other factor causes Alpha 
 2 and P. C. II to correlate considerably higher with Myers 
 than Porteus does. There are always many traits measured 
 by every test, no matter how simple, and the emphasis on the 
 different factors is not always the same for the same test. It 
 varies with the group being measured ; their age, sex, educa- 
 tion, social selection, etc. Why does Porteus get a higher 
 correlation between his test and Binet's than we do? Partly, 
 at least, because he tested children of all ages, but especially 
 younger ones, whereas ours group themselves closely about 
 a mode, and are older. 
 
 We have quite a number of cases which are not completely 
 measured by either the Stanford-Binet or the Porteus tests; 
 that is, they could probably succeed with some harder tests if 
 they were given the opportunity, and this lowers our corre- 
 lations. The fact that many of Porteus' cases were placed 
 higher rather than lower on his tests than on the Stanford- 
 Binet seems to show that they tended to be poorer in language 
 ability than in planfulness, apperceptions, — whatever one 
 wishes to call it. Our cases on the other hand seem to find no 
 difficulty with the language factor. It is by comparing the 
 results of the same group in different tests, and of different 
 groups on the same test, that most can be learned of what 
 the tests actually do measure. In this study we have the same 
 group measured by many different tests. We find our inter- 
 correlations high in many cases, but nowhere so high that we 
 
44 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 feel that the tests are identical. However certain similarities 
 such as the one just discussed between the Porteus, P. C. II, 
 and Alpha 2, were brought to light by this method. Differ- 
 ences such as the striking one between Pintner and Myers 
 have also been observed. If different groups had been used, 
 one would be unable to draw any conclusions regarding the 
 tests for the groups themselves might be responsible for so 
 many of the factors. Again different factors of the tests are 
 brought out by different groups as for instance a younger 
 and older set of children tested with the Pintner non-language 
 survey test would give an entirely different kind of intercor- 
 relation between the separate tests. By this method we can 
 take account of more factors and so interpret our findings 
 with greater accuracy. 
 
 There is no evidence that the P. C. test measures appercep- 
 tions, that the learning tests measure learning ability, that the 
 construction tests measure ability to use concrete material. On 
 this account, and also because each involves too many inci- 
 dental, disturbing factors, none of these tests can be consi- 
 dered adequate measures of special abilities or disabilities. 
 Such tests are much needed, and should be constructed so as 
 to measure fundamental, underlying differences in ability. 
 They must be correlated with everything of any possible im- 
 portance in order to ascertain the degree to which one ability 
 is related to all others. In studying memory we want to know 
 how important a part it plays in reasoning, in mechanical 
 work, etc. We must learn the significance of a good memory 
 for every school study, and for various occupations. If dif- 
 ferent kinds of memory play important parts in different 
 studies and vocations, this too we must find out. It is a big 
 task, perhaps impossible to carry out at present, but without 
 such information we are tremendously handicapped. The 
 taboo of "faculty" psychology has contributed to lessen activity 
 along these lines, for if you investigate memory you are 
 getting perilously near something obsolete. But very few 
 would deny that there is such a thing as remembering, and all 
 study of memory and its ramifications has yielded interesting 
 and important results. 
 
 It has been more or less tacitly assumed in the past that 
 differences in performance are due to differences in the ma- 
 terial used rather than to underlying "faculty" differences. 
 This was based upon findings such as those obtained when 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 46 
 
 c:ooo(M«ioooouiO o r <y 
 
 P, WH4J 
 
 & § ° %• 
 
 C >H +J C pi? 
 
 •CrHOOiHOOt- CI O_^03>H 
 
 >H ■<a' N CO ■* (N ■<* N ^ ^-Ut5 
 
 rt 51^<U^ 
 
 DO ;3 o Co> 
 
 5tDcoo,HN t-eo S-S-S"^ 
 
 ^coioeooo»joiooo }-* cn^,^ 
 
 *^ bJ 2J 
 to <u p"75 
 
 N+3 eu56 
 
 5 >> 
 
 "O 
 
 • lo-^t-t- c-cgco S I' rt ""^ 
 
 S ?C> t-" M te: g 
 
 ■_ w THt- 
 
 .2H 
 
 *^ jjckoosco oo(Mco "^y-^S .So 
 
 ^ g ^ ■» IT 
 
 « 8 -S MM 
 
 £ goo <J<J 
 
 r>»00 00 eOi-(COCslC<l •-:. ►<>< 
 
 •sjtoko t-t-eoeoio * _: o o 
 
 oj o >. II II .1 • II II 'I « cs 
 
 u 
 
 -U05 -^t-ectoooN 
 
 Ceo 00 Oi O lO CO 00 
 •£""<* lOlOTfCONN 
 
 asil I ^TT I I MM 
 
 M ^-r 2Wb§ § c c.Smo5<J 
 
 2 0>CDt-^«0^Tj4 ^ ^ fe'^^M^wWW^^ 
 
 H CO 00 lO Tj< CO Oi O S > r; rt -->>>> 
 
 MMM >'>'>>xx >'>>2 2 
 «*&1 t:3S-ScHEHHiJQ^a^CC<D0J>> 
 
 02 .S^^^ . O 0) es 
 
46 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 memory was tested. It was found that a good memory for 
 logical material did not follow from a good memory for 
 nonsense; that being able to remember visually presented 
 facts did not necessarily indicate ability to remember what 
 was heard. The result of these and similar observations has 
 been the development of tests dealing with specific types of 
 material, or — giving up the specific side entirely — tests of 
 general intelligence. Our data seem to indicate that real, 
 underlying differences do exist, if we only know how to get at 
 them. In order to prove this, it is necessary to have a test 
 with omnibus material, all of which is designed to measure 
 a certain type of thing. We shall now proceed to do this. 
 
A COMBINATION TEST FOR PLANFULNESS 
 
 The correlations in table XVI, particularly those obtained 
 between Porteus, Alpha 2, and P. C. II, seem to indicate the 
 possibility of a factor, common to all and largely determining 
 the score on each, which has nothing to do with the material 
 employed, that is, whether a language or non-language test, 
 or the like. We have suggested above several names for this 
 factor, — good judgment, common sense, deliberation, care- 
 fulness, foresight, good apperceptions, planfulness, persis- 
 tence, prudence and mental alertness in meeting a new sit- 
 uation, ability to see the whole of a situation instead of re- 
 acting to the most obvious part of it. An attempt was made 
 to investigate it more thoroughly by combining the elements 
 of each test which seemed most specifically to measure it. 
 The selection was made from the Porteus, Myers, Alpha 2, 
 P. C. II, and Stanford-Binet tests. All the tests selected 
 would require about twenty-five minutes to perform, this 
 being a liberal estimate based upon the time limit for each 
 test. Alpha 2 has no definite time limit, but from the writer's 
 experience, ten minutes would seem ample to allow for the 
 parts of the test included in this selection. When all the in- 
 dividual tests had been chosen, they were divided into two 
 sections, and a self-correlation of .763 was obtained with 80 
 cases. The tests in each group were : 
 
 I. Porteus — year 11 (scored 0, 1, 2) year 12 (scored 0, 1, 
 2,3,4). 
 
 Myers — pages 4. Numbers 3 and 7 (scored each 0, 1). 
 P. C. II — pictures 2 and 6 (scored 1 each if OK; other- 
 wise 0). 
 Alpha 2, Part II — difficulty 8 — number 4 (scored 0, 1). 
 
 Pintner — test 5, numbers 5 and 7 (scored each 0, 1). 
 
 Pintner — test 6, picture 2 pieces 2 and 1 (scored each 
 0,1). 
 
 Pintner — test 6, picture 3, pieces 4 and 1 (scored each 0, 
 
 1). 
 
 II. Porteus — year 10 (scored 0, 1, 2) year 14 (scored 0, 1, 
 2,3,4). 
 
 47 
 
48 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 Myers — page 4. Numbers 5 and 10 (scored each 0, 1). 
 P. C. II — pictures 7 and 8 (scored 1 each if OK; otherwise 
 0). 
 
 Alpha 2, Part II — difficulty 8 — number 1 (scored 0, 1). 
 Pintner — test 5, number 6 (scored 0, 1). 
 Pintner — test 6, picture 2, pieces 4 and 3 (scored each 
 0, 1). 
 
 Pintner — ^test 6, picture 3, pieces 2 and 3 (scored each 
 0,1). 
 Stanford-Binet — XIV years, number 6 (scored 0, 1). 
 
 The Porteus tests were chosen because they were devised 
 to measure this very thing. The fact that only one type of 
 material — mazes — was included, was considered by Porteus 
 one of the outstanding advantages of his test. We feel that 
 this is a disadvantage since some children might have a dis- 
 ability for working with this kind of material although 
 possessed of common sense, foresight, etc. With omnibus 
 material this special factor is overcome. The choice of the 
 four most difficut tests was largely a matter of the distri- 
 bution of the subjects. Too many would have made perfect 
 records on the easier tests. 
 
 The selection from Myers Mental Measure was based largely 
 upon resistance to suggestion. In each case four pictures 
 with some element in common must be chosen from eight 
 possible ones and underlined. These four could not be too 
 difficult or our subjects would all score 0; if they were too 
 easy we would have no reason to believe that this characteris- 
 tic pertained to them. Number 3 is the selection of four toys, 
 — a tricycle, top, kite and rocking horse, vdth a soldier as the 
 confusing picture. In number 5, four items made of iron must 
 be chosen, — a stove, dagger, or sword, train, and lock. This 
 has several confusing suggestions. There is a broom which 
 might be associated with the stove, and two animals which 
 might be connected with the train as they all are capable of 
 locomotion. Number 7 consists of an' insect, a broom, a bird, 
 a table, a butterfly, an aeroplane, a goat and a cow. The 
 four things which can travel in air are to be underlined. The 
 two animals prove confusing to many children. In number 
 10 the subject is to select four articles of wood, — two trees, a 
 barrel and a table, with a snake, a camel, a cannon, and a 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 49 
 
 bird to be omitted. Here also the three animals receive con- 
 siderable attention, the hasty child not noticing that the fourth 
 is lacking, or the snake is overlooked, the two remaining 
 animals and two trees being classed together as objects 
 possessing life. There seems to be some suggestion in each 
 of these pictures, and it is certainly true that a careful, 
 deliberate, performance by a subject who takes in the whole 
 situation and responds to it will give far better results than 
 a hasty, careless one. 
 
 The pictures from P. C. II are those in which there are 
 several obvious possibilities. A hasty, careless selection will 
 hit upon the first possible one, rather than searching further 
 for the exactly correct one. All correct pieces were checked 
 by asking the subject why that particular one had been chosen 
 and if it was put in by chance, no credit was given. The 
 partial credits given by Healy were omitted, the picture 
 scored either as perfect or a failure. This was necessary in 
 order to eliminate the other possible factors which enter into 
 solving the test partly. For instance, in the second picture, 
 where a book is missing, it is not sufficient to put in any book, 
 pencil case or lunch box, but by following up persistently all 
 the clues, the one and only correct red book can be placed in 
 the space with certainty. 
 
 From the Thorndike Alpha 2 reading scale questions were 
 selected which had been answered by a large number of 
 children. Question I requires a fairly careful study of the 
 paragraph in order to find just what it is that seems true at 
 first but is really false. The question is a little clumsily put, — 
 certainly not direct and to the point, — which is an advantage 
 for our purposes. Question 4 is not a reading scale problem 
 proper, but necessitates close attention to several directions. 
 In two rows of digits the subject must underline every five 
 that comes just after a two, unless the two comes just after 
 a nine. If that is the case, he must draw a line under the 
 next figure after the five. The last few lines of the 
 first page of the Myers Mental Measure are similar to this, 
 but the Alpha 2 was given to a larger number of cases, there 
 was no time limit, and less possibility of copying, so it was 
 given the preference, as being more accurate. 
 
 Numbers 5, 6, and 7 from Pintner test 5 are all similar in 
 nature. Given a drawing, the problem is to draw it in a 
 reversed position, with two lines of the second position given 
 
50 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 on which to construct the rest. This seems like a rather 
 special ability, but Pintner gives each drawing considerable 
 weight in his total score, and persistence and planfulness are 
 certainly essential for a good performance. 
 
 Pintner test 6 consists of parts of pictures presented in a 
 disarranged order. Each part is numbered and blank spaces 
 are provided in which the subject is to place the numbers of 
 the parts in order which would give a perfect ensemble. Here 
 again planfuness, patience, and foresight are needed, and on 
 the whole the subject who possesses them to the greatest 
 degree will be the most successful. 
 
 Finally one test was selected from the Stanf ord-Binet scale, 
 — namely the reversed clock hands of year XIV. If two out of 
 three were correct a score of one was given, if less no credit at 
 all. This test seemed to require the same kind of ability as 
 many of the other tests included, and was therefore added. 
 Some of the other Stanf ord-Binet series might have been used 
 also, but those which seemed desirable came too high or too 
 low in the scale so that the distribution for our subjects would 
 not be satisfactory. 
 
 The correlation of .763 obtained between the two parts is 
 fairly high when it is remembered that the highest score on 
 each section can only be 17 ; also that the whole series of both 
 parts would only take half an hour to give. As to reliability 
 it is a noteworthy conclusion that this self-correlation is the 
 highest one obtained with any non-identical material. A 
 correlation of the composite tests with any of the tests which 
 are included would probably give a high coefficient difficult 
 to interpret because of the varying amount of each included 
 in the composites, and a low correlation with learning tests, 
 construction tests, or tapping could hardly be considered 
 strong evidence in favor of our new grouping. But the 
 correlation with Stanford-Binet seemed worth finding, and 
 when worked out yielded a coefficient of .537. This indicates 
 that our combination test is comparable with the whole series 
 of tests from which it was compiled. We have, however, no 
 criterion to prove that it actually measures the trait which we 
 presuppose it does. But this same criticism applies to all the 
 tests which are supposed to measure specific factors. Our 
 new test combination of old material is certainly as good as 
 the tests from which it originated; we think it is better, be- 
 cause it gives evidence of measuring one trait, or group of 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 51 
 
 traits with a variety of materials, whereas all the others 
 measure many kinds of traits with identical or similar ma- 
 terial. That is, the classification and material preparatory 
 to the formation of a test has generally heretofore been along 
 the lines of the material employed, such as form boards, etc., 
 whereas the combination test being discussed presents the 
 results obtained from forming a test directed toward plan- 
 fulness, or other ability. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 It is proposed to set forth the practical results of this study, 
 to show the positive information that has been ascertained 
 and also to show from the experience gathered in the course 
 of obtaining such information, what further investigations 
 should be made, with what purpose, and what methods may- 
 lead to success. This study has reached some positive results 
 and has disclosed other perhaps more valuable ones in the 
 same field. 
 
 In entering upon this study it was believed that the results 
 of the method that has been pursued would justify the con- 
 clusion that the Stanford-Binet series can be used as a test of 
 general intelligence and that certain other tests used as auxili- 
 aries would make apparent and give a measure of special 
 abilities not individually measured by the Stanford-Binet. 
 It was expected that the various tests would give reasonably 
 high correlations with the Stanford-Binet and rather low 
 correlations with each other, thue on the one hand establishing 
 the reliability of the tests used, and on the other hand, the 
 diversity of the abilities that were subjected to measurement. 
 
 These results were anticipated because care was used in 
 selecting the tests to take those which had an approved author- 
 ship, an extended use, a definite purpose, and a general repu- 
 tation of success in the field they purported to cover. That 
 is, the various units had each been shown apparently to be 
 satisfactory and on these a priori grounds it was thought 
 that properly selected units used in conjunction would result 
 in a reliable schedule. 
 
 Had the results of the correlations been in harmony with 
 this anticipated situation, we might properly have pointed to 
 this study as a demonstration of the process by which sched- 
 ules of tests for children should be composed. 
 
 Looking upon our results as they have been reported upon, 
 the fact is obvious that there is no such easy manner in which 
 to arrive at reliable schedules of tests. Unexpected low cor- 
 relations were obtained in some situations where the indicated 
 results should have been high, and vice versa, and while our 
 positive purpose therefore met with disappointing obstacles, 
 a study of the figures as we have them led to other worth- 
 while conclusions. 
 
 62 
 
EVALUATED AND COMPARED 53 
 
 Drawing upon the results of the correlations, it can be 
 stated with assurance that it will not be well to take tests 
 upon which a high face value has been placed when they were 
 used without being effectively valued by comparison, and 
 combining a number of them in the expectation of using the 
 combination to get reliable information as to the general 
 intelligence and the special abilities of normal children. One 
 of the best examples which we can show, as a result of this 
 study, of the impropriety of such procedure is, that the type 
 of material used does not govern the abilities tested. We 
 obtained a higher correlation between a language and a non- 
 language test than between two language tests or two non- 
 language tests, similar examples can be drawn from the corre- 
 lations listed above respecting other characteristics of various 
 tests. Insofar therefore as authors of tests have relied upon 
 the material as a quality that would single out and measure a 
 certain one of many abilities, it seems clear that individual 
 tests miss their purpose. However, the correlations did seem 
 to show that something definite was being tested, so that 
 if our purpose of finding a schedule of tests at once sufficient 
 to measure both general and special abilities, was disap- 
 pointed, at least the schedule we used can be relied upon for 
 general abilities and that such a schedule is more reliable than 
 the Stanford-Binet alone. The components of this schedule 
 have been previously listed and it only remains to state what 
 individual matters of interest relating to each were made 
 clear in the course of the study which was directed to larger 
 purposes. 
 
 It was a matter of actual demonstration herein that all 
 of the construction tests used are unreliable, this conclusion 
 disproving the previously held opinion based upon empirical 
 considerations to the effect that they reliably measure ability 
 to handle concrete material. 
 
 Persons having occasion to apply mental tests have too 
 frequently overlooked the matter of how far the test can be 
 relied upon. This is an important matter and consequently 
 it should be of some interest to note that the reliability of the 
 Stanford-Binet, Pintner non-language group test, Thorndike 
 reading scale Alpha 2, Porteus Maze Test, and tapping test 
 has been established, whereas the Myers Mental Measure, 
 the Healy Pictorial Completion test II, the Healy-Bronner 
 
54 SOME WELL-KNOWN MENTAL TESTS 
 
 learning tests and the crossline tests are not yet definitely 
 shown to be reliable. 
 
 Care should also be observed in interpreting the results of 
 correlations, for the mere fact of high correlation is only 
 generally and not conclusively proof of reliability. There is 
 the possibility that factors causing unreliability have been 
 hidden — thus, in the tapping test, the high correlation with 
 Stanford-Binet was deceptive owing to the fact that the 
 scores on both increased with the age of the subjects. Other 
 specific remarks relating to individual tests are contained in 
 the results. 
 
 There remains to state what considerations we have found 
 to have a probable value as to future work in this field. If 
 we found on the one hand that the type of material used in 
 a test does not govern the ability tested, on the other hand 
 there are some indications that to test individual abilities the 
 test should have a variety of material. So far the elements 
 of a desired test can be stated, but the further necessity of 
 finding just what material is suitable, can only be determined 
 by practical work consisting of correlation with outside 
 criteria and with any other measures of claimed effectiveness 
 in the field in question. 
 
 As an experimental example, for the confines of this study 
 would allow no more extended investigation, various parts of 
 a number of the tests were united in a combination test in- 
 tended to secure a measure of planfulness. The resulting 
 correlations indicated success in this attempt. A similar or 
 even greater measure of success may follow further com- 
 binations aimed at the measurement of other abilities. 
 
 It may also be stated as having been illustrated in the course 
 of this study that the supposed merit of various mental tests 
 based upon various, insufficient or unscientific criteria, such 
 as mere hypothesis, or even practical results, if relied upon, 
 may lead to misleading or dangerous conclusions, and that 
 before one takes the responsibility of giving advice or of 
 taking action with respect to information gained from the ap- 
 plication of mental tests, there should be available the as- 
 surance that proper comparative tests and correlations have 
 verified the supposed propriety of relying upon the results. 
 
w 
 
 .w 
 
 VITA 
 
 The author of this dissertation was born in New York, August 25, 1898. 
 Secondary education was at Far Rockaway High School, taking highest 
 honors, and receiving Regents Scholarship for College. Vassar College, 
 1915-1917; Barnard College, Columbia University, 1917-1919; B. A. De- 
 gree Columbia University, 1919, Honors in Psychology; 1918, research 
 work for New Jersey State Institution for Feeble Minded; 1919-1920, 
 Fellowship at Judge Baker Foundation, Boston, Assistant Psychologist; 
 Columbia University, 1920-1922, Post Graduate Work in Psychology. 
 
T'X 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 
 °^^^^ • Jun7'47PW 
 
 nf^c 
 
 21 H.i 
 
 JUN 9 ifiy: 
 
 ■^^^ 
 
 Pro 2^ 
 
 m? 
 
 
 Duppr-?.-r"'' 
 
 affi'DJJ) »«R2l72-KflM31 
 
 • "i8'«: a 
 
 LD 21-100/n-7,'39(402s 
 
 m 
 m 
 
5n77r,3 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY