APPENDIX IX
The views of various psychologists who gave oral evidence before the Committee or sent memoranda on the following points:
(a) The factors involved in 'general' ability which must be included in testing for educable capacity.
(b) The need for testing for 'special' and 'group' abilities in determining educable capacity.
Mr WILLIAM BROWN, MD, DSc, MRCP, late Reader in Psychology in the University of London (King's College), Reader in Mental Philosophy in the University of Oxford.
FACTORS INVOLVED IN 'GENERAL' ABILITY
There was a difference of opinion between psychologists as to whether or not there was one central factor known as 'general' ability. Some said that there was such a factor, others said that there was not, whilst others again held that there were 'group' abilities. He personally had found evidence of the correlation between 'group' abilities. But the evidence was not sufficiently convincing to support the view that such correlation was governed by one central factor pervading all abilities. He was inclined to favour the view that there was such a thing as general ability with sub-factors. At any rate he was of opinion that the factors involved in 'general' ability could only be determined empirically, with the aid of the mathematical theory of correlation. Professor Spearman, working from the standpoint of the mathematical theory
[page 226]
of correlation regarded his results as evidence of one central factor. Professor Thomson said that if one took a number of chance abilities and worked out the results one would get by chance the same hierarchy. Professor Thomson said, therefore, that the hierarchy was due to chance, but witness was not convinced that that view was right. He did not consider that such a divergence of views would affect the use of mental tests.
There was evidence in favour of the existence of both 'special' and 'group' abilities, and, therefore, both classes of abilities should be tested for in determining educable capacity.
Mr CYRIL BURT, DSc, Psychologist to the London County Council.
FACTORS INVOLVED IN 'GENERAL ABILITY'
Dr Burt stated that the educational capacity of a child at any period of his life might be assumed to depend on mental factors of two kinds: (i) inborn psychological abilities of a relatively elementary and general nature; and (ii) acquired capacities of a more complex and specific character, chiefly memories and habits, such as particular items of knowledge and particular forms of skill. The distinction between the inborn and acquired capacities was mainly theoretical.
Of inborn psychological capacities, 'general intelligence ' was by far the most important, as it was also by far the most easily tested. 'General intelligence' comprised a number of factors, but witness would regard it more as a single complex quality than as a group of independent elements. It was best measured by tasks requiring the voluntary maintenance of attention, quick and accurate learning (in the broader sense of the word, namely, adaptation to relatively novel conditions), and on the higher mental levels, reasoning. These should, perhaps, be regarded rather as modes of general ability, than as elements entering into general ability as component factors. Of other inborn elementary capacities, the next most important for educational purposes was probably that which might be described as 'long distance mechanical memory'. By 'long distance' memory witness meant a memory that could retain its powers over a period of weeks or months rather than of minutes; and by 'mechanical memory' he meant recollection of things in arbitrary connection, e.g. historical dates rather than the gist of a continuous passage of prose. The factors he had mentioned were not the only factors, but probably the most important. There was, for example, another factor of lesser importance, namely, imagery. These inborn abilities were inherited at birth and could
[page 227]
not be inculcated. There was, therefore, a point of maximum attainment fixed by congenital limitations beyond which a child could not go, and to which many in fact did not reach.
TESTING OF 'SPECIAL' AND 'GROUP' ABILITIES
Like most intellectual characteristics that had been subjected to statistical analysis, educational attainments appeared to depend upon capacities of two orders: (i) a more general capacity entering into all subjects alike - a capacity in which 'general intelligence' was the chief factor; (ii) special capacities limited to particular subjects or particular groups of subjects. Of these latter, the most important, or at least the most easily demonstrable in the ordinary elementary school, appeared to be: (a) linguistic or literary ability; (b) arithmetical ability; and (c) manual ability, to which might perhaps be added (d) artistic capacity; and (e) musical capacity. Dr Burt considered that it was possible, and would be useful, to develop a series of tests for measuring most of these capacities in schools.
Mr JAMES DREVER, DPhil, Combe Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Edinburgh
GENERAL ABILITY
'General ability' is a somewhat indefinite expression. Its meaning will necessarily vary according to the criterion with reference to which ability is determined. The acid test of life may lead to a verdict very different from that based upon school or academic success, and in precisely the same way school success may not bear out the verdict based upon the results of our special tests for 'general ability'. Personally I think I succeed in keeping matters clear in my own mind by distinguishing between 'tendency' and 'capacity' in the natural endowment of the human being. In discussing the subject of mental testing, it is certain that some such distinction must be drawn and adhered to. As a general rule mental tests are tests of 'capacity' and do not profess to be more. Indirectly and incidentally they may throw valuable light on 'tendency', but they are not specifically adapted for this purpose, and it would seem well nigh impossible to adapt them, at least on any basis of mental testing yet proposed. In what follows it must therefore be understood that 'general ability' and 'educable capacity', though really including factors of the 'tendency' order - especially the former - are, for the purpose of the present discussion, being taken more narrowly, and in the strict sense of 'capacity' as opposed to 'tendency'.
[page 228]
Miss BEATRICE EDGELL, PhD, Lecturer in Philosophy, Bedford College, and University Reader in Psychology in the University of London
FACTORS INVOLVED IN GENERAL ABILITY
The factors to be included fell into three groups:
(I) The processes basic to, and constitutive of, intellect, viz. motor ability, attention, memory, imagination, analytic comparison, generalisation, inference.
(II) The functioning of intellect:
(1) In the command of language.
(2) In the application of past experience to theoretical and practical problems.
(3) In the use of standards of judgement and in the quality of judgements.
(III) The interest determinants of theoretical and practical ability.
The Binet-Simon tests in their original and adapted forms, and 'alpha' test of the American Army, the College entrance tests, the Hamburg Secondary School selection tests, in so far as they were not information tests, fell under groups I and II. The educational bearing of the psychological doctrines of instinct and interest was not adequately recognised in existing tests, but was of first-rate importance in interpreting results (Group III).
To a great extent interest and ability went together, and it was almost impossible to test one without the other. A child was born with certain range of instinctive ability varying in degree in different directions, such ability determining interest, but the child had also spontaneous activity and from this as well as from his instincts developed the interests which made up his individuality. Unless ability was tested along the lines of interest the child had not a fair chance of making a good score.
SPECIAL AND GROUP ABILITIES
The whole question of 'special' and 'group' abilities was still in the melting pot. The validity of inferences based on correlation co-efficients as to group abilities or a general common factor was questionable. The conditions upon which excellence of performance in a particular set of tests depended were insufficiently known. Theories as to group abilities, levels, transfer of training, application of a common method, appeal to a common interest, needed further elucidation. In the present state of ignorance a varied range of tests was essential.
A definite programme of tests extending over a considerable period of time and carried out on an extensive scale was necessary for solution of this and other problems.
[page 229]
The late Mr JA GREEN, Professor of Education at the University of Sheffield
THE NATURE OF INTELLIGENCE
Investigation had so far been based upon two assumptions:
(a) that intelligence was something in the nature of mind energy (a central factor), which entered, in varying degrees, into all controlled behaviour, from simple repeated movement through sensory discrimination to the recognition of analogies and opposites, from the most elementary function (single factors isolated as far as possible) to the most complex function (group factors working in combination).
(b) That a hierarchical system of correlations was evidence of the existence of a central factor.
On the first point one might perhaps urge the biological point of view as more likely to help us in deciding upon the nature of intelligence. It seemed from that standpoint to be best defined as the integrative function of mind. In the last resort this integrative function found expression in adaptive behaviour. (He used the word integrative, rather than integrating, in order to avoid confusion with the mathematical use of the word. Here he meant the capacity for seeing relations, for systematisation if thought better, but not summation). Failure to integrate one's world meant incoherence in one's behaviour within that world. If general ability meant intelligence as he had defined it, it was a single function operating 'at call', but with varying efficiency. It ought to integrate, to unify experience, but it operated at various cognitive levels.
On the second point the question whether a hierarchy of correlations could be artificially produced where there was no central factor at work, and whether the mere discovery of a hierarchy was, therefore, conclusive evidence of the existence of a central factor, were under dispute and the witness was awaiting the outcome.
At this point one might perhaps usefully draw a distinction between intellect and intelligence. The biologist distinguished tacitly between them when he spoke of an order of intelligence in the animal world. A dog might be very intelligent, but never intellectual. A workman was often very intelligent though even under the most favourable environment he would not have been intellectual. Conversely, highly intellectual men were sometimes less intelligent than they were intellectual. Gaucherie and absent-mindedness, and even childishness, were features commonly expressed in the caricature of the professor. This might, of course, be expressed in another way. Mind never worked in a vacuum. It might create a world of its own and determine behaviour with reference to that
[page 230]
world. Within this intellectually created world, the professor was highly intelligent, but he had in the process of building his world lost touch with that of ordinary men, in which world therefore he often behaved foolishly.
If this view were true, it seemed to follow -
(a) That intelligence was not a summation of parts, or a multi-dimensional entity capable of resolution in certain directions.
(b) That intelligence was correlative to the universe in which it worked. As the universe developed, intelligence developed. They conditioned each other, and intelligence was revealed by its universe of operation. In other words one could not measure a potential intelligence, though one might, in some sense, gauge an active intelligence by a comparative estimate of its efficiency within its sphere of work. Intelligence did not exist in vacuo. Professor Green did not agree with the expert psychologists who said that the intelligence of the individual did not grow after about the age of 15 or 16. He considered that as a man's environment expanded so his intelligence grew. He would accept the statement that a man of 40 would do no better than a boy of 16 in certain psychological tests (e.g. in the detection of absurdities), but he would not accept such tests as a measure of intelligence. The man of 40 required a different test of intelligence from the boy of 16. If we are to give both the same test, it must obviously be a test within the universe of the 16 year old. That meant a serious handicap for the older man. It was perhaps comparable to a test devised to compare the intelligence of a child and a dog. To make comparison possible the test must have reference to a world in which both child and dog could function. Might not the dog prove superior in such a case?
(c) That tests of intelligence must take into chief consideration the world in which the persons concerned had been living, and the possibilities of their rising to the demands of a larger world.
Thus the comparison of one intelligence with another involved the consideration of at least four factors - the two universes, and the two efficiencies within those universes.
For example:
A in a universe a, had efficiency .75.
B in a universe b, had efficiency .5.
The universe b was, however, x times more complex than the universe a. Then, what was the relation of the intelligence of A to that of B? Whatever answer one might give to this problem did
[page 231]
not meet the whole need, for A in the simple universe a might not be stretched to his full power. His efficiency in universe c, which was y times as complex as a, might actually rise to .85 - a situation not uncommon in comparing results in the universe of school with those in the universe of life. One wanted, in fact, something in the nature of a co-efficient of elasticity in making comparisons amongst intelligencies. This might be a constant in a given individual. If so, it was the most important of all.
THE NEED FOR TESTING FOR 'SPECIAL' AND 'GROUP' ABILITIES
With regard to the need for testing 'special' and 'group' abilities. Professor Green said that if this meant the various types of universe in which different 'intelligence' might operate most efficiently there was probably real need for enquiry in this direction. Psychological tests were probably used very slightly anywhere except in America.
There were some practical difficulties in assessing intelligence (arising from its mode of working).
(a) Intelligence was often curiously shy. Even in the same person its operative force could not be steadily guaranteed. This was shown by the relatively low reliability co-efficients often obtained in various kinds of problem work.
(b) Intelligence was apt to show itself in restricted fields, or to operate with varying efficiency in different fields, e.g. a class of fifty boys (Standard VA) working arithmetical problems and Burt's reasoning tests gave a correlation as low as .34.
There were many schoolboys (perhaps more schoolgirls) who were prevented from matriculating by the requirements in mathematics.
These differences were probably due to fundamental differences (e.g. simple quantitative relations) in sensitivity. Restriction of this kind, however, meant an intelligence of restricted range, and a test in a wrong field would give a very unreliable result for the individual concerned.
(c) Even though intelligence was defined as the integrative function of mind the integrative process really included analysis. It could only put together what it has previously taken to pieces, but the taking to pieces (when it was conscious), must have been done upon a plan which itself was the outcome of an integral view, and when it was not conscious, as in childhood, the analysis followed more or less closely, a plan determined by our
[page 232]
racial history. The difference between a penetrating and a superficial intelligence was due to differences in analytical power. So we were brought back again to the capacity to see things as wholes as being a fundamental characteristic of intelligence.
Mr EO LEWIS, DSc, MRCS
FACTORS OF GENERAL ABILITY
Dr Lewis said that all tests of general ability were really tests of special abilities. Although there is a 'common factor' involved in general ability, no tests yet devised measure this factor directly. The most important factors involved in general ability are voluntary attention, reasoning, the ability to choose the essentials in any situation, and the power to apply previous knowledge in solving new problems.
One method of approaching this problem was to find what mental tests differentiated most definitely the normal from the subnormal person. Records with the following Binet tests showed the greatest disparity between these two classes of persons:
Comprehension of difficult questions.
Reconstruction of dissected sentences.
Detection of absurdities.
Definition in terms superior to use.
Definition of abstract terms.
Tests of immediate memory.
Counting backwards.
These results supported Binet's view of the importance of linguistic ability in the assessment of general intelligence. The failure of subnormal persons in the tests for immediate memory witness believed to be due chiefly to defective concentration of attention; and their failure in counting backwards to inability to manipulate mental associations previously acquired. These opinions were based on investigations, lasting over many months, that he had carried out amongst mentally defective children. The poor memories of defective children were due not so much to subnormal physiological retentiveness as to their inability to adopt systematic and rational method of learning. There were cases, however, where defective children possessed extraordinary memories, but such children often failed hopelessly with such practical tests as Healy's Construction Board.
SPECIAL AND GROUP ABILITIES
The present system of educating children in large classes made it difficult to recognise special abilities, and still more difficult to foster them. Specially devised psychological tests could give the teacher valuable information in this respect.
[page 233]
In the past, the failure to analyse carefully the child's mental processes had led us to attribute to general intelligence much that was really a manifestation of special abilities.
In the study of mentally defective children specific disabilities seemed to be of greater significance than the general mental retardation.
Mr B MUSCIO, formerly Investigator to the Industrial Fatigue Research Board (now Challis Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney)
'GENERAL' ABILITY
Mr Muscio suggested that educable capacity might not be a unitary thing, but that a person might be educable in one direction and not in another. Sufficient investigation had been done to justify persistent research into this suggestion. Probably, however, educable capacity of any sort demanded the presence of the following three factors, involved in 'general' ability.
(a) The capacity to perceive or apprehend relations.
(b) The capacity to adjust thinking and action to new conditions; and
(c) The capacity to combine particular experiences into significant wholes.
The two latter factors might be dependent upon the first, which would then be the fundamental factor concerned. But the capacity to perceive relations was possibly specialised. There was the person who could best perceive relations in concrete objects, such as machines, and the person who could best perceive relations among ideas expressed in words. Possibly those cases indicated different levels of 'general' ability rather than different kinds of it.
Mr T PERCY NUNN, DSc, Principal of the London Day Training College and Professor of Education in the University of London
THEORY OF TESTS
Dr Nunn stated that in testing a person the aim was at bottom, always the same; namely, to infer from the way in which he dealt with a given situation the way in which he was likely to deal with others. The inference was safer the more closely the subsequent situations resembled the first, but it was never free from an element of risk. A boy might jump a certain height today, but it was not certain that he would be able to reproduce the feat tomorrow. In general, however, the situations contemplated in the inference were of necessity different from the test situation, and might differ
[page 234]
from it very widely - as when from the quality of a young man's Greek verses his probable capacity as an administrator was inferred. In such cases the inference was valid only if it were known beforehand that the capacities brought into play in the test situation and in the subsequent situations were, if not identical, at least definitely correlated. In other words, the procedure must be based upon a well-founded theory of abilities.
At present there was no such theory universally accepted by psychologists. It might be taken as agreed that situations could be classified into groups, such that inference was always possible from observed ability to deal with one situation to probable ability to deal with another of the same group. For instance, a boy who was good at tennis was very likely to be good at racquets, fives and badminton; and one who learnt Latin easily would probably learn certain other languages easily. The question in dispute was whether ability in one group was a valid basis for inferring ability in a group which appeared to have nothing in common with the former. To that question Professor Thorndike has replied 'No', Professor Spearman, 'Yes'.
It was somewhat widely believed that Professor Godfrey Thomson who had dealt with the subject very acutely, had recently proved Dr Spearman's answer to be untenable. This was a mistake. Spearman had expanded his 'Yes' into the statement that a single 'central intellective factor' entered into the constitution of all varieties of intellectual performance; it was against this statement, and, in particular, against the chief mathematical argument used to support it, that Thomson had directed his attacks. It must not, however, be assumed that these attacks had been successful. From personal discussion. Professor Nunn had gathered that Professor Thomson did not dispute the position in the form in which witness had expressed it; namely, that a person's powers to deal with situations of widely differing character were, in so far as they involved intellect, connected systematically in such a way that it was always possible to make an inference from his ability in dealing with one type to his probable ability in dealing with another type. And that Professor Nunn took to be the essence of Professor Spearman's contention. He himself agreed with this contention.
The controversy had far more than mere academic interest; for unless Spearman's view, as Professor Nunn had put it, was sound, inferences based upon the results of tests - whether the new psychological tests or the older competitive examinations - must often be sadly precarious.
He agreed that there were sufficient instances of people being abnormally gifted in one activity and far below normal in all others to make the subject an important one for discussion. At present
[page 235]
there was no explanation; a partial explanation might be that the one subject had sapped all the individual's interest, leaving none for other subjects. There was also evidence of people whose interest took one direction at first and another direction later. With regard to great musicians witness considered that ability in music must also presuppose general ability.
He would define precocity in children as the premature emergence of certain faculties as compared with the average time of emergence in normal children. He was not prepared to say that a child could be precocious in one form of ability and of less than average ability in other forms; it was probably more true to say that precocity meant more general capacity at a certain age.
Mr CA RICHARDSON, HM Inspector of Schools
Note. It is to be understood that the opinions expressed by Mr Richardson are his private views, and must not be taken to represent the opinion or the policy of the Board of Education.
THE FACTORS INVOLVED IN 'GENERAL' ABILITY WHICH MUST BE INCLUDED IN TESTING FOR EDUCABLE CAPACITY
Mr Richardson said that while it should not be forgotten that in all mental processes the mind worked as a whole, and therefore any isolation of special factors was largely arbitrary and abstract, the various aspects of intelligence might be conveniently classified so far as testing for educable capacity was concerned, as follows:
(1) Readiness and ability in applying knowledge.
(2) Discrimination of essentials.
(3) Associative processes: (a) richness and maturity; (b) logical integrity.
(4) Power to control and concentrate attention.
(5) Power of comprehension.
(6) Ability to hold in mind the conditions of a problem.
(7) Practical judgement and ingenuity.
(8) Steadiness of purpose.
(9) Power of forming abstract ideas.
(10) Power of generalisation.
(11) Critical ability, including self-criticism.
(12) Ability to manipulate imagery.
The items on the above list were, of course, far from being mutually exclusive; there was considerable overlapping. Attention, for example, entered into all 'intelligent' mental processes, and association into nearly all. But it was possible to say of any well devised intelligence test, that it tested certain aspects of intelligence more particularly than others, and a set of tests should certainly be
[page 236]
constructed in such a way as to afford evidence of the child's capacity in all the above directions, if valid conclusions were to be drawn as to his educable capacity.
THE NEED FOR TESTING 'SPECIAL' AND 'GROUP' ABILITIES IN DETERMINING EDUCABLE CAPACITY
Mr Richardson thought it unlikely that special abilities existed in the same sense as general ability. It was becoming sufficiently evident that in all forms of 'intelligent' mental activity there was present a certain factor to which the name 'general ability' might fairly be given. It then seemed probable that special ability or (better) 'aptitude', was a combination of general ability and special interest, and, in some cases, special temperamental and physical characteristics.
Hence in determining educable capacity the prime necessity was to determine the level of general ability. In children of superior intelligence this would usually be sufficient, for as a result of the tests they would be known to be easily educable, and any special aptitude would, without doubt, show itself in the natural course of their development. But in the case of children of a low degree of intelligence, it would be extremely useful to discover their special aptitude (if any), for it would then be possible to make the most of their limited educable capacity.
Briefly then, supposing all children to be tested for general ability, it was desirable in the case of those testing below a certain level, to make further suitable tests in order to discover their special aptitudes.
Mr GODFREY H THOMSON, DSc, PhD, Professor of Education at Armstrong College, Newcastle-on-Tyne
GENERAL ABILITY
He was not personally a believer in the existence of a 'faculty' called general ability. He considered that the statistical work of those who affirmed this theory was of doubtful validity. He had, of course, no objection to the popular use of the term to indicate the average ability which a man showed.
His own opinion was that ability in man was a very much more complex affair than this, and he was convinced that differences of type occurred which were not explicable by a general factor plus a unique or specific factor. It was not necessary to postulate the existence of a general factor, but educational units should be considered. The fact that a man was better in any particular activity was due to the pruning away of unnecessary mental factors.
[page 237]
Mr FRANK WATTS, Assistant Inspector of Schools, formerly Lecturer in Psychology in the University of Manchester and in the Department of Industrial Administration of the College of Technology, Manchester
Note. It is to be understood that the opinions expressed by Mr Watts are his private views, and must not be taken to represent the opinion or the policy of the Board of Education.
FACTORS INVOLVED IN 'GENERAL' ABILITY
The ability that became and remained 'general' was probably rare. 'General ability', as the psychologist knew it, was the form of intelligence which was of the nature of intellect as distinct from instinct or intuition - it involved the capacity to deal with 'general' ideas. Tests like the USA army Alpha tests would discover general intellectual ability. The young child had general intelligence rather than 'general ability' - if one might be allowed to differentiate; it was general ability undeveloped, still at the concrete level, which he displayed. The only method of testing general intelligence at this stage would seem to be to take samples of ability in a very large number of diverse performances. This was impossible practically. A sampling would usually introduce the element of unfairness.
'SPECIAL' AND 'GROUP' ABILITIES
The 'special' abilities which needed investigation were:
I.
(1) Musical ability Witness recommended the use of the Seashore Gramophone Test Records for this purpose. (Ability to discriminate differences of pitch and intensity, sense of consonance and tonal memory were tested).
(2) Arithmetical capacity The ordinary examinations usually did this, but they were occasionally apt not to produce thoroughly reliable results.
(3) Language capacity This was usually tested via composition. Added information could be secured from children's gradings of a number of compositions of obviously varying merit.
(4) Drawing capacity and mechanical dexterity Witness knew of no reliable tests.
II.
Arising from the above and energised by particular 'instincts' and 'interests' are many of the aptitudes making for success in industry, trade and commerce. At present these are untestable.
[page 238]
Mr WH WINCH, District Inspector of Schools under the London County Council
GENERAL ABILITY
Mr Winch said that the meaning and existence of general ability was much disputed among psychologists. The older conception of faculties was largely given up. Personally he would include a test in Rote Memory, Substance Memory, Imagination and Reasoning as necessary to estimate so-called general ability, with possibly a Perception test. There was a difference between 'rote memory' and 'substance memory': the one entailed the memorising and reproduction of words and the other the reproduction of ideas underlying the passage to be memorised. Of the two 'substance memory' was usually the better done, as it was the easier. The ability for rote memory and for substance memory steadily rose up to the end of the elementary school age.
Whether abilities did fall into 'groups' was again a matter of dispute among psychologists. Using the term 'general ability' loosely as a sum or average of several factors, witness thought that tests should be used in all cases, where possible, as above indicated. Special tests would be required for draughtsmanship and constructive ability of a mechanical kind in addition to those of linguistic constructiveness involved in the general ability tests.
[page 239]
INDEX
Absurdities - specimens of 17, 216
Acton and Chiswick Junior Technical School - use of individual tests at 159
Aesthesiometer - use of in testing for touch discrimination 7, 101
Algebra - tests in 46
Altona - see Germany
America, United States of
Army - use of tests in 36, 50, 179
specimens of tests used in Army 210
Binet-Simon Scale, revisions of 30
Boston Vocation Bureau, work of 48
schools, note on grades in 190
use of tests in (general) 26, 37, 178
performance tests 42
standardised scholastic tests 44, 45
vocational tests 48, 182
Amsterdam - see Holland
Analogies
specimens of 16, 208
use of 88
Anatomical stigmata - see Physical tests
Anderson, Miss GM - use of individual and group tests by 157
Application of tests - training of persons who apply tests 105, 139
Apprentice Schools - vocational selection for 52
Aquinas, St Thomas - definition of 'intelligence' 68
Aristotle - on distinction between 'general' and 'special' intelligence 15
Arithmetic - tests in 45, 46, 88, 220
Association tests - use of 88
Attention - use of tests of 131, 144
Austria - use of tests in 164
Ayres, Dr LP
scale of tests in handwriting by 45
spelling by 45
Ballard, Dr PB
absurdity tests by 17
arithmetic tests by 46
specimens of Chelsea tests by 215
use of tests by 158
see also Chelsea tests
Baltimore - see America
Barcelona - see Spain
'Batteries' 207
Belgium - use of tests in 51, 165
Berlin - see Germany
Berne - see Switzerland
Bertillon, Monsieur - determination of 'physical' constants by 23
Bibliography - list of recent publications in psychology and psychological tests 191
[page 240]
Binet, Dr A
correlational methods by 13
'intelligence' - conception of 69
tests by - for measuring re-action time 10
standardised scholastic tests 45
of temperament and character 55, 56, 93
of touch discrimination 7
see also Binet-Simon Scale
Binet-Simon Scale
examples of 200
history of 22
limitations of 40, 76, 142
list of works on 193
measurement of intelligence by 27
merits and disadvantages of 78
revisions of:
by Goddard 30
the London Revision 32
the Stanford Revision 31, 77, 84
the Terman Extension 84
the Treves Saffiotti Method 33
the Vineland Revision 30
the Yerkes Point Scale 30, 83
use of:
for blind and deaf children 78
Junior Scholarships 78
mentally deficient children 23, 78, 82
super-normal children 78
Bingham, Dr WV - testing in American army by 51
Birmingham - use of tests in the administration of justice 54
Blackpool - use of group tests for junior scholarship purposes at 38, 149
Blind children - use of tests for 78
Bordeaux - see France
Boston - see America
Bourdon, Monsieur - use of tests of vision by 8
Bradford - use of group tests for Junior Scholarship purposes at 37, 152
Breslau - see Germany
Bristol University - use of tests at the Department of Education of 39
Brno (Brünn) - see Czechoslovakia
Brown, Dr W
views on 'general' ability 225
physical tests 101
Brugmans, Dr - use of tests by 173
Brussels - see Belgium
Buckingham, Dr BR - tests in spelling by 45
Burt, Dr Cyril
bibliography by 191
correlation, note on 185
development of psychological tests - historical sketch of 1
examples of tests selected by 199
London Revision of Binet-Simon scale by 32, 203
'intelligence,' views on 15, 70, 226
investigations at Oxford and Liverpool 15
norms of performance, views on 96, 183
physical tests, views on 102
standardised scholastic tests, views on 96, 183
Canal boat children - mental testing of by Mr Hugh Gordon 40
Cancellation tests - description of 8
[page 241]
Cattell, Prof - researches of 5
tests of temperament and character by 55
Central Committee - see Clearing house
Central Schools
use of tests for admission to 78, 111, 141
use of tests in 127, 142
Character
importance of 73
tests of 53, 93, 132, 144
list of works on 197
Charlottenburg - see Germany
Chelsea Tests
description of 17, 46
specimens of 215
use of 158
see also Ballard, Dr PB
Cheltenham, Pate's Grammar School - use of group tests at 38, 160
Chemistry - tests in 46
Chicago - see America
China - use of tests in 165
Christiania - see Norway
Cipher Test - specimens of 216
Civil Service Examinations - use of group tests in 39
Clearing House - necessity for 106, 135, 144
Cleveland (Ohio) - see America
Coaching - advantages and disadvantages of special preparation for tests 103
Clock Tests - inclusion of in the Vineland Revision 30
Code tests - inclusion of in the Vineland Revision 30
Collective tests - see group tests
Completion tests
invention of 25
specimens of 209
use of 88
Composition - tests in 46
Construction of tests to be entrusted to trained psychologist 105, 136
Copenhagen - see Denmark
Corberi, Professor - use of tests by 174
Correlation
degree of between tests and other examinations 38, 39
explanation of 13, 185
Courtis, Professor SA - Arithmetic Tests by 46
Cube Construction Test - specimen of 206
Cube Imitation Test - specimen of 206
Czechoslovakia - use of tests in 166
Deaf children - use of tests for 78
Defective children - see Mental deficiency
Delinquent children - testing of 53, 54, 199
Denmark - use of tests in 166
Denver - see America
de Sanctis, Professor Taute
construction of tests by 34
use of tests by 86, 173, 174
Diagonal test - description of 206
Differential Psychology - origin of 1
Dobson, Mr RR - use of tests at Cheltenham Grammar School by 38, 160
Drawing - tests in 46
Dressmaking - vocational tests in 223
[page 242]
Drever, Dr James
views on 'general' ability 227
views on standardised scholastic tests 97
Drummond, Dr WB - use of de Sanctis Tests by 35
Ebbinghaus, Dr H - use of the Kombinations-Methode (Completion Method) Tests 25, 88
Edgell, Dr Beatrice - views on 'general' ability and 'special' or 'group' abilities 228
Elementary Schools
use of group tests in 19, 125, 142
use of individual tests in 125
use of standardised scholastic tests in 130
use of vocational tests in 130
Emotion
connection between emotion and general educable capacity 95
testing of 54, 55
Environment - effect of on 'intelligence' 75, 138
Examinations
aims of 109
classification of various kinds of 109
connection of tests with ordinary examinations 108, 140
defects of 63, 65, 115
First and Second School Examinations 111, 138
Free Place Examinations 108, 113, 118, 141
objections to any scheme of examination which determines educational future of any child at 11 years of age 108, 138
oral examinations 120, 132, 141, 160
stereotyped 44
Finland - use of tests in 167
Fontégne, Prof. J - use of vocational tests by 168
France
use of tests in 25, 45, 167
use of standardised scholastic tests in 45
use of vocational tests in 167
Free Place Examinations - see Scholarships
Gall - system of phrenology by 2
Galton, Sir Francis - researches into mental testing 5, 7, 20, 55, 56
Galvanometer - use of 57
Gemelli, Professor - use of tests by 174
General ability
Burt's verification of the theory of 15
Spearman's theory of 14, 225
various hypotheses regarding 68, 225
see also Intelligence
General factor - see Intellect
Geneva - see Switzerland
Geography - tests in 46
Germany - use of tests in 25, 51, 168
Gilbert, Professor - use of tests by 7, 8, 10
Gypsy children - testing of by Mr Hugh Gordon 40
Goddard, Dr HH - revision of Binet-Simon Scale by 30
Gordon, Mr Hugh - mental testing of gypsy and canal boat children 40
Gothenburg - see Sweden
Green, the late Professor JA
investigation into standardised scholastic tests by 46
views on the nature of 'intelligence' 229
Groningen - see Holland
[page 243]
Group tests of intelligence
comparative merits and disadvantages of, as compared with individual tests 90
specimens of 207
training of those engaged in the administration of 105
use of (general) 19, 35, 37, 87, 138, 141, 142
at Rugby School 35, 162
for adults 39
in American Army 36, 50, 179
at Blackpool 38, 149
at Bradford 37, 152
in Civil Service Examinations 39
in Free Place and Junior Scholarship Examinations 37, 38, 114, 118, 119, 126, 141, 149
in Leicestershire 152
in London 157
in Northumberland 38, 153
in Yorkshire, West Riding 153
Halle - see Germany
Hamburg - see Germany
Handwriting
Ayres' scale for 45
Thorndike's scale for 45
Harvard university - see America
Healy puzzle test - description of 206
Hearing, tests of - see Sensory tests
Helsingfors - see Finland
History - tests in 46
Holland
use of tests in 173
use of vocational tests in 51, 173
Ikin, Dr AE - use of group tests and standardised scholastic tests by 38, 149
Individual Psychology - origin of 1
Individual tests
the Binet-Simon Scale 22, 143
comparative merits and disadvantages of as compared with group tests 90
place of in interviews 92
specimens of 200
training of those engaged in their administration 105, 139
use of in Free Place Examinations 152, 157
use of in schools 159, 189
Industrial Fatigue Research Board
experiments in performance tests by 43
experiments in vocational tests by 51
Intellect - existence of intellectual factors 19, 225
Intelligence
meaning of as used by psychologists 67, 137, 225
see also General ability
Interpretation of results of tests - training of those interpreting results 105, 134, 136
Interviews
place of individual tests in 92
use of manual tests in 93
list of works on 198
see also Oral examinations
Isaacs, Mrs SS - views on the connection between emotion and general educable capacity 95
Italy
use of the doctrine of anatomical stigmata by the Italian School of Criminology 2
use of tests in 173
[page 244]
Japan - use of tests in 174
Jones, Dr Caradoc - physical tests by 102
Jung, Dr CG - Psychoanalysis by 56
Junior Technical Schools - use of tests in 127, 142, 159
Kalamazoo - see America
Kelley, Mr FJ - tests in reading by 46
Kraepelin, Dr - researches of 13
Latin - tests in 46
Lavater - ideas of on physiogonomy 2
Leicestershire - use of tests in examinations for free places in 152
Lewis, Dr EO - views of on 'general' ability and 'special' and 'group' abilities 232
Linguistic tests - limitations of 40
Lombroso, Cesare - work of on anatomical stigmata 3
London
use of group tests at Mile End Central School 159
use of individual and group tests at the Ben Jonson Council School, Stepney 157
use of performance tests in 42
use of standardised scholastic tests in 47
use of tests at:
Bedford College 39
London Day Training College 39
University College 39
London Revision of Binet-Simon Scale
description of 32
specimens of 203
Luxemburg - use of tests in 174
McDougall's plunger - use of 101
Manchester - use of physical tests at 102
Manual tests
use of in interviews 93
use of in vocational testing 98, 130
list of works on 196
Marking results of tests - training of persons to mark results 105
Memory
specimens of tests of 218
use of tests of 131, 144
Mental age
constancy of 65, 85
construction of a scale of by Binet 27
Mental deficiency
diagnosis of by means of Binet-Simon scale 28, 82
use of tests for determining 41, 126, 134, 139, 140, 178, 198
Mental imagery
Galton's researches into 20
use of tests of 131
Milan - see Italy
Mixed relations test - see Analogies
Modena - see Italy
Morality - tests of 58
Motor tests
correlation between intelligence and speed of re-action time 10, 16
measurement of re-action time 10
use of 9, 18
Müller, Mr EK - discovery of psycho-galvanic re-action by 56
Mumford, Dr A - physical tests by 102
Munroe, Mr WS - tests of reading by 46
Münsterberg, Professor Hugo - experiments in vocational selection by 49
Muscio, Professor B - views on 'general' ability 233
Muscle sense - see Sensory tests
[page 245]
Nantes - see France
National Institute of Industrial Psychology
aims of 51
vocational tests by 221
work of 51
National Intelligence Scale
use of in America 36
use of at Blackpool 38
use of in Northumberland 154
Neurotic children - testing of 53
New Haven - see America
New Rochelle - see America
Norms of performance
necessity of 96
note on by Dr Cyril Burt 183
Norsworthy, Dr Naomi - tests of temperament and character by 55
Northumberland - use of tests for Junior Scholarships in 38, 153
Northumberland Tests
use of for Junior Scholarships 38, 153
examples of 214
see also Thomson, Professor Godfrey H
Norway - use of tests in 174
Nunn, Professor Percy
views of on norms of performance 97
views of on theory of tests 233
Oakland (California) - see America
Oehrn Dr - use of tests of visual discrimination by 8
Opposites - examples of 207
Oral examinations
further research desirable 141
importance of 120, 132, 141
list of works on 198
use of intelligence tests in 120, 160
use of in Free Place Examinations 121
see also Interviews
Orientation tests - specimens of 217
Oswego (New York) - see America
Otis Group Tests
use of in America 36
use of in Blackpool 38
Paris - see France
Parsons, Mr Frank - experiments in vocational tests by 48
Passiac (New Jersey) - see America
Paterson and Pintner - collection of performance tests by 41, 206
Pearson, Professor Karl - researches into the value of cranial stigmata 3
Perception - use of tests of 131, 144
Performance tests
specimens of 205
use of 40, 41, 42, 66, 159
list of works on 196
Philadelphia - see America
Phrenology - see Physical tests
Physical tests
anatomical stigmata 2
correlation of with mental tests 101
definition of 100
Gall's system of phrenology 2
Lavater's ideas on physiognomy 2
origin of 2
use of 100, 131, 144
value of 101
Physics - tests in 46
Physiognomy - see Physical tests
[page 246]
Pintner and Paterson - collection of performance tests by 41, 206
Pitch discrimination - use of tests of 9
Pittsburgh - see America
Pizzoli, Professor Ugo - use of tests by 173
Porteus Maze Tests - use of 41
Practical tests - see Manual tests and Performance tests
Prague - see Czechoslovakia
Psychoanalysis - use of 56
Psycho-galvanic re-action - discovery of by Mr EK Miller 56
Psychology
list of works on (general) 191
list of works on (educational) 192
Range of information tests - use of 88
Re-action time - see Motor tests
Reading
specimens of tests of 219
use of tests of 45, 46, 89
Reasoning tests
researches of Mr WH Winch 18
specimens of 17, 204
see also Absurdities, Analogies, Syllogisms
Retarded children - use of tests for 126
Rice, Dr JM - investigation upon spelling 44
Richardson, Mr CA
views on 'general' ability and 'special' or 'group' abilities 235
use of tests by 154
Rochester (New York) - see America
Rome - see Italy
Rugby School - use of tests at 38, 162
Saffiotti, Professor U - modification of Binet-Simon Scale by 33
Scholarships
improvement in the technique of Free Place Examinations 113
objections to the limitation of the number of Free Places 108
shortcomings of the present examinations for Free Places 115
use of tests for Free Place and Junior Scholarship Examinations 37, 38, 78, 114, 118, 119, 126, 141, 149
use of oral examinations for 121
Scholastic tests - see Standardised scholastic tests
School Medical Officers - use of tests by 133, 135, 139, 140
Schuyten, Dr - use of tests of touch discrimination 7
Scott, Colonel WD - testing in American Army by 51
Seashore - views on correlation between pitch and discrimination and intelligence 9
Secondary Schools
increase in accommodation necessary 109
use of group tests for entrance to 38, 111, 141
group tests for Junior Scholarships to 37, 38, 111, 141, 149
standardised scholastic tests in 130
tests in (general) 127, 142, 160
vocational tests in 130
Seguin, Monsieur Edouard - form-board devised by 41
Sensory tests
correlation between mental ability and sensory discrimination 7, 8, 9, 16
use of 6, 7, 8, 18, 101
Shanghai - see China
Shorthand - vocational tests in 221
Silesia - see Germany
Simon, Dr TH - see Binet, Dr A and also Binet-Simon scale
[page 247]
Simplex tests
use of for Junior Scholarships purposes at Blackpool 38
use of, for Junior Scholarships purposes in Northumberland 154
Spain - use of tests in 51, 175
Spearman, Professor CE
conception of 'intelligence' by 70, 234
distinction of special capacities by 19
investigation into correlational methods 13, 14
theory of general ability 14, 225
use of auditory tests by 9
simple sensory tests by 7
visual tests by 8
Special factors - see Intellect
Specific abilities
distinction of 19
specimens of tests of 217
Spelling
graded exercises in 45
investigations upon 44
specimens of tests in 220
Spielman, Miss Winifred - tests for dressmakers' apprentices by 223
Standardisation of tests by Binet 28
note on by Dr Cyril Burt 183
to be entrusted to experts 136
views of witnesses on 96
Standardised Scholastic Tests
connection of with ordinary examinations 141
history of 43
list of works on 194
specimens of 219
use of by teachers 106, 133, 140
use of in:
America 44, 45, 129
Elementary Schools 130, 152
England 46, 129, 140, 151
France 45
Secondary Schools 130
views of witnesses on 96
Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon Scale
description of 31
merits and defects of 84
Statistical method
application of to education 71, 83, 90, 114, 119, 125, 136
see also Norms of performance and Standardisation of tests
Stern, Dr William - conception of 'intelligence' by 70
Strasbourg - see France
Stuttgart - see Germany
Sweden - use of tests in 176
Switzerland - vocational testing in 51
Syllogisms - specimen of 17
Tagg, Mr Max - use of individual tests by 159
Tapping Tests - use of 10, 101
Taylor, Mr FW - experiments in vocational selection by 49
Teachers
use of tests by 105, 106, 133, 140
training of teachers to administer tests 105, 133, 138, 139
Temperament
tests of 53, 93, 132, 144
list of works on 197
Terman, Professor LM
revision of Binet-Simon Scale by 31, 84
use of tests by 154
use of Terman Group Tests:
at Blackpool 38
in America 36
in London 158
[page 248]
Thomson, Professor Godfrey H
conception of 'intelligence' by 70, 226, 234, 236
use of tests by 153
see also Northumberland tests
Thorndike, Professor EL
researches of 5, 11, 45, 46, 50
theory of regarding 'intelligence' 69, 234
Tibbey, Mr JG - use of group tests by 159
Tokyo - see Japan
Tomlinson, Mr TP - use of group tests by 155
Touch, tests of - see Sensory tests
Trade Schools - vocational selection for 52
Treves, Professor Z - modification of Binet-Simon Scale by 33
Treves-Saffiotti Method - description of 33
Triangle Test - specimen of 206
Twentyman, Mr AE - Note on Grades in American Schools by 190
Typists - vocational tests for shorthand-typists 221
United States of America - see America
Vaney, Monsieur V - standardised scholastic tests by 45
Vaughan, Mr WW - use of group tests at Rugby School by 38, 162
Vienna - see Austria
Vineland revision of Binet-Simon scale - see Binet-Simon scale
Vision, tests of - see Sensory tests
Vocabulary tests
specimens of 219
use of 88
Vocational tests
administration of, and interpretation of results of 106
aims of 47
history of 47
necessity of testing for 'general' ability in 99
specimens of 221
use of 50, 98, 100, 130, 143, 159, 164
use of performance tests in 42, 159
use of physical tests in 101
views of witnesses on 99
list of works on 197
Wagner, Dr - use of tests of touch discrimination by 7
Washington - see America
Watts, Mr Frank
views on 'general' ability, and 'special' and 'group' abilities 237
test of character and morality, experiments in 58
Whipple, Professor JM - use of tests of pitch discrimination by 9
Whitley, Dr Mary - statement as to the use of tests in America 179
Winch, Mr WH
researches of 18, 46
views on 'general' ability 238
Wissler, Professor - researches of 12
Woodworth, Professor RS - researches of 12
Yerkes point scale
description of 30
merits and defects of 83
Yorkshire - use of group tests in elementary schools in the West Riding 155
Zürich - see Switzerland