diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-06 04:27:22 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-06 04:27:22 -0800 |
| commit | 6e8423a10588cfa7579e6dc1110e6e372a572fe7 (patch) | |
| tree | 70e0aa134206b8c81bd780dbd8bad4d790d329f5 /old/52826-0.txt | |
| parent | e04fcea12f443004678281ad6685fd8c14e33bd6 (diff) | |
Diffstat (limited to 'old/52826-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52826-0.txt | 12229 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 12229 deletions
diff --git a/old/52826-0.txt b/old/52826-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index e34837a..0000000 --- a/old/52826-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,12229 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, Deficiency and Delinquency, by James Burt -Miner - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: Deficiency and Delinquency - An Interpretation of Mental Testing - - -Author: James Burt Miner - - - -Release Date: August 17, 2016 [eBook #52826] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DEFICIENCY AND DELINQUENCY*** - - -E-text prepared by Richard Tonsing, MWS, Bryan Ness, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images -generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org) - - - -Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this - file which includes the original illustrations. - See 52826-h.htm or 52826-h.zip: - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/52826/52826-h/52826-h.htm) - or - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/52826/52826-h.zip) - - - Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - https://archive.org/details/deficiencydelinq00mine - - -Transcriber's note: - - Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_). - - Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=). - - A carat character is used to denote superscription. A - single character following the carat is superscripted - (example: 12^2). - - - - - -Educational Psychology Monographs - -This volume, which is No. 21 in the Series, was -edited by J. Carleton Bell - - -DEFICIENCY AND DELINQUENCY - -An Interpretation of Mental Testing - -by - -JAMES BURT MINER, LL.B., PH.D. - -Associate Professor of Applied Psychology, Carnegie Institute of -Technology, Pittsburgh; sometime lecturer at the school for teachers of -special classes, Minnesota State School for the Feeble-Minded - - - - - - - -Baltimore -Warwick & York, Inc. -1918 - -Copyright, 1918 -Warwick & York, Inc. - - - - - DEFICIENCY AND DELINQUENCY - - - - - TABLE OF CONTENTS - - - Preface 1 - - Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 3 - - PART I. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS - - Chapter II. THE FUNCTIONS OF A SCALE IN DIAGNOSIS 10 - - A. THE MEANING OF INTELLECTUAL DEFICIENCY 10 - - B. FORMS OF MENTAL DEFICIENCY NOT YET DISCOVERABLE BY TESTS 14 - - C. DOUBTFUL INTELLECTS ACCOMPANIED BY DELINQUENCY PRESUMED 18 - DEFICIENT - - Chapter III. THE PERCENTAGE DEFINITION OF INTELLECTUAL DEFICIENCY 20 - - A. THE DEFINITION 20 - - B. THE ASSUMPTIONS OF A QUANTITATIVE DEFINITION 21 - - (a) Deficiency is a Difference in Degree not in Kind 21 - - (b) As to the Variation in the Frequency of Deficiency at 23 - Different Ages - - (c) As to the Number of Deficients not Detected by Tests 34 - - (d) Allowance May be Made for Variability 40 - - Chapter IV. WHAT PERCENTAGE IS FEEBLE-MINDED 47 - - A. KINDS OF SOCIAL CARE CONTEMPLATED 47 - - B. ESTIMATES OF THE SCHOOL POPULATION VERSUS THE GENERAL 48 - POPULATION - - C. DESIRABLE VERSUS IMMEDIATELY ADVISABLE SOCIAL CARE 51 - - D. PERCENTAGES SUGGESTED TO HARMONIZE THE ESTIMATES 52 - - E. COMPARISON WITH IMPORTANT ESTIMATES 56 - - F. THE ABILITY OF THE MENTALLY RETARDED ESPECIALLY THOSE 74 - RECEIVING SPECIAL TRAINING - - Chapter V. ADAPTING THE PERCENTAGE DEFINITION TO THE BINET SCALE 82 - - A. THE BORDER REGION FOR THE MATURE 82 - - (a) Indication from a Random Group 82 - - (b) The Present Tendency Among Examiners 95 - - B. THE BORDER REGION FOR THE IMMATURE 104 - - (a) For the Binet 1908 Scale 104 - - (b) Data for Other Developmental Scales 110 - - (c) The Change in Interpreting the Borderline for the 116 - Immature - - Chapter VI. DELINQUENTS TESTING DEFICIENT 122 - - A. AT THE GLEN FARM SCHOOL FOR BOYS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, 122 - MINNESOTA - - B. COMPARISON OF TESTED DEFICIENCY AMONG TYPICAL GROUPS OF 127 - DELINQUENTS - - (a) Women and Girl Delinquents in State Institutions 128 - - (b) Women and Girl Delinquents in Country and City 134 - Institutions - - (c) Men and Boy Delinquents in State Institutions 141 - - (d) Men and Boy Delinquents in County and City 148 - Institutions - - C. SUMMARY OF TESTED DEFICIENCY AMONG DELINQUENTS 158 - - Chapter VII. CHECKING THE BINET DIAGNOSIS BY OTHER METHODS 170 - - Chapter VIII. SCHOOL RETARDATION AMONG DELINQUENTS 177 - - A. IN MINNEAPOLIS 177 - - B. SCHOOL RETARDATION AMONG OTHER GROUPS OF DELINQUENTS 185 - - Chapter IX. COMPARISON OF THE SCHOOL TEST AND THE BINET TEST 189 - - A. PRACTICAL USES OF THE SCHOOL TEST 190 - - (a) Estimating the Frequency of Deficiency by School 190 - Retardation - - (b) School Retardation as a Warning of the Need for 194 - Examination - - (c) School Success as a Check on the Binet Diagnosis 197 - - B. CHECKING DEFICIENCY AMONG DELINQUENTS BY THE SCHOOL TEST 199 - - Chapter X. BAD SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT AS A CAUSE OF DELINQUENCY 203 - - Chapter XI. DEFICIENCY AS A CAUSE OF DELINQUENCY 210 - - A. THE CHANCES OF THE MENTALLY DEFICIENT BECOMING DELINQUENT 211 - - B. THE CORRELATION OF DEFICIENCY AND DELINQUENCY 218 - - C. THE CAUSES OF DELINQUENCY 224 - - (a) Constitutional Factors 224 - - (b) External Factors 225 - - (c) Weighing Heredity Against Environment 229 - - (d) The Criminal Diathesis 234 - - Chapter XII. SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS 239 - - PART II. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS - - Chapter XIII. THE THEORY OF THE MEASUREMENT OF MENTAL DEVELOPMENT 252 - - A. COMPARISON OF UNITS AND SCALES FOR MEASURING INDIVIDUAL 254 - DIFFERENCES - - (a) Equivalent Units of Ability When the Distributions 254 - are Normal - - (b) The Year Unit of the Binet Scale 260 - - (c) Is Tested Capacity Distributed Normally? 267 - - (d) Equivalent Units of Development When the Form of 275 - Distribution is Uncertain - - B. THE CURVES OF MENTAL DEVELOPMENT 279 - - (a) The Significance of Average Curves of Development 280 - - (b) Changes in the Rate of Development 290 - - (c) The Question of Earlier Arrest of Deficient Children 294 - - Chapter XIV. QUANTITATIVE DEFINITIONS OF THE BORDERLINE 304 - - A. DIFFERENT FORMS OF QUANTITATIVE DEFINITIONS 304 - - B. COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF QUANTITATIVE DEFINITIONS 308 - - C. PRACTICAL ADVANTAGES OF THE PERCENTAGE METHOD 311 - - D. THEORETICAL ADVANTAGE OF THE PERCENTAGE METHOD WITH CHANGES 317 - IN THE FORM OF THE DISTRIBUTIONS - - BIBLIOGRAPHY ON TESTED DELINQUENTS 324 - - Other References Cited 329 - - APPENDICES 344 - - INDEX 353 - - - - - LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES - - - TABLES - - I. Age distribution of deaths in the general population and of 30 - feeble-minded in institutions - - II. Mortality of institutional deficients in the United States 31 - compared with the general population - - III. Test borderlines with randomly selected Minneapolis 89 - 15-year-olds - - IV. Results with the Binet tests for mental ages XI and XII 98 - (1908 series) - - V. Percentages of mentally retarded children as tested with the 106 - Binet 1908 Scale - - VI. Mental retardation of children as tested with the Binet 1911 111 - Scale - - VII. Borderlines with the Point Scale 115 - - VIII. Test ages of the Glen Lake group of delinquent boys 124 - - IX. Intellectual development relative to life-ages and school 125 - positions among the delinquent boys of Glen Lake - - X. Binet 1911 tests of boys consecutively admitted to the 151 - Detention Home at Thorn Hill, Allegheny County - - XI. Frequency of tested deficiency among over 9000 delinquents 159 - - XII. Age and grade distribution of elementary school pupils in 178 - Minneapolis - - XIII. School retardation of Minneapolis delinquents and elementary 179 - school pupils - - XIV. Indices of frequency and amount of school retardation for 183 - Minneapolis delinquents and elementary school pupils - - XV. Percentage of pupils 12 and 13 years of age most seriously 193 - retarded in school - - XVI. School position of delinquents at Glen Lake relative to 204 - their intellectual development - - XVII. Goring's data as to the percentage of mental defectives 213 - among men convicted of various offenses - - XVIII. Goring's data as to groups of crimes committed most 214 - frequently by those mentally deficient - - XIX. Four-fold correlation table for juvenile delinquency and 222 - deficiency in Minneapolis - - XX. Average Intelligence Quotients of children of different 296 - ability - - XXI. Test records with random 15-year-olds 344 - - XXII. Test records with delinquents at the Glen Lake Farm School 349 - - - FIGURES - - 1. Mortality among feeble-minded in institutions compared with 32 - the general population - - 2. School retardation of Minneapolis delinquents compared with 180 - elementary school boys - - 3. Hypothetical development curves (normal distributions) 253 - - 4. The question of equivalence of year units 265 - - 5. Hypothetical development curves (changing form of 277 - distribution.) - - 6. Tests of the development of memory processes. Medians at 285 - each age for the central tendencies of the tests - - 7. Different types of development. Medians at each age for the 286 - central tendencies of the tests - - 8. Forty tests of development. Distribution at each age for the 287 - central tendencies of the tests - - 9. Relative positions at each age of the median and of 299 - corresponding bright and retarded children with the Form - Board Test - - - - - DEFICIENCY AND DELINQUENCY - - - - - PREFACE - - -In undertaking in 1912 to examine the mental development of delinquents -for the clinic started and supported by the Juvenile Protective League -of Minneapolis, in connection with the Juvenile Court, I soon became -convinced that a safer method for evaluating the limit of -feeble-mindedness with tests was more needed than masses of new data. -The researches that have been published in the past three years do not -seem to have changed this situation. Numerous studies with psychological -tests are already available, but they generally treat of average rather -than borderline conditions. In the field of delinquency the work of -testing has been carried on with especial activity. Here, as well as -elsewhere, the conclusions seem likely to be misleading unless social -workers better appreciate the real place of mental tests, their value -and their limitations. - -The tables of a few hundred juvenile delinquents and school children -examined in Minneapolis, which are presented in this book, indicate the -occasion rather than the aim of the present study. The purpose is mainly -to help clear the ground for other work with mental tests, and -especially to put the determination of feeble-mindedness by objective -examination with the Binet or other scales on what seems to me a sounder -basis. Furthermore, the results of objective testing which have been so -rapidly accumulating in the field of delinquency need to be assembled -and reorganized in order to avoid confusion. It is especially desirable -to discover a conservative basis for objective diagnosis of deficient -intellectual capacity in order to prevent very useful testing systems -from becoming unjustly discredited and to preserve the advance that has -been made. - -The work out of which this monograph grew was begun through the -encouragement of Judge Edward F. Waite of the Hennepin County Juvenile -Court. His earnest co-operation and my interest in the field of mental -testing has led me to continue the study. Judge Waite's insight into his -court problems resulted in the early organization of a Juvenile Court -clinic (_153_, _170_) in Minneapolis. The clinic is in charge of Dr. -Harris Dana Newkirk, who has contributed materially to this study by his -thorough medical examination of each of the cases brought to him. To the -staff at the probation office I am also much indebted. - -The earnest help of Superintendent D. C. MacKenzie, of the Glen Lake -Farm School for the juvenile delinquents of Hennepin County, made a -close study of our most interesting group of boys much more profitable -personally than I have shown here. For detailed expert work in -tabulation and in examinations I wish to express my thanks to my -advanced students, a half dozen of whom have contributed materially to -the data of this book. - - JAMES BURT MINER. - - Carnegie Institute of Technology - Pittsburgh, Pa. - - - - - CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION - - -As an interpretation of the results which have been obtained with mental -tests, this book lies between the topics of deficiency and delinquency. -It is an attempt to discover the significance of objective measurements -of ability in connection with both of these fields. The pressing -practical problem was to find out what positions on a scale for testing -mental development were symptomatic of social deficiency. After working -out a percentage method for conservatively indicating these borderlines -for tested deficiency, it was then possible to reinterpret the test -records of over 9000 delinquents who have been examined with some form -of the well-known Binet Scale. The size of the problem of the deficient -delinquent has thus been determined on a significant scientific plan. -The outcome is a new basis for judging the current statements about this -problem by those who have used the Binet scale. Scores of investigators -by their tireless energy have provided data which may now be compared -for many types of delinquents and in many parts of the country. Some -sixty studies of deficient delinquents have been thus summarized from -the point of view of psychological tests. - -Closely related to the problem of the frequency of feeble-mindedness -among delinquents is the question of the cause of delinquency. This has -further been considered in the light of the most important scientific -studies, especially those using the method of correlation. Among these -researches stands out the fundamental investigation of the causes of -criminality by Goring, a work which has received very inadequate -attention in this country, although it involved ten years study of a -group of 3000 convicts by the best quantitative methods. The careful -study of these objective investigations should take the question of the -relation of deficiency and delinquency out of the realm of opinion and -theory. It may be expected to have an important influence upon the -social handling of these problems. In this connection I have added a -chapter of suggestions which have grown out of my year's study of the -education of deficients and delinquents in European schools and -institutions. - -To determine the size of the problem of dealing with deficients, -especially deficient delinquents, is a task of first importance. In -spite of our more conservative basis for judging the results with tests, -the necessity of caring for the feeble-minded remains the most vital -problem connected with social welfare. The movement for more individual -training in our schools, which has been gaining such headway, may also -be encouraged by the evidence that maladjustment to school work is also -definitely related to delinquency. - -It is essential that we should have objective data for determining the -borderline of tested deficiency among adults. To meet the present -serious lack of knowledge on this point, new data were collected which -for the first time afford the means of determining, by the use of a -randomly selected group what is a conservative borderline of tested -deficiency for those intellectually mature. These data include the Binet -test records for all the 15-year-old children who resided in seven -school districts in Minneapolis and who had not graduated from the -eighth grade. - -The urgency of plans for indefinitely segregating certain types of the -feeble-minded, especially deficient delinquents, has placed a new -emphasis on those quantitative aids to diagnosis. The difficulty of -establishing feeble-mindedness before a court has been called to -attention by both Supt. C. A. Rogers (_173_)[1] of the Minnesota School -for Feeble-Minded, and Supt. Walter E. Fernald (_104_) of the -Massachusetts School. Both of these men recognize that psychological -tests are the most hopeful way of improving this situation. - -A fundamental feature of the diagnosis of deficiency is the plan here -advocated for designating the borderlines on a scale on the basis of a -percentage definition of tested deficiency. This involves the -distinction of intellectual deficiency from certain rare volitional -forms of feeble-mindedness, which the tests do not at present detect. -This percentage definition seems to afford the best approach to a test -diagnosis. It is apparent that the data are insufficient for finally -establishing such a quantitative description of the lower limit for -passable intellects on a mental scale. The plan, however, may be easily -adjusted to new data, and meanwhile avoids some of the serious current -misinterpretations of test results. - -While the idea of a quantitative definition of the borderline of -deficiency is not new, the percentage method seems to have certain -fundamental advantages over either the “intelligence quotient” of Stern -(_188_), the “intelligence coefficient” of Yerkes (_226_), or the -description in terms of deviation, mentioned by Norsworthy (_159_) and -Pearson (_164_, _166_, _167_). Several investigators, including Terman -(_57_) and Yerkes (_226_), are utilizing the percentage method -indirectly for describing the borderline of feeble-mindedness, but have -inadequately distinguished it from the ratios. While ratio and deviation -methods are possibly more serviceable for certain purposes, they are -especially faulty near the borderline of deficiency, since they are -affected by variations in the units of measurement and in the form of -distribution from age to age. My paper on a percentage definition and -the detailed plan for determining the borderline in the Binet scale, -which was read at the meeting of the American Psychological Association -in 1915, seems to have been contemporaneous with a similar suggestion by -Pintner and Paterson (_44_). They, however, would restrict the term -“feeble-mindedness” to tested deficiency, while I advocate the use of -percentage borderlines on a test scale as symptomatic of one form of -feeble-mindedness, much as excess of normal temperature on a clinical -thermometer is symptomatic of disease. - -Although no system of objective tests will ever dispense with the need -for expert interpretation in diagnosing individual cases, still there -are few who would doubt that it is desirable to reduce the option of -expert judgment as much as we reasonably can. This is the scientific -method of procedure. The borderline cases, however, which are often most -troublesome in their delinquencies, are just those which will longest -defy rigid rules. The diagnostician who wants to be as free as possible -from external restraint will find in this border field of mental -capacity a happy hunting ground. His scientific instincts should make -him eager to discover when he leaves the mundane sphere and sallies -forth into uncharted realms where he bears the full responsibility of -his own opinion. Let me hasten to add that reasoning from objective data -in the mass to the diagnosis of an individual case may lead to serious -mistakes, unless one keeps alert to detect the exception from the -general rule, and unless one understands the numerous sources of error -entering into an examination. On the other hand the test results when -properly interpreted afford the most important criteria on which to base -a prognosis if they are considered in relation to the history of the -case and the medical examination. - -By the use of more conservative borderlines for raising the presumption -of deficiency and also by designating a doubtful position on the scale, -on the plan advocated herein, it is possible to make scales for testing -mental capacity more serviceable both to the clinician and to the -amateur tester. The latter may use the scales for his own information or -may wish to discover whether an examination by an expert in mental -development is desirable, without attempting to make a diagnosis -himself. The scale may thus take a place in the study of child mentality -analogous to the familiar Snellen chart in the testing of vision. For -every teacher familiarity with a development scale may thus become as -essential and desirable as the knowledge of the chart for eye testing. -It should find a place in all progressive schools which do not have the -services of a clinician. - -The Binet system of tests was used for obtaining new data on groups of -juvenile delinquents in Minneapolis and Pittsburgh. The use of this -scale, around which the discussion centers, grew out of the necessity -for immediate practical results for the clinic at the Minneapolis -Juvenile Court which I was called upon to serve. In 1912, when that work -began, there was practically nothing approaching norms with children for -any other scale of tests. Even today it is plain that there is more data -available for interpreting results with the Binet scale than with any -other system of tests. While my experience would make me unwilling to -advocate the Binet tests as an ideal method for building up a measuring -scale, I still feel that it remains the most useful method at present -for discovering the fundamental symptoms of intellectual deficiency. The -percentage method, here advocated, as the best way available for -determining the borderlines with a scale, would be quite as serviceable, -however, with any other testing system. It has been my aim to contribute -to the interpretation of the results of the tests as they are, not to -perfecting the arrangement or details of the separate tests.[2] It -happens that one of the main objections which has been raised to the -Binet scale, the inadequacy of its tests for the older ages, loses its -force so far as the _diagnosis of feeble-mindedness_ is concerned for -those who accept the borderlines described in this paper. - -Some diagnosticians may hesitate to use the Binet scale because of the -criticisms it has received. Yerkes and Bridges state: “Indeed, we feel -bound to say that the Binet scale has proved worse than useless in a -very large number of cases” (_226_, p. 94). So far as this objection -arises from the attempt to use the descriptions of the borderline of -feeble-mindedness published with Binet scales, it will meet with a wide -response. The difficulty is hardly less, as I shall show, with other -scales. The definition of the borderline is certainly the vital point -with any objective method for aiding diagnosis. Only by improving -methods for determining the borderline can this weakness be attacked. -The central contribution of this paper is directed, therefore, to this -problem of the interpretation of the borderline, so that objective -scales may be made more reliable for purposes of diagnosis. - -In Part Two I have added an intensive discussion of the measurement of -development and a comparison of the different objective methods for -describing the borderline. This may well be omitted by those who are not -interested in the technical aspects of these questions. To those who -care only for accounts of individual lives, let me say that I am -contributing nothing herein to that important field which has been -covered in authoritative form by Dr. Healy (_27_) and by Dr. Goddard -(_112_). They will find instead, I hope, the fascination of figures, a -picture book in which probability curves take the place of photographs -and biographies, in which general tendencies are evaluated and attention -is focussed upon the problem of properly diagnosing deficiency and upon -plans for the care of the feeble-minded, whether they be potential or -actual delinquents. - ------ - -Footnote 1: - - Numbers in parenthesis indicate the references in the bibliography at - the close of the book. - -Footnote 2: - - Those concerned with other features of the Binet scale will find an - admirable bibliography by Samuel C. Kohs, Journal of Educational - Psychology, April, May and June, 1914, and September, October, - November, and December, 1917. Other references are contained in the - Bibliography by L. W. Crafts (_9_). - - - - - PART ONE - PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS - - - - - CHAPTER II. THE FUNCTIONS OF A SCALE IN DIAGNOSIS - - - A. THE MEANING OF INTELLECTUAL DEFICIENCY. - -Whatever form the definition of feeble-mindedness may take, in this -country at least[3] the concept has become quite firmly established as -describing the condition of those who require social guardianship, -because, with training, they do not develop enough mentally to live an -independent life in society. The feeble-minded are socially deficient -because of a failure to develop mentally. They are proper wards of the -state because of this mental deficiency. Goddard says, they are -“incapable of functioning properly in our highly organized society” -(_112_, p. 6). The most generally quoted verbal description of the upper -line of social unfitness is that of the British Royal Commission on -Feeble-Mindedness: “Persons who may be capable of earning a living under -favorable circumstances, but are incapable from mental defect existing -from birth or from an early age (a) of competing on equal terms with -their normal fellows; or (b) of managing themselves and their affairs -with ordinary prudence.” It is clear that the intention is to -distinguish mental deficiency from senile dementia, from hysteria and -from insanity, in which there is a temporary or permanent loss of mental -ability rather than a failure to develop. Feeble-mindedness may, -however, arise from epilepsy or from other diseases or accidents in -early life as well as from an inherent incapacity for development. -Moreover, _mental_ deficiency, or feeble-mindedness, (I use the terms -interchangeably) does not imply that the social unfitness is always -caused by intellectual deficiency. Mind is a broader term than -intellect, as we shall note in the next section. - -This definition of the feeble-minded is the main idea expressed by -Witmer (_221_), Tredgold (_204_), Pearson (_164_), and Murdock (_164_). -The historical development of the concept is traced by Rogers (_172_) -and Norsworthy (_159_). It is criticized by Kuhlmann (_140_) as -impractical and indefinite. The indefiniteness is indicated by such -terms as “under favorable circumstances,” “on equal terms,” and “with -ordinary prudence.” This objectionable uncertainty as to social fitness -can be considerably relieved for those types of feeble-mindedness which -involve the inability to pass mental tests, since this result can later -be correlated with subsequent social failure and predictions made during -childhood on the basis of the tests. Attempts to make the concept of -feeble-mindedness more definite have, therefore, naturally taken some -quantitative form in relation to objective tests. Binet and the French -commission in 1907 (_77_) called attention to the method in use in -Belgium for predicting unfitness objectively on the basis of the amount -of retardation in school at different ages. With the appearance in 1908 -of the Binet-Simon revised scale for measuring mental development, -quantitative descriptions began to be concerned with the borderlines of -mental deficiency on scales of tests. - -While the quantitative descriptions of tested deficiency do not include -all forms of feeble-mindedness, as I shall show in the next section, -they have made the diagnosis of the majority of cases much more -definite. Nobody would think of returning to the days when the principal -objective criteria were signs of Cretinism, Mongolianism, hydrocephalus, -microcephalus, epilepsy, meningitis, etc., which LaPage (_141_) has -shown are not found among more than 9% of 784 children in the Manchester -special schools. The impossibility of agreeing upon subjective estimates -of mental capacity without the use of objective criteria is well shown -by Binet's methodical comparison of the admission certificates filled -out within a few days of each other by the alienists for the -institutions of Sainte-Anne, Bicêtre, the Salpêtreire and Vaucluse. -These physicians gave their judgments as to whether a case was an idiot, -imbecile or higher grade. Binet says: “We have compared several hundreds -of these certificates, and we think we may say without exaggeration that -they looked as if they had been drawn by chance out of a sack” (_77_, p. -76). - -The rapid accumulation of data with psychological tests has made it -possible to take our first halting steps in the direction of greater -definiteness in diagnosis by a larger use of objective methods. This -increase in significance of the concept of deficiency is fruitful at -once in estimating the size of the social problem and planning means for -undertaking the care of these unfortunates. We can discover something of -the error in the previous subjective estimates of the frequency of -feeble-mindedness. We can bring together and compare the work of -different investigators, not only in our country, but throughout the -world. We can discover, for example, how important the problem of -deficiency is among different groups of delinquents, knowing that the -differences are not to be explained by differences in expert opinion. -Furthermore, we can now determine, with considerable accuracy, whether -the diagnosis made by a reliable examiner is independent of his personal -opinion. - -If we disregard the natural antipathy of many people to anything which -tends to limit the charming vagueness of their mental outlook, we may -endeavor to chart this horizon of tested deficiency with something of -the definiteness of figures, which shall at the same time indicate a -range of error. As soon as our aim comes to be to plot the borderline on -a measuring scale of mental ability, we find that the borderline must be -so stated that we can deal with either adults or children. Two sorts of -limiting regions must be described, one for mature minds and one for -immature minds. The latter will be in the nature of a prediction as to -what sort of ability the children will show when they grow up. We must -keep in mind, therefore, that we should attempt our quantitative -definition for both growing and adult minds. As soon as the growing mind -passes the lower limit for the mature it is then guaranteed access to -the social seas although it may never swim far from shore nor develop -further with advancing years. In seeking greater definiteness, our aim -should then be to describe both the limit for the mature individuals and -the limit for the immature of each age. In this paper the definition -will be restricted to _intellectual deficiency_, _i. e._, tested -deficiency. It will take the form of describing _the positions on a -scale below which fall the same lowest percentage of intellects_. This -percentage definition of intellectual deficiency offers such a simple -method of consistently describing the borderlines for mature and -immature that it is surprising so little attempt has previously been -made to work it out for a system of tests. Although the principle on -which the definition is based depends upon the distribution curve of -ability, it is concerned only with the lower limit of the distribution. -Since the exact form of this distribution is uncertain I have preferred -to call it a percentage definition of intellectual deficiency rather -than to state the limits in terms of the variability of ability. -Moreover the lowest X per cent. in mental development requires no -further explanation to be understood by the layman. - - - B. FORMS OF MENTAL DEFICIENCY NOT YET DISCOVERABLE BY TESTS. - -The first broad conclusion that impresses those who try to use mental -scales for diagnosing feeble-mindedness is that the lower types, the -idiots and imbeciles, can be detected with great accuracy by an hour's -testing. The difficulties pile up as soon as the individual rises above -the imbecile group. The practical experience of those in institutions -for the feeble-minded here becomes of fundamental importance. They are -able to supply the history of exceptions that should make us cautious -about our general rules. Certain people whom they have known for years -to be unable to adjust themselves socially because their minds have not -reached the level of social fitness will yet be able to pass -considerably beyond the lower test limit for mature minds. The mental -scales can only detect those feeble-minded who cannot succeed with our -present tests. This is the basal principle in using any system of tests. - -Stated in another way, this first caution for anybody seeking the -assistance of a mental scale is that tests may detect a feeble-minded -person, but when a person passes them it does not guarantee social -fitness. The negative conclusion, “this person is not feeble-minded,” -can not be drawn from tests alone. Mental tests at present are positive -and not negative scales. This fact will probably always make the -expert's judgment essential before the discharge of a suspected case of -mental deficiency. When a subject falls below a conservative limit for -tested ability a trained psychologist who is familiar with the sources -of error in giving tests, even without experience with the -feeble-minded, should be able to say that this person at present shows -as deficient development as the feeble-minded. To conclude however that -any subject has a passable mind requires in addition practical -experience with feeble-minded people who pass the tests. It is very much -easier to state that the tests do not detect all forms of -feeble-mindedness than it is to give any adequate description of the -sort of feeble-mindedness which they do not as yet detect. - -This distinction between the feeble-minded who do well with test scales -and those who do not, is well known in the institutions for the -feeble-minded. Binet sought to distinguish some of the feeble-minded who -escaped the tests by calling them “unstable,” or “ill-balanced,” -individuals as Drummond (_77_) translates the term. To use the -historical distinctions of psychology, their minds seem to be -undeveloped more on their volitional and emotional sides than on their -intellectual side. Weidensall (_59_) has described another type as -“inert.” She found that quite a number of the reformatory women might -slide through the tests but fail socially from the fact that “their -lives and minds are so constituted that they feel no need to learn the -things any child ought to know, though they can and do learn when we -teach them.” Again, it seems to be a disturbance of will through the -feeling, rather than an intellectual deficiency. Many of the so-called -“moral imbeciles” are probably able to pass intellectual tests lasting -but a few minutes. Like the unstable or inert they are not failures -because of a lack of intellectual understanding of right and wrong, but -because of excess or deficiency of their instinctive tendencies -especially in the emotional sphere. Such weakness of will may arise -either from abnormality of specific instinctive impulses or inability to -organize these impulses so that one impulse may be utilized to -supplement or inhibit another. We may call all this group of cases -socially deficient because of a weakness in the volitional, or conative, -aspect of mind. - -The discrimination of mental activities which are predominately -emotional and conative from those in which intellect is mainly -emphasized is also well recognized by those who have been making broad -studies of tests in other fields than that of feeble-mindedness. Hart -and Spearman (_123_), for example, call attention to the fact that tests -passed under the stimulus of test conditions represent what the subject -does when keyed up to it rather than what he would do under social -conditions. We cannot be sure that speed ability as tested will -represent speed _preferences_. The subject may be able to work rapidly -for a few minutes, but in life consistently prefer to work deliberately. -Regarding the eighteen tests which they studied with normal and abnormal -adults they say: “These tests have been arranged so as to be confined to -purely intellectual factors. But in ordinary life, this simplicity is of -rare occurrence. For the most part, what we think and believe is -dominated by what we feel and want.” Kelley (_130_) finds by the -regression equation that the factor of effort amounts to two-thirds of -the weight of that of the intellectual factor in predicting scholarship -from teachers' estimates. Webb (_217_) thinks that he finds by tests a -general conative factor comparable to Spearman's general intellective -factor. - -With the change in point of view that has come from the adoption of the -biological conception of the mind the discrimination of the different -forms of feeble-mindedness must be recognized as a distinction in the -emphasis on intellectual, emotional and conative processes, not a -distinction between actually separable forms of mental activity. On -account of the organic nature of the mind it is well established that -various mental processes are mutually dependent. Any disturbance of the -emotional processes will tend to affect the thinking and vice versa. -Even if we believe that emotions are complex facts, involving vague -sensations as well as feelings, and that terms like emotion, memory, -reasoning and will are names for classes of mental facts rather than for -mental powers, it still remains important to distinguish between -feeling, intellect and will, as well as to recognize the interdependence -of the mental processes. Common sense seems to agree with psychological -descriptions in regarding mind as a broader term than intellect, and -feeble-mindedness as a broader term than intellectual feebleness. - -Since tests at present tend to reach the intellectual processes more -surely than the emotional, we describe those who fail in them as -intellectually deficient. The term “intellect” seems to be better than -“intelligence” because the latter seems to include information as well -as capacity, while the aim of measuring scales has been to eliminate the -influence of increasing information with age. To be thoroughly -objective, of course, one should talk about “feebleness in tested -abilities;” but we would then fail to point out the important fact about -our present scales that they detect mainly intellectual deficiency, that -they do not reach those forms of feeble-mindedness in which the weakness -in such traits as stability, ambition, perseverance, self-control, etc., -is not great enough to interfere with the brief intellectual processes -necessary for passing tests. Intellectual deficiency will be used -hereafter to refer to those social deficients whose feebleness is -disclosed by our present test scales. - -In the opinion of Kuhlmann these cases of disturbed emotions and will -which shade off into different forms of insanity should not be classed -as feeble-minded at all, although he recognizes that they are commonly -placed in this group. He regards them as an intermediate class between -the feeble-minded and the insane. He says: “They readily fail in the -social test for feeble-mindedness and because of the absence of definite -symptoms of insanity are often classed as feeble-minded. In the opinion -of the present writer they should not be so classed, because they -require a different kind of care and treatment, and have a different -kind of capacity for usefulness” (_140_). So long as this group of what -we shall term “conative cases” is discriminated from the intellectually -deficient it matters less whether they be regarded as a sub-group of the -feeble-minded or as a co-ordinate class. In grouping them with the -feeble-minded we have followed the customary classification. An estimate -of the size of this group will be considered later in Chapter III. - - - C. DOUBTFUL INTELLECTS ACCOMPANIED BY DELINQUENCY PRESUMED DEFICIENT. - -Conative forms of feeble-mindedness are perhaps the most serious types -in the field of delinquency. They are the troublesome portion of the -borderland group of deficient delinquents about which there is so much -concern. It is important to remember that it is just among these cases -that the test judgment is least certain. In this dilemma one principle -seems to be sound enough psychologically to be likely to meet with -acceptance. I should state this principle as follows: _A borderline case -which has also shown serious and repeated delinquency should be classed -as feeble-minded, the combination of doubtful intellect and repeated -delinquency making him socially unfit._ This will relieve the practical -situation temporarily until tests are perfected which will detect those -whose feebleness is specialized in those phases of volition centering -around the instinctive passions, control, balance, interest and -endurance. The principle recognizes that mental weakness is sometimes -emphasized in the volitional processes of the mind. - -The principle is apparently in conflict with the rule advocated by Dr. -Wallin. Referring to the mental levels reached by individuals, he says: -“We cannot consider X-, XI-, or XII-year-old criminals as feeble-minded -because they happen to be criminals and refuse to consider X-, XI-, and -XII-year-old housewives, farmers, laborers and merchants as -feeble-minded simply because they are law abiding and successful” -(_214_, p. 707). At another place he insists “that the rule must work -both ways” (_215_, p. 74). Logically it would seem at first that it was -a poor rule which did not work both ways. Further consideration will -show, I believe, that there has been a confusion of feeble-mindedness -with tested deficiency. If all the feeble-minded tested deficient -intellectually then the tested level should determine whether or not -they were feeble-minded. This, however, is not a correct psychological -description of the facts. I prefer, therefore, to allow for those in a -defined narrow range of weak intellects to be classed as deficient -provided their weakness also manifests itself pronouncedly in the -conative sphere. - -The principle that all mental deficients need not show the same low -degree of intellectual ability is clearly recognized in perhaps the most -important legal enactment on deficiency which has been passed in recent -years, the British Mental Deficiency Act of 1913. It states regarding -“moral imbeciles” that they are persons “who from an early age display -some permanent mental defect coupled with strong vicious or criminal -propensities on which punishment has had little or no deterrent effect.” -It specifically distinguishes them from the group of feeble-minded which -require guardianship because of inability to care for themselves. - ------ - -Footnote 3: - - In Great Britain the term is restricted to those above the imbecile - group. - - - - - CHAPTER III. THE PERCENTAGE DEFINITION OF INTELLECTUAL DEFICIENCY - - - A. THE DEFINITION. - -In order to direct attention to the quantitative description of -intellectual deficiency which is here proposed, let us state the -percentage definition in its most general form. _Individuals whose -mental development tests in the lowest X per cent. of the population -are_ PRESUMABLY INTELLECTUALLY DEFICIENT, _unless their deficiency is -caused by removable handicaps_. Above these is a group of Y per cent. -within which the diagnosis of intellectual deficiency is uncertain on -the basis of our present tests. The size of the presumably deficient X -group is to be determined by the number of intellectually weak which -society is at present justified in indefinitely isolating. The -doubtfully deficient Y group should include all those who are so -intellectually deficient as to be expected to need assistance -indefinitely. _The feeble-minded, or_ MENTALLY DEFICIENT, _are those who -require social care indefinitely because of deficiency in mental -development_. They include the X group, that portion of the doubtful Y -group which is found to require isolation, guardianship or social -assistance, and any others not detected by the tests but requiring -prolonged social care on account of their failure to develop mentally. -Under the principle which we stated at the close of the last section the -combination of Y ability and persistent serious delinquency brings the -case within the group presumed to be feeble-minded. - -Besides the greater definiteness and significance of such a definition -of intellectual deficiency, it affords the simplest practical criterion -for determining the borderline of passable intellects with a scale of -mental tests. A detailed comparison of the percentage plan with other -forms of quantitative definition will be found in Part Two. We may note -here, however, that it guards against a number of the absurdities of -current descriptions of the borderline with measuring scales. It is a -criterion which may be consistently applied to the borderline of both -the immature and the mature. It may be adapted with comparative ease to -any system of tests. It aids in comparing the frequency of intellectual -deficiency among different groups, for example, among different types of -delinquents, regardless of whether the investigators have used the same -series of tests, provided only that each series has been standardized -for similar random groups. - -Any form of quantitative definition, on the other hand, involves certain -assumptions which must be defended before it can claim to be of -advantage for practical purposes. - - - B. THE ASSUMPTIONS OF A QUANTITATIVE DEFINITION. - - - (a) DEFICIENCY IS A DIFFERENCE IN DEGREE NOT IN KIND. - -Fortunately the tendency to describe the feeble-minded person as if he -were a different species from the normal has been definitely attacked by -two noteworthy researches, that of Norsworthy (_159_) and that of -Pearson and Jaederholm (_164_) (_167_). In these two investigations -mentally deficient children either in special classes or in institutions -have been compared with groups of normal children from the same -localities on the basis of objective tests. The results are uniformly -supported by numerous other studies of deficient and normal groups with -the Binet and other tests. The conclusion is, therefore, thoroughly -established that there is no break in the continuity of mental ability. -It grades off gradually from average ability, and continually fewer and -fewer individuals are to be found at each lower degree of ability. The -borderline of deficiency will, therefore, not be a mental condition -which clearly separates different kinds of ability, but a limiting -degree of capacity to be decided upon by social policy in attempting to -care for those who most need social guardianship. Since ability changes -gradually in degree it is necessary to indicate a doubtful border region -of degrees of ability on which expert judgment must supplement the test -diagnosis. Below the doubtful region the diagnosis is clearly supported -by objective test criteria, so that the only question to raise is -whether the condition is caused by removable handicaps. The percentage -definition thus strictly conforms to the best objective studies of -mental deficiency in treating deficiency as a difference in degree. - -It should, perhaps, be said that this view is in direct conflict with -the opinion that mental deficiency is accounted for as a Mendelian -_simple unit_ character. The opposing view has been advocated by -Davenport (_95_, p. 310) and others in the publications of the Eugenics -Record Office, and accepted by Goddard (_112_, p. 556). It has been so -fully answered by Pearson (_164_) and Heron of the Galton Laboratory -(_127_) and by Thorndike (_198_) that there is no occasion to take up -the question in detail. We seem to be reaching an understanding so far -as our present problem is concerned. If the explanation of the -inheritance of mental ability is through Mendelian characters, -nevertheless intellectual ability is the result of such a complex -combination of units that it may best be thought of in connection with -the unimodal distribution of ability adopted in this study. No random -measurement of mental ability has ever shown any other form of -distribution. - -The attempt has also been made by Schmidt (_179_) to find qualitative -differences between normal and feeble-minded children by means of tests, -and by Louise and George Ordahl (_162_) to find qualitative differences -between levels of intelligence among feeble-minded children. While these -studies are very suggestive in pointing out the tests which most clearly -indicate differences between individuals, they seem to me to fall far -short of showing that the qualitative distinctions are anything more -than larger quantitative distinctions. It is not clear that the authors -intended them to mean anything more than this, so these studies do not -seem to conflict seriously with our assumption that intellectual ability -grades off gradually and uninterruptedly from medium ability to that of -the lowest idiot. - - - (b) AS TO THE VARIATION IN THE FREQUENCY OF DEFICIENCY AT DIFFERENT - AGES. - -A quantitative definition of intellectual deficiency would certainly be -much simpler if it could be assumed that the percentage of deficients at -each age is practically constant during the time when a diagnosis of -deficiency is most important, say from 5 to 25 years. Otherwise the -objection might be raised that it is impracticable to determine -different percentages for each year of immaturity or to formulate our -borderlines of ability for a particular age. When the general -instinctive origin of intellectual deficiency is considered along with -the incurability of the condition, we seem to be theoretically justified -in assuming that the variation will be slight from one year of life to -the next. This assumption is tacitly made by all those who use Stern's -quantitative description of deficiency in terms of the mental quotient. -On the other hand, there is a feeling among some of the investigators -that there is a sudden influx of feeble-minded at particular ages and -this position should be examined. Probably more important than this -possibility of increase is the question of a decrease in frequency with -age on account of the excessive death rate among the deficients. - -It is a natural supposition that there is a sudden increase in the -proportion of feeble-minded at adolescence. On account of the increased -rate of growth at this period we might expect to find greater -instability for a few years. It may well be that there is a rather -sudden influx of the unstable type of feeble-mindedness at this period. -Such an increase may occur without being detected by a series of brief -intellectual tests such as the Binet scale. It would be of the conative -type of feeble-mindedness that cannot at present be diagnosed by -objective tests, the type that requires diagnosis by expert opinion. It -is to be noted, however, that Binet, who paid much attention to the -unstable type, says: “Since the ill-balanced are so numerous at ten -years of age, and even at eight, we conclude that in many cases the -mental instability is not the result of the perturbation which precedes -puberty. This physiological explanation is not of such general -application as is sometimes supposed” (_77_, p. 18). - -Only when an emotional disturbance is so great as to be detectable by -mental tests will this influx need to be taken into consideration in -stating the borderline for objective tests. The evidence that few cases -of feeble-mindedness are not detectable until after ten years of age is -all the other way. With the Stanford measuring scale, Terman and his -co-workers did not even find a noticeable increase in the variability of -the groups at the ages of adolescence (_57_, p. 555). It is to be -remembered also that we are not concerned here with mere instability -which corrects itself with more maturity, such as has been described by -Bronner among delinquents. This does not, of course, amount to an -incurable conative deficiency and is not classified under -feeble-mindedness. - -Goddard has suggested that possibly the moral imbecile group comes into -our class of feeble-minded suddenly with a common arrest of development -at about the stage reached by the nine-year-old. He notes that “of the -twenty-three cases of this sort picked out for us (at Vineland) by the -head of the school department, fifteen are in the nine-year-old group, -five in the ten-year-old, two in the eleven, and one in the twelve” -(_113_). He regards this evidence, however, as meager and only -suggestive. Doll has given evidence of late appearance of retardation in -rare cases (_100_ and _99_). - -It is to be noted that if a sudden change is found in the percentage of -children falling below a certain test standard it is perhaps more likely -to mean that there is a change in the difficulty of the tests at that -point. For example our Table V shows 1.3% of the nine-year-olds test two -or more years retarded, while 18.9% of the ten-year-olds are retarded -two years or more. This presumably indicates a change in the relative -difficulty of the tests for VII and VIII rather than a change in the -frequency of retardation at ages nine and ten. When we turn to Goddard's -norms for VII and VIII we find that 81% of the seven-year-old children -pass the norm for VII while only 56% of the eight-year-old children pass -the norm for VIII. - -The Jaederholm data (_167_) obtained by applying the Binet tests to -pupils in the regular school classes and in special classes for the -retarded may suggest a possible influx of intellectual deficiency at -about 12 years of age or else “more mental stagnation in the -intellectually defective” at this life-age and after. If one were to -define intellectual deficiency in terms of the standard deviation of the -regular school children, this data suggests that there is a marked -increase in the number of children sent to the special classes at 12 -years of age who are -4 S. D. or lower. Roughly speaking it amounts to -36 children at 12 years of age, 36 at 13, and 21 at 14, as compared with -11 at 11 years and 13 at 10 years. On the other hand, this may as well -mean that intellectual deficiency becomes greater in degree rather than -in frequency at these ages. The latter interpretation is adopted by -Pearson for the Jaederholm data, so that it is perhaps not necessary to -consider this evidence further. On the average the pupils in the special -classes fall about .3 S. D. months further behind regular school -children with each added year of life from 5 to 14 inclusive. A third -possible interpretation of the greater number showing the degree of -deficiency measured by -4 S. D. with the older ages should be mentioned. -It is possible that 1 S. D. has not the same significance for -5-year-olds as for 12-year-olds. The distribution of abilities at -succeeding ages may be progressively more and more skewed in the -direction of deficiency. We shall return to this point in Part Two as -showing the advantage of the percentage definition over a definition in -terms of the deviation. In connection with the Jaederholm data on -special classes one should also consider the fact that younger children -are not as likely to be detected by the teachers and sent to the special -classes. It is possible also that the difference in difficulty of the -tests for different age groups is somewhat obscured by using a year of -excess or deficiency as a constant unit as Pearson has in treating this -data. The bearing of this difference in difficulty was pointed out above -for Goddard's data. - -The investigations by Pearson of children in the regular school classes -indicate that there is no important shift with maturity in the frequency -of those with different degrees of ability, when the ability is measured -either in terms of years of excess or deficiency with the Jaederholm -form of the Binet scale or in terms of estimates of ability relative to -children of the same age (_166_ and _167_). In both these studies the -correlation of ability with age was shown to be almost zero. For tested -ability for 261 school children “r” was .0105, P. E. .0417; with the -estimated ability, the correlation ratios were for 2389 boys, .054, P. -E. .014; for 2249 girls, .081, P. E. .014. Until we have better data -this is certainly the most authoritative quantitative answer to the -question of the shift with age in the frequency of the same relative -degree of mental capacity. - -The best method of empirically settling this question of the early -appearance and constancy of deficiency would be to test the same group -of children again after they had reached maturity and find out how many -of those who tested in the lowest X per cent. still remained in the same -relative position. This is, of course, not possible at present, but it -certainly should be done before we are dogmatic as to the permanent -isolation of the lowest X percentage at any age. The nearest approach to -this sort of evidence is Goddard's three annual testings of a group of -346 feeble-minded children with the Binet scale (_117_, p. 121-131). -Among these 109 showed no variation, 123 gained or lost 0.1 or 0.2 year, -18 lost 0.3 or more, and only 96 gained 0.3 or more of a year. With so -small a change in absolute tested ability the probability of a change in -position relative to normal children seems to be slight. Only one of the -76 who had tested in the idiot group gained as much as a half year in -tested age in three years. - -It is not possible to settle this question of the constancy of the -percentage of intellectual deficiency from one life-age to the next by -considering the frequency of different ages of children among those who -are sent to special classes for retarded pupils. This is evident from -the fact that these classes contain a considerable proportion of those -who are feeble mentally mainly because of conative disturbances. These -would not be detected by our present tests and would not be classed as -_intellectually deficient_. In the second place the pupils for the -special classes are usually selected mainly on the advice of their -teachers, who cannot, of course, without tests select those who are -intellectually deficient except by trying them for a number of years in -the regular school classes. This means that a smaller percentage of -pupils in the special classes at the younger ages is to be expected. - -The figures of the U.S. Census as to the ages of inmates of the -institutions for feeble-minded are also of little significance in -connection with the question of the variation from age to age. That the -number of inmates at the different ages is affected most largely by the -pressure of necessity for shifting the care from their homes to the -institution is shown by the fact that three-fourths of the admissions -are of persons over 10 years of age. It is also indicated by the fact -that for the period from 15 to 19 the males are over 20% more frequent -than females, while from 30-34 the females are nearly 20% more frequent. -Considering those ages most frequently represented in the institutions, -10-24 years, the average variation for the three five-year periods in -the percentage of the population of the corresponding ages who are in -these institutions is only 0.01%. The middle five-year period has the -most, but even if there were a cumulation of feeble-mindedness with age, -which is not shown, we would anticipate a change of not more than 0.05% -for these 15 years. This would be clearly negligible in considering the -general problem. - -That little allowance for the variation from age to age need be made for -the number of cases not discoverable at the beginning of school life is -further indicated by report of the Minnesota State School for -Feeble-Minded. It shows that in only 247 out of its 3040 admissions was -the mental deficiency known to commence after six years of age (_154_). -If the number of feeble-minded who should be isolated were found to -increase after school age less than one in 10,000 of the population, as -this suggests, it would surely be better to neglect this variation from -age to age than to emphasize it in dealing with the problem of objective -diagnosis and social welfare. - -How rare is the onset of feeble-mindedness after five years of age is -also shown by the frequency of hereditary causes. In his study of the -300 families represented at Vineland, Goddard places only 19% in his -“accidental” group and 2.6% in the group for which the causes are -unassigned. The rest are either in the hereditary group, probably -hereditary, or with neurotic heredity. Half of the cases in the -“accidental” group are due to meningitis. His histories show that only 9 -of the “accidental” and unassigned groups were unknown at 5 years of -age. This is only 3% of his total feeble-minded group. To these might be -added, perhaps, a few from the hereditary groups who did not show their -feeble-mindedness at so early an age, but so far as I can judge these -would not be of the intellectually deficient type that would be -detectable by the Binet scale at any age. They would test high enough -intellectually to pass socially and require expert diagnosis to be -classed as feeble-minded. - -Certain diseases, epilepsy and meningitis, are undoubtedly causes of -feeble-mindedness. The evidence, however, seems to be that they are so -rare compared with the mass of mental deficiency that after 5 years they -may well be offset by the excessive death rate among the feeble-minded. -That recoveries from feeble-mindedness are insignificant is generally -agreed. Among the 20,000 in institutions in 1910 only 55 were returned -to the custody of themselves. This is further evidence of the -fundamental, if not congenital, nature of the deficiency. - -While the evidence submitted above makes it seem fair to assume that the -increase in the frequency of a certain degree of intellectual deficiency -with age is probably negligible, it is not clear that the decrease with -age in the proportion of feeble-minded caused by an excessive death rate -may be neglected even for the test ages 5 to 25. By searching the -literature it has been possible to assemble the records for nearly 3500 -deaths among the feeble-minded in institutions in this country and Great -Britain distributed by ages in ten-year periods. This evidence is -presented in Table I. The number of cases under five years of age living -in the institutions is so small that the deaths under five years are -certainly misleading. They have, therefore, been omitted from the table -and the distribution calculated for those five years or over (_123_, -_154_, _204_, _205_). Comparison is made with a similar distribution of -the total deaths for a period of five years from 1901 to 1904, -inclusive, within the area of the United States in which deaths are -registered, compiled from the special mortality report of the Bureau of -the Census (_206_). This registration area has a population of about -32,000,000. The general agreement of the distribution of deaths among -the four different groups of institutional inmates seems to make it -reasonable to assume that the United States group of institutional -deaths for the year 1910 is a conservative description of excessive -death frequency at the early ages among the feeble-minded in -institutions. - - TABLE I. _Age Distribution of Deaths in the General Population and Among - Feeble-Minded in Institutions._ - - ────────────┬──────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────── - │Population│ Ages - ────────────┼──────────┼───────┬───────┬───────┬───────┬───────┬─────── - │ │ 5-14 │ 15-24 │ 25-34 │ 35-44 │ 45-54 │ 55 & - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ over - ────────────┼──────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼─────── - Gen'l—U. S. │ 1,897,492│ 6.1% │ 9.6% │ 12.8% │ 13.0% │ 13.6% │ 44.9% - in death │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - registration│ │ │ │ │ │ │ - area │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - ────────────┼──────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼─────── - F. M. 1910 │ 840│ 26.6 │ 33.0 │ 18.9 │ 9.1 │ 45 & │ - in │ │ │ │ │ │ over │ - Institut'ns │ │ │ │ │ │ 12.3 │ - in U. S. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - ────────────┼──────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼─────── - F. M. │ 997│ 34.3 │ 41.1 │ 10.4 │ 6.5 │ 3.5 │ 55 & - British │ │ │ │ │ │ │ over - (Earlswood) │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 4.2 - ────────────┼──────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼─────── - F. M. │ 613│ 34.7 │ 46.8 │ 9.5 │ │ 35 & │ - British │ │ │ │ │ │ over │ - (Barr) │ │ │ │ │ │ 9.0 │ - ────────────┼──────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼─────── - F. M. │ 982│ 27.6 │ 38.0 │ 16.1 │ 8.6 │ 3.5 │ 55 & - Faribault │ │ │ │ │ │ │ over - Minnesota │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 6.2 - ────────────┴──────────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴─────── - - TABLE II. _Mortality of Institutional Deficients in the United States - Compared with the General Population, Showing its Possible Effect on the - Frequency of Deficiency at Different Ages._ - - Ages - ───────────────────────────────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬──── - │ 5 │ 10 │ 15 │ 20 │ 25 │ 30 │ 35 │ 40 - ───────────────────────────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼──── - General population │1000│983 │972 │956 │934 │903 │872 │835 - ───────────────────────────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼──── - Deficients in Institut'ns │1000│795 │696 │606 │503 │428 │349 │290 - ───────────────────────────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼──── - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - Per cent. deficient if 1% at │1.40│1.11│1.00│ │.75 │ │ │ - age 15 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - ───────────────────────────────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴──── - -[Illustration: FIG. 1. _Mortality among Feeble-Minded in Institutions -Compared With the General Population_] - -A comparison of the death rates of the feeble-minded and the general -population at different ages is of prime importance in connection with -all attempts at quantitative descriptions of deficiency. Heretofore this -has been completely neglected. Fig. 1 and Table II have been prepared to -provide a roughly adequate estimate, on the basis of the above data for -the United States, as to the survival of 1000 institutional cases of -feeble-minded 5 years of age for successive age periods compared with -1000 people in the general population. In constructing this table it was -necessary to assume, since the facts were not given, that the age -distribution in the registration area of the general population was the -same as for the United States as a whole (census of 1910) and that the -number of feeble-minded in the institutions at the various age periods -was equal to the number enumerated on the first of January plus the -admissions during the year 1910, disregarding the number discharged -since they are not distributed by ages. The average annual death rate -among the institutional cases of feeble-minded 5 years of age and over -in the United States in 1910 was 35.19 per thousand, while the -corresponding death rate in the general population of the registration -area for the five years 1901-1904 inclusive was 13.56. Assuming that the -death rates are uniform within the five-year periods, the decline in the -proportion of institutional feeble-minded from 5-25 years of age as the -result of excessive mortality is indicated by the last line in Table II, -after allowing for the mortality in the general population. That this -effect of excessive mortality upon the percentage of feeble-minded -cannot be neglected between 5 and 25 years of age is apparent unless the -mortality among institutional cases is much greater than it is among the -deficient generally. As the figures stand the proportion of -feeble-minded would be reduced nearly one-half between ages 5 and 25. -Only a small part of this reduction probably would be compensated for by -new cases developing from accident or disease. On the other hand there -is little doubt that the institutions contain an excessive proportion of -low grade cases among whom the mortality is much greater. The mortality -among institutional cases is, therefore, probably not typical of that -among the feeble-minded generally. Nevertheless it is so great that any -quantitative definition of deficiency which neglects it entirely is open -to serious objection. We shall, therefore, keep this variation in mind -in connection with the discussion in the next chapter of the percentage -which is deficient, and in the adaptation of the definition to a -measuring scale. It is clear that the percentage should be so chosen as -to allow best for the possible large effect of excessive mortality among -the deficients. Finally, it should be said that the percentage -definition of feeble-mindedness might be modified to meet a varying -percentage from age to age should that ever become desirable. - - - (c) AS TO THE NUMBER OF DEFICIENTS NOT DETECTED BY TESTS. - -If most of the feeble-minded for whom society should provide were of the -type which is only conative and not detectable by our present objective -tests, a quantitative definition would be abortive. We must, therefore, -study our assumption that it is worth while to direct our attention to -those who are intellectually deficient. We shall attempt to discover how -frequent are the primarily conative types. - -Before examining the quantitative evidence we may note that it is in -conformity with two prominent recent tendencies in psychology to -subordinate specialized abilities, as compared with abilities which -function commonly in many situations. The first of these tendencies is -represented by the fundamental researches of Hart and Spearman (_123_) -(_185_). This is not the place to set forth the technical work on which -their conclusions are based. It may be said, however, that, with 17 -different psychological tests, they were unable to discover any -important specific mental weakness which distinguished adults who were -suffering with any one of various mental abnormalities, including -imbecility, manic-depressive insanity, dementia praecox, paranoia, and -general paralysis of the insane. This may have been the fault of the -tests, but it seems to be more likely that the fault lies in the custom -of emphasizing special abilities and disabilities, at least from the -point of view of tested capacities. On the other hand, all of these -mental abnormalities showed a weakness in general intellectual ability. -This is true whether this general ability be regarded, as it is by Hart -and Spearman, as due to a general fund of brain energy, or whether -general ability be taken to refer to the common recurrence of many -specific abilities in much of our mental life. Its significance for this -study is that a series of varied tests, such as that of Binet, may be -expected to give a good estimate of general ability, and its failure to -disclose specific disabilities is thus less important. - -The second influence in psychology tending to emphasize average tested -ability is the establishment of the biological conception of the mind -which recognizes the mutual interdependence of the mental processes, -organically united through the activity of the brain. So long as -intellectual, emotional and volitional processes are all mutually -dependent, a disturbance of one aspect of mental life is bound to affect -the others. In considering the mutual dependence of the mental -processes, it is important to weigh carefully the striking examples -which Bronner[4] has brought together, illustrating special abilities -and disabilities. She has made an admirable start toward a differential -diagnosis of special defects in number work, language ability and other -mental activities. The degree of special deficiency which results in -social failure could be placed upon an objective basis, but the rarity -of special deficiencies as compared with general deficiency will make -this a slow task. In the meantime we may rely upon the mutual dependence -of the organic processes as a point of view which emphasizes the common -spread of deficiency to many activities. Knowledge of a single case of -specific disability is sufficient to make us recognize that such cases -do occur. On account of the rarity of those cases and the absence of -objective criteria, it seems necessary to leave the further -differentiation to the future, considering here only those cases which -may be grouped together as conative, as contrasted with those detected -by our general intellectual tests. - -Whether the group of primarily conative cases is of any considerable -size can be only very roughly estimated at present, since the diagnosis -of such cases of feeble-mindedness rests at present almost exclusively -on the subjective opinion of the examiner. Before their diagnosis is put -upon an objective basis we must have a different form of test directed -at such traits of will as initiative, perseverance, stability and -self-control. These probably center on the mental side around the -instinctive emotional background of interest and the passions, while, on -the physical side, they raise the question whether the subject's energy -is adequate to endure the strain of competition or whether it shows -itself only in sudden bursts. - -If the diagnosis of conative cases could be determined objectively, it -is possible that most forms of social unfitness would be found highly -correlated with intellectual deficiency. On the other hand, when the -diagnosis of unfitness for school or social life depends merely upon the -opinion of experts or teachers, the inaccuracy of the diagnosis may show -a wide discrepancy between the so-called conative and intellectual types -of deficiency. Binet, on the basis of his acquaintance with the pupils -in special classes, suggested that the number of unstable children is -probably equal to the number of those who are intellectually unsuited -for the ordinary schools or institutions (_77_). Since he then places -the total number of the two classes at four or five per cent., it is -apparent that he is discussing a higher type of ability than is usually -included under the term feeble-minded. We can get somewhat better -evidence on this question by studying the results of Binet tests applied -to children cared for in special classes or in institutions for the -feeble-minded. Chotzen (90) presents a table of 280 children in the -_Hilfsschule_ in Breslau, only 201 of whom, however, he himself -diagnosed as feeble-minded, _i. e._, _debile_ or lower. Of these only 51 -were intellectually deficient as indicated by the Binet tests when we -include the doubtful cases according to the criteria we have adopted in -this study. If we suppose that, in addition to those in the special -classes, there would be one intellectually deficient child in an -institution for feeble-minded for every child testing deficient, we -would then guess that only 40% of the feeble-minded children in Breslau -were intellectually deficient. This sort of estimate seems to agree with -Binet's belief that half of the children requiring special care, at -least during school ages, are cases which are primarily conative. - -Pearson has approached the same problem in another way (_164_) (_167_). -He has used the results of the psychological tests applied by Norsworthy -to children in New York in special classes and institutions for -feeble-minded compared with those in the regular school classes, and the -results of Jaederholm obtained with the Binet tests applied to 301 -children in Stockholm in the special classes compared with 261 others -selected from the regular classes. He found that “70.5% of normal -children fall into the range of intelligence of the so-called mentally -defective; and 60.5% of so-called mentally defective children have an -intelligence comparable with that of some normal children” (_167_, p. -23). On the statistical assumption that those in the normal classes -would distribute according to the Gaussian normal probability curve he -estimates that, with the Binet tests, among those in the special classes -“10% to 20%, or those from 4 to 4.5 years and beyond of mental defect, -could not be matched at all from 27,000 children” (_164_, p. 46). -Another 20 to 30% could be intellectually matched by those in the -regular classes having from 3 to 4.5 years of mental deficiency, but -they would be matched very rarely. On the assumption that 1% of the -children were feeble-minded, not more than about two children in a -thousand of this regular school population would be expected to be 3 or -more years retarded and thus overlap those of like deficiency in the -special classes (_167_, p. 30). Considering the results of Norsworthy's -study he says on similar assumptions: “It seems, therefore, that a -carefully planned psychological test, while not sufficing to -differentiate 50 to 60% of the mentally defective from the normal child, -would suffice to differentiate 40 to 50%” (_164_, p. 35). Again we come -back to the estimate that psychological tests may well be expected to -select nearly half of the children at present found in special classes -for retarded pupils. Moreover, a considerable part of the overlapping of -intellectual deficiency in the regular classes with that in the special -classes which he found may be accounted for by the inadequate methods of -selection of pupils for the special classes by teachers or examiners who -have used no objective tests. Some who were left in the regular classes -should undoubtedly have been transferred to special classes and vice -versa. There seems to be nothing to indicate that less than half of -those properly sent to special classes would be of clear or doubtful -intellectual deficiency. If the tests served to select even a smaller -proportion of those assigned to special instruction, the “school -inefficients” as Pearson calls them, their value as an aid to diagnosis -would be demonstrated. - -Among groups of delinquents, where we would expect the purely conative -cases to be more common, we find that a careful diagnosis of -feeble-mindedness on the basis of test data, medical examination and -case history indicates that conative cases without serious intellectual -deficiency are much rarer than intellectually deficient delinquents. At -least this is the evidence of one study where such information is -available. Kohs at the Chicago House of Correction found among 219 cases -over 16 years of age, which he diagnosed as feeble-minded, only 28 -tested XI and there were only 52 who did not test either presumably -deficient or uncertain intellectually according to our criterion. -Another bit of evidence is that collected at the Clearing House for -Mental Defectives in connection with the New York Post-Graduate School -of Medicine, where 200 consecutive cases (108 males) were examined by -Miss Hinckley. Her graphs show that only 15% tested X or above with the -Binet revised scale, _i. e._, above those presumably deficient in -intellect. The cases were from 13 to 42 years of age. The clearing house -provides an opportunity for social workers to have suspected deficients -examined and the few cases over X seems to indicate that the purely -conative type is not very commonly met with among the social workers. - -When we turn to the institutions for the feeble-minded we find that they -are today caring for few solely conative cases. Although I can find no -tables which give both the life ages and mental ages of the individual -inmates, we can at least be sure that few test so high as X, or above -with the Binet scale. This means that only a few have as yet reached the -threshold for passable adult intellects, which should be attained by 15 -years of age. At the Minnesota state institution for the feeble-minded -in Faribault among 1266 inmates, excluding epileptics, 41 tested X; 28, -XI; 12, XII; and 8, XIII, a total of 7% (_154_). At Vineland, N. J., -Goddard reported among 382 inmates, 14 tested X; 5, XI; and 7, XII, -about 7%. Some of the children who were under 15 in life-age might later -develop above the limit for intellectual deficiency. Of the 1266 at the -Minnesota institution, however, 508 were 15 or over at the time of their -admission, so that at least 82% of the 508 were clearly intellectually -deficient. Eight per cent. more tested X and were in the doubtful group -in intellectual ability according to the criteria we have adopted. This -suggests that not more than about 10% of those who are at present -isolated in institutions are there for feebleness of will alone. It -seems to confirm our presumption that the intellectually deficient -discovered by tests form the great majority of the social deficients who -need prolonged care or assistance. - - - (d) ALLOWANCE MAY BE MADE FOR VARIABILITY. - -The quantitative definition of intellectual deficiency must be made with -careful allowance for irregularities among different mental processes, -among different individuals, and among different groups. Theoretically -it is possible to place the borderline so low that a case with that -degree of deficiency and without removable handicaps would be clearly -feeble-minded. The chance that the diagnosis would be mistaken could be -reduced to any minimum desired. Above this a wider region of doubtful -deficiency could then be stated in similar form. This is the plan that -we suggest in attempting the percentage definition. Practically, -however, the plan assumes that a suitable allowance can actually be made -for these variations and raises a number of problems as to variability -which should be considered. Four of these sources of variation are -discussed below: (1) the variation due to a limited sample of -individuals measured, (2) the variation among different communities, (3) -the variations arising from sex, race and social differences, (4) the -variation of the same individual from one mental process to another. We -do not have the problem of neglecting these variations, but of -adequately allowing for them both in the percentage of presumably -deficient and in the doubtful region. - -(1) _Variation among Samples of Individuals Measured._ The error -introduced by the fact that measurements are made on a limited rather -than an unlimited number of individuals, in establishing the standards -with a system of tests, can be taken care of statistically fairly well -by applying the theory of probability as to the error of a percentage in -a single sample. The range of the error can then be indicated on the -measurement scale. This supposes, however, that each sample to be -measured is taken from a random group and not from a selected group. -Allowance for this error of sampling is therefore complicated by the -fact that the usual test data have been obtained from groups of _school -children_, even when there has been no further selection within the -school group. Data on school children are certainly reliable only within -the years of compulsory school attendance. Ordinarily in this country, -they are not reliable for children of 14 years of age or over. Moreover, -the point of the scale which is reached by the lowest X percentage of -school pupils will exclude a slightly larger percentage of all children -of corresponding ages, since the idiots and some imbeciles are not sent -to the ordinary schools. This slight discrepancy should be kept in mind. -The problem of avoiding selected samples among adults is still more -difficult; but we found that it was possible in one community at least -to measure all the 15-year-olds in the lowest X percentage in certain -districts, as we shall note later. By this age, mental processes are -probably very much like those of adults, except for the amount of -information and practise. - -(2) _Variation among Different Communities._ Under any conception of -deficiency it is clear that there are relatively more deficients in some -communities than others. The percentage should, of course, not be -determined for a small community such as a city or county, but for a -state or a nation in order to avoid the difficulty of the difference -between communities. It would not interfere with the plan for isolating -the lowest X percentage of a state even if that meant isolating 10% in -one small community and none in another. Indeed, it might be expected to -do just that, when one considers the accumulation of deficiency in -certain settlements such as Key has shown (_131_, p. 63). The data on -which the borderline with a measuring scale would be established should, -of course, not be obtained from communities known to be unusual in -respect to the frequency of deficiency. - -Since social failure is our final criterion for judging deficiency, we -must further consider that it is easier for a person to survive in one -environment than in another: in the country, for example, than in the -city. This sort of problem has led to considerable confusion. Goddard -remarks: “In consequence of this it happens that a man may be -intelligent in one environment and unintelligent in another. It is this -point which Binet has illustrated by saying 'A French peasant may be -normal in a rural community but feeble-minded in Paris.'” (_117_, p. -573.) Goddard then goes on to suppose that a delinquent with the -intelligence of a sixteen year old may be “defective” because he happens -“to have got into an environment that requires a twenty-year-old -intelligence.” The suggestion that a criminal might be excused on the -ground of deficiency because he happened to fall among bad companions is -a _reductio ad absurdum_. Clearly environment must be defined as -ordinary environment, available environment or by some similar concept, -or else the definition of deficiency loses all significance. In another -place Goddard more properly suggests that it would be well to “draw one -line at that point below which a person of that intelligence is not -desirable or useful _in any environment_” (_117_, p. 3). - -So long as the care of the feeble-minded is a state problem the -percentage of passable intellects would apparently be determined for the -available environment in that state. The problem of social care cannot -mean that the state should care for college men because they cannot -survive among college men or in the station of life into which they may -have been born. So long as there are environments within the community -where they can survive it is a problem of shifting them in their social -habitat, not a problem for social care. The same is true for the low -grades of intellect. It is not likely, however, that any portion of the -community could absorb many more of the low degree intellects. For the -problem of social care for the feeble-minded, the question: What -environment will allow this individual to survive? becomes the question: -Can he survive in any available environment in his community? It would -seem very hazardous to suppose that the different opportunities for -survival afforded by different localities in a state would be large -enough to care for more than the group of doubtful cases which should be -allowed for in a quantitative description of the border region. - -(3) _The Variation with Sex, Race, and Social Position_ has been -carefully called to attention by Yerkes and Bridges in their studies -with the Binet Point Scale (_225_, Chap. V and VI). It may very well be -that not as high ability should be expected of certain groups as of -others; as a matter of moral obligation, they are not as responsible for -their conduct or their attainments. On the other hand this does not -directly affect the question, what lowest percentage of intellects -cannot get along in society? When that percentage is determined for the -environment available in the community all those who fall within it -might even turn out to be of one sex or of one nationality or of one -social position, without affecting the question whether they should be -cared for by society, or what grade of intellect is not socially -passable? Temporary social handicaps, such as lack of familiarity with -the language, lack of training, etc., must, of course, be allowed for so -far as they affect the individual's test record. Whether the difference -of 5% to 10% in the score of pupils born to non-English-speaking -families compared to their companions' (_225_, p. 66) is due to the -temporary handicap of language or to a permanent difference is, however, -just the problem which the Yerkes and Bridges study does not answer. The -fact that the difference is even greater for older children suggests -that it may indicate an inborn difference between the groups compared. - -A diagnosis of deficiency should not be made until the examiner is able -to estimate whether the removal of training or health handicaps would -bring the individual above the borderline. So far as known temporary -handicaps affect the standard of the test results with groups they -should, of course, also be taken into account. On the other hand, it is -clear that the borderline which predicts social failure should not be -shifted to allow for differences in permanent handicaps whether those be -of race, sex or social position. - -(4) _The Variation among Different Mental Processes._ With our present -knowledge the most difficult variation for which we must make allowance -at the borderline is the variation from one trait or process to another -in the same individual. One phase of it was discussed above under “c.” -The investigation of Norsworthy throws light on this question. -Summarizing her tests she says: “Among idiots there is not an equal lack -of mental capacity in all directions. There is something of the same -lack of correlation among the traits measured in the case of idiots as -there is with ordinary people” (_159_, p. 68). Again: “The idiots are -nearest the central tendency for children in general in the measurements -of mental traits which are chiefly tests of maturity, and farther and -farther away as measurements are made which are tests of ability to deal -with abstract data. They are two and a half times as far from the median -for children in general in tests like the genus-species test as they are -in tests like the A test or the perception of weight.” Weidensall (_60_) -and Pyle (_46_) also compare delinquent and normal individuals for -different tests, showing a variation with the sort of mental activity -compared. - -While Norsworthy thus presents evidence of certain specializations of -deficiency, she notes, however, that perhaps feeble-mindedness is more -typically general than specific and that general deficiency is more -important to consider than specific. Even with that test with which her -group of retarded and feeble-minded children did best, only 28% of them -passed the point which would be excelled by 75% of the children in -general. In their worst test only 1% passed this point. It is also to be -noticed that those tests in which they most nearly approached ordinary -children are for just those simple processes which would be least likely -to be of use in the struggle for social existence. As a whole, -therefore, there is nothing in her results which shows that any -appreciable number of children who were deficient in the average of -tested abilities, would have good enough special ability along a few -lines to make them socially passable. Indeed, for all that we know at -present, the borderline for _passable ability_ in each of our various -mental processes might vary quite as much as Norsworthy found, without -this variation affecting a prediction of failure based upon the average -of a series of tests. - -On account of the great attention that has been paid to individual -differences in recent years, on account of their importance for -diagnosis, for determining the causes of deficiency, and for planning -for the training of deficients, we have come almost to the point where -we forget the significance of the average as the most common condition -with which we have to deal. The lack of complete correlation between -abilities of an individual does not make us hesitate to use the concept -of his average ability; it should not make us neglect or misunderstand -the significance of the position of an individual testing low down on -the scale. For the problem of social care the borderline position on a -scale is immensely more important than higher ability. It seems -advisable, therefore, to define this borderline ability with some -suitable allowance for variability in mental processes. It is far safer -to judge an individual's chance of survival by his average or general -tested ability than by the little knowledge that is as yet available -regarding special abilities. - ------ - -Footnote 4: - - AUGUSTA F. BRONNER. _The Psychology of Special Abilities and - Disabilities._ Boston, 1917, pp. vii, 269. - - - - - CHAPTER IV. WHAT PERCENTAGE IS FEEBLE-MINDED - - - A. KINDS OF SOCIAL CARE CONTEMPLATED - -At first it seems like a hopeless task to try to bring harmony out of -the confused estimates of the proportion of the feeble-minded in modern -society. Authoritative estimates by commissions or by recognized experts -range from less than 0.2% to 5.0% that is, from 2 to 50 per thousand. -Further study of these estimates shows that they reflect not so much a -difference in expert opinion about the same problem as differences in -the problems which were considered in making the estimates. As soon as -we compare only those estimates that have been made to answer the -question, what percentage of low grade minds should be provided with a -certain form of social care? it is rather surprising how much less the -discrepancy becomes. An analysis of important estimates will therefore -be undertaken in order to try to discover some of the sources of -disagreement. - -The most significant thing about an estimate is that the estimator is -thinking of providing for his group of deficients in a special way. This -is the purpose of the estimates. Three important groups of the mentally -deficient now demand attention. They are: (1) The group which, for moral -and eugenic reasons, society is justified in isolating for life or an -indefinite period. (2) The group which needs special simple industrial -training in order to get along with social assistance without isolation. -These deficients may be cared for in their home towns by special -schools, public guardians, and after-care committees. (3) The group -which needs special school assistance, but is socially passable after -leaving school. These individuals are incapable of competing in school -with their fellows, but they are able to get along in the simplest -employments without social assistance. We may designate these three -groups as those needing (1) social isolation, (2) social assistance, and -(3) only school assistance. The largest estimates of feeble-mindedness, -it will be found, include the third group, while the smallest intend to -include only the first group. The first and second groups are clearly -below the limit of feeble-mindedness designated by the verbal definition -of the British Commission. They are socially unfit. The language of that -definition is ambiguous enough to include the third group, but the plan -of the Commission, judged by its consideration of the number to be sent -to special schools, would regard only the first two classes as -feeble-minded. Following this common conception I have regarded those in -the third group as above the feeble-minded. It will help to find harmony -among the estimates if we estimate separately those mentally deficient -enough to need social isolation, social assistance, and only school -assistance. This discrimination of the retarded by the kind of social -care needed should also make the social definition more useful. - - - B. ESTIMATES OF THE SCHOOL POPULATION VERSUS THE GENERAL POPULATION - -Before we consider the percentage estimates in detail for these -different forms of social care, let us note the effect on them of two -other considerations. The first of these is the discrepancy between -estimates of the proportion of feeble-minded among school children and -estimates as to the proportion in the general population. Since -feeble-mindedness is regarded as a permanent arrest of mental -development occurring at an early age and usually due to hereditary -causes, it is plain that a school child who is feeble-minded would be -expected to remain so for life. Nevertheless we find that estimates of -0.3% of the general population are accompanied by estimates of 1.0% or -2.0% of the school population as feeble-minded. I have not been able to -find any careful attempt to account for these discrepancies. The -excessive mortality among the feeble-minded is hardly adequate to -explain so great a difference. - -It is interesting to note some of these comparisons. Goddard, for -example, considers it conservative to estimate that 2% of the school -population is “feeble-minded” (_112_, p. 6). In the same publication he -says: “There are between 300,000 and 400,000 feeble-minded persons in -the United States” (p. 582). Since the elementary school enrollment is -about 20,000,000 (_208_), the feeble-minded school children alone on his -first estimate would account for 400,000 feeble-minded in the United -States without allowing for any feeble-minded outside of the ages in the -elementary school. - -The report of the British Royal Commission, published in 1908, forms the -starting point for many of the estimates made today. The commission -added together the number of school children which were thought to -require special classes with the number of defectives found in -institutions, prisons and almshouses, or reported by its medical -investigators. The total gave 0.46% of the general population as -“mentally defective persons,” not including certified lunatics. From -this amount should be deducted .06% who were insane but had not been -certified as such, leaving 0.4% mentally deficient. This was not -regarded by the Commission as an estimate, but was the number actually -“enumerated by the medical investigators” in sixteen typical districts -studied in England and Wales with a total population of 2,362,222 (_83_, -VIII, p. 192). Turning to the school children we find that in the areas -investigated there were 436,833 school children of whom 0.79% were found -defective. Since this was an enumeration and not an estimate, the -commission paid no attention to the discrepancy between 0.79% of the -school children and 0.31% of the rest of the population. Tredgold, -moreover, based his estimates of the frequency of the mental deficiency -in England and Wales on the data of the Royal Commission without -attempting to harmonize this discrepancy. This oversight has apparently -been one source of the not uncommon difference between the estimates for -school children and for the general population. One suspects that the -fact that the elementary school population is about a fifth of the -general population, has also mistakenly contributed to this error. The -discrepancy of three to five times as large a frequency of deficiency -among school children as in the general population certainly needs -clearing up. - -There is an escape from this dilemma which seems more reasonable than to -attempt to account for the discrepancy by excessive mortality. When -estimates are made concerning the school population the estimator is -usually thinking of that group of feeble-minded which needs special -school training and probably social assistance afterward. When estimates -are made of the general population the estimator is likely to be -thinking of that group which must be cared for permanently by society, -mainly in institutions or colonies. For some time at least the state -cannot be expected to undertake the indefinite care of all the -deficients who should have, at once, simple industrial training, in -special local schools or classes in order to survive, even with social -assistance. This difference in the type of care contemplated seems most -naturally to account for the discrepancy found with many writers, -between their estimates for the school population and for the general -population. - - - C. DESIRABLE VERSUS IMMEDIATELY ADVISABLE SOCIAL CARE - -A second source of confusion arises when one investigator is thinking of -the number of feeble-minded, the care of whom it is _desirable_ that -society should assume, and another is thinking of the feeble-minded, the -care of whom it is _advisable_ for society to assume at once. Considered -in connection with a specific case the distinction is quite obvious. It -is one thing to say that it would be desirable for the state to assume -the indefinite care of a particular person, it is quite another thing to -say that it would be advisable for the state to assume that care -immediately, when one remembers the crowded condition of the -institutions, the necessity of caring for the worst cases first, the -possibility of the person being cared for by his own family or in a -local school, the added public expense, the necessary neglect of other -movements for social welfare if society assumes this expense, etc., etc. - -When you magnify this problem in the mind of the estimator who is -interested in the question of caring for the groups of feeble-minded, -the result is that his estimates of the size of the groups are decidedly -affected. For example, few would deny that the Site Commission of New -York appointed to locate the colony for mental defectives, now known as -the Letchworth Village, was emphasizing a program of permanent social -care when it estimated the number of feeble-minded in New York. The -Commission, “after taking into consideration the figures of the State -and National census, and other data collected from institutions,” -estimated that there were in New York state possibly 12,300 mentally -defective persons (Editor's Note, _205_, p. 84). This is less than 0.15% -of the population and very low compared with most estimates. - -The low estimates will generally be found to be influenced by -considerations of public expense rather than the social unfitness of the -lower group. Inasmuch as there are no sharp distinctions between -different degrees of mental ability this consideration of public expense -is perfectly proper. At the other extreme, however, are the eugenists -who are convinced that it is _desirable_ to isolate a large group at the -lower range of ability. The member of the legislature will be concerned -mainly with the question how much money will the public be willing to -appropriate now for the care of these unfortunates. The eugenist will be -thinking of an ideal rather far in the future towards which to work. - -The diagnostician should take a conservative intermediate ground. He may -leave to the court or other authorized tribunal to decide whether the -public has the facilities available at present for caring for a -particular weak-minded person, but he must decide whether expert -scientific opinion at the present time will justify diagnosing this -degree of deficiency as suitable for the special care provided for the -feeble-minded. Whether it is advisable to care for the particular -deficient at home, in a special local school, or in a state institution -would be left to the legal authority to decide. Under present -conditions, the diagnostician may possibly indicate whether the -individual is deficient enough to justify social isolation, or merely to -justify sending to a local elementary day school for deficients. - - - D. PERCENTAGES SUGGESTED TO HARMONIZE THE ESTIMATES - -It is from the point of view of the diagnostician that we shall attempt -to focus this question of the percentage of feeble-minded. We shall -tentatively suggest limits as to the degrees of _intellectual -deficiency_ which we might be justified in regarding, under the present -conditions of scientific knowledge as being low enough in intellectual -capacity to justify particular forms of social care. Such estimates will -be of value if they help to harmonize the conflicting opinions by -bringing them into relation with the above analysis. We shall, -therefore, compare the suggested percentages with a number of -authoritative statements of the frequency of feeble-mindedness. By -considering the differences in the nature of the estimations we may -approach nearer to an understanding of the problem. - -Since the percentages to be suggested are chosen from the point of view -of diagnosis, they do not represent the number for which every community -should immediately make financial provision. The expense is a local or a -state question. It is so much affected by state conditions and by public -policy that it probably must be determined in any state by a special -commission. On the other hand, the laws already provide for caring for -the feeble-minded in institutions or colonies and in special schools or -classes, so that the estimates may help to guide diagnosticians who are -called upon to decide whether a particular person might be rightfully -regarded as deficient enough intellectually to justify committing him -for permanent care to a state institution. In the present practise it is -fairly clear that this distinction is made in the minds of different -diagnosticians. It may ultimately be desirable that this differentiation -between the types of social care be introduced into the law. Until then -it will remain the duty of the court to determine what degree of social -unfitness is intended by a particular law. The social concept of -feeble-mindedness is just now undergoing a rapid evolution so that it -would be impossible to predict how it may legally crystallize a -generation hence. - -To begin with the lowest group of the feeble-minded, we should consider -those whom the state might be clearly justified in isolating -indefinitely on the basis of their tested lack of intellectual capacity, -the social isolation group. For purposes of comparison let us place this -degree of intellectual ability as that possessed by the lowest 0.5% at -fifteen years of age. Above these let us estimate a group of uncertain -cases so far as isolation is concerned, but cases which the -diagnostician would be justified in regarding as intellectually -deficient enough to justify sending to special local schools for -training the feeble-minded. After special training the majority of these -cases might be expected to require social assistance indefinitely. They -would form the social assistance group. Isolation would be justified for -none of them on the basis of their test records alone. Those in this -group who were persistent delinquents would, by that additional fact, -fall into the lowest group so far as social care is concerned. Let us -estimate this social assistance group tentatively as the next 1.0% at -fifteen years of age. - -These estimates have been made as at fifteen years of age since the -effect of the excessive mortality especially among the isolation group -is uncertain and may need to be allowed for in a discussion of the -percentage deficient at different ages. If the mortality were as great -as has been described among institutional cases in the previous chapter, -a rough estimate of the percentage intellectually deficient in the -general population places it at less than 0.5%. This estimate may be -made by using the estimated deficiency at the median age of those under -15 years of age and at the median age of those 15 years of age and over. -According to the age distribution of the 1910 census, there were 32% -under 15 years with a median age of 6 years. At age six 0.67% would be -presumed as low as 0.50% at 15 years. The older group (68% of the -population) has a median age of 32 with a corresponding percentage in -the isolation group at that age of 0.30%, after allowing for differences -in mortality on the plan indicated in Table II. This rough estimate for -the lowest group indicates that 0.42% of the general population would be -of as low a degree of intellectual capacity as the lowest 0.5% at 15 -years. Our plan presumes, therefore, that between 0.4% and 0.5% of the -population are unable to pass their entire lives outside of institutions -under ordinary conditions; _i. e._, make an honest living and live -within the law even with social assistance and supervision. - -The corresponding estimate for those requiring only social assistance -would be between 0.8% and 1.0% of the general population above the -lowest group. This might vary from approximately 1.34% at 6 years to -0.59% at 32, the median age for those over 14 years. Since the mortality -is probably less among deficients not in institutions, as they average -higher in ability, the changes in the percentages are probably extreme -estimates. We should keep in mind, however, the possibility that with -the excessive death rate the lowest 1.0% at 15 may mean an ability -corresponding to the lowest 1.34% at 6 years and the lowest 0.60% at 32 -years. - -The next higher group in intellectual ability is so high as not to -require social assistance outside of school. When we ask how large a per -cent. we should be justified in placing in this group and separating -merely for special instruction in school, we reach a condition which is -at present so ill-defined even in the minds of educators that it seems -best to fall back on the general advice that our school systems should -provide just as nearly individual instruction as the public purse and -managing genius can devise. Mannheim, Germany, for example, takes care -of 18 per cent. outside of its regular school classes. The ideal is -individual instruction for all. School authorities would be justified in -providing special instruction for every degree of mental ability, if the -cost would not restrict other more important social undertakings. This -less degree of retardation in the group needing only school assistance -should not, however, be classed as feeble-minded. We shall see later the -percentages for which some authorities have considered it already -advisable to provide special school instruction. We need not attempt to -estimate the size of this group, as it is beyond the limit of -feeble-mindedness. - -The purely conative cases are not taken care of in the above estimates, -which are intended for tested deficients. If the conative cases -unaccompanied by intellectual deficiency should be regarded as frequent -enough to replace those in the social assistance group who ultimately -care for themselves, plus those subtracted by the excessive death rate, -we would have a total of 1.5% of the general population feeble-minded -enough to warrant social care of some sort. About 0.5% might justly be -isolated. The reasonableness of this program can be judged by comparison -with authoritative estimates now to be reviewed. The problem here is -whether this is an unreasonable program for the diagnostician to assume -as scientifically justified, remembering that these estimates are for -tested deficients at 15 years of age and do not include purely conative -cases which might occur above these intellectual borderlines. - - - E. COMPARISON WITH IMPORTANT ESTIMATES - -_The Social Isolation Group._ We are now ready to consider some of the -important estimates which throw light upon the reasonableness of the -percentages we have named. First, what percentage would we be justified -in socially isolating? In the United States Census Report on the Insane -and Feeble-Minded in Institutions in 1910, we find that the number then -actually in institutions for feeble-minded was only about 0.02% of the -population. At the most frequent ages this rises to about 0.05%. It is -evident that the number actually isolated is of little significance -except as a check on the estimates. The report, however, refers to the -special estimate made by the public authorities in Massachusetts which -also included feeble-minded in state hospitals for the insane, other -asylums, those reported by the overseers of the poor and those -enumerated in the general population. The U. S. report says: “The census -was not regarded as being complete, but it is of interest to note that -if the number of feeble-minded in proportion to the total population was -the same for the entire United States as it was in Massachusetts -according to this census, the total number of feeble-minded would be -over 200,000. Probably this may be regarded as a conservative estimate -of the number of feeble-minded in the United States and would indicate -that not over one-tenth of the feeble-minded are being cared for in -special institutions” (_205_, p. 183). This estimate, which thus amounts -to about 0.2%, may probably be considered as a reasonable program of -expansion from the institutional viewpoint. The diagnostician who is -considering the individual and not the mass must supplement it by -considering who should be isolated if facilities were available. If the -census bureau can contemplate institutional care for ten times those at -present thus provided for, it gives us some indication of a reasonable -limit as to the increase in institutional care that can be assumed to be -reasonably contemplated at present. - -Dr. W. D. Cornell, director of medical inspection of the Philadelphia -public schools, after the personal examination of those cases which in -the opinion of the teachers should be sent to institutions, places the -“institution cases” at a minimum of 15 per 10,000 school children. He -adds: “The number of evidently feeble-minded above 6 years of age may be -said to be 1 to every 500 of the population. These figures are -conservative and have been accepted by experts for years.” This then is -the minimum estimate and quite clearly refers to institutional cases. - -A committee of the Public School Alliance of New Orleans, of which Prof. -David Spence Hill was chairman, reported in 1913 a careful census of the -public school children in that city the previous year made by the -teachers in co-operation with the Newcomb Laboratory of Psychology and -Education. Each teacher was asked to state her opinion as to how many in -her room were “feeble-minded or insane children who should be under -institutional or home care, rather than in the public schools.” Also the -number of backward children not in the above class “who urgently need -special educational methods in special classes within the special -schools.” About a fifth of the total of the 38,000 school children in -the city are colored. The grand total showed 0.28% in the first class -mentioned above, and 7.7% in the second. Speaking of those “thought by -teachers to be feeble-minded” and needing institutional care the report -says: - -“The figure 0.28 of 1% coincides exactly with the estimate of the -Philadelphia Teachers' Association made in 1909 in a census of 150,000 -school children. Secondly, while the teacher's estimates are open to -revision, nevertheless her judgment, as inevitably evidenced in her -attitude toward the child, is the _practically effective judgment_” -(_157_, p. 6). It is a well-known fact that teachers tend to -underestimate the frequency of mental deficiency, so that it would -certainly be a matter of regret if this were to continue to be the -“practically effective judgment.” - -Another census of the institutional type of feeble-minded made by the -Director of Public Health Charities in Philadelphia and reported in 1910 -enumerated 0.2% of the population as in this group. It included cases in -the institutions for feeble-minded, the insane hospitals, almshouses, -hospital, reformatories, orphanages and known to charity workers (_168_, -p. 13). - -One of the most careful surveys of individuals who, because of mental -abnormalities, show such social maladjustment as to become the concern -of public authorities was made under the auspices of the National -Committee for Mental Hygiene in 1916.[5] It selected Nassau County as -representative of New York state. Part of the survey consists of an -intensive house to house canvass of four districts of about a thousand -population each. The result disclosed that 0.54% of the population of -this county were socially maladjusted because of “arrests in -development” and 0.06% more, because of epilepsy. This was in a -population of 115,827. - -The Children's Bureau in the U. S. Department of Labor in 1915 made a -census of the number of “mental defectives” in the District of Columbia. -The census included only those whom we have termed feeble-minded. The -report states that 798 individuals, 0.24% of the population, were found -to be “in need of institutional treatment; and the number reported, -allowing for the margin of error in omission and inclusion, is probably -a fair representation of the number in the District who should have -custodial care” (_88_, p. 13). Over a quarter of the population of the -District is colored. The census was taken in connection with plans for -immediate care. The same Bureau also made in 1915 and 1916 a Social -Study of Mental Defectives in New Castle County, Delaware.[6] This -county had a population of 131,670 and the survey disclosed 212 -“positive cases of mental defect” and 361 “questionable cases,” a total -of 0.44% of the general population in this county. Among the positive -cases, 82.5% were in need of public supervision or institutional care. -Among the questionable cases, information was obtained about only 175, -and 165 of these were either in institutions, delinquent or -uncontrollable, or living in homes where proper care and safeguarding -were impossible. - -Two other important attempts to enumerate carefully all the -feeble-minded in definite areas in the United States have been made in -recent years. Lapeer County, Mich., was chosen for such a study, as it -was of average size and contained no large city. The census as reported -in 1914, showed 36 feeble-minded from that county in the state -institution and 116 others living in the county, a total of 1 from every -171 inhabitants (_145_). A special children's commission was appointed -by the state of New Hampshire to investigate the welfare of dependent, -defective and delinquent children. Its report in 1914 contained a -section by its chairman, Mrs. Lilian C. Streeter, on feeble-mindedness -(_40_). This comes the nearest to a complete enumeration for an entire -state which has ever been attempted. The commission tested with the -Binet scale the inmates of the State Hospital for the Insane, the County -Farms, the State Industrial School and the Orphanages within the state. -The borderline which it used for the scale was high. It counted all -those testing three or more years retarded and under XII as -feeble-minded. Taking its figures as they stand we find that they listed -947 as feeble-minded in institutions and 2,019 outside, a total of 0.69% -of the inhabitants of the state. Outside the institutions the commission -sent a questionnaire to all school superintendents and to chairmen of -school boards, physicians, overseers of the poor, county commissioners, -probation and truant officers, district nurses and charity workers -throughout the state, by which means they listed 792 additional cases. -This questionnaire gave the following description of the type of case it -was trying to list as feeble-minded. - - “The high grade imbecile, frequently known as the moron, is one who - can do fairly complicated work without supervision, but who cannot - plan, who lacks ordinary prudence, who cannot resist the temptations - that are common to humanity. The high grade imbecile is most - dangerous because, except to the expert, he is apparently not - feeble-minded and is, therefore, usually treated as normal, and - permitted to multiply his kind, and to corrupt the community.” - -This description would tend to include cases above our isolation group. -Besides the questionnaire the commission made an intensive study of 52 -towns in which it says practically complete census returns were obtained -by consulting doctors, school and town officials. With these -supplementary cases it secured a list of 2,019 cases outside of -institutions, making a total of 2,966 recorded cases within the state or -0.69% of the population. When it estimated the proportion for the entire -state on the basis of the rate of canvass returns to questionnaire -returns, this proportion rose to 0.95%. The commission does not advocate -compulsory isolation for all of these people although it recommends -custodial care for the feeble-minded women and girls of child-bearing -age, apparently of the degree of deficiency represented by its criteria. -This enumeration of 0.69% of the people of a state as feeble-minded is -the most liberal general census of the feeble-minded in any large area. -It clearly shows the trend of diagnosis since the British Census. - -The Extension Department of the Training School at Vineland, N. J., -states regarding estimates of the number of feeble-minded in the general -population: “Conservative estimates give one in three hundred as the -probable present number.” Under the discussion of estimates of the -general population I have already cited Goddard's estimate which was -approximately 0.3 to 0.4% and the enumeration of 0.4% by the British -Royal Commission in 16 districts with over two million population. While -all of these estimators are speaking broadly of the feeble-minded, in -the general population, we shall not be far wrong in supposing that they -are considering mainly those deficients for whom the state might well -expect to provide care for life, isolating all those who cannot be -eugenically guarded at home. We shall later quote the estimate of Van -Sickle, Witmer and Ayres of 0.5% of the school population as -“institution cases.” - -Our estimate of 0.5% in the group justifying isolation on the ground of -intellectual deficiency seems to be conservative and to harmonize fairly -this type of estimate. - -_The Social Assistance Group._ Passing now to the next higher group of -deficients, those needing special training in order to get along with -social assistance, the estimates have been based almost entirely upon -the study of school children. Francis Warner was the moving spirit in -the early investigations in Great Britain, which were made without tests -from 1888 to 1894. The census which he directed included about 100,000 -school children who passed in review before medical examiners. As cited -by Tredgold (_204_) the estimate growing out of this work was that 1.26% -of the school population should have instruction in special classes. Of -these 0.28% required special instruction because of physical defects -only (_204_). - -About the same time Will S. Monroe (_155_) on the basis of a -questionnaire sent to California teachers, who reported on 10,842 school -children, found that they estimated 1,054 of these as mentally dull in -school, 268 feebly gifted mentally, and 6 imbeciles and idiots. He -summarized his conclusion as follows: “A long experience teaches that -every school of fifty pupils has at least one child that can be better -and more economically trained in the special institutions than in the -public schools.” In his estimate of 2% he was probably thinking of care -in special local schools and not permanent isolation. - -A government inquiry of school teachers in Switzerland, who had charge -of 490,252 school children, reported that 1.2% were so feeble mentally -as to need training in special classes. Only about a tenth of this -number were then being instructed in separate classes (_181_, p. 17). - -Great Britain first gave legal recognition to the class of feeble-minded -above the imbeciles in its Education Act of 1898, following a report of -a departmental committee of its National Board of Education growing out -of the inquiries of Francis Warner. This committee estimated the -proportion of this class as approximately 1% of the elementary school -population (_181_). In discussing the comparative estimates on the -general and school populations I have already referred to the estimate -of Tredgold based upon an elaborate analysis of the most extensive data -ever collected,—that gathered by the British Royal Commission on the -Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded. While the Commission's -investigators enumerated 0.79% among the school as mentally defective, -Tredgold's estimate based on his analysis of their report was that 0.83% -of the school population in England and Wales were above the grade of -imbecile but still feeble-minded (_204_, p. 157). The variability of the -estimates collected by the Royal Commission from various cities probably -indicates the subjective character of the standards of deficiency. They -varied from an estimate of 0.24% of the elementary school population in -Durham to 1.85% in Dublin (_204_, p. 159). The Commission says regarding -estimates as to communities other than those reported by their medical -investigator, for Newcastle the “number of feeble-minded children of -school age” (morons) was 0.25%, for Leeds the estimate was 0.80%, for -London 0.50% or 0.60%, for Bradford 0.50%, for Dublin about 1% and for -Birmingham about 1% of the school population. Dr. Francis Warner's -general estimate was 0.8%. We have thus variations in estimates from -0.25%, 0.5%, 0.80% to 1% and some 2% (_167_, p. 90). For the rural areas -the estimates were generally less. - -A careful estimate has been made with a different method by Karl Pearson -on the basis of a classification by teachers of school children in Great -Britain into nine different classes each especially defined and -extending from the imbecile to the genius. This distribution of the -children was then fitted to the normal probability curve. On this basis -Pearson estimated that 1.8% would fall in the “very dull group,” defined -as having “a mind capable of holding only the simplest facts, and -incapable of grasping or reasoning about the relationship between facts; -the very dull group covers but extends somewhat further up than the -mentally defective.” Lower down would be 0.1% in the imbecile group. He -says further regarding this estimate: “It is deduced from three series -covering between 4000 and 5000 cases, and the three separate results are -in several accord. It will, I think, be possibly useful for other -inquirers, and it endeavors to give quantitative expression to our -verbal definitions of the intellectual categories” (_166_).[7] - -In 1914 Pearson cites estimates of mentally defective children in -several cities by teachers and medical officers based upon the -recommendation of elementary school children for special schools and -classes. These were, for London: boys, 1.59%; girls, 1.09%. For -Liverpool: boys, 0.827%; girls, 0.618%. The corresponding figure for -both sexes in Stockholm is 1.23%. He concludes that “something between -1% and 2% is true for England. Dr. James Kerr, Medical Research Officer, -thinks that the final estimate will be nearer the latter value.” - -After giving a table of the percentages at each age in the elementary -schools of Stockholm, Pearson says: “Judged from this table it would -seem that the most reasonable estimate of the prevalence of mental -defect is to be formed when all the mental defectives have been -definitely selected and the normal children have not yet begun to leave -school, _i. e._, at the ages 11 and 12. For Stockholm this leads up to a -mentally defective percentage of about 1.5” (_167_, p. 6-8). In another -place he says that the members of special classes are selected -practically for the same reason, _i. e._, because they are school -inefficients, the bulk of whom will, no doubt, unless provided for -become “social inefficients” (_164_, p. 48). Since some were not -selected because of intellectual deficiency, our social assistance group -should be somewhat smaller. - -In 1909-10 the actual number in the schools for mental defectives -maintained by the London County Council was 0.9% of the enrollment of -the London elementary Schools (_143_). The 1912 report of the London -County Council shows 7357 children enrolled in its local schools for -mental defectives, which is 1.1% of the average attendance from -1912-1913 in the elementary county council schools and voluntary schools -of London (_144_, p. 44). - -Following a discussion in the Australian Medical Congress of 1911 the -Minister of Public Instruction called for returns as to the number of -feeble-minded in the Australian public elementary schools between 5½ and -14 years of age inclusive. The questionnaire used the definitions of the -British Royal Commission as a description of the various degrees of -retardation and brought returns from 2,241 of the state schools, all -except 57. For their average attendance of 175,000 children, these -teachers classified 1.9% as backward from accidental causes, 2% mentally -dull, 0.42% feeble-minded imbeciles or idiots, and 0.6% epileptics. To -this would be added 0.19% for children in the idiot asylums. The report -states that “the teachers' estimates will thus be realized to be an -absolute minimum, dealing only with the intermediate grades, and not -including the gross cases (idiots, etc.) on the one hand and the less -marked high grades of feeble-minded on the other” (_70_). - -The census made by the Bureau of Health of Philadelphia through the -principals of schools in 1909 covered 157,752 elementary school children -of whom 1.9% above the 0.28% who could “properly be in custodial -institutions 'were classed' as backward children who require special -instruction by special methods in small special classes” (_168_). - -A survey of the school population in the Locust Point District of -Baltimore was made by Dr. C. Macfie Campbell.[8] The district surveyed -was, however, not considered typical of Baltimore, but was a sample of -an industrial district in which the majority of families are “close to -the poverty line, and too often below it.” Out of a school population of -1,281 children, 166 (13%) were “found to have special requirements on -account of their mental constitution.” Among these, 22 (1.7%) “showed a -pronounced mental defect, which eliminated any prospects of their -becoming self-supporting.” - -The city of Mannheim (_147_), which perhaps cares for its exceptional -children better than any other in the world, was in 1911-1912 caring for -0.7% of the children in its _Volkschule_ in _Hilfsklassen_ which do not -take them beyond the fourth grade. There were 12% more who were backward -in school and being taught in _Forderklassen_ where they may reach the -sixth grade. Including the exceptionally bright who were also in special -classes, 18% all together of its school children were not in the regular -_Hauptklassen_ of the eight grades. To these would be added those sent -to special institutions. When we estimate, therefore, that we are -justified at present in sending 1% of the children in school to special -classes because their intellectual deficiency is such that the bulk of -them cannot get along without social assistance, we are naming about the -proportion already thus cared for in several foreign cities. - -Among the authoritative estimates of the number of feeble-minded, which -have been made by estimators who had in mind the evidence from mental -tests, is that made by James H. Van Sickle, Lightner Witmer, and Leonard -P. Ayres in a bulletin published by the United States Bureau of -Education in 1911 (_209_). They state that, “if all children of the -public schools could be ranked, it is probable that a rough -classification would group them about as follows—Talented, 4%; Bright, -Normal, Slow, 92%; Feeble-Minded, 4%. The 4% may for administrative -purposes be divided into two groups. The lower one includes about -one-half of one per cent. of the entire school membership.... They are -genuinely mentally deficient, and cannot properly be treated in the -public schools. They are institution cases, and should be removed to -institutions. Ranking just above these are the remaining three and -one-half per cent. who are feeble-minded but who could be given a -certain amount of training in special classes in the public schools.” -The estimate of institutional cases practically coincides with that -adopted above in this paper. The extension of the term feeble-minded to -include the lowest 4% seems to be extreme. The authors do not suggest -what portion of these they think might require social assistance -indefinitely, but are interested primarily in provision for special -classes in the public schools. If the term feeble-minded were to mean -only unfit for regular school classes and not socially unfit, I have -already suggested that the limit for special instruction might be -increased indefinitely. In Mannheim 18% are not cared for in the regular -classes. - -The only estimate of feeble-minded which I have found that is so large -as this 4% is that of Binet. It is also intended to cover all cases that -should be sent to special classes regardless of subsequent social -survival. His statement as to those who are so abnormal or defective as -to be suitable for neither the ordinary school nor the asylum is as -follows: - - “As to France, precise information has not been available until the - last year, when two inquiries were held—one at the instance of the - Ministerial Commission, the other organized by the Minister of the - Interior. According to the former inquiry we find that the - proportion of defectives amounts to scarcely 1% for the boys, and - 0.9% for the girls. These percentages are evidently far too small, - and we ourselves have discovered, by a small private inquiry, that - many schools returned “none” in the questionnaires distributed, - although the headmasters have admitted to us that they possessed - several genuine defectives. In Paris, M. Vaney, a headmaster, made - some investigations by the arithmetic test, which we shall explain - presently, and reached the conclusion that 2% of the school - population of two districts were backward. If we were to include the - ill-balanced, whose number is probably equal to that of the - backward, the proportion would be about 4%. Lastly and quite - recently a special and most careful inquiry was made at Bordeaux, - under the direction of M. Thamin, by alienists and the school - medical inspectors, and it was found that the percentage of - abnormality amongst the boys was 5.17. Probably the true percentage - is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5. All these inquiries are - comparable because they deal with the school population” (_77_, p. - 8). - -In this estimate of 5%, Binet was considering those to be sent to -special classes regardless of whether or not they would require -indefinite social assistance after their schooling. It is therefore not -directly comparable with our estimate of 1.5% presumably or doubtfully -intellectually deficient. - -The estimate of Dr. Henry H. Goddard, who has done the most to introduce -the Binet Measuring Scale in this country, is stated as follows: “It is -a conservative statement to declare that 2% of public school children -are distinctly feeble-minded, the larger part of them belonging to this -high-grade group which we call morons” (_118_). In another (_114_) place -he says: “The most extensive study ever made of the children of an -entire school system of two thousand has shown that 2% of such children -are so mentally defective as _to preclude any possibility of their ever -being made normal and able to take care of themselves as adults_.”[9] -The study to which he refers gives individual results with the Binet -1908 tests made on 1547 school children in the first six grades (_114_, -p. 43). Since the sixth grade does not include the better children who -are twelve years or over in age this group is clearly selected in such a -way that it would show an excessive percentage of mentally retarded -children. We find in the investigation referred to that he says: “Then -we come to those that are four years or more behind their age, and here -again experience is conclusive that children who are four years behind -are so far back that they can never catch up, or in other words, they -are where they are because there is a serious difficulty which can never -be overcome—they are feeble-minded. They constitute 3% of the children -in these grades.” - -Since we have a random selection of school children in his table for -only those children who are 6 to 11 years of age inclusive, I find that -only 1% at these ages are retarded four years intellectually. On his own -basis, therefore, 3% is evidently too large an estimate. Later he seems -to have reduced his estimate to 2% of the school population. Of those -who test in the lowest 1.5% including our doubtful group, I believe that -there is no clear evidence that more than 1% will require even social -assistance as adults. - -Many more estimates of the number of feeble-minded among school children -might be cited, but they would add little to these authoritative -samples. At the present time an estimate by health officers or teachers -who are not familiar with the results of mental testing has little -significance, as the whole complexion of the problem has been changed -since the work of Binet and Simon.[10] We may, however, cite three -estimates based upon familiarity with test results, which fairly cover -the range of estimates among school children. In connection with the -Springfield, Illinois, survey conducted by the National Committee for -Mental Hygiene under the direction of the Russel Sage Foundation, we -find that three typical schools with a total of 924 pupils were studied. -The report states that “the mentally defective children” constituted -3.8% of the number in attendance in March. The number of children in the -schools examined, for whom instruction in special classes would be -desirable, is about 7% of the entire enrollment of these schools (_203_, -p. 10). - -In connection with the Stanford Version of the Binet Scale, Dr. Lewis M. -Terman says: “Whenever intelligence tests have been made in any -considerable number in the schools, they have shown that not far from 2% -of the children enrolled have a grade of intelligence which, however -long they live, will never develop beyond the level which is normal to -the average child of 11 or 12 years.... The more we learn about such -children, the clearer it becomes that they must be looked upon as real -defectives (_57_, p. 10). Again in placing the borderline for -feeble-mindedness” with the Intelligence Quotient used, he suggests that -“definite feeble-mindedness” lies below an I. Q. of 70 which with 1000 -quotients was found to exclude about the lowest 1%. Above this is a -group with I. Q.'s 70-80 which he describes as “borderline deficiency, -sometimes classifiable as dullness, often as feeble-mindedness.” This -group would include, as judged by the results of these tests, over 4% -more. - -Dr. Wallin, who has had wide experience in testing both school children -and defectives, states: “I will venture the assertion, after years of -teaching in the public schools and clinically examining public school -cases, that the oft-repeated statement that 2% of the general school -population is defective (if by this is meant feeble-minded), exaggerates -the real situation. The actual number is probably about 1%” (_211_, p. -149). - -After reading a paper on “A Percentage Definition of Intellectual -Deficiency” before the American Psychological Association in 1915 -(_151_), I was pleased to discover that Prof. Rudolf Pintner and Donald -G. Paterson were also about to propose a percentage definition of -feeble-mindedness for those who are dealing with mental tests (_44_). -While their idea seems to be fundamentally similar, their paper shows -that their conception is to be sharply distinguished in several -particulars from that which I am advocating. They would limit the use of -the term “feeble-mindedness” to individuals who test in a rather -arbitrarily chosen lowest percentage of the population. As opposed to -this I suggest continuing the present social definition of -feeble-mindedness and supplementing it, for the purpose of aiding in the -diagnosis, by indicating the social significance of those testing in -certain lowest percentages. Such tested deficients I designate as -“intellectually deficient.” It is important to consider their statement -and to note what percentage they have chosen to regard as feeble-minded. -They say: - - “It is in order to avoid this vagueness and uncertainty attaching to - the term that we suggest a definite psychological concept. The - lowest three per cent. of the community at large, that is, the - lowest as determined by definitely standardized mental tests, are to - be called feeble-minded. Such a definition will be unambiguous and - the dividing line between this and other groups will become clearer - and clearer as we increase the accuracy of our measuring scales and - the adequacy of our standardizations. Furthermore, if evolution is - raising the degree of intelligence the three per cent. at the lower - end will still remain, for, whatever the degree of their - intelligence may be, they will still be feeble-minded as compared - with the normal. - - “Such a definition will in addition restrict the term to such as are - lacking in intelligence and will differentiate them from the moral - defectives and the psychopathic personalities, which are at present - often confused with the group that we propose to call feeble-minded. - An individual may be at the same time a moral defective and - feeble-minded, but there is reason to believe that moral deficiency - may exist without such intellectual defect as to warrant a diagnosis - of feeble-mindedness. The same may be said of the psychopathic - personality. - - “The further question, whether all those coming within the proposed - definition of feeble-mindedness are to be confined in institutions, - is purely social and will be determined by the social needs of each - community and does not concern us here. It is obvious that many more - in addition to the feeble-minded as defined by us will require the - restraint of an institution, even though no real mental defect - exists. - - “It is immaterial for the purposes of this hypothesis whether three - or a smaller or larger percentage be designated as feeble-minded. - The important point is the agreement upon some fixed percentage, and - we have chosen three per cent. as covering presumably all the cases - of marked mental deficiency. A brief glance at the chief estimates - of the number of feeble-minded in civilized communities would - indicate that our percentage is somewhat higher than the - conservative writers give, but we shall show later on that it is - much lower than the results obtained from groups of children tested - by intelligence scales” (_44_, p. 36). - -With those who understand that deficiency is mainly a question of -degree, it would seem that there might be some agreement as to the plan -for defining tested deficiency. In order to make this plan more useful -to those dealing with the social care of the feeble-minded, it would be -necessary to supplement the bare percentage definition by relating it to -expectations of social failure somewhat after the manner I have -attempted. In particular it will gain its main value for diagnostic -purposes, it seems to me, if the percentage is so chosen that it may -receive the support of conservative scientific opinion. To be most -useful it seems evident, also, that the percentages must be chosen with -regard to the sort of social care which it is anticipated would be -_justified_ for the particular degrees of deficiency. - -Let us recall the percentages suggested to harmonize the estimates: the -lowest 0.5% to be regarded as presumably deficient enough to justify -isolation and the next 1% as doubtful, but low enough to warrant special -training and probably requiring indefinite social assistance. If these -percentages for tested intellectual deficiency have been shown to be -fairly conservative estimates in the light of the authoritative -judgments with which they have here been compared, the laboriousness of -this comparison has been worth while. Further light upon the social -assistance group may be thrown by the study of the success of those -children who have already had the advantage of training in local classes -for the deficient. - - - F. THE ABILITY OF THE MENTALLY RETARDED, ESPECIALLY THOSE RECEIVING - SPECIAL TRAINING. - -That we are not justified in isolating all whom we class as -feeble-minded is best indicated by the evidence as to the number of -these sent to special local classes for deficients who are able to float -socially with the assistance of capable after-care committees. A fair -picture of the present situation may be obtained by thinking of these -pupils in the help-classes and schools as representing about the next 1% -above those who have been isolated in institutions. With this picture in -mind let us see what has been the outcome of their special instruction -and social assistance thereafter. - -In his book on Les Enfants Anormaux, Binet collected the evidence -available at that time (_77_, p. 140). He says: - - “Mme. Fuster, after a stay in Germany, where she visited some - _Hilfsschulen_ and Hilfsklassen (literally, 'help-schools' and - 'help-classes') made a communication to the _Société de l'Enfant_, - from which it appears that in the case of 90 classes for defectives - in Berlin, 70% to 75% of the defective pupils who were there became - able to carry on a trade; 20% to 30% died in the course of study, or - returned to their homes, or were sent to medical institutions for - idiots. - - “According to a more recent inquiry, made under the auspices of M. - de Gizycki at Berlin, and published in a book by Paul Dubois, 22% of - the children were sent home or to asylums; 11% were apprenticed; 62% - worked at occupations which required no knowledge and yielded little - pay (laborers, crossing-sweepers, ragmen). If we add together these - two last groups, we reach a proportion of 73% of defectives who have - been made, or who have become more or less useful.... - - “Dr. Decroly has kindly arranged at our request a few figures - relating to the occupational classification of the girls discharged - from a special class in Brussels.... Finally, then, out of nineteen - feeble-minded subjects, regarding whom particulars have been - supplied, one-half, or 50%, have been apprenticed, or more than - half, 75% if we count the defectives who 'work....' - - “Through the intervention of an inspector, M. Belot, we have - inquired of twenty heads of schools what has become of the - defectives whom they notified to us two years ago. We have made - these inquiries with regard to sixty-six children only.... If we - subtract the two first groups, those about whom the particulars are - wanting, and those who have not yet left school, there remain - twenty-seven children, of whom seventeen have been apprenticed, or - 76%.... Now this proportion is, by an unexpected agreement, - identical with that obtained in the classes of Berlin and Brussels.” - -A more recent report concerning the _Hilfsschulen_ in Berlin by Rector -Fuchs is in close agreement. It indicates that from 70% to 80% of the -former pupils of these schools make a living after they leave school. - -To compare with these reports indicating that about three-fourths of -those leaving the special schools of Paris, Berlin and Brussels by -social assistance attain occupational classifications, we have less -favorable reports from Great Britain. Shuttleworth and Potts (_181_, p. -23) say: - - “At the Conference of After-Care Committees held in Bristol on - October 22, 1908, a paper read by Sir William Chance, Chairman of - the National Association for the Feeble-Minded, dealing with the - reports of the After-Care Committees of Birmingham, Bristol, - Leicester, Liverpool, London, Northampton, Oldham and Plymouth. The - combined statistics from the nine centers showed that 22% of those - who had attended special schools for the mentally defective were in - regular work, and 6.8% had irregular work.... To illustrate the - necessity for continuous supervision and the futility of temporary - care, we cannot do better than quote the records of the Birmingham - After-Care Committee, as embodied in their report for 1908, after - seven years work. It was found that, 'out of 308 feeble-minded - persons who have left school and are still alive, only 19.8% are - earning wages at all, and only 3.9% are earning as much as 10 s. per - week'” (_181_). - -Tredgold summarizes other data on this question of industrial success as -follows: - - “We may next turn to the reports of 'After-Care' Committees - regarding feeble-minded (moron) pupils of the special schools. In - _London_ the proportion of pupils known to be in 'good or promising' - employment was 37.5%. Two years previously it had been 45.7%, and - Sir George Newman, the Chief Medical Officer to the Board of - Education, attributes the falling off to two causes—_firstly_, - insufficient after-care; and _secondly_, the two additional years. - He remarks: 'The longer the test the more severe it is.' In - _Birmingham_, the 'After-Care' Committee compiled information - regarding 932 cases which had passed through the schools during the - previous ten years. Of these, excluding the normal and dead, 272, or - 34%, were engaged in remunerative work. At _Liverpool_, of 712 - children passing through the hands of the 'After-Care' Committee - during a period of six years, 85, or 11.9%, were doing remunerative - work. - - “Finally we may refer to some figures concerning 'After-Care' work - compiled by Sir William Chance from the returns of the National - Association for the Feeble-Minded. These were based upon an inquiry - made of sixteen centers of the Association, and referred to a total - of 3,283 persons. Of this number, 798 were doing remunerative work, - 89 were 'doing work, but not reported;' 202 were useful at home; and - 941 were returned as 'useless members of society.' If we exclude 340 - who were transferred to normal schools (not being feeble-minded), we - have 27% engaged in remunerative work. - - “With regard to the term 'remunerative work,' however, it is to be - remarked that the person employed is not being paid the standard - wage. On the contrary, it is my experience that this is practically - never the case, and this is corroborated by the observations of the - secretary of the Birmingham center, who says: 'Although some of our - cases have been at work for more than ten years, only 34 of the - whole number (173) earn as much as 10 s., 2 d., per week. Of these - only 6 earn as much as 15 s., and only 2 earn 20 s., which is the - highest wages earned.... While it is not very difficult for some of - our higher-grade cases to get work when they first leave school, it - is almost impossible for them to retain their situations when they - get older, and the difference between them and their fellows becomes - accentuated. Uncontrolled and often quite improperly cared for, they - rapidly deteriorate, the good results obtained by the training and - discipline of the special school being under these circumstances - distinctly evanescent.... There are few workers over twenty years of - age'” (_204_, p. 425, 435). - -The 1912 report of the London County Council (_144_) covers those who -left its special schools for mentally defective children during the -years 1908-1912 inclusive. These schools have accommodation for about 1% -of the elementary school enrollment. Of 2010 children who left these -schools during these five years, and who were still alive, 1357 were -employed and 311 more employed when last heard from, a total of 79% -employed at last accounts. Those out for five years show about the same -proportion employed. This is a more favorable showing and fairly in line -with the results of other European help-schools. The average weekly -wages of those employed ranged from 4 s. 6 d. for those just out to 10 -s. 10 d. for those leaving five years before. A considerable proportion -who live at home thus have been meeting their necessary living expenses -as the result of this special training and subsequent assistance. - -Dr. Walter E. Fernald reported to the British Royal Commission on the -Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded concerning the inmates of the -institutions for feeble-minded in the United States. These institutions -receive a much lower grade of cases on the whole than the local -help-schools abroad: (_83_, Vol. VIII, p. 159) - - “Some of the institutions where only the brightest class of - imbeciles are received, and where the system of industrial training - has been very carefully carried out, report that from 20% to 30% of - the pupils are discharged as absolutely self-supporting. In other - words at other institutions, where the lower grade cases are - received, the percentage of cases so discharged is considerably - less. It is safe to say that not over 10% to 15% of our inmates can - be made self-supporting, in the sense of going out into the - community and securing and retaining a situation, and prudently - spending their earnings.... But it is safe to say that over 50% of - the adults of the higher grade who have been under training from - childhood are capable, under intelligent supervision, of doing a - sufficient amount of work to pay for the actual cost of their - support, whether in an institution or at home.” - -The wages of the women at the Bedford Reformatory before entering -prostitution as given by Davis (_133_, p. 210) have a direct bearing on -the earning capacity of the higher grade feeble-minded. The Binet tests -of Bedford women by Weidensall indicate that about 38% of the successive -cases admitted to Bedford test in the lowest 0.5% intellectually, and -75% in the lowest 1.5% intellectually. Davis' table shows that for 110 -whom she classes as mentally low grade cases at the reformatory, the -median wage of those in domestic service, as claimed by the women, was -nearly $4.50 before entering prostitution. These feeble-minded women, if -their statements of earnings can be accepted, are therefore -feeble-minded by reason of their low intelligence plus delinquency, and -not by reason of inability to earn the necessities of life. The best of -these mentally low grade cases earned as high as $5.00 in addition to -board and lodging in domestic service and $25.00 outside of domestic -service. - -In this country we have fewer studies of the results of training the -mentally retarded in special local classes and schools. Miss Farrell has -made a preliminary report of 350 boys and girls out of the 600 children -formerly in the ungraded classes in New York City during the preceding 8 -years (_102_). Omitting seven whose status was unknown and 10 who had -died, only 6% were known to have failed to survive socially with -assistance. These were in penal or other institutions. On the other hand -a strict analysis of her returns shows only 28% earning $5.00 a week or -more and thus possibly surviving independently. Of the above group of -333, 86 were at home, 192 employed, 31 unemployed and 3 married. - -In Detroit among 100 children over 16 years of age who had attended its -special classes and been out of school not over 5 years, 27 had been -arrested, but 39 of the boys had been at work and received an average -wage of $7.00 per week, while 16 girls had averaged $3.75 in weekly -wages, although few held their positions long (_97_). - -Bronner (_6_) compared a random group of thirty delinquent women at the -detention home maintained by the New York Probation Association with an -intellectually similar group of 29 women all of whom had been earning -their living in domestic service and none of whom had been “guilty of -any known wrong doing.” The delinquents were 16 to 22 years of age while -the servant group was somewhat older. Only two or three of the -delinquent group were worse than the poorest of the servant group in any -of the five intellectual tests, so that, if more than this number were -intellectually deficient, they were no more deficient than those who had -survived in society. No Binet scale records were published so that we -have no means of determining how many of these delinquents might fall -within either of our deficient groups. - -The principal deduction from this evidence on the earning capacity of -those of low intellectual grade is a caution against demanding the -social isolation of all the intellectually weak until we have more -definite information as to what portion of them are able to live moral -lives, as well as earn their living with social assistance, without -being cared for entirely in isolation colonies. That a significant -number of the lowest 1.0% intellectually next above the lowest 0.5% have -led moral lives and have shown considerable earning capacity after -attending special schools, when they are given proper after-care, has -probably been demonstrated. They should, therefore, be treated as an -uncertain group whose feeble-mindedness would never be decided purely on -the ground of the intellectual tests. Most of them will, however, -probably be found mentally deficient enough to need at least social -assistance and protection. - -In concluding this summary on the estimates of the frequency of -feeble-mindedness, it need only be added that so far as concerns the use -of the percentage definition for fixing the borderline in any particular -system of tests the percentages chosen are not essential to the plan. -The principles of the method apply whatever percentages might be -adopted. For such important purposes as the comparison of the relative -frequency of deficiency in different social groups and harmonizing the -investigations with different mental scales, agreement upon a particular -percentage is not essential. In diagnosis, of course, it is a matter of -fundamental importance in order that injustice may not be done -individuals. For this reason the estimate should be conservative, -possibly more conservative even than our tentative 0.5% at 15 years of -age. Any investigator who disagrees with the above estimates of the -degree of tested deficiency justifying isolation may substitute X per -cent. with a doubtful region extending Y per cent. further. Provided -such a census were legally authorized and funds available it would be -not impossible to get a reliable determination by a house to house -canvass showing the number of adult deficients, say 21 years of age, in -typical communities, who were not able to survive socially without -assistance. This number would then give the key for a conservative -percentage and the movement for early care would be immensely advanced. - -With the recent introduction of psychological tests into the cantonments -of the national army, the goal of symptomatic borderlines as determined -by objective tests seems to be almost at hand. Since the men are brought -practically at random to the camps by the draft and are under military -command, it may be possible to find out the social history of a large -enough group at the lower limit of tested ability to establish the -question of the necessary capacity for independent moral and social -survival. These borderlines could then be transferred from the army -tests to positions of equivalent difficulty in other test systems. - -The remainder of this study will show some of the advantages of the -percentage definition for fixing the borderlines with a system of tests -and the result of applying such an interpretation to the particular -problem of delinquency. The advantage in increased definiteness should -already be evident. When a person is classed as presumably deficient it -will mean that he is in the lowest 0.5% in intellectual development or -within the lowest 1.5%, if he is a persistent delinquent. - ------ - -Footnote 5: - - Aaron J. Rosanoff. Survey of Mental Disorders in Nassau County, New - York. Publication No. 9, National Committee for Mental Hygiene, 1917. - -Footnote 6: - - Emma O. Lundberg. A Social Study of Mental Defectives in New Castle - County Delaware. U. S. Dept. of Labor, Children's Bureau, Publication - No. 24, 1917, pp. 38. - -Footnote 7: - - This statement in 1906 seems to be the earliest attempt at a - quantitative definition of deficiency. As I discovered it after the - present monograph was practically completed, it furnishes evidence of - the natural tendency of attempts at more exact definition to take the - percentage form. - -Footnote 8: - - C. Macfie Campbell. The Sub-Normal Child—A Study of the Children in a - Baltimore School District. Mental Hygiene, 1917, I, 96-147. - -Footnote 9: - - Italics mine. - -Footnote 10: - - The report of the Massachusetts Commission on Mental Diseases (Vol. I, - p. 198) shows that social agencies systematically using mental tests - reported 19.2% as mental cases, while those using examinations only - for obvious cases reported 1.3%. - - - - - CHAPTER V. ADAPTING THE PERCENTAGE DEFINITION TO THE BINET SCALE - -Sufficiently large random groups have not been tested with any -development scale to make the determination of the borderline on the -scale more than tentative. Such borderlines must be looked upon as -temporary descriptions to be used in aiding diagnosis until more data -are available. Nevertheless, the percentage method of procedure seems to -be an improvement over other plans of stating the borderline. So far as -the Binet 1908 scale is concerned, when we supplement Goddard's results -with 1500 school children by the data for the lower limits of a random -group of 653 15-year-olds which we tested, the limits on the scale for -passable intellects defined by the percentage method will be found, I -believe, not only more conservative, but more reliable than those in -current use. Moreover the intended meaning of such borders becomes -clear. - - - A. THE BORDER REGION FOR THE MATURE. - - - (a) INDICATION FROM A RANDOM GROUP. - -The passing limit for adults is unquestionably much more important than -that for children since any child who once passes this limit is assured, -generally speaking, of social fitness so far as intellect is concerned. -He has attained a position intellectually which is sufficiently good to -enable him to get along without social assistance unless he is -especially deficient in will. This borderline for the mature has been so -thoroughly neglected that in none of the common published forms of the -Binet scale, except the new Stanford Scale, is there an attempt to -define it. This seems almost incredible in view of the general use of -the Binet method in diagnosing feeble-mindedness. To be sure, there are -discussions of this upper limit, as we shall see, but they have usually -not been embodied in the actual directions accompanying the scales which -get into the hands of amateurs. Most of these directions content -themselves with describing borderlines for children with no caution -about the final lower limit for social survival. - -The borderline for the mature is the first difficulty which a court -examiner will encounter when he attempts to obtain assistance from an -objective system of measurement. Very little experience will convince -one that it is not enough to describe the deficient ability of an adult -in terms of years of retardation. It is widely agreed that at some age -during adolescence practically all the mental processes are available -that will be found in the mature. From that time the advance in ability -is made by attaining greater skill in specific activities through -training and by increasing knowledge, rather than through a native -change in the form of thinking. If mental tests mainly reach capacity -for thinking, as they aim to do, rather than amount of knowledge or -skill in specific work, then we are conservative in using a randomly -selected group at 15 years of age for approximating the borderline on -the scale for the mature. - -In connection with the new Stanford Scale, Terman says: “Native -intelligence, in so far as it can be measured by tests now available, -appears to improve but little after the age of 15 or 16 years. It -follows that in calculating the I Q (intelligence quotient) of an adult -subject, it will be necessary to disregard the years he has lived beyond -the point where intelligence attains its final development. Although the -location of this point is not exactly known, it will be sufficiently -accurate for our purpose to assume its location at 16 years” (_57_, p. -140). - -Yerkes and Bridges in connection with their Point Scale say, “it seems -highly probable that the adult level is attained as early as the -sixteenth year” (_225_, p. 64). Kuhlmann (_138_) used 15 years as the -divisor in calculating the intelligence quotient of adults and Spearman -thinks that the limit of native development is reached about 15 years -(_184_). He says, “That mental ability reaches its full development -about the period of puberty is still further evidenced by physiology. -For the human brain has been shown to attain its maximum weight between -the ages of 10 and 15 years” (_184_). For the last statement he quotes -Vierordt. On the contrary Wallin thinks that we need more evidence for -the correctness of these hypotheses before choosing a fixed age as a -divisor for adults (_215_, p. 67). - -We are not interested in determining a divisor for an adult intelligence -quotient but in fixing a conservative borderline for the mature. -Admitting that the mental capacity of those 15-year-olds at the lower -limit may not be like adults, nevertheless adults would be more likely -to be better than worse. Borderlines for the 15-year-olds, should, -therefore, be safe for adults. Moreover, the lower limits with a truly -random group of 15-year-olds would probably be more reliable than an -assorted group of adults subjectively chosen from different walks in -life and combined in an effort to represent a random mature group. The -Stanford Scale utilizes such combination of selected adults. It seems, -therefore, that we are justified in utilizing the lowest percentages of -randomly selected 15-year-olds as a reasonable criterion for describing -the limits for adult deficiency. Surely adults below this lower limit -for 15-year-olds would have questionable intellectual capacity. - -The borderline for the mature being the crucial feature of a -developmental scale when used for detecting feeble-mindedness, it seemed -imperative to us that some effort should be made to obtain records with -a random group of older-age children or adults. Goddard's results with -school children were not significant above eleven years of age since the -personal examinations were confined to children in the sixth grade or -below. The twelve year old group in the sixth grade clearly omits the -best 12-year-olds, so that the percentage method would have no -significance applied to his figures for children above 11 years of age. -Moreover it was obvious that the group of _public school_ children 15 -years of age or older would not give a picture of the lower end of a -random group since many children drop out of school at 14. On the -average those that leave are undoubtedly of lower ability than those who -remain. - -The most valuable data on the borderline for the mature would come from -mental examinations of large random groups of adults. The impossibility -of gaining the consent of adults for such examinations puts this plan -out of consideration. Perhaps the next best method would be to examine -all the children of 15 and 16 years of age in typical communities. It -happened that we could approach this result in Minneapolis since we -there had an excellent school census made from house to house covering -all children under 16 years of age. The Minnesota law requires school -attendance until 16 years of age unless the child has graduated from the -eighth grade. Under the able direction of Mr. D. H. Holbrook of the -attendance department the census of children of school age had been made -with unusual care. All the children living in each elementary school -district in the city were listed in a card index regardless of whether -they were attending public, parochial or private schools, or had been -excused from attendance for disability or for any other reason. Since we -only needed to be sure to examine the lowest few per cent. of the -children in ability this group of 15-year-olds could be tested by -examining all those children in typical school districts in the city who -had not graduated from the eighth grade. A third of the 15-year-olds -were still in the eighth grade or below. Neither the compulsory -attendance law nor the census would have reached the 16-year-old -adequately. In most states even the 15-year-olds would have been above -the compulsory school age. - -There were 653 children, (322 boys,) 15 years of age living in the seven -typical districts which were selected objectively for study. Among these -there were 196 who had not graduated from the eighth grade. All of these -latter children were examined, except one who could not be tested as she -was in a hospital on account of illness. Quite a number of the children -were in parochial or private schools, two were followed to the state -industrial school and a number were examined at home. In order to be -sure that we had not missed any institutional cases in these districts -the complete list of Minneapolis children at the State School for -Feeble-Minded was gone through to get any of low ability who might have -been missed. - -The seven districts in which the children were to be studied were -chosen, with the idea of avoiding any personal bias in their selection, -by taking them alphabetically by the name of the schools, except that no -district was taken where the normal school attendance of the district -was affected by inadequate school facilities so that children had to be -transferred either to or from that district to other schools in order to -meet crowded conditions. It happened fortunately that none of these -schools represented extreme conditions in the city. The average -percentage of children in the 69 elementary schools of the city retarded -in school position below a standard of 7 years in the first grade, 8 in -the second, etc., was 24.1% with a mean variation of 6.5%. The -percentages retarded in the schools studied were as follows: Adams, -22.7; Bryant, 21.1; Calhoun, 21.7; Corcoran, 29.4; Douglas, 20.4; -Garfield, 18.6; Greeley, 26.4. - -Kuhlmann's adaptation of the 1911 scale (_135_) was used as a basis for -the examinations, supplemented by the 1908 scale wherever tests had been -changed so that other forms of the tests were found in either Kuhlmann's -(_136_) or Goddard's (_110_) adaptations of the 1908 scale. Since test -results with the 1908 scale provide the most data for describing the -borderline for the immature, our plan was to use the 1908 form of a test -first when the procedure had changed. The supplementary directions were -arranged for each age so that the testing could proceed methodically and -the results be scored under either the 1908 or 1911 scale with the least -possible disturbance of each test. Over a third of the children were -tested by myself. The rest were tested by three advanced students in -psychology. It is a pleasure to express my thanks to these assistants, -Miss Rita McMullan, Miss Lucile Newcomb and Miss Florence Wells. Besides -having had brief experience in dealing with exceptional children, they -practised testing under my observation until the tests could be given -smoothly and I was convinced of their ability to follow directions -intelligently and make full records with reasonable accuracy. The -results of the tests were all carefully gone over and scored by me. So -far as I can judge, the results are quite as accurate as any other -published tables, although one must always consider the possible effect -of errors of testing. Separate rooms were provided at the schools or -homes so that the child could be alone with the examiner during the -testing. - -In attempting to define the borderlines on these scales we might either -state the exact scale position in tenths of a year below which 0.5 and -1.5% of the cases fall, or we might merely attempt at present to state -the borderlines in rounded terms of years on the scale. The latter plan -is the one I have adopted for several reasons. The main reason is that I -wish to emphasize that these are still rough boundaries. Besides that, -however, a study of the results shows that the cases do not distribute -by separate tenths of a year so that exactly these percentages could be -picked off, without a questionable smoothing of the curves while the -rounded years approach these limits fairly well. - -It seems to me that it is best at present to be carefully conservative -in describing these borderlines, so that I have chosen them from the -available data at the nearest rounded age position which is reasonably -sure not to catch more than these limiting percentages. Throughout the -tables I have also followed the published directions for the 1908 scale -in classing the person in the intellectual age group in which he finally -scores all or all but one of the tests. I recognize, of course, that -this is an arbitrary limit; but it is the limit fixed by the usual -printed directions going with the 1908 scale, which is the only one thus -far standardized for the immature on the percentage basis. For those who -wish to calculate other borderlines or reconstruct the individual tests -of the scale I have provided the complete data for each individual both -for the 1908 and 1911 scales in Table XXI, Appendix I. The table also -gives the exact ages and school grades of each child. - -The summary of the results with the tests for those testing under XII is -given in Table III. Life-age[11] at the last birthday and not the -nearest life-age is used in the table. The children were all between -their 15th and 16th birthdays. Following the directions published with -the scales, the basal age for calculating the results in the table is -taken as the highest at which all or all but one test are passed for the -1908 scale, and the highest at which all were passed for the 1911 scale. -Two-tenths is allowed in the table for each test passed above the basal -age and 0.1 for an uncertain answer. The children were tested by the -long method, beginning with the mental-age group at which the child -could pass all the tests and continuing to that age group in which he -failed in all. - - TABLE III—TEST BORDERLINES WITH RANDOMLY SELECTED MINNEAPOLIS - 15-YEAR-OLDS - - _Percentages of 653 living in these districts, 196 of whom had not - graduated from the eighth grade and were tested. Scored by the Kuhlmann - and Goddard 1908 Binet scale and by the Kuhlmann 1911 scale._ - - ───────────────┬───────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────── - │ 1908 Scale │ 1911 Scale - ───────────────┼───────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────── - Scored below │ Pass all but one in basal │ Pass all in basal age - │ age │ - ───────────────┼─────────────┬─────────────┼─────────────┬───────────── - │ Per cent. │ Cases │ Per cent. │ Cases - ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── - IX.0 │ 0.0│ 0│ 0.0│ 0 - IX.8 │ 0.2│ 1│ 0.5│ 3 - X.0 │ 0.3│ 2│ 0.5│ 3 - X.8 │ 1.1│ 7│ 1.2│ 8 - XI.0 │ 1.2│ 8│ 2.0│ 13 - XI.8 │ 10.0│ 65│ 8.1│ 53 - XII.0 │ 10.4│ 68│ 13.0│ 85 - XII.8 │ 23.6│ 153│ 29.1│ 190 - XIII or XV │ 23.6│ 153│ 29.7│ 194 - ───────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴───────────── - -Thrown into percentages of the group of 653 children living in these -districts, it is evident that a test score of XI raises any person above -the group of intellectual deficients. The percentage that tested this -low, _i. e._, under XI.8, with the 1908 scale, was 10.0 (65 cases) and -this would probably be increased if those who had graduated from the -eighth grade had also been tested. The percentage testing under the same -position in the 1911 scale is 8.1 (53 cases). With the 1911 scale there -were 32 additional cases testing XI.8 or XI.9. The table indicates that -0.2% of the 15-year-olds tested below IX.8 with the 1908 scale, and 0.5% -with the 1911 scale. This defines our scale borderline for the mature -who are presumably deficient as below test-age X. These positions are -near enough to the lowest 0.5%. The group testing of uncertain ability, -age X, (strictly speaking between IX.8 and X.7 inclusive,) includes 0.7 -to 0.9%. We thus approach fairly well the rounded age positions which -exclude 1.0% above the lowest 0.5%. The total number testing in -presumably and uncertain groups is thus 1.1%, 7 cases out of 653, for -the 1908 scale and 1.2%, 8 cases, for the 1911 scale. This is to be -compared with the percentage definition that the lowest 1.5% are either -presumably deficient or uncertain. - -At present we are entitled to assume that adults testing below XI, _i. -e._, below X.8, are so low in intellectual development that it is a -question whether they have sufficient equipment to survive socially. -Fine discriminations with the Binet scale are not possible with our -present knowledge. So far as our information goes, if we use the -percentage method of defining intellectual deficiency, we may say that -adults who test X are in an uncertain group in intellectual ability, -with the probability that they will require more or less social care, -while those who test IX are deficient enough to need continuous care -unless the evidence of the test is contradicted by other facts or is -accounted for by the existence of removable handicaps. - -It is perhaps not necessary to call attention to the fact that X and XI -are used here merely to refer to positions on the Binet scale without -regard to what per cent. of ordinary 10-and-11-year-old children attain -these positions. For example, XI does not imply that most of the -children of eleven years of age are above this borderline. Table IV, to -be given later, suggests that hardly two-thirds of random 12-year-old -children pass this position on the 1908 scale and not half of the -11-year-olds. Thorndike regarded X.8 as normal for a child of 11.6 years -of age. (_200_) - -So far as the determination of intellectual deficiency is concerned we -should note with emphasis that placing the limit of passable intellects -at XI for adults almost entirely removes the common objection to the -Binet scale on account of the difficulty of the older age tests. The -older age tests become of little consequence because the best of the -deficient group have a chance at tests in at least two groups above -those of mental age X, so that they can increase their score by passing -advanced tests as they could not if they had to test XII. - -As a check upon the borderline for those presumably deficient, it is -important to note that the only case which tested below this borderline -with the 1908 scale was a girl in the 4B grade. She tested exactly IX -with each scale and was the only child in the group who was below the -fifth grade in school. There can be no question that she was mentally -deficient. On the other hand in the group which tested X or above there -are several cases which it would be unjust in my opinion to send to an -institution for the feeble-minded without some other evidence of mental -weakness. Half of them, for example, are in the seventh grade. In -Minneapolis this is not as significant as it might be in other cities, -since pupils are rarely allowed to remain more than two years in the -same grade whether they are able to carry the work of the next higher -grade or not. Pupils in higher grades may not always be able to do even -fifth grade work. - -The evidence from the institutions for the feeble-minded indicates that -less than 5% of their inmates test XI or over. Of 1266 examinations at -the Minnesota School for Feeble-Minded, 3.8% (_154_); of 378 examined at -Vineland, 3.2% (_113_); of 140 consecutive admissions examined by Huey -at Illinois, 5.7% (_129_). To be sure, a goodly number of these inmates -are not eleven years of age, but a majority of them are at least that -old and many are older. Of 280 children in the Breslau _Hilfsschulen_, -Chotzen (_89_) found none reaching XI, and only six who tested X. These -few cases in institutions reaching XI or over may well come within our -class of those feeble-minded through volitional deficiency. - -Goddard's description of the children at the Vineland school for -feeble-minded who tested XI with the 1908 scale hardly sounds like an -account of social deficiency. He says: - - “In the eleven year old group we find only five individuals, but - they are children who, for example, can care for the supervisor's - room entirely, can take care of animals entirely satisfactorily, and - who require little or no supervision. They are, it is true, not - quite as expert or trustworthy as those a year older, and yet the - difference is very little and the two ages can probably be very well - classed together” (_113_). - -The studies of groups are more important for fixing our general rules -than individual examples. We must always expect to find exceptional -cases where the brief intellectual tests given in an hour or less are -not adequate, especially if the testing has been interfered with by the -person's emotional condition at the time or by deliberate deception. A -number of illustrations have been reported of successful adults who have -tested X under careful examinations. Such, for example, are three cases -of successful farmers tested by Wallin (_215_) and a normal school -student tested by Weidensall (_59_). There are two examples of persons -testing IX with the Binet scale and yet earning a living. Such is the -case related by Dr. Glueck of the Italian immigrant making two trips to -this country to accumulate wealth for his family by his labor (_109_), -and the case of the boy reported by Miss Schmidt (_179_). These cases -should make us cautious, but they are so rare that it seems best to -treat those testing IX at least as exceptions. - -The group studies confirm our suggestion that a borderline of X or below -will bring in for expert consideration nearly all adults who are -feeble-minded from a lack of intellectual ability, while testing IX is a -fairly clear indication of such serious deficiency as to justify -isolation. That testing X, in the absence of other evidence of conative -disturbance, places the case only in an uncertain region so far as -isolation is concerned is best indicated by the fact that 1.1% to 1.4% -of these 15-year-olds tested this low. We have good evidence that many -in special classes, which contain only about the lowest one per cent., -afterwards do float in society with or without social assistance. They -cannot be presumed to require isolation, as I showed in the previous -chapter. It is better to say at present that those testing X require -evidence of their deficiency before isolation, except in special -classes, is justified. The test diagnosis alone is too uncertain, even -when there are no removable handicaps. - -As to the reliability of these borderlines, too much emphasis can hardly -be put upon the fact that they have been determined for only a single -group of 653 in a single community. They are undoubtedly not the exact -borderlines, although they are the most probable percentage estimates we -have at present and were obtained in a group that was as nearly -unselected as it is possible to obtain. The method of selection was -perfectly objective and excluded no feeble-minded children of this age -living in these school districts. - -The theory of sampling applied to percentages (_228_) enables us to say -that the standard deviation of the true lowest 0.5% in samples of this -size made under the same conditions would not be more than 0.28%.[12] -That is to say, if our result were only affected by the size of our -sample the chances are about two out of three that the border of the -true lowest 0.5 per cent. would lie between the border of the lowest -0.22% and the lowest 0.78% of a very large sample. Assuming that the -distribution in this sample represented that of communities generally, -the chances would be two out of three that the true border of the lowest -0.5% for like groups in like communities examined under the same -conditions would lie between IX.0 and X.6 or X.4 on the 1908 and 1911 -scales respectively. Moreover, the chances that a case in the lowest -0.5% in this sample would be above the doubtful group in a larger -sample, _i. e._, get above the lowest 1.5%, would be about 1 in 10,000. -On the other hand, the chances that a case above the true lowest 1.5%, -_i. e._, above the uncertain group, would get into the lowest 0.5% in a -larger sample, _i. e._, be classed as clearly deficient intellectually, -would be about 18 in 1,000. - -So far as the theory of sampling goes it would seem that these -borderlines for the mature are sufficiently accurate for correcting -present practise. On the other hand, the conditions in Minneapolis so -far as deficiency is concerned are probably better than in the country -as a whole, so that the borderlines here described might very well -exclude more than the lowest 0.5% and 1.5% in the country at large. But -if we shifted the definition so as to exclude the lowest 0.2% and 1.1% -(the percentages empirically found below the limits described), the -borders on the Binet 1908 scale would not be changed from the rough -measures IX and X which are as accurate as we should expect to define -our limits with the present data. - - - (b) THE PRESENT TENDENCY AMONG EXAMINERS. - -Comparing the suggestions as to the borderline for the mature which have -heretofore been made, we find that they have gradually approached the -boundary now suggested by the percentage method. In 1910 the American -Association for the Study of the Feeble-Minded adopted a tentative -classification in which the upper limit of the feeble-minded included -those “whose mental development does not exceed that of a child of about -twelve years” (_64_). This was based mainly on the fact that Goddard had -found no case at the Vineland school for feeble-minded which tested -higher than XII. Huey later than this found only two such cases at the -institution at Lincoln, Ill., and Kuhlmann only ten cases at the -Minnesota State School for the Feeble-Minded. - -There was an early statement by Binet which referred to the practise in -Belgium of regarding older school children as deficient when they were -three years retarded in their school work (_77_, p. 41). This practise -may have also contributed to this formulation by the American -Association. Binet, however, regarded a child of the mentality of twelve -as normal. In 1905, before his tests were arranged in age groups, he -said: - - “Lastly we have noticed that children of twelve years can mostly - reply to abstract questions. Provisionally we limit mental - development at this point. A moron shows himself by his inability to - handle verbal abstractions; he does not understand them sufficiently - to reply satisfactorily” (_76_, p. 146). - -It is important to consider how the suggestion of XII as the upper limit -of feeble-mindedness for adults got into the early practise in this -country as the lower borderline for the mature. It is the most serious -error which has marred investigations in this field. It seems to have -been a case of repeated misunderstanding on the part of examiners for -which nobody in particular was to blame. So far as I can determine -nobody stated directly in connection with any scale what should be -regarded as the lower borderline for the mature. Numerous examiners, -however, in reporting their results, concluded that if the feeble-minded -tested as high as XII then adults who tested XII were feeble-minded. -They were somewhat encouraged in this fallacy by the fact that the 1908 -scales suggested three years of retardation as an indication of -feeble-mindedness, and the highest age-group of tests was soon shifted -to fifteen years. - -The trouble seems to have been that early workers failed to recognize -that some of the feeble-minded in institutions, the purely conative -cases, have passable capacity so far as the brief intellectual tests are -concerned. To determine scientifically what is the borderline, we should -study randomly selected groups from the general population and determine -the positions on the scale below which practically all are socially -unfit. Or, as Wallin has suggested, we should find out the degree of -tested ability necessary for survival in simple occupations that are -afforded by society (_216_, p. 224). These positions can only be checked -by finding the conditions in institutions or special classes. They -cannot be determined by tests of these abnormal groups alone. Besides -the confusion arising from these feeble-minded who are primarily -unstable or inert, but with passable intellects, reasoning from the -statistics on abnormal groups merely repeats a common fallacy. The fact -that some inmates of institutions test XII does not let us know how many -outside the institutions who test XII actually survive in society. - -The randomly selected groups of children on which Binet tried out his -tests were so ridiculously small that he continually cautioned against -adopting his suggestions as to borderlines as anything but tentative. -For judging the borderline for the mature there were no test results -which had not been seriously affected by the methods of selecting the -groups, so we collected the data on this random group of Minneapolis -15-year-olds. I trust that this will make any examiner more careful -about assuming that adults testing XI are clearly unable to survive -socially, unless he is ready to claim that 10% of the general population -are unfit socially. - -It is to be noted that, taken literally, the description of the American -Association is not in terms of the Binet scale, but of the mental -development of a normal child of twelve years, although the framers of -the resolution undoubtedly had the Binet scale of mental ages in mind. -It was soon found that the tests for the older ages in the Binet 1908 -scale were too difficult for the places assigned them. This is certainly -true with the tests for twelve years and probably with those for eleven. -This evidence is assembled in Table IV. The combined results should be -used only with great caution since the methods of the investigators -differed in detail and the groups were differently chosen. In the groups -of children which Bobertag and Bloch and Preiss tested, there had been -eliminated some of those who were backward in school, while Goddard's -group did not include the best 12-year-olds. - - TABLE IV. - - RESULTS WITH THE BINET TESTS FOR MENTAL AGES XI AND XII - (_1908 Series_) - - ───────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────────────────── - │No. of Cases │ Pass tests │ Pass tests XI or better - │ │XII or better│ - ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────────────────── - │ Life-Age │ Life-Age │ Life-Ages - ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┬───────────── - Investigators │ 12 11 │ 12 │ 11 │ 12 - │ No. No. │ No. % │ No. % │ No. % - ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── - Binet and Simon│ │ │ │ - (School in poor│ │ │ │ - quarter) │ │ │ │ - 1908 study │ 11 │ 2 18 │ │ 7 64 - │ 20 │ │ 13 65 │ - 1911 study │ 23 │ │ │15[13] 65 - ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── - Bloch and │ 21 │ 21 100 │ │ 21 100 - Preiss │ │ │ │ - (Only pupils up│ 15 │ │ 13 87 │ - to grade) │ │ │ │ - ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── - Bobertag │ 33 │ 19 57 │ │ 29 88 - (Pupils │ 34 │ │ 18 53 │ - averaged │ │ │ │ - satisfactory) │ │ │ │ - ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── - Dougherty │ 46 │ 9 20 │ │ 36 78 - (Includes 8th │ 44 │ │ 22 50 │ - grade) │ │ │ │ - ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── - Goddard │ 144 │ 39 27 │ │ 75 52 - (Includes none │ 166 │ │ 73 44 │ - above 6th │ │ │ │ - grade) │ │ │ │ - ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── - Johnston │ 24 │ 6 25 │ │ ? - (Includes some │ 29 │ │ 7 24 │ - high school │ │ │ │ - pupils) │ │ │ │ - ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── - Terman and │ 35 │ 3 9 │ │ 29 83 - Childs │ │ │ │ - (Includes a few│ 44 │ │ 14 32 │ - in 8th grade) │ │ │ │ - ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── - Rogers and │ 20 │ 1 5 │ │ 5 25 - McIntyre │ │ │ │ - │ 27 │ │ 6 22 │ - ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── - Totals │ 357 379 │ 100 │ 166 │ 217? - ───────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴───────────── - - Binet and Simon. L'Annee Psychol., 1908, _14_: 1911, _17_: 145-200. - Bloch and Preiss. Zeits. f. angew. Psychol., 1912, _6_: 539-547. - Bobertag. Zeits. f. angew. Psychol., 1912, _6_: 495-538. - Dougherty. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, _4_: 338-352. - Goddard. Ped. Sem., 1911, _18_: 232-259. - Johnston. J. of Exper. Ped., 1911, _1_: 24-31. - Terman and Childs. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1912, _3_: (Feb.-May). - Rogers and McIntyre. Brit. J. of Psychol., 1914, _7_: 265-299. - -Each of the studies indicated in the table, except that of Bloch and -Preiss, gives evidence that the XII-year tests are too difficult for -12-year-old children. Moreover, we find that in the 1911 revision of -their scale Binet and Simon advanced their 1908 XII-year tests to -test-age XV and four out of the five XI-year tests to test-age XII. -Passing the XII-year (1908) tests would, therefore, seem to bring a -child above the upper limit of feeble-mindedness as defined even by the -American Association for the Study of Feeble-mindedness, since it means -more than the intelligence of a child of 12. - -Goddard still adhered to this borderline of the American Association in -1914 in his work on Feeble-Mindedness. He says: “We have practically -agreed to call all persons feeble-minded who do not arrive at an -intelligence higher than that of the twelve year old normal child” (p. -573). In the same year Schwegler's “Teachers' Manual” for the use of the -Binet scale says that a person who tests XII is a moron if mature -(_180_). Since the evidence of Table IV indicates that 75% of the -twelve-year-olds do not test above XI, even those who adhere to the high -limit of the intelligence of a 12-year-old should have required an adult -to test XI on the Binet scale in order to show deficiency. - -In 1911 we find Wallin writing, regarding the 1908 tests, “it is a -question whether the line of feeble-mindedness should not be drawn -between eleven and twelve instead of between twelve and thirteen.... A -number of our twelve-year-olds are certainly very slightly, if at all, -feeble-minded” (_210_). Jennings and Hallock (_31_) and Morrow and -Bridgman (_39_) in testing delinquents reported in 1911 and 1912 that -they regarded those passing the tests for twelve years as socially fit. -Chotzen (_31_) thinks that the two children in his group of pupils from -a _Hilfsschule_ who test ten and are three years or more retarded are -not feeble-minded. Davis thinks that those “showing mentality from ten -to twelve years” may possibly not be called mentally defective (_133_, -p. 187). - -In 1915 the editors of the magazine “Ungraded” in their recommendations -regarding the use of the Binet scale say “a mental age of 10 or above is -not necessarily indicative of feeble-mindedness, regardless of how old -the examinee may be” (_66_, p. 7). In the same year Kohs, in reporting -the examinations of 335 consecutive cases at the Chicago House of -Correction, says: “We find normality to range within the limits 12^2 and -10^4 and feeble-mindedness not to extend above the limit 11^2. In other -words, none of our cases testing 11^3 or over was found, with the aid of -other confirmatory data, to be mentally defective. None of our cases -testing 10^3 or below was found to be normal. Of those testing between -10^4 and 11^2, our borderline cases, a little less than half were found -normal, and somewhat more than half were found feeble-minded” (_33_). -His exponents here refer to number of tests and not to tenths of a -test-year. Hinckley (_182_) reports examinations with the Binet 1911 -scale on 200 consecutive cases at the New York Clearing House for Mental -Defectives which show that with these suspected cases, which were from -13 to 43 years of age, seven-eighths tested X or below. Referring to -adults, Wallin states that he has “provisionally placed the limen -somewhere between the ages of IX and X” (_215_). Dr. Mabel Fernald at -the Bedford Reformatory laboratory said in 1917, “many of us for some -time have been using a standard that only those who rank below ten years -mentally can be called feeble-minded with certainty” (_16_). The reader -should also see the admirable review and discussion of the borderlines -on the Binet scale in Chap. II of Wallin's _Problems of Subnormality_. -Two descriptions of the scale borderlines in books on mental testing -which appeared in 1917 are of interest. In his _Clinical Studies in -Feeble-Mindedness_ (p. 76), E. A. Doll says: - - “By the Binet-Simon method feeble-mindedness is almost always - (probably more than 95 times in a hundred) an accurately safe - diagnosis when the person examined exhibits a mental age under 12 - years with an absolute retardation of more than three years, or a - relative retardation of more than 25 per cent.” - -N. J. Melville, in his _Standard Method of Testing Juvenile Mentality_ -(p. 10), says: - - “Conservative estimates today place the upper limit of - feeble-mindedness at least in a legal sense at Binet age ten; others - place it at Binet age eleven.... A Binet age score below eleven when - accompanied by a sub-age (retardation) of more than three years is - usually indicative of serious mental deficiency. Even when - accompanied by a slight sub-age score, a Binet age score below - eleven may be indicative of potential mental deficiency when the - test record reveals a Binet base that is six or more years below the - life age.” - -In 1916 the new Stanford scale appeared and its tests are arranged so -that approximately 50% of each age instead of 75%, test at age or above. -Even with this lowering of the scale units, Dr. Terman describes his -borderline for “definite feeble-mindedness” as below an intelligence -quotient of 70. This would mean for his 16-year-old mature borderline a -mental age on this scale of XI.2. We have no means of determining to -what positions these points on the Stanford scale would correspond on -the 1908 or 1911 Binet scales. Dr. Terman says “the adult moron would -range from about 7-year to 11-year intelligence” (_57_). Apparently also -referring to the Stanford scale, the physicians at the Pediatric Clinic -of that university agree with this borderline and say: “morons are such -high grade feeble-minded as never at any age acquire a mental age -greater than 10 years” (_169_). That there is still need for more -caution is evidenced by the statement of a prominent clinician in 1916 -that “cases prove ultimately to be feeble-minded since they never -develop beyond 12 years intelligence” (_135_). - -Most interesting perhaps is the fact that Binet and Simon themselves, -the collaborators who first formulated the scale for measuring -intelligence by mental ages, after their years of experience with the -tests came, by rule of thumb, to regard IX as the highest level reached -by those testing deficient. Dr. Simon stated the borderline for the -mature in this way in a paper read in England in 1914 and published the -next year. He said: - - “Provisionally it might be proposed to fix at 9 years the upper - level of mental debility.... We have reason to think that a - development equivalent to the normal average at 9 years of age is - the minimum below which the individual is incapable of getting along - without tutelage in the conditions of modern life. A certain number - of facts suggest this view and are mutually confirmatory. Nine years - is the intellectual level found in the lowest class of domestic - servants, in those who are just on the border of a possible - existence in economic independence; it is, on the other hand, the - highest level met with in general paralytics who come under asylum - care on account of their dementia; so long as a general paralytic, - setting aside any question of active delirious symptoms, has not - fallen below the intellectual level of 9 years, he can keep at - liberty; once he has reached that level, he ceases to be able to - live in society. And lastly, when we examine in our asylums cases of - congenital defect, brought under care for the sole reason that their - intelligence would not admit of their adapting themselves - sufficiently to the complex conditions of life, we find that amongst - the most highly developed the level of intelligence does not exceed - that of a normal child of 9 years of age” (_182_). - -In connection with their 1911 revision of the scale Binet and Simon had -stated that among 20 adults in a hospital where custodial care was -provided for the deficient “we found that the best endowed did not -surpass the normal level of nine or ten years, and in consequence our -measuring scale furnished us something by which to raise before them a -barrier that they could not pass” (_79_, p. 267). They, however, then -expressed complete reserve as to the application of this criterion to -subjects in different environments on their presumption that deficiency -for the laboring class is different from that for other classes in the -population. - -The Germans seem to have early recognized a lower borderline for the -mature than we did in this country for we find Chotzen saying in 1912 -that he agreed with Binet's finding that “idiots do not rise above a -mental age of three, imbeciles not over seven, and debile not over ten” -(_89_, p. 494). Stern also quotes Binet as declaring that the moron does -not progress beyond the mental age of nine (_188_, p. 70). - -The tendency of interpretation indicated by these studies is plainly to -lower the borderline for passable mature intellects until it approaches -the limits which the percentage definition suggests as reasonable from -our available evidence. The percentage plan thus confirms the borderline -that has been approached gradually by hit or miss methods. An adult -testing IX is presumed deficient, while one testing X is in an uncertain -zone. The numerous studies of delinquents which have regarded adults who -tested XI and even XII as deficient have seriously overestimated the -problem of the deficient delinquent, as we shall see in our later -chapter on tested delinquents. - - - B. THE BORDER REGION FOR THE IMMATURE. - - - (a) FOR THE BINET 1908 SCALE. - -In attempting to adapt the percentage method of description to the -border region for the immature, it is essential that the tests shall -have been tried out on randomly selected groups. Neither teachers nor -the examiner should pick out children to be tested, if we are to know -much about the region of lowest intellects. While Bobertag's method of -choosing typical groups by balancing those backward in school by those -advanced, is serviceable for his purpose of determining norms, the -personal element of choice involved makes the results thus obtained -almost useless in determining the lower limit of ability. - -In regard to the diagnosis of intellectual deficiency by the Binet 1908 -or 1911 scales, we know much more about the interpretation of results -obtained with the 1908 scale than with the 1911 scale. The 1908 scale -was therefore used for our examinations of juvenile delinquents. The -best available data on which to base a description of the borderline for -the immature is that collected by Goddard (_119_). He says that he -“arranged to test the entire school population of one complete school -system. This system includes about five thousand population within a -small city and as many more outside, so that we have, city and country, -a school population of about two thousand children.... In the seventh -and eighth grammar grades and the high school, the children were tested -in groups.” Since only the first six grades were tested individually and -only these results are published in sufficient detail to be available, -we shall confine this account to the school children below the seventh -grade. It must be remembered that any children of the idiot class and -possibly some of the low imbeciles would not be included in his figures -for they would probably have been excused from school attendance. In a -small rural community it is not likely that these would be numerous -enough to change the rough borderline materially. We thus have a fairly -random group for a small town and its environs. - -Since we cannot use Goddard's results for our purpose above the sixth -grade, it is plain that we would not sufficiently approach a random -distribution for any age above 11 years. In Minneapolis, for example, a -recent census showed 28% of the public school children 12 years of age -are in the seventh grade or above, while 6% of the better -eleven-year-olds would be excluded by including only those below the -seventh grade. We have therefore omitted from our calculations all of -Goddard's results for children above eleven years of age as too -unreliable for purposes of percentage estimations. Even his -eleven-year-olds may be affected. - -Although it is not clear in the published reports whether the nearest or -last birthday was used, Dr. Goddard has informed me that his table shows -the results for ages at the last birthday. A child is regarded as six -until he has reached his seventh birthday, as is customary. Throughout -this book I have followed this method of using age to mean age at last -birthday, or _avowed age_. This is in conformity with the common use of -age and with general anthropometric practise. It is less confusing and -less subject to mistake or errors of record. On the whole, I believe -that in statistical work avowed age is preferable to nearest age. - - TABLE V. - - PERCENTAGES OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN TESTED WITH THE 1908 BINET - SCALE. (_From Goddard's Table._) - - ───────────┬───────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────── - │ │ Years Retarded - ───────────┼───────────┼───────────╥───────────┬───────────┬─────────── - Life-Age │ No. of │Two or more║ Three or │ Four or │ Five or - │ cases │ ║ more │ more │ more - ───────────┼───────────┼───────────╫───────────┼───────────┼─────────── - 5│ 114│ 5.3║ 1.8│ ...│ ... - 6│ 160│ 2.5║ 0.6│ 0.6│ ... - 7│ 197│ 5.6║ 1.5│ 0.5│ 0.0 - 8│ 209│ 2.4║ 1.9│ 1.0│ 0.0 - 9│ 201│ 1.3║ 0.0│ 0.0│ 0.0 - │ │ ╟═══════════╢ │ - 10│ 222│ 18.9│ 8.1║ 1.4│ 0.0 - 11│ 166│ 25.9│ 10.8║ 3.0│ 0.6 - │ ————│ │ ║ │ - │ 1269│ │ ║ │ - ───────────┴───────────┴───────────┴───────────╨───────────┴─────────── - -In the accompanying Table V Goddard's results are arranged so as to show -the percentages at each life-age retarded two or more, three or more, -four or more, and five or more years according to the Binet 1908 scale. -The heavy black line indicates the upper borderline of the doubtful -group according to our interpretation. In spite of irregularities, due -mainly to insufficient numbers, the trend of the table is fairly plain. -The column of percentages two or more years retarded and to the left of -the heavy line suggests that the break comes at ten years of age. Using -our tentative criterion of 0.5% presumably deficient and the next 1.0% -uncertain intellectually, the outcome of this analysis is a rather -striking demonstration of the feasibility of the percentage procedure -even when the groups examined at each age are only composed of about 200 -cases. I have preferred to take the empirical data at the lower extreme -of each age distribution instead of projecting the tail of a smoothed -distribution curve for each age. - -Until better data are available we have adopted in practise, as a result -of the study of this table, the procedure of considering any child who -is ten years of age or over as testing of doubtful capacity if he is -four or more years retarded below his chronological age, three or more -years retarded if he is under ten years of age. If he shows one -additional year of retardation we consider, in the absence of some other -explanation of his retardation, that he is presumably intellectually -deficient enough to justify a recommendation of isolation. Of course no -such recommendation should be made without a complete medical -examination, a full knowledge of the history of the case and a checking -of the record by further tests at different times when there is any -suspicion that the child has not done as well as he might under other -conditions. - -The fact that we have no data on random groups 12, 13 and 14 years of -age leaves a gap which may mean that our criterion of 5 years -retardation for presumable deficiency at these ages is too small. It is -possible that the shift to 6 years retardation should be made before 15 -years, which is the position where our criterion for the borderline for -the mature automatically makes the shift. We say a 15-year-old testing X -is above the group presumably deficient as he has entered the “doubtful” -adult class. - -It is also to be remembered that the standard error expected from the -results of samples as small as these is 0.5% when the sample is 200 and -0.7% when it is 100. The limits thus might easily shift a year. The -suggested borderlines for the immature can at best be regarded only as -the most likely under the meager evidence available. - -Whether the borderlines for deficiency on the Binet scale should be -described in terms of years of retardation is doubtful except, as in -this case, for practical convenience. It is certainly only a rough -indication of the borderlines. When this method has not been followed -the most common practise is to use some form of Stern's “intelligence -quotient.” An extended discussion of this question is reserved for Part -II of this book, to which the reader is referred. It need only be said -here that the percentage procedure adapts itself to either method of -description. Since the designation of the limits must be very rough -until we have much further information from tests upon unselected -groups, we have adopted the common method of description in terms of -years of retardation, since it seems to afford for the 1908 scale the -simplest expression of the borderline until the tests have been much -improved. It happens that the empirical results for 5 years of age and -over lend themselves to designating the lowest percentages in terms of -years of retardation with only a single shift at 9 years of age. An -equally accurate designation by the intelligence quotient would be quite -complicated if it were adapted equally well to the different life-ages. - -The fact that the Binet mental ages do not signify corresponding norms -at each age has been frequently pointed out (_200_). Moreover it is -probable that one year of retardation on the scale means a different -thing at different chronological ages. With the new Stanford form of the -scale, for example, “a year of deviation at age 6 is exactly equivalent -to a deviation of 18 months at age 9, and to 2 years at age 12, etc.” -(_197_) when measured in terms of the deviation in ability at these -ages. This variation does not interfere, however, with our use of the -“years of retardation” merely as a short method for describing -empirically the positions on the scale which roughly and conservatively -designate the same percentages of children of low ability at various -ages. Besides its convenience in this respect, there is no question but -that such a description does help better than a quotient to convince the -public of the seriousness of the deficiency. - -A more serious theoretical objection to describing the borderline for -the immature in terms of years of retardation is that, when one changes -from three to four years of retardation, it is clear that a moron who -tests VI at 9 years of age would be supposed to be still only VI at 10 -years in order to remain below the borderline, while it is known that -there is some, albeit a small, amount of progress made by the higher -class deficients at these ages. In the crude state in which the Binet -scale still remains, however, we have preferred to waive these -theoretical objections in favor of the prevalent custom which has the -advantages of simplicity, practical convenience, popular significance -and, in this case, equal accuracy. - -It is, of course, very desirable that the results obtained by Goddard as -well as our Minneapolis results should be checked by data on unselected -groups elsewhere. With the 1908 scale the only other data which seems -fairly to represent a random selection are those of Terman and Child's -(_195_, p. 69). Since they examined less than 50 at any age, however, -their table helps only to check roughly the borderline suggested. The -percentages retarded two years or more changed to the basis of -calculation we used, indicate that the break comes at 10 years. The -percentages from six up to ten years run 0, 3, 7, 6, when they change to -12% or more for the following ages. While the groups are too small to -indicate the borderlines for each age, yet, when we group the children -from 6-9 years inclusive, under our interpretation we find that a year -less than our upper borderline for the uncertain group would give 4.8% -of 147 cases. With 142 cases in the group 10, 11, and 12 years old, 5.6% -would be caught by placing the borderline for the doubtful a year less -than we have indicated. Our scale borderlines are thus in harmony with -these data. - - - (b) DATA FOR OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL SCALES. - -When we turn to data from randomly selected groups for judging the -borderlines with other developmental scales than the 1908 Binet, we find -that a group of children in the rural schools of Porter County, Indiana, -have been examined with the Goddard adaptation of the Binet 1911 scale -(_92_) and a group of school children in a Minnesota city, with the -Kuhlmann adaptation of the 1911 scale (_138_). The important results -with each study are given in Table VI. In the Indiana study the children -were examined through the eighth grade. The elimination of older -children from school would certainly affect the groups over 13 years of -age and probably disturb the results even for the 13-year olds. For this -group the results are published only for nearest mental and nearest -life-ages. The results are, therefore, not strictly comparable with -those of Table V. for the 1908 scale. It is doubtful whether tests on -children in the rural schools should be used for indicating borderlines. -The table suggests, however, that the borderlines we have indicated for -the 1908 scale are not too conservative for the immature tested with the -1911 scale. It is possible, however, that with Goddard's adaptation the -break comes at 9 years of age instead of 10. - - TABLE VI. - - TABLE VI.—MENTAL RETARDATION OF CHILDREN AS TESTED WITH THE 1911 BINET - SCALE - - _Children in the Rural Schools of Porter County, Indiana, tested with - the Goddard 1911 scale. (From Table XIII, U. S. Public Health Bulletin, - No. 77)_ - - ───────────┬───────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────── - Nearest │ Total │Percentages showing the following years of - Life-Ages │ Pupils │tested retardation according to the nearest - │ │mental ages: - ───────────┼───────────┼───────────┬───────────┬───────────┬─────────── - │ │Two or more│ Three or │ Four or │ Five or - │ │ │ more │ more │ more - ───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼─────────── - 6│ 107│ 2.8│ │ │ - 7│ 232│ 6.03│ .43│ │ - 8│ 234│ 8.12│ 2.12│ .42│ - 9│ 216│ 12.04│ 5.54│ 1.84│ .92 - 10│ 278│ 19.88│ 3.58│ 1.08│ .36 - 11│ 212│ 18.3│ 8.4│ 1.8│ - 12│ 243│ 33.9│ 12.9│ 2.6│ - 13│ 249│ 63.7│ 27.9│ 8.4│ 2.8 - ───────────┴───────────┴───────────┴───────────┴───────────┴─────────── - - _Number of Pupils Testing retarded according to Kuhlmann's revision of - the Binet 1911 scale. (From Kuhlmann's Table VIII.)_ - - ──────────────┬──────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────── - │ │ Exact years of retardation. - ──────────────┼──────────────┼─────────────┬─────────────┬───────────── - Nearest │ Total Pupils │ 1 or more │ 2 or more │ 3 or more - Life-Age │ │ │ │ - ──────────────┼──────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── - 6│ 38│ 0│ 0│ 0 - 7│ 82│ 4│ 0│ 0 - 8│ 95│ 9│ 0│ 0 - 9│ 91│ 12│ 2│ 0 - 10│ 84│ 16│ 9│ 1 - 11│ 88│ 18│ 4│ 0 - 12│ 75│ 32│ 8│ 1 - ──────────────┴──────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴───────────── - -Kuhlmann, with the assistance of twenty teachers whom he started in the -work and whom he regards as “untrained examiners,” measured “the public -school children from the first to the seventh grade, inclusive, in a -Minnesota city.” The essential figures from his results are given in -Table VI. These results are not directly comparable with those of -Goddard using the 1908 scale, since Kuhlmann tabulates the nearest ages -instead of the actual ages. His age groups would therefore average a -half year younger chronologically than Goddard's. Moreover, the exact -amount of retardation to tenths of a year was then calculated from the -exact age, and it is to be remembered that the method of calculating the -mental age was changed in 1911 so as to start with a basal age in which -all tests were passed. The effect of these changes would be that some of -those recorded in Kuhlmann's table as two years retarded might easily be -a year more retarded under the same methods of calculation that were -previously used. Using his method of computation, it is clear that the -general borderline for the immature with this scale would not be as low -as we have indicated for the 1908 Binet scale. It would apparently be -about a year less, _i. e._, two years of retardation for those six to -nine years of age, and three years retardation for those 10 or above in -order to fall within our doubtful group. The 13 year old group are not -included here. They would not be even approximately random since those -who had reached the eighth grade or above were not examined. It is -interesting to note that the break in frequency of serious retardation -again occurs in the change from those chronologically 9 years of age to -those 10 years of age. - -The Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Scale (_57_) has -included a percentage designation of the degrees of ability by a -classification of intelligence quotients (I Q's). It is interesting to -find the percentage method of setting forth the borderlines is utilized -to supplement the intelligence quotients in this important revision of -the Binet-Simon Scale. It shows how the method may be adapted to testing -of intelligence quotients. For fixing the borderline for the immature -the Stanford scale affords the best means provided by any of the -revisions or adaptations of the Binet scale. The amount of data on -randomly selected groups of school children, by which these borderlines -were determined, is, however, less than with the 1908 Binet Scale as -given by Goddard and summarized in our Table V. The Stanford Scale was -standardized for the immature by testing 80 to 120 native born school -children at each age from 5 to 14 inclusive, a total of 905. While the -1908 scale gives corresponding distributions for 114 to 222 children at -each age from 5 to 11 inclusive, a total of 1269. Using the I Q's -adopted by Dr. Terman for the Stanford Scale, the lowest 1% of the -children were found to reach only an I Q of 70 or below, 2% to reach 73 -or below, 5% to reach 78 or below. The author designates below 70 as -“definite feeble-mindedness,” 70-80 as “borderline deficiency, sometimes -classified as dullness, often as feeble-mindedness.” His “definite -feeble-mindedness” thus includes somewhat fewer than our “presumably -deficient” and “uncertain groups” combined. The distribution of the -intelligence quotients was “found fairly symmetrical at each age from 5 -to 14.” The range including the middle 50% of the I Q's, was found -practically constant (_57_, p. 66). The data for the extreme cases have -not been published except for ages 6, 9 and 13. For these ages 1% were -75 or below at 6 years, 2% at nine years, and 7% at 13 (_197_). The -results with the extreme cases at each age are the most important factor -in fixing the borderline. The combined per cent. results with I Q of 905 -children at different ages, which show 0.33% testing 65 or below and -2.3% 75 or below, may be deceptive for separate ages. - -It seems clear that the criterion for tested deficiency suggested by our -study is more conservative than that of the Stanford scale which says: - - “All who test below 70 I Q by the Stanford revision of the - Binet-Simon Scale should be considered feeble-minded, and it is an - open question whether it would not be justifiable to consider 75 I Q - as the lower limit of “normal” intelligence. Certainly a large - proportion falling between 70 and 75 can hardly be classed as other - than feeble-minded, even according to the social criterion.” (_57_, - p. 81) - -In regard to the borderline for the mature with the Stanford scale it is -especially important to note that at present no randomly selected mature -group has been tested with this scale so that we are at a loss to know -what would be a safe borderline for adults with it. It is peculiarly -unsafe, it seems to me, to carry over an intelligence quotient which may -shut out the lowest 1% of children who distribute normally, to the -uncertain borderline of an adult group composed of thirty business men, -150 migrating unemployed, 150 adolescent delinquents and 50 high school -students. By these data it would be impossible to tell what per cent. of -a random group of adults would be shut out by this borderline of 70. - - TABLE VII.—BORDERLINE RESULTS WITH THE POINT SCALE - - The lower range of “intelligence coefficients” for the normal group of - school children and adults (226, Table III). - - ───────────────┬───────┬───────┬───────┬───────┬───────┬───────┬─────── - Nearest Ages │ 4-5 │ 6-7 │ 8-9 │ 10-11 │ 12-13 │ 14-15 │ 18-on - ───────────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼─────── - No. of Cases │ 84 │ 357 │ 196 │ 161 │ 120 │ 77 │ 284 - ───────────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼─────── - Presumably │ │ Under │ │ Under │ │ │ Under - deficient │ │ .61 │ │ .61 │ │ │ .61 - │ │ 0.4% │ │ 0.6% │ │ │ 0.7% - ───────────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼─────── - Doubtful │ Under │.61 to │ Under │.61 to │ Under │ Under │.61 to - │ .51 │ .81 │ .51 │ .71 │ .51 │ .61 │ .71 - ───────────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼─────── - Both │(4.8%) │ 1.5% │ 1.5% │(5.0%) │ 1.7% │ 1.3% │(6.3%) - ───────────────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴─────── - - Pupils of Grammar School B, Cambridge, Mass. (225, Table III) - - ───────────────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬────── - Ages │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │ 11 │ 12 │ 13 - ───────────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼────── - No. of Pupils │ 71 │ 73 │ 61 │ 71 │ 76 │ 79 │ 60 │ 52 - ───────────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼────── - Per Cent of │ 1.4 │ 1.4 │ 1.5 │ 2.7 │ 1.3 │ 1.3 │ 1.7 │ 2.0 - Pupils at │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - and Below │ 11 │ 14 │ 15 │ 21 │ 35 │ 40 │ 33 │ 38 - Points │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - ───────────────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴────── - -For the Point Scale for Measuring Mental Ability, prepared by Yerkes, -Bridges and Hardwick, we have two sets of data which give the only -empirical basis for estimating the percentage borderlines for the -various ages (_225_, _226_). These data are restated in terms of -percents in Table VII. The first part of the table shows the borderline -results with the normal group composed of 829 pupils of the Cambridge -schools, 166 pupils of Iowa schools, 237 in the group of Cincinnati -18-year-old working girls and an adult Massachusetts group of 50. The -table illustrates how difficult it is to find a common borderline in -terms of a ratio, in this case the “coefficient of intelligence,” for a -series of life-ages. It certainly seems hazardous to attempt to smooth -these empirical borderlines for the different ages by accepting, on the -present evidence, the suggestion of the authors that a coefficient of -.50 or less at any of these ages indicates the individual is “dependent” -and coefficients from .51-70 that he is “inferior,” since the data show -the lowest group would include only the lowest 0.04% of 18 years of age -and over, while it includes 4.8% of those in their table four and five -years of age. Indeed, the authors note that “a few months' difference in -age will alter the coefficient of a five or six year old child by ten to -thirty per cent.” Under such circumstances it would be better for the -present to use the empirical basis suggested from the data of Table VII -rather than to attempt to use a uniform borderline coefficient for the -various ages. For calculating the coefficient of a particular -individual, his point scale record should presumably be divided by the -revised norms published by the authors, which are as follows for the -nearest life-ages, reading the dots on their graph: 4 yrs. 15 points, 5 -yrs. 22, 6 yrs. 28, 7 yrs. 35, 8 yrs. 41, 9 yrs. 50, 10 yrs. 58, 11 yrs. -64, 12 yrs. 70, 13 yrs. 74, 14 yrs. 79, 15 yrs. 81, 16 yrs. 84, 17 yrs. -86, 18 yrs. 88. - -Since all the pupils in Grammar School B, who were not absent during the -periods of examination, were examined, the distribution of these 675 -pupils may be serviceable for obtaining a rough idea of the borderlines -in terms of points at the different ages from 6-13 inclusive. These -individuals “constituted the population of a city grammar school in a -medium to poor region and including grades from the kindergarten to the -eighth, inclusive.” On account of the small number of individuals at -each age the errors are large and the limits should be used only with -much caution as an indication of the general trend of the table. - -All the scales, it should be noted, have been tried out on immature -groups composed only of school children. These would not include those -children who are so deficient as not to be sent to school. The -borderlines determined with school children, therefore, tend to shut out -a slightly larger percentage of all children than of school children. -They would, therefore, tend to class slightly too many as deficient. -Moreover, the groups tested were probably in communities which are -somewhat above the average in ability so that we should be doubly -cautious in using the borderlines for the immature. - - - (c) THE CHANGE IN INTERPRETING THE BORDERLINE FOR THE IMMATURE. - -The confusion over the amount of allowable retardation in evaluating the -results of Binet tests is illustrated by the variations in practise. In -1908 Binet and Simon said: “On the contrary, a retardation of two years -is rare enough; ... Let us admit that every time it occurs, the question -may be raised as to whether the child is subnormal, and in what category -he should be placed” (_79_, p. 269). In 1911 they had become much more -conservative. With their new scale they stated: “We would add that a -child should not be considered defective in intelligence no matter how -little he knows unless his retardation of intelligence amounts to more -than two years” (_78_). This cautious statement seems to have been -converted by the various translators into a rule that every child -retarded three years was to be regarded deficient. Drummond, for -example, in his translation says: “Should a child's mental age show a -retardation of three years as compared with his chronological age, and -should there be no evident explanation of this, such as ill health, -neglect of school attendance, etc., he is reckoned as deficient -mentally” (_77_, p. 163). Wallin, however, in 1911 kept to the original -conservative statement, “children retarded less than three years should -probably not be rated as feeble-minded” (_211_, p. 16). - -In his book on Mentally Defective Children, before the 1908 scale had -appeared, Binet had adopted the Belgian practise of making a distinction -between younger and older children as to the amounts of allowable -_school_ retardation before the question of mental deficiency should be -raised. As a method of preliminary selection for examination he used a -retardation in school position of two years when the child was under 9 -years of age and three years when he had passed his ninth birthday -(_77_, p. 42). This practise was carried over into the field of mental -tests, and Huey then qualified these limits by the safer allowance of -four and three years of tested retardation with the change still at nine -years (_129_). - -The German standard, formulated by Bobertag and accepted by Chotzen -(_89_, p. 494), is to place the lower limit for the normal as less than -three years retardation at ten years of age or less than two years -retardation under that age. The change in the amount of retardation -allowed came at the same position we advocated instead of at 9 as was -earlier suggested. - -The early practise in the United States was merely to regard three years -retardation as the sign of feeble-mindedness. This custom was even -followed in 1914 for all under 16 years of age by Mrs. Streeter in the -investigation by the New Hampshire Children's Commission of Institutions -in that state. She did not call any feeble-minded who tested over XII -(_40_, p. 79). In both the 1908 and 1911 editions of the Binet scale -issued by Goddard, he stated that if a child “is more than three years -backward he is mentally defective,” giving no caution about a borderline -for the mature. This is a practise which has been followed so far as the -immature are concerned, by Goddard's students generally. Kuhlmann -carefully avoids the statement of a borderline with both his 1908 and -1911 adaptations of the Binet scale, but he has since advocated using an -intelligence quotient of less than .75 with his 1911 scale to indicate -feeble-mindedness and leaving a doubtful area from .75 to .80 (_140_). -Stern suggested a borderline of .80 with the intelligence quotient -(_188_). Even a quotient of .75 would call a child feeble-minded by -Kuhlmann's 1911 scale if he tested two years retarded at eight and three -years retarded at twelve. Haines suggests using, with caution, a -borderline with a modified Point Scale which should be at 75% of the -average performance measured in points at each age for individuals over -thirteen years, and four years retardation for 13 years and younger -(_26_). - -Pintner and Paterson collected in one table the test results with the -Binet scale published by thirteen different investigators and covering -4,429 children tested (_44_, p. 49). They do not attempt to readjust -these results so as to allow for the very great differences in the -methods by which the different groups were chosen to be tested or the -different uses of actual life-age and nearest life-age. Such a table is, -as they recognize, too hazardous to use for determining the borderlines -of deficiency. There might be an average difference of at least a year -in the mental ages obtained by different investigators when no allowance -is made for their different procedures. Nevertheless, it is interesting -to note that a mental quotient of .75 is less conservative than the -lowest 3% which is the borderline of feeble-mindedness that they -suggest. The lowest 3% they find would include, for example, those who -were 1.5 years or more retarded at age 5, 2.1 years retarded at 9 and -2.8 years at age 10. - -The most important confirmation of the claim that a borderline for the -immature should require at least 4 years retardation comes from the -Galton biometric laboratory in London. Karl Pearson has furnished a -careful statistical treatment of Jaederholm's results in testing all the -301 children in special classes in Stockholm compared with 261 normal -children in the same schools. Pearson found that the modified 1911 Binet -scale which Jaederholm used could be corrected so that the normal -children at each age averaged very closely to their age norms from 7 to -14 years of age. Under these conditions of the scale he generalized on -the basis of the children in the Stockholm special classes who were from -7 to 15 years of age, as follows: - - “The reader may rest assured that until the mental age of a child is - something like four years in arrear of its physical age it is not - possible to dogmatically assert, on the basis of the most scientific - test yet proposed as a measure of intelligence, that it is - feeble-minded. Even then all we can say is that such a child would - be unlikely to occur once in 261 normal children, or occurs under ½% - in the normal child population.” (_167_, p. 18). - -In a later paper he says that those children “from 4 to 4.5 years and -beyond of mental defect could not be matched at all from 27,000 -children,” on the assumption of a normal distribution fitted to the -normal Stockholm school children (_164_, p. 51). He says further: - - “It is a matter of purely practical convenience where the - division—if there must be an arbitrary one—between the normal and - defective child is placed; we suggest that it be placed at either 3 - or 4 years of mental defect. But as mental defect increases with the - age of the mentally defective the division will be really a function - of the child's age” (_167_, p. 37). - -Since he finds the children in the special classes fall further behind -the normal children on the average 4 months each year of life, this -means that 3 years retardation at 7 years of age would be equivalent to -4 years at 10. - -In spite of uncertainty introduced by the use of quotients, the general -tendency in interpretation of results with Binet scales has thus been to -make a distinction in the amount of retardation signifying deficiency -among younger and older children and to require four years retardation, -at least for the older ages. Our criterion for the borderline of three -years retardation for children under 10 years and four years for 10 -years and over, with an extra year to be quite sure that the deficiency -is sufficient to justify isolation, seems to be in line with the best -practise at present among those who have had much experience with the -Binet scale. Fortunately, little harm has been done to the individuals -themselves by this uncertainty in the interpretation of the scores with -the scale, since only questionable cases have been affected. These have -generally been diagnosed, before disposing of the child, by some expert -who understands the sources of error in mental tests. On the other hand, -shifting the limit of allowable retardation by one year makes a great -difference in the estimation of the frequency of feeble-mindedness in -particular groups, as will be shown in our discussion of deficient -delinquents. - ------ - -Footnote 11: - - Throughout this study I shall use the literal translation of the - German term “lebensalter,” life-age, instead of the awkward - “chronological age.” - -Footnote 12: - - _S. E._ = √(_p._ _q._/_n_) - -Footnote 13: - - Tests XI were recorded as XII in the 1911 series. - - - - - CHAPTER VI. DELINQUENTS TESTING DEFICIENT - - - A. AT THE GLEN LAKE FARM SCHOOL FOR BOYS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. - -We are now in a position to evaluate the Binet examinations of -delinquents. Let us first note our results for a group of 123 -consecutive cases at the Hennepin County Detention Home.[14] It is not a -detention home in the sense of a place where children are held awaiting -the disposition of their cases by the Juvenile Court. It is better -described by its unofficial title, The Glen Lake Farm School for Boys. -This county training school for delinquents is located on a splendid -farm beside a small lake fourteen miles outside of Minneapolis. The boys -are sent there by the juvenile court for a few months' training as an -intermediate discipline between probation and sentence to the State -School at Redwing. - -The character of this group of 123 randomly selected delinquents is -further indicated by the fact that 69 of them had already been brought -into court two or more times, 54 were first offenders. Boys are sent to -Glen Lake whenever the nature of their delinquency or the conditions at -home, together with the personality of the boy, seem to the court to -require this special training. A summary of the offenses for which the -boys were brought into court does not, therefore, show the character of -the boy as it is known to the court through the evidence and the -efficient service of the probation officers. It shows, however, that the -last offenses for which this group were being disciplined were as -follows: Petit larceny 29, truancy 25, incorrigibility 25, burglary 9, -grand larceny 6, disorderly conduct 4, malicious destruction of property -4, trespass 3, sweeping grain cars 3, breaking and entering 3, indecent -conduct 2, miscellaneous offenses one each 8, total 123. Perhaps a more -important indication of the character of the offenders in this group is -that they represent about a quarter of the cases brought before the -juvenile court during the period of this study, a little over a year. -With the exception of a very few cases sent directly to the State -Industrial School they may thus be regarded as typically the worst -quarter of the delinquent boys under 17 years of age in Minneapolis. - -The majority of boys were tested by myself after several year's -experience with the clinic in mental development at the University of -Minnesota and after examining many other delinquents. Some were tested -by assistants from the university clinic, Mrs. Marie C. Nehls and Mr. -Harold D. Kitson, who had been specially trained for this. Their -detailed reports were carefully gone over and evaluated. The Binet 1908 -series (_136_) was used, except that for tests above XII either tests -XIII were used, or later these were supplemented by two other tests, -which have been placed in the age XV group or adult groups, in the -revisions of the Binet scale published by Goddard (_110_) or Kuhlmann -(_135_). This variation was of small importance since a boy was regarded -as of passable intellect if he scored X.8. We always gave the three -tests of the XIII group and the boy was credited with age XIII if he -passed two out of the original XIII year tests or four out of five tests -given above XII. In accordance with our conservative position the rule -of this 1908 scale for scoring was followed and the boy credited with -the highest age for which he passed all but one test, plus one year for -each five higher tests passed. This is the basis of the 1908 form of the -scale as standardized by Goddard. Appendix II gives the detailed results -for each boy with exact life-age and tenths of test-age on the scale, -basal test-age with the tests, grade in school at the first of September -when he was of this life-age and offense for which he was being -disciplined. It also indicates which boys were repeaters. The results of -this table are summarized in Tables VIII and IX. The life-ages at the -last birthday are used rather than the nearest ages, since this accords -with Goddard's standardization and with the common use of the term -“age.” Moreover it seems to conform to the best practise and to be less -likely to lead to mistakes. Table IX also shows the school position of -each boy. Since a number of the older boys had left school, in order to -tabulate their school positions in reference to their life-ages it was -necessary to assume that they would have continued to progress normally -from the position they held when they left. The Minnesota law requires -attendance at school until sixteen years of age unless before that the -child graduates from the eighth grade. In this group most of those -sixteen years of age and a goodly number of those fifteen years old had -left school, so that their school position had to be advanced a year in -the table; a very few of the 16-year-olds had to be advanced two years -in the table. In all cases the school position is given relative to the -first of September when the boy was of the life-age given. Either ages -six or seven are taken as satisfactory for the first grade, ages seven -or eight for the second grade, and so on with the other grades. - - TABLE VIII. - - TEST-AGES OF THE GLEN LAKE GROUP OF DELINQUENT BOYS - - ─────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - │ Life-Ages at Last Birthday - ─────────┼────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────── - Test-Ages│ 6│ 7│ 8│ 9│ 10│ 11│ 12│ 13│ 14│ 15│ 16│Totals - ─────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────── - VII │ │ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1 - VIII │ 1│ │ │ │ 1│ │ │ 1│ │ │ │ 3 - IX │ │ │ │ 4│ 2│ 1│ │ 1│ │ │ 1│ 8 - X │ │ │ │ 1│ 2│ 2│ 1│ 5│ 2│ 3│ 1│ 17 - XI │ │ │ │ 1│ 2│ 8│ 6│ 9│ 6│ 13│ 3│ 48 - XII │ │ │ │ │ 1│ 2│ 5│ 4│ 6│ 7│ 3│ 27 - XIII │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1│ 4│ 8│ 5│ 18 - ─────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────── - Total │ 1│ 1│ 0│ 6│ 8│ 13│ 12│ 21│ 18│ 30│ 13│ 123 - ─────────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────── - - TABLE IX. - - INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT RELATIVE TO LIFE-AGES AND SCHOOL POSITION AMONG - CONSECUTIVE DELINQUENTS AT THE GLEN LAKE FARM SCHOOL FOR BOYS OF - HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN. - - ────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - │ Life-Ages - ────────┼────┬────┬────┬────┬─────┬────┬─────┬─────┬──────┬──────┬────── - School │No. │ 6 │ 7 │ 9 │ 10 │ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14 │ 15 │ 16 - Position│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - Grades │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - ────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼──────┼────── - + │ 1│ │ │XI │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - ────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼──────┼────── - +S │ 17│VIII│VIII│ │ │XII │XI │XIII │XIII │ │ - │ │ │ │IX-3│ │ │ │XI │XII │XI │XII - │ │ │ │X │ │ │XII-2│XII │ │ │ - ────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼──────┼────── - -S │ 21│ │ │ │X │XI-3│ │ │XIII-2│XI │XIII - │ │ │ │ │IX │ │XI │X │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │X │ │ │XII-2 │ │ - │ │ │ │ │XII │ │ │ │ │XIII │ - │ │ │ │ │XI │VII │ │ │XI │ │ - ────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼──────┼────── - -1 │ 28│ │ │ │XI │XI-3│XI │XI-3 │XII │XI │XIII-2 - │ │ │ │IX-1│VIII │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │X │X │XII │XII │XI-2 │XIII-4│XI - │ │ │ │ │IX │ │ │ │ │XII │ - ────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼──────┼────── - -2 │ 26│ │ │ │ │IX │XII-2│XII │(X) │XIII-3│XIII-2 - │ │ │ │ │ │XI │XI-2 │X-2 │XIII │XII-2 │XII - │ │ │ │ │ │ │X │XI │ │XI-5 │ - ────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼──────┼────── - -3 │ 19│ │ │ │ │ │XI │(IX) │XII-2 │(X) │XI-2 - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │XI-3 │XI-2 │XI-XII│ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │X XII│ │ │ - ────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼──────┼────── - -4 │ 7│ │ │ │ │ │ │VIII │XI │(X) │XII - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │X │ │XI │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │XII │ - ────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼──────┼────── - -5 │ 4│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │(X) │(X) │(IX) - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │(X) - ────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼─────┼────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼──────┼────── - Totals │ 123│1 │ 1 │ 6 │ 8 │ 13 │ 12 │ 21 │ 18 │ 30 │ 13 - ────────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴─────┴────┴─────┴─────┴──────┴──────┴────── - - An Arabic numeral after a Roman numeral indicates the number of - cases, when more than one case occurs at any position in the table. - Parentheses indicate cases testing presumable deficient or doubtful. - S is a satisfactory school grade. - -The summary of the Binet scale testing of this group according to the -valuation which we have adopted, shows two clear cases of tested -deficiency. One boy who was 13 years of age tested VIII and was the only -case sent to the State School for Feeble-Minded from this group. The -other was 16 years of age and tested IX. Besides the two presumable -deficients, seven other boys were uncertain according to our -interpretation, as judged by the Binet tests alone. One of them was 13 -and tested IX, the others were 14, 15 and 16 and tested X. This would -make a total of 7% possibly socially deficient, since they were all -delinquent. This seems to be the largest estimation of deficiency which -would be justified on the basis of these test results. To show, however, -how important is the interpretation of the results obtained with Binet -examinations when treated in gross, it need only be stated that a few -years ago, when this study began, it was not uncommon to count all who -were retarded three or more years and testing XII or under as -feeble-minded. On that absurd basis, there would be 45 such cases (37%). -As we have considered at length the reasons for not counting a person as -even of doubtful intellect who tests XI or above or is less than three -or four years retarded, we do not need to rehearse them here. - - -B. COMPARISON OF TESTED DEFICIENCY AMONG TYPICAL GROUPS OF DELINQUENTS. - -Using our conservative basis for interpreting the results of Binet -examinations, let us now review the evidence of the proportion of -delinquents which is intellectually deficient. We shall compare the -available data on groups of tested delinquents which have not been -subjectively selected, provided that the data permit of restatement on -the basis of the borderlines we have adopted. The evidence of tested -deficiency on over 9000 objectively selected delinquents has thus been -assembled under approximately the same interpretation of the -borderlines. This should help to make it clear how extensive the -preparations must be for dealing with this problem of the defective -delinquent and where the needs are most pressing. It should also enable -us to discover when the estimates have been excessive. We shall confine -ourselves to the reports of objective test examinations, so that the -estimates do not depend upon the judgment of the examiner alone. A -bibliography of these studies is given at the close of the book. How -much more has been accomplished in this field in the United States than -abroad is illustrated by the fact that repeated search has failed to -discover any reports of Binet examinations on representative, randomly -selected groups of delinquents in any foreign country. Binet -examinations have been made of juvenile delinquents in Breslau (_34_) -and in Frankfurt a. M., and in London (_56_); but only upon selected -cases. - -Those who wish to compare the results as to tested deficiency with the -subjective opinions of various estimators should consult the reviews of -this literature by Bronner (_6_) and by Gruhle (_121_). The effect of -such a comparison is an increasing conviction that it affords dubious -evidence of the relative amount of deficiency in different groups of -delinquents. Without objective tests, there is no means of telling what -amount of mental retardation the different experts would class as -feeble-mindedness. - - - (a) WOMEN AND GIRL DELINQUENTS IN STATE INSTITUTIONS. - -Women in state penitentiaries are a small group among delinquents in -institutions. According to one study by Louise E. Ordahl and George -Ordahl[15] the frequency of tested deficiency is smaller among them than -among women committed to reformatories, who in general commit less -serious crimes. All except one of the 50 women prisoners enrolled were -tested with the Kuhlmann 1911 revision of the Binet scale. About half -were negro women. Only 6 (4 negroes) tested IX or below and were in our -group of presumably deficient by the tests. Twenty others (13 negroes) -tested one Binet age higher and were in the doubtful group. - -If we consider the worst condition so far as intellectual deficiency is -concerned, we find it in the reformatories and training schools for -women. Dr. Weidensall applied the 1908 Binet scale to 200 consecutive -women, 16 years to 30 years of age, as they were admitted to the New -York Reformatory for Women at Bedford. Seventy-seven tested IX or under -and were within our presumably deficient group. An additional 74 tested -X and were in the uncertain group, although if we regard them all as -deficient because of their persistent delinquency, we have a total of -75% (_59_). These results were duplicated by Dr. Fernald (_16_). She -tested 100 other consecutive cases with the 1911 scale and found 41% -tested below X, our presumably deficient group. She regards these as -“feeble-minded with certainty.” - -Dr. Katherine Bement Davis, the former superintendent at Bedford, -estimated herself that among 647 prostitutes who were inmates there, 107 -were “feeble-minded (distinctly so);” 26 “border-line neurotic;” 26 -“weak-willed, no moral sense;” 11 “wild, truant, run-a-ways.” This makes -a total of 26% of this group whom she apparently thought might possibly -be classed feeble-minded or of questionable mentality because of -deficient intellect or will (_11_). It is quite clear that the objective -tests give a much better basis for comparison of the Bedford group with -those which are to follow. - -The professional prostitute confined in institutions for delinquents has -been carefully studied and tested by the Massachusetts Commission for -the Investigation of the White Slave Traffic, So Called (_36_). Three -groups of 100 each were examined “without selection, except that all had -a history of promiscuous sex intercourse for pecuniary gain.” One of the -groups consisted of young girls under sentence in the State Industrial -School for Girls, the House of Refuge and the Welcome House. A second -group consisted of those just arrested and awaiting trial in the Suffolk -House of Detention in Boston. The third was made up of women serving -sentence in the State Reformatory for Women, the Suffolk County Jail and -the Suffolk House of Correction. “These three groups represent the young -girls who have just begun prostitution, the women plying their trade on -the streets at the present time, and the women who are old offenders.” - -The Binet tests were applied to 289 of the 300 women examined, and other -psychological tests were applied in doubtful cases. The ages ranged from -12 up. Only 10 were under 15 and 32 were 36 years of age or over. The -investigators classed no case as feeble-minded which did not test XI or -under, but they did not class as feeble-minded 107 other cases which -tested XI and under. The Commission's diagnosis is therefore -conservative. It regarded 154 cases (51%) as feeble-minded, 46 in the -detention house group and 54 in each of the others. If we ask how many -tested below our standard we can not tell exactly, since the report does -not state whether X.8 was classed as X or XI. It shows 81 tested IX or -under (27%) and these were nearly all, therefore, within the limits of -our group presumably deficient. Ninety-nine others tested X, a total of -60% testing below our borderline for presumable and doubtful deficients. -Since only 2 cases were under 14 years of age, these figures could not -be much disturbed by the younger girls. We can be reasonably sure, then, -that at least 27% of these prostitutes should be placed under permanent -custodial care, and probably 50% would be more nearly correct. - -In a recent report of the Bureau of Analysis and Investigation of the -New York State Board of Charities[16] Dr. Jesse L. Herrick reports -testing 194 inmates of the state reformatory for women known as the -Western House of Refuge. The Stanford Scale was used, 25% tested IX or -under with that scale and 14% tested X. In the same bulletin the report -is made of Binet ages for 607 inmates of the New York Training School -for Girls. Four versions of the scale were used so that the estimates -are somewhat affected. Moreover, 97 girls were under 15 years of age. -The table of Binet ages indicates 20% testing IX or under and 28% -testing X. - -Hill and Goddard (_30_) report examining a group of 56 girls who had -been in a reformatory and were under probation with a certain officer. -In this entire group they found only four who were not feeble-minded, -“as we usually define feeble-mindedness.” Presumably this means three or -more years retarded, including those who tested XII, so that it cannot -be regarded as a conservative estimate. No further data is provided for -interpreting the borderline. - -Taking up the younger and milder girl delinquents, Dr. Haines reports -the examination of an unselected group of 329 at the State Girls -Industrial Home near Delaware, Ohio (_26_). They were all under 21 years -of age and represent less hardened delinquents than the older groups at -the reformatories for women. The Ohio group was tested with the Binet -1911 scale as well as with the Yerkes-Bridges Point Scale. Counting a -result of .8 of a year as placing the case under the next mental age -above, as we have in fixing the limits, we find that his results are -given with such excellent detail that we may fairly compare the -percentages with our standard for the Binet Scale. On this basis 70 of -these delinquent girls (21%) are clearly deficient and 55 more are in -the uncertain group, a total of 38%. - -As a check upon results, we may compare the report of Miss Renz for 100 -consecutive admissions to the same institution in 1912, tested with the -Binet scale (_47_). She found 29 tested IX or under, 49 tested X or -under, slightly more than was shown by the Haines tests. Miss Renz' -report, however, does not show how many of the girls were under 14 years -of age and might thus be excluded from the deficient groups. - -In the California School for Girls, Grace M. Fernald[17] examined 124 -cases as they entered the school. Twenty-four tested under XI with both -the Binet 1911 and Stanford revision. This is a further indication of -the less frequency of feeble-mindedness in the state schools for girls -than in the reformatories for women. - -Dr. H. W. Crane reports the results of the Binet testing at Adrian, the -Michigan Industrial School for Girls, which receives only minors and -corresponds to the Ohio Industrial Home (_37_). The Binet 1911 scale was -used, but this grouping in mental ages may mean that a few more cases -are thus classed deficient than with our standardized borderlines which -place the subject in the higher age group when he scores .8. It is to be -remembered also that the borderlines for those whose life-ages are under -15 have not been as well standardized with the 1911 scale. The testing -was done under the direction of a state commission appointed to -investigate the extent of mental defectiveness (_37_). Dr. Crane was -assisted by three other workers. The results at Adrian show, among the -386 inmates, 131 or 34% tested in our groups of presumably or uncertain -intellectual deficients. Seventy-seven of these, in our uncertain group, -should only class as deficient because also delinquent. The -investigators give it as their opinion that 16.7% of the inmates were -feeble-minded but not reached by the tests. - -The entire population of the Illinois State Training School for Girls at -Geneva was tested by Louise E. and George Ordahl.[18] The Kuhlmann -revision of the Binet Scale, supplemented by the Stanford Scale, for the -older ages, was used. Among the 432 tested 13 per cent. tested below our -borderline for the presumably deficient and 22 per cent. more in the -doubtful group. - -Dr. Otis, resident psychologist at the New Jersey State Home for Girls -at Trenton, examined 172 girls between 10 and 20 years of age inclusive -(_43_). Since she said it was “a preliminary testing” and “not many of -the smaller girls were included,” we conclude that it was a somewhat -selected group. She regarded those who stand between eleven and twelve -as practically normal and those who stand below ten as without doubt -defective. She then publishes three groups: “Defectives,” 45% (77 cases) -high grade; “Morons,” 30% (52 cases); and “Presumably Normal,” 25% (43 -cases). Since she does not give the distribution of the cases it is not -possible to tell how many of her group were less than four years -retarded. Her statement of the ages, however, shows that not more than 7 -of the defectives could have been less than four years retarded and not -more than 12 of the combined group of defectives and morons tested X or -over. We may be sure, therefore, that at least 68% of these girls are of -questionable intellectual ability according to the conservative standard -adopted in this discussion. - -Dr. Bridgman has reported the examination of 118 girls, 10 to 21 years -of age, successively admitted to the State Training School for Girls at -Geneva, Ill. She states that 89% (105 cases) “showed a retardation of -three years or more.” The distribution of cases is not given so that it -is not possible to tell how many testing X, XI, and XII were classed as -feeble-minded or how many tested only three years retarded. The -published estimate is undoubtedly extreme, but I have no means of making -a more conservative estimate on this group. It is interesting, however, -to note that only 14 of the cases were not sexually immoral. These were -all cases which were either dependent or sent because uncontrollable at -home and all tested as passable intellectually. She states that -“according to the Binet tests, 97% of the children (_5_) sent to this -institution because of sexual immorality are feeble-minded as well.” -This percentage also would be decidedly discounted on a conservative -test standard. In another place Dr. Bridgman makes the important -statement that of 400 girls admitted to Geneva 60% were suffering from -venereal disease (_4_). - -Mr. Bluemel (_2_) found that 24 out of 50 girls sent from Judge -Lindsay's Juvenile Court in Denver to the State Industrial School or the -Florence Crittenden Home tested XI or under and four or more years -retarded. This is less conservative than our standard, which would -exclude those who tested XI as above even the uncertain group in -intellect. - -Dr. Pyle (_46_) has tested the 240 girls at the Missouri State -Industrial Home for Girls with his standardized group tests. These girls -are from 7 to 21 years of age and his table gives the results with each -of six tests. The most significant fact for our purpose is that with the -different tests from 50 to 88 per cent. fall below the averages of -normal individuals who are three years younger. He says, “Our figures -would indicate that about one-third of these delinquent girls are normal -and about two-thirds subnormal. Most of them are probably high grade -morons.” This is based apparently on 69% being the average of the -results of six different tests as to the percentages three years or more -retarded from their life-ages. He indicates, however, that 38%, -similarly calculated, are within the average deviation of the normal -groups for their life-ages. This indicates that the lowest 62% test only -as low as we should expect to find the lowest 21% of random groups of -corresponding ages. They should certainly not be regarded as testing -feeble-minded. - - - (b) WOMEN AND GIRL DELINQUENTS IN COUNTY AND CITY INSTITUTIONS. - -When we turn to those who are cared for locally in city or county -institutions, we find Sullivan (_56_) has examined 104 women and girls -held temporarily at the Holloway jail in London, most of whom were -between 16 and 25 years of age. Apparently the cases were especially -selected for examination and therefore do not represent the general -condition there. He was interested, however, in finding the relative -amount of deficiency among different classes of these inmates and he -gives the detailed results with the Binet 1908 scale on small groups of -these different types which we may classify by our standard as follows: - - Twenty non-criminal, either not guilty or guilty of unimportant - offenses, who represent, he thinks, the ordinary conditions among - the corresponding working class in this community, 3 presumably - deficient, 5 uncertain; twenty criminal by reason of the occasion, 1 - presumably deficient, 6 uncertain; twelve impulsive criminals, 1 - presumably deficient, 2 uncertain; eight moral imbeciles, 2 - presumably deficient, 2 uncertain; twenty-four recidivists, 2 - presumably deficient, 8 uncertain; twenty prostitutes, 3 presumably - deficient, 8 uncertain. Together these different types of women in - jail form a motley group of 104 of whom 12 test presumably - deficient, 31 uncertain, a total of 41%. - -Ordinary prostitutes are about as frequently deficient as are those in -reformatory institutions, if we may judge by an important study of women -who were sex offenders but not in institutions for delinquents. The -report is by Dr. Clinton P. McCord, health director of the Board of -Education at Albany (_35_). One group consisted of fifty cases of sex -offenders who were not legally delinquents at the time but were living -in houses of ill-fame. Their ages ranged from 22 to 41 with an average -age of 27. Nine of these (18%) tested IX or under with the Binet 1911 -and 18 tested X, a total of 54% presumably and doubtfully deficient. -Another 38 cases were staying at a House of Shelter where most of them -had been sent by the courts. Nineteen of these tested IX or under (50%), -while 13 more tested X, a total of 84%. Since their ages ranged from 12 -to 40 years with an average of 18 we cannot tell how many might be above -the borderline on account of an age less than 15 years, but probably -very few. A third group consisted of 9 street walkers and 3 wayward -girls. Among these 7 tested presumably or doubtfully deficient. - -The McCord study of prostitutes not legally delinquent at the time of -examination is confirmed by the Virginia State Board of Charities and -Corrections in a special report to the General Assembly which gives the -results of examining the prostitutes in an entire segregated district in -one of the Virginia cities (_58_). Its table shows that, among 120 of -these women, 43, or 36%, tested approximately under our borderline for -the presumably deficient, while 67 cases, or 56%, tested below -approximately our borderline for the presumably passable intellects. - -These results are similar to Weidensall's[19] findings among the -unselected group of unmarried mothers in the Cincinnati General -Hospital. While she does not give the number tested with the -Yerkes-Bridges scale, she indicates that 48% tested as low-grade morons -or worse, which should correspond to a test age of IX or lower. -Twenty-two per cent. had intelligence coefficients of .50 or less and -32%, from .51 to .70. A _Study of Fifty Feeble-Minded Prostitutes_[20] -by Mary E. Paddon gives an admirable summary of the social history of -prostitutes who tested deficient. - -Dr. Bronner has made a careful study with Binet tests of a younger group -of randomly selected girls at the Cook County Detention Home which is -connected with the juvenile court at Chicago. The group included 133 -girls 10-17 years of age inclusive, who were held awaiting a hearing or -were temporarily cared for in the detention home. The Binet tests were -given to all who did not show clearly that they were of passable -mentality by completing the sixth grade or above without retardation, -and passing school tests in long division and writing from dictation. A -14-year-old child “passing all the 10-year-old tests and some, but not -all, of the 12-year-old tests,” was regarded as doubtful. She was not -classed as feeble-minded without further testing and study. Dr. Bronner -does not state her criterion for the borderline with the younger -children, but we may judge that her borderline was more likely than ours -to have classed a child in the presumably deficient group. Her summary -shows only 15 girls “probably feeble-minded” (11.2%), and 2 others -“possibly” so. From her description we may suppose that the “probable” -group were comparable with our test standard of presumably deficient, -plus perhaps a few conative cases. - -Mention should also be made of the work of Dr. Bronner to which we -referred under the earnings of the mentally retarded (_6_). This group -of 30 randomly selected delinquent women at a local detention home in -New York tested, with two or three possible exceptions, no lower than a -similar group of women servants who had never been offenders. Her data -do not enable us to determine how many would fall below our borderlines. - -Stenquist, Thorndike, and Trabue (_54_) report the results with the -Binet 1911 tests, under a slightly modified procedure, for 75 randomly -selected dependent and 4 delinquent girls cared for by a certain county, -excluding those children within the county sent to an institution for -the feeble-minded. The children were from 9 to 16 years of age, with a -medium age of 11 years. The line between the delinquent and dependent -groups with these younger children becomes rather obscure. They state: -“A child may, in the county in question, become a public charge by -commitment by an officer of the poor-law on grounds of destitution, or -by an officer of the courts on grounds of delinquency.... The decisive -factor is often simply whether the parents are more successful in -getting justices to commit their children than in getting poor-law -officers to do so.” With the detailed records which they give it is -possible to apply our standard even for the immature, although it is -certainly less adequate for those under 15 years of age tested by the -1911 scale. I have translated their corrected Binet ages back to the -original test ages, since their summary of retardation in terms of years -below average ability at each age is not comparable with our borderline. -Among the 79 girls who are mostly dependent, there are 5 girls, or, 6%, -who fall within our presumably deficient group and 8 in the doubtful -group, a total of 16%. So far as serious deficiency is concerned the -situation is undoubtedly worse among delinquents than among -corresponding groups of dependents. The figures of these investigators -show this for their group of boys, to which we shall refer later. - -Certain other groups of women and girls have been examined with the -Binet or other tests, but the results are of little significance for -judging the problem of deficiency objectively, since the individuals -were either selected for examination because they were thought to be -abnormal mentally or because there are not adequate norms for -determining the borderlines with the particular tests used. At the New -York State Training School for Girls in Hudson, we find that 208 -selected cases who were not profiting by their training were examined -with the 1911 scale. They ranged in life-age from 12 to 20. We cannot -determine how many were under 14 years of age, or how much effect might -have been produced by selecting dull cases; but 44 tested IX or under -and 52 tested X (_158_). Dr. Spaulding (_183_) used Binet and other -psychological tests on a group of 400 inmates of the Massachusetts -Reformatory for Women at South Framingham; but she gives only her -judgment based on the examination and history of the cases so that we -have no data on this group for comparison. Her statement that 16.8% -showed “marked mental defect, _i. e._, the moron group” and 26.8% showed -“mental subnormality (slight mental defect)” is an excellent -illustration of the best type of subjective judgment on consecutive -cases, since she is familiar with test results. For her purpose of -deciding how to care for the women it is of undoubted value, but for -comparative purposes it is clear that it is impossible to tell how her -subjective opinion would agree with that of an equally competent -diagnostician, or what is meant by her terms “feeble-minded” or -“subnormal.” For scientific purposes the Binet results for her group -would be of much value, for we should like to know whether the -conditions at Bedford are typical among the women's reformatories for -the older offenders. - -Dr. Rowland used psychological tests other than the Binet scale with a -group of 35 at the Bedford Reformatory for Women, but there are no -adequate norms for the comparison of her results with the general -conditions (_49_). Baldwin (_1_) has shown that delinquent colored -girls, 13 to 21 years of age, in the girls' division of the Pennsylvania -Reformatory school at Sleighton Farm are inferior to white girls in the -same institution in a learning test. As cited by Gruhle (_121_), Cramer -(_10_) used an Ebbinghaus completion test, definition tests, etc. with -376 delinquent girls in Hanover, but there are no borderlines for -comparison. As cited by Bronner, von Grabe gave several psychological -tests to 62 prostitutes treated in the city hospital in Hamburg and -compared them with a control group of 30 (_6_). - -The most striking conclusion that comes out of the study of this -evidence of frequent deficiency among delinquent girls and women is the -close association between sex offenses and deficiency. One hundred and -four out of 118 consecutive admissions at the Illinois training school -were known to be sexually immoral. At Bedford 94 out of 100 consecutive -cases had records of immorality, while three-fourths of the same group -tested questionable in intellect by our standards (_11_). This evidence, -taken with the report of the Massachusetts' Commission and the tests of -sex offenders who were not at the time legally delinquents, reported by -McCord, and the Virginia Commission, leaves little doubt that there is -an excess of deficiency among this type of offender. Many of these -deficient girls probably at first drift into the life of prostitution. -They are passive rather than active agents. This distinction in the -nature of the offense accounts for some of the difference between the -sexes in this form of delinquency. Furthermore our public attitude in -matters of social hygiene has made the isolation of the female sex more -common. Part of this may be due to the greater difficulty of proof in -the case of men and boys, but in part it undoubtedly means that men have -not been held to as high a moral standard as women in this regard. The -greater frequency of deficient sex offenders among girls, does not mean -that girls are more likely than boys to be active sex offenders. They -are, however, more likely to be isolated for such offenses, and also -more likely to be passive offenders. - -The greater amount of deficiency found among female delinquents than -among corresponding groups of males is thus easily accounted for by -frequent association between deficiency and sex delinquency on the part -of girls and women. The combination of legal sex delinquency and -deficiency is due both to a native sex difference and a difference in -social attitude toward the two sexes as to this form of offense. -Whichever may be the main cause of the facts found, it is clear that -deficiency is, today, most serious among female offenders. It is so -serious that some of our reformatories for women might even prove to be -practically institutions for deficient delinquents. It is in this type -of institution without doubt, that the immediate problem of the -deficient delinquent is most pressing. Permanent guardianship, if not -isolation, for at least a third of the inmates of an institution like -Bedford which shows this amount of clear tested deficiency, under our -very conservative standard, would seem to be a wise move in social -hygiene. It should be undertaken at once with vigor. A more fundamental -change in our social attack of this problem means state guardianship -before adolescence for all girls testing presumably deficient under our -standard, when their deficiency is not due to removable handicaps. - - - (c) MEN AND BOY DELINQUENTS IN STATE INSTITUTIONS. - -For the purpose of judging the importance of the question of -feeble-mindedness among the most serious criminals, those committed to -the state prison, we have a very important study by Rossy (_48_). Three -hundred cases were taken at random with the exception of a few selected -cases on which a report was requested. In this group, thirty prisoners -could not be examined either because of language difficulties or because -of their refusal to be tested. The Point Scale of Yerkes and Bridges was -used and the results are presented in terms of mental ages on that -scale. The examiner considered all those testing XI or under as -feeble-minded and found 22% of the 300 in this class. This is less -conservative than even our doubtful standard, but I estimate that 16% -would fall within our doubtful and presumably deficient groups. This -includes 11% who test X or under with the Point Scale plus 54% of those -who tested XI. This estimate is made on the basis of the tables given by -Haines (_26_), comparing Binet 1911 results with those of the Point -Scale on the same individuals. It adds the proportion of those testing -XI with Point Scale, who would test nearer X with the Binet 1911 scale. - -Ordahl[21] examined 51 convicts in the penitentiary at Joliet, Ill. They -“were selected in a manner thought to secure fair representation of the -prison population as a whole.” The Kuhlmann 1911 Binet scale was used -and supplemented by tests for 13 to 18 years taken from the Stanford -scale. It is possible that selection affected the results with this -small group, since 25% showed test ages of IX or under and 36% tested X -or under. - -Haines tested with the Point Scale 87 consecutive admissions to the Ohio -penitentiary (_24_). He found 18% tested below a record corresponding to -X.6 on the Goddard 1911 scale, which is about the upper limit of our -doubtful group. - -That a smaller proportion of the state prison inmates is found -intellectually deficient than is found among the inmates of the -industrial schools is not surprising. This may be due to various causes. -Among these may be mentioned the failure to recognize feeble-mindedness, -heretofore, among the younger delinquents while the adult feeble-minded -were more carefully isolated in their proper institutions. The deficient -adults have also been reduced in frequency by the excessive mortality. -Probably the feeble-minded are not so likely to plan or commit felony as -lesser crimes and misdemeanors. Moreover the adult feeble-minded may be -more stable and less inclined to delinquency than adolescents. Whatever -may be the explanation, deficiency generally does not seem to be as -common among the inmates of a state prison as among minor delinquents in -states which are in the forefront in the care of their feeble-minded. - -The state reformatories reach a class of delinquents between those of -the state prisons and the state industrial schools. In Minnesota all the -inmates of the reformatory except 80, who were disqualified by inability -to speak English or otherwise, were tested by Dr. E. F. Green. Men are -sent there only between the ages of 16 and 30, so that his table of -mental and life-ages gives us the opportunity to apply our criteria -accurately. Thirteen per cent. of the 370 examined tested IX or under -and were presumably deficient, while 22% more were in the uncertain -group testing X (_22_). - -In a report of the Binet results with 996 inmates of the Iowa -Reformatory, which Warden C. C. McClaughry kindly sent me, 200 tested IX -or under and 146 tested X, a total of 35% including the doubtful group. -The range of ages was from 16 to 49. The Warden notes that the tests -were not made by an experienced psychologist. “In many cases it is -suspected that the crafty criminal was endeavoring to lower his standing -as to mentality in the hope of excusing or mitigating his crime in the -eyes of the Board of Parole.” The results, however, agree well with what -has been found in similar institutions. - -Supt. Frank Moore of the New Jersey Reformatory at Rahway says, “Nearly -every young man who has entered our institution in the last eighteen -months has been tested by this system (Binet), and the results have -shown that at least 46 per cent. were mentally subnormal” (_38_). By his -discussion this seems to mean that they tested below XII which would -mean that all those testing XI were less deficient than our standard for -doubtful cases. These young men were from 16-25 years of age and 17.5% -of them had had one year or less in school. Ten per cent. could not be -examined because of unfamiliarity with English. A later report in 1912 -regarding the same institution (_42_) says that 600 of the inmates have -been examined with the Binet tests in two years, but does not state how -these were selected. Of those examined we are told “48% are of the moron -type of mental defectives, ranging in mentality from three to eight -years, below the average normal adult.” Again, no further information is -given so that it is impossible to allow for those testing X or XI or for -the cases only three years retarded. Both of these estimates at the New -Jersey Reformatory are excessive when judged by conservative -borderlines. - -Dr. Fernald has applied 11 objective tests to a representative group of -100 inmates at the Massachusetts Reformatory (_15_) but the norms for -the tests which he used were obtained, for the most part, by testing a -dozen boys so that the line which he draws for the limit of the -defectives is largely a matter of his expert opinion and the estimation -loses objective character. He estimates that 26% of his group whose ages -run from 15 to 35 inclusive were defective. Beanblossom[22] has -published an account of tests on 2000 inmates of the Indiana -Reformatory. Some of the Binet tests as well as other tests were used -but the published results do not admit of reinterpretation. - -Comparing the reports from the Minnesota, Iowa, and New Jersey -reformatories with the tested deficiency found in institutions for women -delinquents on the basis of the same borderline with the scale, the -records indicate clearly that the percentage of feeble-mindedness is -greater in the reformatories for women. At the Bedford Reformatory for -women, for example, Dr. Weidensall's results show that the corresponding -borderline to that used in the New Jersey men's reformatory which -reported 46% deficient, would class 100% at Bedford as feeble-minded, -where only one case in 200 tested as high as XII. A conservative -estimate of tested deficiency in men's reformatories from the above data -would be from 15 to 20%. - -In the state institutions for minor delinquents, usually called -industrial schools, we have several studies of representative groups -with sufficient data to make objective interpretations comparable with -our standard. In Ohio, Dr. Haines (_26_) reports on the examination of -671 delinquent boys 10 to 19 years of age at the Boys' Industrial School -near Lancaster. Interpreted as we have indicated for the Ohio -Institution for girls, we find 100, or 15%, in the group testing -presumably deficient and 179 in the doubtful group, a total of 42% clear -and questionable. - -In the corresponding Michigan Industrial School at Lansing, Dr. Crane -(_37_) shows by his table of mental and life-ages that 52 out of the 801 -unselected inmates, or 6% are presumably deficient and 171 below the -presumably passable, or 21%. This is only a slightly greater number than -our criterion would provide, if .8 of a year were not classed in the -next higher mental age by these examiners. The age of those examined ran -from 10 to 17. - -T. L. Kelley in his “Mental Aspects of Delinquency”[23] gives the -results for an extensive series of measurements and tests on about three -hundred boys in the Texas State Juvenile Training School. On the basis -of an analysis of his tests he estimates that 20% of the boys there -should be in a school for the feeble-minded. Interpreting his original -data for the 1911 Binet tests on the same basis as our own, 8% fall -within the clearly deficient group and 9% in the doubtful. The latter on -account of their delinquencies might also be included as feeble-minded. - -The 215 inmates of the Whittier State School in California were examined -by J. Harold Williams with the Stanford revision of the Binet scale -(_61_). The boys were 10 to 22 years of age, median 16 years. He states -that 32% were feeble-minded in the sense of having Intelligence -Quotients less than .75. This is a standard which would include about 2% -of those tested with the scale, so that we may consider the bulk of them -as within our presumably deficient and uncertain groups combined. He -also states that approximately 14% tested below X with the Stanford -Revised Scale. In another paper he shows that the amount of -feeble-mindedness was much different among the different races -represented in the institution. With 150 cases according to his standard -there were 6% feeble-minded among the whites, 48% among the colored, and -60% among the Mexican and Indian races. In this group 64% were native -whites, 21% of Indian or Mexican descent and 15% colored. “While the -negro population of California constitute but 0.9% of the total, yet the -results of this study indicate that more than 15% of the juvenile -delinquents committed to the state institution are of that race.” It is, -of course, of fundamental importance in regard to all estimates of -feeble-mindedness among delinquents to consider the racial conditions at -the particular institution. - -A New Hampshire Commission tested the children in its State Industrial -School. Its table shows that among the 113 boys tested at least 37% were -presumably or doubtfully deficient. To these should be added some 14 -years of age and over who tested X, in order to have the total number -below our borderline for the presumably passable cases. The published -table does not separate these from the 13-year-olds (_40_). Hauck and -Sisson report in School and Society for September, 1911, tests made at -the Idaho Industrial School, which receives both boys and girls from 9 -to 21 years of age, including some children who would be classed as -dependents but can not be cared for elsewhere in the state. Supposing -that our standard applied to the 1911 scale which was used, among 201 -tested there were 5 presumably deficient and 13 doubtful. - -A partially selected group of 341 inmates at the St. Charles, Ill., -State School for Boys chosen in such a way that it naturally would -somewhat increase the frequency of deficiency, was tested by Dr. Ordahl -with Kuhlman's form of the 1911 scale supplemented by the Stanford Scale -above XII. The results showed 11% in the presumably deficient group and -20% in the doubtful group (_41_). - -One of the main uses of the objective scale is to demonstrate that the -same conditions do not prevail in various institutions which, except for -this objective evidence, might be expected to care for the same type of -inmates. This is illustrated by the comparison of the above studies in -Ohio and Michigan with that made at a similar state school for -delinquent boys in Indiana reported by Hickman (_12_, _28_). The Binet -1911 tests, Goddard's adaptation, were applied to 229 new boys 8 to 17 -years of age inclusive, admitted to the Indiana Boys School at -Plainfield. Among these, 68 boys (30%) tested below our borderline for -the clearly deficient and 53 more within the doubtful region, a total of -48%. There seems little doubt that this represents a significant -difference from the condition at the corresponding Ohio and Michigan -schools where only 15% and 6% respectively tested clearly deficient on a -corresponding standard. An interesting commentary on the necessity of -reinterpreting the borderline for feeble-mindedness on the scale arises -when we note that Hickman says: “One hundred and sixty-six, or about 75% -of the whole number tested, tested as much as three years or more below -normal, and therefore would be classed as feeble-minded to a greater or -less degree.” - - - (d) MEN AND BOY DELINQUENTS IN COUNTY AND CITY INSTITUTIONS. - -It seems likely that in city and county institutions deficiency is most -common among repeaters in the jails or workhouses. One study has been -made of a randomly selected group of repeaters who were in the jail of a -Virginia city for fixed sentences of not more than a year. The -examinations are summarized in the Special Report of the Virginia State -Board of Charities and Corrections (_58_). In this Virginia city 50 -whites of both sexes and 50 negroes of both sexes were examined. Among -the whites, 18 tested IX or under and 5 more tested X. Among the -negroes, 24 tested IX or under and 10 tested X. The percentages would be -just twice these numbers, a total of 61% below passable capacity in this -group of 100. If such is the condition in other jails in other parts of -the country, it indicates one of the most serious hot beds of deficiency -among delinquents. The repeaters in this city jail during three years -were responsible for 60% of the commitments to jail, although only about -one-fourth of the 33,306 arrests in this city during the three years -resulted in commitment to jail. The feeble-mindedness among the -repeaters, therefore, may be little indication of the frequency of -deficiency among those arrested in the city. The repeaters represented -only a third of those committed to jail during this period and this -third was probably the most deficient among those committed, since -recidivism goes with deficiency. Moreover, those committed to jail are -probably more likely to be deficient than those who escape jail -sentences. To assume, therefore, that 61% of this city's delinquents -were of doubtful ability would be clearly unjustified, and yet this sort -of reasoning about the frequency of deficient delinquents has been all -too common. - -Gilliland[24] tested one hundred male inmates of the Columbus, Ohio, -Workhouse (28 negroes) selected so as to attempt to represent the -different offenses about in their proportions. He gives the results in -point scores with the Yerkes-Bridges scale, which may be translated only -roughly into Binet 1911 ages by Haines' data, as I have indicated for -the study by Rossy. All were 18 years of age or over, so that I estimate -14% would fall into our presumably deficient group including only the -proportion of those under 64 points who would test as Binet IX or less. -The doubtful group would include 17% more, including the proportion -under 66 points who would test X or under. - -Among the local institutions supported by the county or city, the most -serious delinquency is probably found in the group reported by Kohs at -the Chicago House of Correction (_33_). He tested with the 1911 Binet -scale 335 consecutive cases between 17 and 21 years of age. Among these -were 72 cases (21%) who tested clearly deficient according to our -standard, and 95 cases doubtful, a total of 50% at least uncertain in -intellectual ability. - -Through the courtesy of Catherine Mathews, who made the examinations for -the psychological clinic of the University of Pittsburgh, which is under -the direction of Dr. G. C. Bassett, I am able to give the records of 125 -consecutive admissions to the Allegheny County Detention Home. The -institution is known as the Thorn Hill School. It is situated some miles -outside of Pittsburgh and provides on the cottage plan for about 300 -boys. The boys are sent from the Juvenile Court for milder training than -that at the state school. The school has also been found to furnish a -necessary place to care for cases of feeble-minded delinquent boys who -cannot be immediately admitted to the state institution on account of -its crowded condition. A detention home is also provided in the city for -juvenile court children awaiting trial or the disposition of their -cases. These are not included in the Thorn Hill group. - -Among the 125 consecutive cases at Thorn Hill, omitting two cases which -are probably dementia praecox, there were 37, or 29%, who tested -presumably deficient according to our standard, and a total of 68 cases, -or 55%, presumably and doubtfully deficient. It is to be remembered that -our standard for the immature was arranged for the 1908 scale and not -the 1911 scale which was used here, although the difference would be -slight. - - TABLE X. - - BINET 1911 TESTS OF BOYS CONSECUTIVELY ADMITTED TO THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY - DETENTION HOME AT THORN HILL. (MATHEWS) - - ──────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - Life-Ages │ Mental Ages - ──────────┼─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬────── - │ IV │ V │ VI │ VII │VIII │ IX │ X │ XI │ XII │Totals - ──────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼────── - 18│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 2│ │ │ 2 - 17│ │ │ │ │ 1│ 3│ 3│ 1│ 2│ 10 - 16│ │ │ │ │ 2│ 5│ 7│ 7│ 1│ 22 - 15│ │ │ │ 1│ 3│ 8│ 8│ 8│ 1│ 29 - 14│ 1│ 1│ │ │ 3│ 4│ 6│ 5│ 2│ 22 - 13│ │ 1│ │ │ 3│ 4│ 3│ 4│ 3│ 18 - 12│ │ │ │ │ │ 4│ 4│ 1│ 1│ 10 - 11│ │ │ │ 1│ │ 1│ 1│ │ │ 3 - 10│ │ │ │ 1│ 1│ │ 2│ │ │ 4 - 9│ │ │ │ │ 2│ 1│ │ │ │ 3 - 8│ │ │ │ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ 1 - ──────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼────── - Totals │ 1│ 2│ 0│ 4│ 15│ 30│ 36│ 26│ 10│ 124 - ──────────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴────── - -The accompanying Table X shows the distribution, omitting the dementia -praecox cases. It classes .8 as in the next higher test age and shows -the last birthday for life-age. In interpreting these figures it is -highly important to remember that Thorn Hill is necessarily used at -present to shelter deficient boys who are dependent or delinquent and -cannot be otherwise provided for. This is undoubtedly a wise temporary -relief until the state takes proper care of these unfortunates. Under -the cottage system which prevails at Thorn Hill the segregation can be -made with little interference with the main purpose of an institution -for delinquents. It is apparent that any deductions made from the large -frequency of feeble-mindedness among these delinquents without -considering the particular local conditions under which they are found, -would be wholly unjustified. A similar local condition probably explains -the high percentage of tested deficiency among the following group of -boys in the Newark, N. J., detention home. - -A representative group of 100 in the detention home at Newark, “chosen -entirely at random,” was examined by Mrs. Gifford, and reported by -herself and Dr. Goddard (_17_). In this group of 100 there were 66 -between the ages of 14 and 17 who were at least four years retarded -mentally. Moreover, among these 66 “none tested over eleven and only a -few at that age.” Only average mental ages are published, so that we -cannot tell how many tested XI or X, but the statement quoted shows that -few of these 66 would test XI, and would thus be above our doubtful -class. We may, perhaps, suppose that about 66% of this group in the -Newark detention home tested as low as the randomly selected group at -Thorn Hill, Pittsburgh. - -That the explanation of the excessive amount of deficiency found at -Newark lies in the inadequate provision for recognized feeble-mindedness -in that community is indicated by the Fourteenth Annual Report of the -Newark City Home. It states that “the lack of a state institution for -defective children made it necessary to commit to the City Home many -children, who, on account of physical defects and psychic disturbances, -have become juvenile delinquents.” A statistical table shows that of 181 -boys, 151 were either illiterate or below the fifth grade in school in -spite of the fact that the average age of the boys at the school is 13 -years. This shows clearly that the differences between the test results -at this institution and those in Minneapolis, Chicago, and elsewhere, is -not the result of different methods of giving the tests. It seems to be -mainly due to inadequate state provision for recognized feeble-minded -children. - -Among the more serious juvenile court offenders we have a group of 1000 -recidivists referred to Dr. William Healy at the Psychopathic Institute -connected with the Chicago Juvenile Court. The cases are not tabulated -separately for the sexes as to mentality. They were all under 21 and -averaged between 15 and 16 years of age. While he used the Binet tests -quite generally, as well as his own and Miss Fernald's series (_125_), -Dr. Healy has not summarized his data in reference to the test -standards. Nevertheless, according to his experience after the results -of the test examinations were known, he classified only 89 of these -cases as moron and 8 imbecile, a total of only 9.7% feeble-minded. -Another group above these amounting to 7.9% was classed as of “subnormal -mentality—considerable more educability than the feeble-minded” (_27_, -p. 139). - -From the same psychopathic laboratory comes the estimates of Dr. Bronner -(_7_) of a group of less serious offenders, some of whom were in court -for the first time, a group at the Cook County Detention Home connected -with the Juvenile Court in Chicago, where cases are held for trial or -until other disposition can be made of them. I have already reported her -results with the Binet tests for the girls in this group. Using the same -standard which was there described, she found among 337 boys 7 to 16 -years of age 7% “probably feeble-minded,” and 2.4% doubtful, a total of -9.4% “possibly feeble-minded.” As nearly as I can tell from the -description of the borderline which she used with the tests, a boy was -perhaps slightly more likely to be regarded as testing probably -deficient than by our standard for the presumably deficient. Inasmuch as -Miss Bronner worked with Dr. Healy, this may throw some light on the -test standard which he had in mind in connection with his more serious -offenders. - -By means of Bluemel's study of different classes of juvenile delinquents -who passed through Judge Lindsay's Juvenile Court in Denver, we are able -to compare the intellectual ability of a group which was on probation, -about half of whom were first offenders, with groups sent to the Boys' -and Girls' State Industrial Schools (_2_). Although the report does not -so state, I should judge that the cases were objectively selected. The -published data is not adequate to state the results on the basis of our -conservative borderlines; but we can note the cases which tested XI or -below and were four or more years retarded with the 1911 Binet Scale -(Goddard's modification). This only differs from my broadest -interpretation by also including those that test XI. On this basis 6 of -the 100 probationers were possibly deficient; 9 of the 50 boys sent to -the State Industrial School, and 24 of the 50 girls sent to the State -Industrial School or Florence Crittenden Home. These are all somewhat -excessive estimates of the amounts of deficiency in this group as judged -by the interpretation we have been using. A more telling comparison of -the mentality of these groups may be made by weighting each retarded -case by the tests according to the number of years he is retarded. The -amount of retardation alone averages 1.3 years for the group of -probationers, 1.8 for the boys at the state school, and 3.8 years of the -institutional group of girl delinquents. Fifty first offenders among the -probation group average 1.1 years retarded. The girls and the more -serious juvenile delinquents in these younger groups show more -retardation. - -The Stenquist, Thorndike, and Trabue study of children 9 to 16 years of -age, who were county charges as delinquents or dependents in a single -county, provides results for a group of 104 delinquent boys. Translating -their records as I have explained for the girls in the group, we find 11 -of these presumably deficient and 18 doubtful, a total of 28%. So far as -their delinquency is concerned these probably correspond to the local -institution groups. While there is little difference in the average -mentality of the groups of delinquent and dependent children in this -county shown by tests there is apparently some difference in the -frequency of serious deficiency. In their corresponding group of 63 -dependent boys who were county charges, 2 are in the presumably -deficient group and 10 in the doubtful, a total of 19%. Miss Merrill -found only 0.8% in our presumably deficient group and 1.6% uncertain in -a group of 250 dependent children at the Minnesota State home (_149_). - -Dr. Pintner reports the examination of 100 cases in the Columbus, Ohio, -Juvenile Court who were in the detention home waiting to be disposed of -or held for trial.[25] He does not say whether they were selected cases -among those in the home, but we may presume that they were more serious -offenders than the usual juvenile court cases not in the home. Their -ages ranged from 7 to 20 years. He used the Binet 1911 series and -allowed double credit for any test passed in the XV or adult series. By -placing his borderline so that a person testing 3.1 years retarded if he -scored under XII would be regarded as feeble-minded, Dr. Pintner found -46% feeble-minded in this group. Under the same standard about 20% of -the Minneapolis group would be classed as feeble-minded, instead of 2 to -7% under our more conservative borderlines. - -In a preliminary report of the doctorate examination of Dr. Olga L. -Bridgman (_132_) I find that she reports testing 205 delinquents and 133 -dependent children sent to the psychological clinic of the University of -California. She found 36% of the delinquent and 26% of the dependent -cases thus especially selected for clinical examination to be -“definitely feeble-minded,” but the preliminary report does not enable -one to judge the standard used for her borderline (_3_). - -Ordahl's study[26] of 61 cases who were wards of the San Jose Juvenile -Court is not comparable with other groups since both sexes, both -dependents and delinquents and ages from 3 to 44 were included. - -Dr. Hickson (_8_) reports concerning some 2700 cases selected especially -for examination from those passing through the municipal court in -Chicago, in the divisions of the Boys Court, the Morals Court and the -Domestic Relations Court. His tables state only average mental ages, and -he classes 728 boys who average XI.11 as morons, so that I am unable to -make any comparisons with his data. - -Dr. Walter S. Cornell (_92_) published in 1912 the results of Binet -tests on 100 cases at the Philadelphia House of Detention among whom 64% -tested three or more years below normal and 41% four years or more below -normal. We are unable to tell how many of these tested X or above and -were thus of questionable deficiency. He also gives the results merely -with the years of retardation for a group of 73 “mildly delinquent boys -of Miss Wood's special school and the Children's Bureau (mostly -truants).” Of this group 46% were three years or more and 25% four or -more years retarded according to the tests. Again we are unable to judge -how the cases were selected or what was the mental age distribution so -as to discover those that fall under our borderlines, especially under -the borderline of XI for the mature. - -Psychological examinations have been employed in connection with the -children at the Seattle Juvenile Court. Although the results are not -presented in a form which can be compared with other localities, Dr. -Merrill, the physician who directs the general clinic, is of the opinion -that feeble-mindedness was the cause of the delinquency of only 6% of -421 consecutive cases (_148_). Previously in the same court, Dr. Smith, -the psychologist, on the basis of tests, reported among 200 consecutive -cases only 11 cases as feeble-minded, 5 as mentally defective, and 8 as -“moral imbeciles,” a total of 13.5% (_53_). - -Frau Dosai-Révész (_13_) gave a number of tests to 40 boys, 9 to 16 -years of age, selected from the boys training school of the Children's -Protective League in Hungary. The cases which she classified as morally -feeble-minded were found to test between the normal and the -feeble-minded groups. - -As yet only the preliminary announcement has appeared of a study of a -thousand delinquent boys and girls with the Point Scale which has been -made by Bird T. Baldwin. It is to be published as a Swarthmore College -Monograph (Psychol. Bull., 1917, _14_, p. 78). - -The reader should also consult the series of articles by L. W. Crafts -and E. A. Doll appearing in the Journal of Delinquency beginning with -May, 1917, on “The Proportion of Mental Defectives among Juvenile -Delinquents.” It is especially valuable as a critique of the conditions -desirable for exact comparison of the results of different -investigations. - -A Bibliography of Feeble-Mindedness in Relation to Juvenile Delinquency, -compiled by L. W. Crafts, may be found in the Journal of Delinquency, -Vol. I, No. 4. In Chap. II of his _Problems of Subnormality_, Dr. Wallin -gives an admirable review of numerous studies of tested groups. - - - C. SUMMARY OF TESTED DEFICIENCY AMONG DELINQUENTS - -In bringing together these studies in which we can make somewhat -comparable estimates of tested deficiency covering over 9000 -delinquents, it seems possible to analyze further the question of the -deficient delinquent. Comparison of the amounts of deficiency on an -objective basis is scientifically a big step in advance from a reliance -upon the subjective opinion of experts who cannot possibly have the same -standard of deficiency in their minds. The results of the comparable -investigations, on the basis of the above reinterpretation of the -borderlines, are brought together in Table XI. The frequency of tested -deficiency which is found among about the lowest 0.5 and 1.5% -respectively of the population generally is there shown for these -different groups of delinquents. This review of the studies thus -assembled enables us to correct a number of impressions that have become -prevalent by the early studies, as well as to formulate the general data -in regard to the deficient delinquent in a manner that places the -practical control of this problem on a safer foundation. We shall -summarize the data under four heads. - - TABLE XI. FREQUENCY OF TESTED DEFICIENCY AMONG OVER 9000 DELINQUENTS. - - _Comparison of the frequency of tested deficiency among objectively - selected groups of delinquents reinterpreted on roughly the same - borderlines, which are often not those used by the original - investigators. “Presumably deficient” in the table corresponds roughly - to about the lowest 0.5 per cent., and the doubtful group to about the - next 1.0 per cent. in the general population_ - - ───────────────────────────┬──────────┬──────────────────────────────── - │ │ Percentages - ───────────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┬──────────┬────────── - Group and Investigator │ No. of │Presumably│ Doubtful │ Both - │ Cases │deficient │ │ - ───────────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼────────── - Women and Girls │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - STATE INSTITUTIONS │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - _Penitentiaries_ │ │ │ │ - Illinois Penitentiary (L. │ 26│ 15│ 27│ 42 - E. and G. Ordahl) Negro │ │ │ │ - Illinois Penitentiary (L. │ 23│ 9│ 30│ 39 - E. and G. Ordahl) White │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - _Reformatories_ │ │ │ │ - Bedford Reformatory, N. Y. │ 200│ 38│ 37│ 75 - (Weidensall) │ │ │ │ - Bedford Reformatory, N. Y. │ 100│ 41│ 24│ 65 - (M. R. Fernald) │ │ │ │ - Western House of Refuge, N.│ 194│ (25)│ (14)│ (39) - Y. (Herrick) │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - _Training Schools_ │ │ │ │ - State Home for Girls, N. J.│ 172│ │ │ (68) - (Otis) Partially selected│ │ │ │ - Girls Industrial Home, Ohio│ 100│ (29)│ (20)│ (49) - (Renz) │ │ │ │ - State Industrial School and│ 50│ │ │ (48) - Florence Crittenden Home,│ │ │ │ - Colo. (Bluemel) │ │ │ │ - N. Y. Training School for │ 607│ (20)│ (28)│ (48) - Girls (Hall) │ │ │ │ - Girls Industrial Home, Ohio│ 329│ 21│ 17│ 38 - (Haines) │ │ │ │ - Illinois State Training │ 432│ 13│ 22│ 35 - School for girls (L. E. │ │ │ │ - and G. Ordahl) │ │ │ │ - Industrial School for │ 386│ 14│ 20│ 34 - Girls, Mich. (Crane) │ │ │ │ - California School for Girls│ 124│ │ │ 19 - (G. M. Fernald) │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - COUNTY AND CITY │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - _Sex Offenders_ │ │ │ │ - Sex Offenders not under │ 88│ 32│ 35│ 67 - arrest, Albany, N. Y. │ │ │ │ - (McCord) │ │ │ │ - Unmarried mothers, │ │ (48)│ │ - Cincinnati General │ │ │ │ - Hospital (Weidensall) │ │ │ │ - Professional prostitutes, │ 300│ 27│ 33│ 60 - Mass. (State Commission) │ │ │ │ - Prostitutes in a segregated│ 120│ 36│ 20│ 56 - district in a Virginia │ │ │ │ - City (State Commission) │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - _Juveniles_ │ │ │ │ - Cook County Juvenile │ 133│ 11│ │ - Detention Home, Chicago │ │ │ │ - (Bronner) │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - Men and Boys │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - STATE INSTITUTIONS │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - _Penitentiaries_ │ │ │ │ - Illinois Penitentiary │ 51│ (25)│ (11)│ (36) - (Ordahl) │ │ │ │ - Ohio Penitentiary (Haines) │ 87│ │ │ 18 - State Prison, Mass. (Rossy)│ 300│ │ │ 16 - │ │ │ │ - _Reformatories_ │ │ │ │ - State Reformatory, │ 370│ 13│ 22│ 35 - Minnesota (Green) │ │ │ │ - State Reformatory, Iowa │ 996│ 20│ 15│ 35 - (Report) │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - _Training Schools_ │ │ │ │ - Indiana Boys School │ 229│ 30│ 18│ 48 - (Hickman) │ │ │ │ - Boys Industrial School, │ 671│ 15│ 27│ 42 - Ohio (Haines) │ │ │ │ - State Industrial School, │ 50│ │ │ (18) - Colo. (Bluemel) │ │ │ │ - Whittier State School, │ 215│ (14)│ (18)│ (32) - Calif. (Williams) │ │ │ │ - State School for Boys, Ill.│ 341│ (11)│ (20)│ (31) - (Ordahl) │ │ │ │ - Industrial School, Mich. │ 801│ 6│ 15│ 21 - (Crane) │ │ │ │ - State Industrial School, N.│ 147│ │ │ (37+) - H. (Streeter) │ │ │ │ - Texas State Juvenile │ 296│ 8│ 9│ 17 - Training School (Kelley) │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - COUNTY AND CITY │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - _Jails and Workhouses_ │ │ │ │ - Repeaters in jail in a │ 50[27]│ 48│ 20│ 68 - Virginia city (State │ │ │ │ - Commission) Negro │ │ │ │ - Repeaters in jail in a │ 50[27]│ 36│ 10│ 46 - Virginia city (State │ │ │ │ - Commission) White │ │ │ │ - Chicago House of Correction│ 335│ 21│ 29│ 50 - (Kohs) │ │ │ │ - Columbus, O., Workhouse, 28│ 100│ (14)│ (17)│ (31) - Negroes (Gilliland) │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ - _Juveniles_ │ │ │ │ - Newark Detention Home, N. │ 100│ │ │ 66[28] - J. (Gifford and Goddard) │ │ │ │ - Allegheny County Juveniles │ 125│ 29[28]│ 26[28]│ 55[28] - Detention Home, Pa. │ │ │ │ - (Mathews) │ │ │ │ - Boys cared for by the │ 104│ 11│ 17│ 28 - county (Stenquist, │ │ │ │ - Thorndike and Trabue) │ │ │ │ - Delinquents │ │ │ │ - Cook County Detention Home,│ 337│ 7│ │ - Chicago (Bronner) │ │ │ │ - Glen Lake Farm School for │ 123│ 2│ 5│ 7 - Boys, Hennepin County, │ │ │ │ - Minn. (Miner) │ │ │ │ - Probationers, Juvenile │ 100│ │ │ (6) - Court (Bluemel) │ │ │ │ - ───────────────────────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┴────────── - - Parentheses indicate percentages or selection on a somewhat - different basis. - -1. Intellectual deficiency as a social problem is undoubtedly at present -most serious among women and girls who are sex offenders. It is this -fact which accounts for the excessive amount of deficiency found in the -industrial schools for girls, and the reformatories for women. It is not -necessary to repeat the discussion of the reasons for this which were -considered at the close of the studies of women delinquents. The most -closely corresponding class of male delinquents is probably the “vags,” -as Aschaffenburg suggests (_68_, p. 162). The vagrants form a much -smaller portion of the inmates of the institutions for male delinquents -than do the prostitutes in the institutions for women and girls. The -little evidence we have indicates, moreover, that as a class the -ne'er-do-wells average higher in ability than the prostitutes. They are, -probably, a more mixed group. As reported by Terman (_57_), Mr. Kollin -found among 150 “hoboes” at least 20 per cent. belonged to the “moron -grade of mental deficiency.” * * * “The above findings have been fully -paralleled by Mr. Glen Johnson and Professor Eleanor Rowland, of Reed -College, who tested 108 unemployed charity cases in Portland, Oregon” -(_57_, p. 18). Since these investigators used the Stanford Scale, the -borderline was probably set at the position where it would exclude about -1% of the ordinary population, a little more conservative than our -doubtful group. We should know more about deficiency among the typical -“Weary Willies,” since it is likely that courts are accustomed to assume -that vagrancy is a habit which can be corrected by a term in the -workhouse. There is little doubt that mental deficients fill up the -recruiting stations for the prostitutes and “vags.” It is with these -classes that the most intensive social work should be done in the -campaign for early isolation of the unfit. - -2. Institutions which care for the same type of delinquents show -pronounced variation in the amount of tested deficiency. Compare the -Indiana Boys' School with the Michigan Industrial School for Boys. -Thirty per cent. tested presumably deficient in the former as against 6% -in the latter; or 48% in the former and 21% in the latter tested below -our borderline for the presumably passable intellects. This difference -can hardly be explained by errors in testing. It marks a significant -difference between the care of the mentally deficient in the two states. -The difference in the success of states in isolating their feeble-minded -is best shown by comparing the Newark and Pittsburgh institutions for -boys from the juvenile courts on the one hand, and the local groups of -boy delinquents from Hennepin County, Minn., and Cook County, Ill., on -the other. In one case over 60% and in the other less than 10% were -below the same borderline. In other words, the courts in Newark and -Pittsburgh were deliberately sending mental deficients to their local -institutions for delinquents because there was no better place -available, not because they mistook deficiency for delinquency. The -better diagnosis of deficiency by test criteria is, however, the first -step in demonstrating this situation so that public sentiment for an -adequate state care for the feeble-minded may be in accord with a -conservative statement of the present conditions. Moreover, we have made -real progress when we have demonstrated objectively that the difference -in the character of the inmates of corresponding institutions is not a -mere matter of opinion. - -3. Unfortunately for social reform, a wholly incorrect impression seems -to have spread abroad that half of the delinquents in _juvenile courts_ -are feeble-minded. Exaggeration of the condition retards rather than -assists a sane public policy regarding the indefinite isolation of those -demonstrably deficient by psychological tests. The mistaken impression -apparently started with the study of Goddard and Gifford as to the -condition found among boys at the Newark Detention Home. Two-thirds of -these boys tested approximately below our borderline for clearly -passable intellects. I should not be inclined seriously to question -calling these two-thirds in the Newark Home feeble-minded, since I am -willing to class those in our doubtful group as feeble-minded provided -that they are persistent delinquents. The deductions which were drawn -from this startling discovery seem, however, to have slipped into the -literature of the subject without anybody noting that they were -unjustified by the facts. In the first place the condition at Newark -Detention Home may reflect a peculiar local situation analogous to that -at Pittsburgh in which deficient boys had to be cared for in the -detention home because no other institution was available for these -feeble-minded. Under these recognized local conditions, it would seem -that the general situation might be better represented by the conditions -of deficiency found since then in Cook and Hennepin counties than by the -conditions at Newark. We at least know that Newark and Pittsburgh -represent special and not ordinary conditions among those in local -detention homes, unless the situation is very different in the East from -that in the West. - -Besides regarding the condition in the Newark Detention Home as -representative of the general condition in detention homes elsewhere, it -was argued that the condition in the detention home represented the -condition among the ordinary cases of delinquents before the juvenile -courts. The groups in detention homes are undoubtedly extreme both as to -the seriousness of their delinquency and as to their deficiency. Since -Goddard published his paper following the Newark study considerable -additional evidence has been made available. But even without this -contradictory data, it was a big jump to assume that the condition in -the local detention home represented the frequency of deficiency among -the ordinary cases which come before the juvenile courts. - -Either Dr. Goddard overlooked this distinction between serious offenders -who are often repeaters and the ordinary offenders, or he took the -questionable position that the difference was unimportant. On the basis -of the tests of cases in the detention home in Newark, which we have -quoted, he says that “by actual test 66% of the children in the Juvenile -Courts of Newark are feeble-minded.” Again after quoting the results of -examinations of delinquents at several _institutions_, he says: “Suppose -we take the very lowest figure that any of these studies suggests, -namely 25%, and see for a moment where it leads us. Twenty-five per -cent. of the children _who come before the Juvenile Court_[A] are -feeble-minded. The figures cannot be less than that” (_19_). - -This paper was subsequently referred to by Dr. Fernald, physician at the -Massachusetts Reformatory, as follows: “It has been found by the most -eminent research workers in this field that probably not less than 25% -of the criminals who come before our courts are feeble-minded and that a -_much larger percentage of the children brought before the Juvenile -Court are defective_” (_103_).[29] - -The incorrectness of the assumption that detention home cases show no -more deficiency than ordinary juvenile court cases could not at the time -be demonstrated. Since then, however, there have been several objective -studies. In Minneapolis we found that relatively twice as large a -proportion of the serious offenders sent to the county detention home -were either three or four years retarded in school as we found among the -ordinary juvenile offenders taken consecutively. The data will be -presented later under our discussion of the school test. We also found -that if we compared the results of Binet examinations at the Minnesota -reformatory (_22_) with those at the county detention home, tested -deficiency is about five times as common among the older and more -established offenders at the reformatory. At Chicago serious deficiency -was less frequent among those in the detention home than among more -serious recidivists. Bluemel, as we have also noted, found that the -frequency of tested retardation was decidedly greater among boys in -Denver sent to the State Industrial School than among those only put on -probation in that city. The investigation of Stenquist, Thorndike and -Trabue shows that serious deficiency is less among dependent boys than -among delinquents in the same county. Cornell found less truant boys -deficient than delinquent boys, in the Philadelphia House of Detention. -In Chicago, Denver and Minneapolis, moreover, less than 10% of the more -serious cases in the detention homes were found deficient. This evidence -all tends to contradict the assumption that a large proportion of the -ordinary children brought before the juvenile court is feeble-minded. - -Ernest K. Coulter, as Clerk of the Children's Court of New York County, -has raised his voice in protest against charging the Juvenile Courts -with dealing mainly with feeble-minded children. He says: - -“The writer, who has seen at close range 80,000 children pass through -the largest Children's Court in the world, has little patience with the -sentimentalist who would pounce on every other juvenile delinquent as a -mental defective” (_94_, p. 68). - -Unless we are to convert valuable propaganda for isolating the -feeble-minded from good kindling wood into shavings, we must remove this -cloud which has been cast upon the mentality of the ordinary children -who are brought before juvenile courts of the country. Travis, (_202_) -years ago, may have been nearer right when he said that 95% of the -children who come before the Juvenile Court are normal. Surely this -agrees better with the conditions found in Chicago, Denver, and -Minneapolis. Possibly these western cities, however, show unusually good -conditions. The evidence as to the peculiar local situations in Newark -and Pittsburgh makes one confident that their detention home conditions -do not at all represent the frequency of mental deficiency among -ordinary juvenile offenders in these cities. I see nothing in the -present evidence from mental tests to indicate that the frequency of -mental deficients who might justly be sent to institutions from among -the ordinary children who come before the juvenile courts of the -country, would be over 10 per cent. - -4. What shall we say as to the general frequency of deficiency among -delinquents of all classes? How about the impression that a large -proportion of them are not responsible because of their deficiency and -that the condition is worse among juveniles? Note some of the published -statements: “Probably 80% of the children in the Juvenile Courts in -Manhattan and Bronx are feeble-minded.” “Preliminary surveys have shown -that from 60% to 70% of these adolescents [sent to the industrial -schools in one state] are retarded in their mental development and are -to be classed as morons.” “Forty to 50% of our juvenile delinquents are -without a doubt feeble-minded.” “The best estimate and the result of the -most careful studies indicate that somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% -of all criminals are feeble-minded.” “Nearly half of those punished for -their wickedness are in reality paying the penalty for their stupidity.” -“More than a quarter of the children in juvenile courts are defective.” -“One-third of all delinquents are as they are because they are -feeble-minded.” “It is extremely significant in the study of juvenile -delinquency that practically one-third of our delinquent children are -actually feeble-minded.” - -Fortunately, some of these writers are already beginning to qualify and -modify their views, and some of these statements misstate the idea of -the investigators, but it is difficult to correct the impression that -has been gathered from those who speak with authority. In the face of -the fact that mental deficiency is undoubtedly the most important single -factor to be considered today in the institutional care of delinquents, -one hesitates to correct even the most exaggerated impressions as to its -importance. On the other hand, it seems time to modify opinions which -raise false hopes as to solving the problem of delinquency by caring for -the feeble-minded. Above all it is important to lay a surer foundation -on which a platform for the social care of these unfortunates may be -securely built. - -In the first place, it is necessary to recognize that after all the -feeble-minded are properly cared for by society the problem of the -ordinary delinquent may still remain with us in much of its present -proportions. Surely the isolation of the deficient children will hardly -scratch the surface of the problem of first offenders as it comes before -the juvenile courts of the country. To this it should be replied that -the first offenders are not, after all, the troublesome cases before our -courts. If we study the different groups of delinquents which have been -tested, we notice that they represent highly selected groups among the -ordinary offenders whether these be adults or minor delinquents. The -only parallelism which can be traced at all is between prostitutes and -vagrants and some of the institutional groups. We should stop assuming -that the institutional delinquents represent the ordinary offenders. The -present evidence points to the conclusion that it is the repeaters, not -the first offenders either in the juvenile or criminal courts, who are -most likely to be deficient. Nevertheless, 68% of the boys brought -before the Chicago Juvenile Court during its first ten years were first -offenders (_142_), while 89% of 4143 boys in the Juvenile Court in -Minneapolis were first offenders (_105_). We know almost nothing about -the frequency of deficiency among the first offenders brought before our -courts and yet the bulk of delinquents are undoubtedly first offenders. - -On the other hand, the repeaters do account for a considerable portion -of the _cases_ before the courts, especially the municipal courts, -because each offender appears time and time again. In the Virginia city -cited, for example, repeaters furnished 60% of the jail commitments for -three years. This is probably also an indication of the workhouse -situation, which is best represented by such a study as that of Kohs. -The proportions of _offenses_ accounted for by deficiency would, -therefore, be much larger than the proportion of _offenders_ who are -deficient. While the offenses of repeaters might not commonly be serious -crimes, they afford a serious problem because of their bulk and because -temporary restraint is of little use when the offender is mentally weak. -As Aschaffenburg says: “We must not forget that it is not the murderers, -not the swindlers, on a large scale, not the assassins of people in high -places, and not the sexual murderers, that determine the criminal -physiognomy of our day, but the thieves and pickpockets, the swindlers -and abusers of children, the tramps and the prostitutes” (_68_, p. 181). - -The best that we can do is to study Table XI, which gives us a -classified list of different types of delinquents in institutions. If we -should pick out in it such institutions as represent to us the typical -conditions in the country we could get an idea of what we might expect -from groups of offenders of each type. For example, we might say that -the Massachusetts State prison is typical of such institutions, and it -contained possibly 16% who were deficient. Picking the Ohio Boys -Industrial School as typical of its class, it had between 15% and 42% -deficient, depending on how conservative you wish to be in your -diagnosis. So one might go through the list stating the expectation for -each type of institutional delinquent. If these were then weighted -according to the number of delinquents of each class in the country sent -to them, we would have some idea of the frequency of deficiency among -those who reach the institutions. Merely to average the columns in Table -XI would give only a false impression. The seriousness of the situation -is amply demonstrated among repeaters and the inmates of certain -institutions. Each superintendent should be put upon inquiry as to his -own charges. - -Nothing which I have said in caution as to the importance of deficiency -in solving the problem of delinquency can be taken for a moment to -signify that the effort for the isolation of the deficient is misspent. -Elimination of a generation of deficients will not solve the problem of -delinquency, but in no other way is there open such a clear and definite -method of reducing that problem. The better care and prevented -procreation of even a tenth of the delinquents who would propagate -deficiency, would mean the most scientific advance in attacking the -problem of delinquency. A safe public policy can be formulated which -would at first provide for appropriate permanent care of at least that -number of delinquents in institutions who by test are presumably -deficient. This perfectly obvious first step promises to tax our -facilities for years. - ------ - -Footnote 14: - - During the months when these examinations were made we failed to test - six boys, four of whom were sent to relatives outside of the state. - One other could not be tested because of his unfamiliarity with the - English language. - -Footnote 15: - - Louise Ordahl and George Ordahl. A Study of 49 Female Convicts. - Journal of Delinquency, 1917, _2_, 331-351. - -Footnote 16: - - Eugenics and Social Welfare Bulletin No. XI, 1917, p. 73. - -Footnote 17: - - Grace M. Fernald. Report of the Psychological Work at the California - School for Girls. J. of Delinquency, 1916, _1_, 22-32. - -Footnote 18: - - Ordahl, Louise E. and George. A Study of Delinquent and Dependent - Girls. J. of Delinquency, 1918, III, 41-73. - -Footnote 19: - - Jean Weidensall. The Mentality of the Unmarried Mother. National - Conference of Social Work, 1917. - -Footnote 20: - - J. of Deficiency, 1918, III, 1-11. - -Footnote 21: - - George Ordahl. A Study of Fifty-Three Male Convicts. J. of - Delinquency, 1916, _1_, 1-21. - -Footnote 22: - - M. L. Beanblossom. Mental Examination of Two Thousand Delinquent Boys - and Young Men. Indiana Reformatory Print, 1916, p. 23. - -Footnote 23: - - Bull. No. 1713, University of Texas, 1917, p. 125. - -Footnote 24: - - A. R. Gilliland. The Mental Ability of One Hundred Inmates of the - Columbus, (O.) Workhouse. J. of Crim. Law and Crim., 1917, _7_, pp. - 857-866. - -Footnote 25: - - R. Pintner. One Hundred Juvenile Delinquents Tested by the Binet - Scale. Ped. Sem., 1914, XXI, 523-531. - -Footnote 26: - - George Ordahl. Mental Defectives and the Juvenile Court. J. of - Delinquency, 1917, II, 1-13. - -Footnote 27: - - Both sexes. - -Footnote 28: - - Local conditions explain the excessive amount of deficiency. - -Footnote 29: - - Italics mine. - - - - - CHAPTER VII. CHECKING THE BINET DIAGNOSIS BY OTHER METHODS - -The Binet scale in its various forms provides only part of the objective -evidence as to the mental inferiority of delinquents, although it -affords the best means at present of interpreting the borderline of -deficiency. Among the other investigations in which psychological tests -have been tried with delinquents in comparison with normal subjects, the -recent study of the Mentality of the Criminal Women by Weidensall is the -most important so far as estimating the frequency of deficiency is -concerned (_60_). It affords an admirable check upon our conclusions -from the Binet examinations, since she gives in detail the results with -a random group of 88 women inmates of the Bedford (N. Y.) Reformatory, -which is quite comparable with the group of 200 which she tested with -the Binet scale, and which we have already considered. - -For our purpose, the most important comparisons are those between the -group of women in the reformatory and the group of 15-year-old -Cincinnati working girls tested by Woolley with the same tests. -Weidensall's Table 92 shows for three tests the percentages of the -Bedford women who tested below the lowest 1% of these girls. For the -opposites test, 20% were below this borderline; for a test on the -completion of sentences, 12%; for the memory span for digits, 29%. She -also shows that 17% of the delinquent group were poorer than any of the -working girls and 30.7% as poor as the poorest 5.7% of these working -girls, when their mentality is measured by the number of the tests in -which their ability is at or above that of the median working girl of -fifteen. This 30.7% is probably most nearly comparable in ability with -the lowest 0.5% of the general population. - -Kelley's monograph on Mental Aspects of Delinquency, to which reference -was made in the last chapter, gives the results with boys in the Texas -Juvenile Training School for the completion test and his own -construction test, as well as for a number of physical measurements, -sensory and motor tests. He has used various data from which to provide -norms for comparison. In connection with the Psychopathic Institute at -the Chicago Juvenile Court, Healy and Fernald (_125_) have published an -elaborate series of tests with suggestions as to how they may be -employed for analyzing a child's mental ability and estimating his -mental capacity. Schmidt has partially standardized these tests (_178_). -Guy G. Fernald (_15_) tried out a dozen different tests and recommends -seven of them for testing delinquents who are of adolescent age or -older. Haines has sought the diagnostic value with girl delinquents of a -dozen tests including Fernald's test of moral judgment. Weidensall -(_218_), Smedley (_51_), Rowland (_49_), Porteus (_45_), and Whipple and -Fraser (_220_, p. 663), have published results with certain tests tried -with delinquents. With none of these tests can we adequately define the -borderline of feeble-minded intellects. - -There is no series of tests which has been employed outside the field of -delinquency which diagnoses the borderline cases objectively so well as -the Binet scale. The tests of Weyandt (_219_), Rossolimo (_175_), -Rybakow (_176_), and Knox (_134_) are without definable limits based on -unselected groups. Those employed by Dr. Norsworthy, while -scientifically better scored for describing the borderline, were not -arranged with this in view (_160_). Carpenter has published norms -obtained with Squire's tests on 50 pupils of each age from 7 to 14. -Single tests like the form board (_87_), Knox's cube test (_134_), the -substitution test (_1_), and the A test (_160_) have been tried with -delinquent or feeble-minded groups as well as with normal people. Under -the direction of the New York Board of Charities an excellent beginning -has been made in determining norms for eleven different tests (_158_). -Stenquist, Thorndike and Trabue (_54_) have furnished developmental -norms for several tests. Gilbert (_108_) and Smedley (_51_) at an -earlier date provided age norms and deviations for certain tests. Mrs. -Woolley has provided the percentile distribution for a series of mental -and physical tests with 14-and 15-year-old children leaving the public -schools to go to work (_222_) (_223_). In England a goodly number of -different tests have been tried out on small groups or on children of -particular ages (_84_) (_63_) (_224_). Pyle has obtained norms and -variations with a series of group tests. It approaches nearest to the -Binet as a developmental scale for the immature, but these tests have -not been tried as individual tests and so could hardly be used safely -for individual diagnosis. A graphic summary of the developmental curves -for most of these tests on children will be found in Chapter XIII. - -In no case do we find any tests except the Binet scales which have -reached a stage of practical usefulness for the diagnosis of deficiency -except as supplementary aids for checking the Binet indication with -children of particular ages. The emphasis has almost universally been -placed on determining the central tendencies of children of different -ages and not on the lower limits of the distributions. Considering -mental tests apart from the Binet scale, in all the extended literature -which has been brought together in books like Whipple's Manual of Mental -Tests (_220_), one may seek in vain for tests which have reached the -position of defining the limits of serious mental deficiency. This -indicates, of course, the difficulty as well as the newness of the -problem, although the quantity of work that is being done shows the -great interest aroused. From all of this mass of research on mental -tests one may gather much that is useful in analyzing the character of a -mental defect. Many of the tests admirably aid in elaborating the -subjective impression of the examiner. The failure to do this -systematically has been one of the main criticisms raised against the -Binet scale. This and the incorrectness of the borderline described in -the published scale seem to be the main objections made by Miss Schmidt -to the Binet Method. She voiced the objection of the Juvenile -Psychopathic Institute in Chicago to the tests as follows: “It has been -the experience of the writer, and it may be added of all others who have -worked in this laboratory, where practical results are demanded, that -the Binet tests cannot furnish an adequate means through which to come -to conclusions for the disposition, classification, or treatment of the -cases which come for diagnosis” (_179_). - -Dr. Merrill of the Seattle court also seems unfriendly to the Binet -scale when he says: “Any system of tests by which _alone_[30] it is -attempted to classify the child as being of a given mental age involves -the fallacy of pseudo-exactness, and needs carefully to be avoided” -(_148_). Nobody would seriously urge that real exactness of definition -leads to confusion. It is just the looseness of definition of borderline -with the Binet Scale which has led to most of the mistakes with it. -Perhaps Dr. Merrill has not discovered that the scale works just as well -when used as a graded series of tests without the designation of mental -ages at all. The latter is merely a convenience. On the other hand, we -should agree when he says, that “no scale of tests can give a valid -measure of the child's intelligence unless supplemented by a -consideration of his history,” especially if he includes in the child's -history a medical diagnosis. - -The objection that the Binet tests do not analyze the source of the -child's mental defect is of course important if one were considering -whether a better scale might not be devised. It is rather beside the -point, however, when one remembers that it is not the purpose of this -scale to determine the causes of deficiency, but only to say whether a -deficiency in general intelligence is present and to what degree. The -causes of the disturbance must then be determined by an expert. -Moreover, if one classifies the Binet tests as Meumann has done one may -often get valuable clues as to whether the deficiency is mainly in -information or in mental process. In seeking the causes of the -disturbance, the expert should not overlook the standardization of the -Rosanoff and Kent Association Test which has been available for -delinquent, feeble-minded and normal children (_174_). It is one of the -most important supplementary means for mental analysis which has yet -been standardized for practical use. The most complete tables on -children's reactions for this test have been published in a -_Psychological Monograph_ by Woodrow and Lowell. - -The importance of more accurate psychological tests in studying mental -disturbance is well illustrated by comparing the results that may be -obtained with the Binet tests with the desultory, unstandardized tests -such as one finds in Dr. Schaefer's Allgemeine gerichtliche Psychiatrie -für Juristen, Mediziner, and Pädagogen (_177_), or Dr. Cimbal's -Taschenbuch (_91_) prepared for physicians and jurists. Suggestive as -these books are for disclosing different mental activities, they give no -means of evaluating the disclosures. They show the puerile stage in -diagnosis which had been reached before standardized tests were -available. - -Among those who are engaged in practical clinical work for determining -mental development the Binet Scale has advocates who are quite as ardent -as critics we have noted. Goddard, Kuhlmann (_139_), Wallin (_213_), and -Towne (_201_), have all used it in the practical examination of hundreds -of cases and heartily commend its use in connection with delinquents, as -does Healy for the earlier ages (_27_, p. 80). On the other hand there -is a growing sentiment that the examinations should only be entrusted to -experts in mental development. It is felt that the physician who has not -had enough training in a psychological laboratory to understand the -snares of mental tests, and very few have had this opportunity, ought to -refer this question to a clinical psychologist as the best physicians -now do when such experts are available. Perhaps nobody is so well -equipped to judge a child's mental development without diagnostic tests -as his school teacher, although Terman has shown that the teacher's -judgment may be seriously at fault when he has not learned to dissociate -mental capacity from the age and size of the child (_196_). In an -editorial in the Journal of Criminology, Dr. Gault (_106_, p. 322) -expresses the opinion that “dissatisfaction with mental tests as a means -of diagnosis” is traceable to the fact “that what the lay mind -recognizes as palpable errors are often made by half-trained -'investigators,' 'research directors' and even by men and women whose -only qualification is that they have been trained for six weeks in a -psychological clinic.” Dr. Wallin demands that the tests should be used -for diagnosis only by the psychologist with clinical experience. - -The American Psychological Association has cautioned against diagnosis -by those inadequately trained and adopted the following resolution at -its 1915 meeting: - - “Whereas, psychological diagnosis requires thorough technical - training in all phases of mental testing, thorough acquaintance with - the facts of mental development and with the various degrees of - mental retardation. - - “And whereas, there is evident tendency to appoint for this work - persons whose training in clinical psychology and acquaintance with - genetic and educational psychology are inadequate: - - “Be it resolved, that this Association discourages the use of mental - tests for practical psychological diagnosis by individuals - psychologically unqualified for the work.” - -Binet's suggestion as to the diagnosis of mental development seems to be -best. He says that “the selection of defectives calls for three -varieties of experience—that of teachers, of doctors, and of -psychologists” (_77_, p. 38). These three points of view may be combined -in a committee as in France, or the decision may rest with a specialist -in mental development whose judgment should only be given after he has -all the information which the medical, educational, and social diagnosis -can provide to supplement his test records and his evaluation of the -causes of the condition found. - -Those who are considering the legal isolation of the feeble-minded, -especially defective delinquents, and superintendents who wish a safe -rule for transferring school children to special classes or schools for -the mentally retarded should keep a committee plan in mind. A legal -requirement embodying an examination by such a commission could easily -be framed. In my opinion the expert in mental development should be -required at least to have the equivalent of a year of graduate work with -his major time in testing. On the other hand very desirable information -as to children that require examination may be obtained by a teacher who -uses a mental scale intelligently. In the hands of an amateur it may -perform an analogous service to that of a vision chart in discovering -children who require expert examination of their eyes. The danger lies -in the novice not knowing his limitations. Few who have had experience -with tests can doubt, however, the much greater danger of inadequate -diagnosis of mental development on the part of physicians who give -opinions about mental deficiency without having had experience with test -scales. - ------ - -Footnote 30: - - Italics mine. - - - - - CHAPTER VIII. SCHOOL RETARDATION AMONG DELINQUENTS - - - A. IN MINNEAPOLIS - -Besides the estimates of deficiency based on tests, the school records -may furnish valuable objective evidence about mental retardation among -delinquents. The school environment is the first prominent social -environment to which the child must adjust himself. If he fails in this -while in regular attendance we have an important indication of mental -deficiency. With laws which require attendance at school, we may even -estimate the mental character of groups, on the basis of success in -school, provided that we use proper caution as to the effects of late -entrance and of absence from school. Moreover, whether retardation in -school shows mental deficiency or not, it certainly sets forth a vital -problem in connection with delinquency. We shall first consider the -school retardation of delinquents and leave the problem of checking the -tests by school records until later. - -In order to study school retardation we tabulated the school position of -236 boys and 95 girls consecutively found delinquent in the Minneapolis -juvenile court. To make the results more significant we did not include -any cases dismissed at their hearing in court. Comparison with more -serious delinquents is made by means of the group of 100 juvenile -repeaters and 123 from the Glen Lake Farm School. The school position -and actual age of each delinquent was compared with the age and grade -distribution among Minneapolis elementary school children. The latter -was determined by a census made the same year the returns for which -included about 15,000 of each sex (see Table XII).[31] The ages and -grades were recorded for the beginning of September, when the school -year opens, and the census was taken late in the year after all the -children had been registered in school. That different groups can only -be properly compared when the age-grade distributions are made for the -same time in the year is clear when one remembers that the ages are -changing throughout the school year while the grades remain the same for -at least half the year. The census was taken for another purpose so that -it unfortunately does not include the high school pupils. Since the -frequency and amount of retardation increases for older ages which occur -relatively more frequently in the groups of delinquents the comparison -somewhat exaggerates the difference between the groups. This difference -in the relative ages of the groups is allowed for, however, in a later -table on which the discussion will be based. The school positions of the -various groups of delinquents and of ordinary school children are given -in Table XIII and graphically in Figure 2. - - TABLE XII. - - AGE AND GRADE DISTRIBUTION IN SEPTEMBER OF PUPILS IN THE ELEMENTARY - SCHOOLS OF MINNEAPOLIS - - BOYS - - ────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - │ _Ages_ - ────┼──┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬───┬───┬──┬───┬───── - Gra-│ 5│ 6│ 7│ 8│ 9│ 10│ 11│ 12│ 13│ 14│ 15│ 16│17│18+│ To- - des │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │tals - ────┼──┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼───┼───┼──┼───┼───── - I│61│1656│ 629│ 144│ 44│ 7│ 4│ 4│ 4│ │ 2│ │ │ 1│ 2556 - II│ 1│ 151│ 979│ 650│ 221│ 92│ 28│ 11│ 4│ 2│ 1│ │ │ │ 2140 - III│ │ 12│ 169│ 724│ 606│ 290│ 106│ 44│ 9│ 10│ 4│ 3│ │ 2│ 2140 - IV│ │ │ │ 140│ 628│ 635│ 344│ 184│ 66│ 34│ 13│ 2│ │ │ 2046 - V│ │ │ │ 2│ 120│ 489│ 541│ 371│ 190│ 88│ 36│ 9│ 1│ │ 1847 - VI│ │ │ │ │ 5│ 94│ 428│ 594│ 380│ 223│ 96│ 20│ 1│ 1│ 1842 - VII│ │ │ │ │ │ 7│ 97│ 422│ 458│ 397│204│ 60│ 6│ 2│ 1635 - VIII│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 112│ 308│ 499│346│142│27│ 6│ 1444 - ────┼──┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼───┼───┼──┼───┼───── - │62│1819│1777│1650│1624│1614│1552│1742│1419│1235│702│236│45│ 12│15489 - ────┴──┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴───┴───┴──┴───┴───── - - GIRLS - - ────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - │ _Ages_ - ────┼──┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬───┬───┬──┬───┬───── - Gra-│ 5│ 6│ 7│ 8│ 9│ 10│ 11│ 12│ 13│ 14│ 15│ 16│17│18+│ To- - des │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │tals - ────┼──┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼───┼───┼──┼───┼───── - I│45│1642│ 493│ 117│ 38│ 9│ 6│ 3│ 1│ 1│ 1│ │ │ 1│ 2356 - II│ │ 143│ 890│ 582│ 159│ 63│ 27│ 6│ 5│ 1│ 1│ │ │ │ 1877 - III│ │ 10│ 165│ 755│ 553│ 193│ 77│ 27│ 12│ 4│ │ │ │ │ 1796 - IV│ │ │ 6│ 168│ 727│ 618│ 290│ 132│ 446│ 18│ 8│ │ │ 1│ 2014 - V│ │ │ │ 12│ 133│ 573│ 611│ 309│ 131│ 44│ 15│ 4│ │ 1│ 1833 - VI│ │ │ │ │ 7│ 132│ 493│ 519│ 330│ 179│ 80│ 17│ 1│ 3│ 1761 - VII│ │ │ │ │ │ 6│ 113│ 447│ 554│ 342│173│ 29│ 5│ 2│ 1671 - VIII│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 6│ 109│ 432│ 577│348│ 96│12│ 8│ 1588 - ────┼──┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼───┼───┼──┼───┼───── - │45│1795│1554│1634│1617│1594│1623│1552│1510│1166│626│146│18│ 16│14896 - ────┴──┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴───┴───┴──┴───┴───── - - TABLE XIII. - - RETARDATION IN SCHOOL OF GROUPS OF CONSECUTIVE JUVENILE DELINQUENTS IN - MINNEAPOLIS COMPARED WITH PUPILS IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, THE - DIFFERENCE IN THE RELATIVE AGES OF THE GROUPS BEING DISREGARDED - - ┌─────────────┬────────────────────┬───────────────────────┐ - │ │ Summary │ Percentages │ - ├─────────────┼──────┬─────────────┼─────────┬─────────────┤ - │ BOYS │Number│ Retardation │Advanced │Satisfactory │ - ├─────────────┼──────┼──────┬──────┼────┬────┼──────┬──────┤ - │ │ │ Per │ Av. │ 2 │ 1 │ │ │ - │ │ │ Cent │ Am't │ │ │ │ │ - ├─────────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼────┼────┼──────┼──────┤ - │Ordinary │ 15489│ 70│ 0.37│ 0.2│ 6.1│ 36.3│ 30.0│ - │ pupils │ │ │ Yr.│ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Ordinary │ 236│ 27│ 1.34│ 2.5│ 9.7│ 17.4│ 30.1│ - │ delinquents│ │ │ Yr.│ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Recidivists │ 100│ 74│ 1.77│ 1.0│ 1.0│ 6.0│ 18.0│ - │ │ │ │ Yr.│ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │County Farm │ 123│ 68│ 1.66│ │ 0.8│ 13.8│ 17.1│ - │ School │ │ │ Yr.│ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ GIRLS │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Ordinary │ 14879│ 23│ 0.27│ 0.3│ 6.8│ 40.0│ 30.2│ - │ Pupils │ │ │ Yr.│ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Ordinary │ 95│ 91│ 2.57│ 1.1│ 0.0│ 2.1│ 5.3│ - │ Delinquents│ │ │ Yr.│ │ │ │ │ - └─────────────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴────┴────┴──────┴──────┘ - ┌─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┐ - │ │ Percentages │ - ├─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────┤ - │ BOYS │ Retarded │ - ├─────────────┼────┬────┬────┬────┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┤ - │ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - ├─────────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤ - │Ordinary │15.9│ 7.6│ 2.7│ 1.2│ │ │ │ │ │ - │ pupils │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Ordinary │24.6│ 9.7│ 3.4│ 1.3│0.9│ │ │ │0.4│ - │ delinquents│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Recidivists │17.0│25.0│18.0│11.0│3.0│ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │County Farm │22.8│21.1│15.4│ 5.7│3.3│ │ │ │ │ - │ School │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ GIRLS │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Ordinary │14.0│ 5.9│ 1.8│ 0.│ │ │ │ │ │ - │ Pupils │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Ordinary │15.8│32.6│20.0│ 8.4│9.4│1.1│2.1│2.1│ │ - │ Delinquents│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - └─────────────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┘ - -[Illustration: FIG. 2. _School Retardation of Minneapolis Delinquents -Compared With Elementary School Boys._] - -In the Minneapolis group of elementary school children it will be found -that there is about as much chance of a child being in either of the two -most common ages for a grade. Among the boys, for example, 36% were in -the series represented by age 6 in the first grade, 7 in the second -grade, 8 in the third grade, etc., while 30% were in the series -represented by one year older for each grade. It is, therefore, -reasonable to regard either 6 or 7 as a satisfactory age in the first -grade, 7 or 8 in the second, when one estimates the amount of -retardation in this group. The allowance of two ages as satisfactory for -a grade is in conformity with the practise of Strayer (_189_). The -necessity of taking these ages at either the beginning or the end of the -school year, and not merely “in the grade,” is emphasized by the report -of the New York City Committee on School Inquiry (_72_). Ayres (_71_) -also considers only those pupils over-age who are over 7 in the first -grade, 8 in the second, etc., so that this may be regarded as fairly -well established as a standard for measuring the retardation in school -position of groups of children. - -The summary of results in Table XIII shows that 70% of the ordinary -delinquent boys were retarded in school position as compared with 27% -among the Minneapolis boys in the elementary schools, 91% of the -ordinary delinquent girls as compared with 23% of the Minneapolis girls -of these schools. When one compares the age distribution of the -delinquent groups, given in Table XIII with that of the Minneapolis -school children in Table XII, it is clear that an allowance should be -made for the much larger proportion of older children in the delinquent -groups. This may be done by determining the percentage retarded at each -age and in each group and then calculating indices of retardation by -weighting the percentage retarded at each age in the proportion to the -number of delinquents at that age. Table XIV gives these results for the -ages 8 to 15 inclusive. - -For example, in calculating the indices 39 and 70 for the frequency of -retardation among ordinary delinquent boys as compared with elementary -school boys, the percentages retarded at each life-age for each of these -groups was multiplied by the number of ordinary delinquent boys at this -age, as shown lower in the table, and the totals divided by the number -of ordinary delinquents, 213. The average frequency of the retardation -of a school group which compares in ages with the delinquent group was -thus determined. In calculating the indices of amount of retardation the -same procedure is followed except that the average number of years -retarded is found for each age and this is multiplied by the number of -delinquents at that age. The 16-year-olds are omitted because of the -inadequacy of the school census for this age. According to the standard -which regards 7 years as satisfactory in the first grade there can be no -retardation under eight years of age. Since some of the pupils 13 years -of age and over have reached high school and so do not show in the -Minneapolis table the percentage of retardation for children 13-15 years -is based on the assumption that the number of children at these ages -will be the same as the average number for 11 and 12 years. No credit -could be allowed for those advanced in school positions on account of -the incompleteness of the Minneapolis census for older ages. The -comparison is, therefore, on the basis of retardation alone. - - TABLE XIV. - - INDICES OF FREQUENCY AND AMOUNT OF SCHOOL RETARDATION OF MINNEAPOLIS - JUVENILE DELINQUENTS COMPARED WITH MINNEAPOLIS SCHOOL CHILDREN OF - CORRESPONDING AGES. - - (_Age 7 or younger regarded as satisfactory in the first grade._) - - ────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────── - │ RETARDATION - ────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────── - │ Percentage Retarded at Each Life-Age - ────────────────────┼──────────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬──── - │ Index │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14 │ 15 - ────────────────────┼──────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼──── - School Boys │ =39%=│ 8│ 16│ 24│ 31│ 35│ 40│ 45│ 43 - Delinquent Boys │ =70%=│ 0│ 44│ 50│ 67│ 58│ 60│ 77│ 93 - School Boys │ =36%=│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - Glen Lake Boys │ =86%=│ │ 17│ 50│ 46│ 66│ 81│ 61│ 87 - School Girls │ =35%=│ 7│ 12│ 16│ 25│ 31│ 33│ 37│ 93 - Delinquent Girls │ =90%=│ 0│ 100│ 50│ 50│ 75│ 83│ 95│ 100 - ────────────────────┼──────────┼────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴──── - │ Index │Average Amount of Retardation in Years - ────────────────────┼──────────┼────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬──── - School Boys │ =.61 Yr.=│ .09│ .19│ .31│ .43│ .54│ .63│ .78│ .64 - Delinquent Boys │=1.27 Yr.=│ .00│ .66│ .50│ .86│1.09│1.11│1.23│2.11 - School Boys │ =.54 Yr.=│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - Glen Lake Boys │=1.54 Yr.=│ │ .17│ .50│ .62│1.25│1.86│2.11│2.03 - School Girls │ =.64 Yr.=│ .07│ .15│ .22│ .34│ .45│ .50│ .59│ .82 - Delinquent Girls │=2.29 Yr.=│ .00│1.00│1.00│1.00│1.25│2.25│2.05│2.84 - ────────────────────┼──────────┼────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴──── - │ Totals │ Number of Children at Each Life-Age - ────────────────────┼──────────┼────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬──── - School Boys │ 13,123│1650│1624│1614│1552│1742│1647│1647│1647 - Delinquent Boys │ 213│ 3│ 9│ 6│ 21│ 25│ 47│ 56│ 46 - Glen Lake Boys │ 108│ 0│ 6│ 8│ 13│ 12│ 21│ 18│ 30 - School Girls │ 12,781│1634│1617│1594│1623│1552│1587│1587│1587 - Delinquent Girls │ 82│ 2│ 1│ 2│ 2│ 4│ 12│ 21│ 338 - ────────────────────┴──────────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴──── - - Index equals the sum of retardation at each age multiplied by the - number of delinquents at that age divided by the total number of - delinquents. - -From the indices of frequency of retardation in Table XIV it will be -seen that retardation of one or more years below the standard of age 7 -in the first grade is nearly twice as common among the ordinary -delinquent boys as among a group of school boys of corresponding ages, -while it is fully 2½ times as great among the ordinary girl delinquents -as among a corresponding group of school girls, when estimated on the -same basis. - -To understand the significance of this comparison one should consider -the relative difference which is shown between school children and -delinquents in the statistics of health, defective sight, nose and -throat obstructions, etc. The percentages of consecutive delinquents -showing other defective or diseased conditions has never, so far as the -writer is aware, been found to be double that among the school children -generally when figured on a corresponding basis. Medical inspection -shows that for other conditions than retardation the frequency of -defects and disease found among representative groups of ordinary -juvenile delinquents can often be equaled in the poorer schools of the -city. To find a factor relatively twice as common among delinquents as -among school children, when the frequencies are as great as with -retardation, means a variation that is unquestionably significant. This -is, of course, not an argument against the detection and treatment of -handicaps that can be benefited by the physician. It only suggests the -relative size of the two problems. - -In considering the frequency of school retardation among delinquents in -Minneapolis, it will be noted that the most serious condition is clearly -among the girls, 90% of whom are below grade as compared with the index -of 35% for the corresponding group of school girls. - -One may estimate that the chance of a Minneapolis boy who is retarded in -school getting into juvenile court is about 3½ times that of a boy who -is up-to-grade. But the chance of a girl who is retarded in school -getting into juvenile court is about 17 times as great as that of a girl -who is up to grade. This calculation is easily made on the assumption -that the indices of Table XIV are typical for a single year, knowing -that about 194 in 10,000 school boys in Minneapolis get into the court -annually and 21 in 10,000 school girls. - -The best measure of the difference in school attainment cannot be shown, -however, without considering the _amounts_ instead of the frequency of -retardation in the groups compared. We should regard two years -retardation as twice as serious as one year and make a corresponding -allowance for each additional year of retardation. Thus weighting our -results we find in the indices of Table XIV that the boys 8-15 years of -age in the Glen Lake Farm School group of delinquents have on the -average lost 1.54 of a year through retardation in school attainment -compared with the satisfactory standard of 7 in the first grade. The -ordinary delinquent boys have lost on the average 1.27 of a year, while -the indices for Minneapolis school boys of corresponding ages are—.54 -and—.61 of a year respectively. Among the ordinary delinquent girls the -average amount of retardation on the same basis is 2.29 years as -compared with .64 of a year among the school girls of corresponding age -distribution. - -The indices for the amount of school retardation are the most -significant figures in any of these tables, although they are based on -too few numbers to afford more than rough comparisons. It is, however, a -fairly reliable estimate to say that retardation in school attainment in -Minneapolis is about twice as great among ordinary delinquent boys and -among the detention home group while it is three times as great among -ordinary delinquent girls as among corresponding groups of elementary -school children. If we had been able to credit the groups with those in -advance of the expected position for their ages the difference would -have been even greater. - - - B. SCHOOL RETARDATIONS AMONG OTHER GROUPS OF DELINQUENTS - -In view of the fact that retardation in school offers an important check -upon the question of the frequency of mental deficiency among groups, -besides stating a different training problem of its own, it is curious -that it has not been more systematically studied in connection with -delinquency. Few investigations include any reference to the question. -Auden (_69_) reports that among 263 committed to Borstal institutions -(juvenile reformatories) in England for the year ending March 31, 1909, -71% (_186_) had not reached the fourth standard, corresponding to the -fourth school grade. These were delinquents between 16 and 21 years of -age. The next year 402 out of 554 (72%) had not reached the fourth -grade. Not one person had reached the eighth grade and only 13 the -seventh grade. In the Minneapolis detention home group only 23 out of -the 103 over ten years of age were below the fourth grade. - -Cornell gives the distribution of 236 boys in special disciplinary -classes of two Philadelphia schools (_93_). These classes are for truant -and difficult boys 8 to 14 years of age inclusive. While they are not -technically delinquents the problem is similar and they show even more -serious school retardation than the Minneapolis group. Summarizing his -results according to the standard which counts ages six or seven as -satisfactory in the first grade, and so on, we find 12.3% satisfactory; -12.3% retarded one year; 26.7% retarded two years; 30.1% retarded three -years; 15.8% retarded four years; 2.5% retarded 5 years; and 0.4% -retarded 6 years. Eighty-eight per cent. are thus behind a satisfactory -position in the grades, and 48.8% three or more years behind. This is to -be compared with 70 and 16% among ordinary Minneapolis delinquent boys -(Table XIII). - -Among 647 prostitutes at the Bedford (N. Y.) Reformatory 48% either -could not read or write any language or had not finished the primary -grades. Seven per cent. had graduated from the grammar grades. Among 610 -prostitutes in other reformatories reported in the same work, only 23% -had finished the fifth grade. Among 877 street cases from which -information was obtained 814 had no more education than ability to read -and write, 53 had graduated from the grammar grades or had some special -education (_133_). Another report by Weidensall we shall consider in the -next chapter. - -The attending physician (_60_) of the Morals Court in Chicago inquired -“of as many of the defendants as she could, who were charged with being -public prostitutes, as to what ages they had left school.” Among 3546 -cases which passed before the court in seven months the report covers -494 cases. Of these only 17 had gone beyond the fifth grade in school, -only one was a high school graduate (_161_). Among 100 girls at the Ohio -Industrial School, 11 to 18 years of age, median age 15 years, 50% were -in the third or fourth grade and 54% had failed of promotion three or -more times (_55_). - -Drucker gives the age-grade distribution of 100 randomly selected minor -offenders, 15 to 22 years of age, in the Cook County (Ill.) jail. This -shows that 41 of these were below the eighth grade and three or more -years retarded at the age they left school. They might well be examined -for deficiency. Among 86 who left school at 14 or after, 24 were in the -fifth grade or below (_101_). Among 100 consecutive admissions to the -Ohio State Girls Industrial Home, Renz reports 25% in the third grade -and 25% in the fourth grade, 15% in the fifth grade; 29% failed of -promotion 4.5 to 6 years and 25% more failed of promotion 3 years -(_47_). Storer reports on the same groups (_55_). Bluemel finds that 100 -probationers in the Denver Juvenile Court were retarded in school 2 -years on the average as compared with an average school retardation -among the school boys of Denver of 1 year (_2_). At the New Jersey State -Home for Girls among a group of 163 selected cases 102 had not reached -the fifth grade although their average age was 17 (_12_). - -The school distributions by age is given for 215 delinquents in the -California State School at Whittier for boys by Williams (_62_) in -sufficient detail to make it usable for estimating the frequency of -deficiency on a plan we shall consider shortly. Regarding age seven as -satisfactory for the first grade, and so on, only 7 of these boys had -reached this standard. Supposing that those older should have attained -at least the grade which is satisfactory for the 14-year-old, and those -younger the corresponding grades, we find that 29% were four or more -years below this standard and 14% were five years below this standard. -In the next section we shall endeavor to find out how the school records -might also be used as symptomatic of mental capacity. - ------ - -Footnote 31: - - The tables of Minneapolis school children were prepared by Mr. Andrew - J. Lein and of delinquents by Miss Lydia B. Christ, to whom I am much - indebted. - - - - - CHAPTER IX. COMPARISON OF THE SCHOOL TEST AND THE BINET TEST - -There has been considerable discussion of the question whether -psychological testing should be expected to conform to the ranking of -pupils in school. This discussion however, does not attack the question -in which we are especially interested, _i. e._, how to get the best -information from both. If the school level were measured by the -_progress_ made in school by passable work and not by the school -_position_ attained often merely through age or size, Binet would be -right in expecting that in general they would correspond among groups of -children in the public schools. Agreement with real school progress -could, therefore, be taken as a criterion of a good series of tests, as -it has been by Binet and Bobertag. On the other hand Meumann and Abelson -were right in objecting to the proof of the value of tests by agreement -with the school level, if they limited their objection to tests applied -to exceptional children and to using school _position_ as a final test -of school level. Lack of correspondence with our group of delinquents -is, of course, no indication of a weakness in the Binet scale. In -numerous instances they had been promoted in school because of age -without doing passable work. The reader should also see the evidence of -the teacher's bad judgment of a pupil's ability assembled by Terman and -by Terman and Knollen (_196_). - -Terman has calculated the correlation between intelligence quotients -determined by the Binet scale and the teacher's estimates of scholastic -or of general ability. These gave coefficients of .48 and .45. Doll has -found for Goddard's data on school children that the correlation of -school grades is closer with life-age than with test-age, .84 as -compared with .73 (_12_). This indicates an influence of life-age upon -promotion. In a school for deficients Burt found the correlation of -teachers' estimates with Binet ages was .55, with mental retardation or -excess .59, with intellectual quotient .48. He quotes McIntyre and -Rogers as finding coefficients about .5 for similar calculations with -normal school children in Scotland (_85_). Starch has shown that -measured by the combined ability in reading, writing and spelling a -third of the pupils are in a grade behind and a third are in a grade -ahead of their ability (_186_). - -However much we might disagree as to how close a correlation might be -expected between the Binet tests and school level, independent of the -relation to life-ages, or which is the better test, it is certain that -they afford two different symptoms of mental deficiency. It becomes our -immediate problem, therefore, to discover how the most information may -be gained from a careful interpretation of the test of school level. If -we had sufficient data, three sorts of checks might be formulated. 1. -What amount of school retardation will give us the best estimate of -mental deficiency among groups? 2. What amount of school retardation -should put an individual's mentality in question so that he should be -examined? 3. What amount of school success should put in question a -Binet diagnosis? - - - A. PRACTICAL USES OF THE SCHOOL TEST. - - - (a) ESTIMATING THE FREQUENCY OF DEFICIENCY BY SCHOOL RETARDATION. - -We shall first take up the question of utilizing information about -school retardation in estimating the frequency of mental deficiency -among groups of delinquents. It is perfectly clear that retardation in -school position is not always an indication of mental retardation. A -child may be behind the position in school reached by the children of -his age merely because he has not attended school so long as his -companions. A census of school progress which we took in Minnesota -indicates that in general a large part, perhaps half, of the retardation -in school is to be thus explained even under compulsory attendance laws. -Some allowance is also to be made for physical handicaps, such as -defects of sight and hearing which are not corrected, illness which does -not cause prolonged absence, frequent change of schools, bad home -conditions, etc. Aside from absence, however, there can be no question -that greater or less degrees of mental retardation is the main cause of -retardation in school. Moreover a dull mind is often the reason for -beginning school at an older age and for staying away from an unsuitable -school environment as much as the law will permit. In any particular -case, it is to be noted, however, that all of the excuses for -backwardness in school are not likely to account for more than one or -two years of lagging for other reasons than dullness. - -We cannot hope at present to get nearly so accurate a judgment about the -frequency of deficiency in groups by means of any school test as by the -psychological tests. Nevertheless, I believe that it may furnish us some -supplementary evidence. The main difficulty in formulating any general -rule for interpretation of the school level is that very different plans -of promotion prevail in different school systems. It is not uncommon, -for example, to find that a child will be promoted to a higher grade -regardless of his ability provided that he has spent two years with the -same teacher. This practise, of course, makes it impossible to judge a -particular individual's ability by the school grade he has attained -without knowing how he reached it. Nevertheless, spending two years in -each grade will begin to show in a general distribution of pupils by the -time we deal with 12-year-olds. I have gone over the tables of school -retardation of pupils provided by Strayer for several hundred cities in -the United States and I find that the percentage method of approach -gives us at least a rough cue as to what might be expected by any -general principle of interpretation (_189_). - -Using age 7 as satisfactory in the first grade, 8 in the second, and so -on, we find that among 319 cities of all sizes, half of them had 2% or -more retarded four or more years in school position. This condition was -about the same for cities less than 25,000 as with the larger cities. On -the basis of school position for groups of children of all the school -ages it would, therefore, be safer to make a low estimate of the -frequency of mental deficiency on the basis of five or more years of -scholastic retardation in the groups and regard 4 years or more of -school retardation as a maximum estimate. Since most children leave -school at 14 it is generally best to regard all older as only 14 years -of age when estimating deficiency. I have not been able to check this by -school and test records on a group of children through all the grades. -Goddard's published records do not give the mental ages for those four -or more years retarded scholastically. Moreover, he only included those -in the sixth grade and below. For a group of young children this -estimate would undoubtedly be too low. The delinquent groups, however, -are all older. Most of them, if they lived in this country have gone to -school until they were at least 14 years of age. Wallin (_211_) and -Strong (_190_) also give records of school position to check the Binet -rating. - - TABLE XV. - - PERCENTAGES OF PUPILS 12 AND 13 YEARS OF AGE MOST SERIOUSLY RETARDED IN - SCHOOL - - ─────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────── - │ Percentages Retarded - ─────────────────────────────┼────────────────────┬──────────────────── - │ 4 or more grades │ 5 or more grades - Cincinnati, Ohio—June 1907 │ 8.8% │ 2.5% - Cleveland, Ohio—1909-1910 │ 3.0 │ 0.9 - Des Moines, Iowa—1915 │ 1.0 │ 0.2 - Memphis, Tenn.—June 1908 │ 6.6 │ 1.5 - Minneapolis, Minn.—June 1915 │ 1.3 │ 0.5 - Pittsburgh, Pa.—1913 │ 4.7 │ 1.1 - Springfield, Mass.—Sept. 1907│ 1.2 │ 0.1 - Reading, Pa.—1906-1909 │ 2.2 │ 0.4 - ─────────────────────────────┴────────────────────┴──────────────────── - - The distributions for Cincinnati, Memphis and Springfield are taken - from Ayres' Laggards in Our Schools. That for Minneapolis is from - unpublished data. That for Reading is from Snyder's Retardation in - Reading Public Schools. The others are from Superintendents' - reports. - -By considering only pupils in the public schools who are 12 and 13 years -of age, the last years in which practically all are in school, we can -get a check upon this method of estimating for delinquent groups. I have -compared the age-grade distributions for those of these ages in eight -cities showing the percentages retarded 4 or more and 5 or more years. -They are given in Table XV. These records indicate that at least five or -more years retardation below a standard of age 7 in the first grade for -all who are 12 years of age or over might be taken for a low estimate of -the frequency of deficiency, and four or more years retardation for a -maximum estimate. Except under special circumstances those who are older -than 14 years should be considered as if the highest grade attained was -at 14 years of age. These borderlines of school retardation for the -purpose of estimating the frequency of deficiency check fairly well with -estimates for the Minneapolis and other groups of delinquents which have -been tested by the Binet scale, as we shall note later in this chapter. - -In order that the school test of mental deficiency should be as good as -the Binet system it would have to provide a standard of school progress -relative to length of attendance instead of school position relative to -age. If one could say that a child was not above the lowest 0.5% of the -children of his age in the _progress_ which he had made in school -relative to the time actually spent in school, one would then have an -excellent standard for judging feeble-mindedness for any child who had -been in school for some years. It would be better if an uncertain region -were also defined. By the time that a child's ability has been passed -upon for four or five years and by different teachers, even from the -point of view of the needs of school work, one has a criterion for -mental ability in a particular community applied under long observation, -which no system of brief tests can hope to equal for some time to come. -Such a standard, however, is unfortunately not available since we have -too little information about school progress relative to attendance. -Even if it were available, psychological tests would still be an -important check upon the school judgment on account of the excessive -value put upon mere memorizing in school and on account of the emotional -repulsion to the school developed by some children of ability. Mental -tests would be necessary, moreover, for the younger ages. - - - (b) SCHOOL RETARDATION AS A WARNING OF THE NEED FOR EXAMINATION. - -Even if no more is known than a person's grade in school at any age over -eleven it is an important cue as to his mentality. Here our problem is -not estimating deficiency among groups but the discovery of deficient -individuals. We wish to find the highest grade in school in which we are -at all likely to find children under present conditions who test in the -lowest 1.5% for their ages. Our records on 653 15-year-olds indicate -that a pupil of this age who tests doubtful is very rarely retarded less -than 3 years in school. It occurred only twice when tested ability was -judged by the 1911 tests, four times judged by the 1908 scale. None of -the 15-year-olds who tested presumably deficient were retarded less than -three years. In Minneapolis, as in many cities, the custom prevails of -promoting, regardless of passable work, after two years have been spent -in a grade. - -We suggest, therefore, to be perfectly safe, it is well for every child -in court to be examined who is two years retarded in school below the -standard age of 7 in the first grade and is not able to carry work above -the seventh grade. This will include a considerable number of children -at the lower border of those presumably passable. - -Binet used this standard of two years retardation in recommending -examination for children 9 years of age or over (3 years below age 6 in -the first grade) (_77_, p. 44). He adopted it from Belgium. It is also -quite commonly followed in this country. The New Jersey law provides for -special classes in any school district where there are ten or more -children four or more years behind grade. This probably means behind the -theoretical position of age 6 in the first grade, one year worse -retarded than we suggest examining. Goddard says in one place that “a -child who has been in school regularly and is two or three years behind -his grade is so suspicious that it is almost certain that he is -feeble-minded” (_116_). But later he is much more conservative and says, -“The child who is fourteen years old and cannot pass an examination in -fourth grade work is almost surely feeble-minded” (_34_). As judged by -Strayer's tables the suggestion that examination is desirable for those -two years behind a standard of age 7 in the first grade would tend to -bring in for examination about 18% of the school boys in half of the -cities of 25,000 population and over. This would not be too severe a -burden for courts which would be interested only in that portion of -these retardates who were brought into court. - -This school test may be made of decidedly practical use by those working -in juvenile courts where most of the cases are with children over this -age. It can be applied in a very simple manner by subtracting 8 from the -child's age and only passing without testing those who are in a grade in -school higher than the number remaining. For example, if the child is 13 -years of age, subtracting 8 gives 5. Now, if the child is in the fifth -grade or lower, or entered such a grade at the time he was of this age, -one should investigate the question of feeble-mindedness. Unless more -than one year of the retardation is explained by the person's absence -from school since he was six years of age, he should always be turned -over to an expert for examination. This retardation of two years in -school attainment below the standard of seven in the first grade may -indicate feeble-mindedness if the child has been attending school -constantly, although the chances are perhaps 6 to 1 that it does not. It -is very desirable that we should have more adequate data on this point. -A cautious court, however, would inquire into the mental ability of any -child—at least two years retarded in school, _i. e._, any child the -number of whose school grade is not higher than the remainder after -subtracting 8 from his life-age at the time that he entered his last -grade or who is not actually carrying the school work of an advanced -grade. This latter caution we must now consider. - - - (c) SCHOOL SUCCESS AS A CHECK ON THE BINET DIAGNOSIS. - -The school test can give us still another practical cue as to -feeble-mindedness in examining children. Ability to carry successfully -school work of some grade certainly could be used as a systematic -criterion of passable intellectual ability. What school grade indicates -this is not at present possible to determine except as a rough practical -check. With the great irregularity in school grading at present known to -exist, it certainly would not be possible to say that fifth grade work -indicates a passable intellect, although some of the oldest local -schools for deficients, like those in Mannheim, do not pretend to carry -children above the fourth grade work. Speaking of the school success of -the intellectually deficient, Binet said: “One may draw the conclusion, -which is of practical value, that one need not seek children of this -group in the senior divisions of the primary schools” (_77_, p. 44). -This would correspond to the sixth and seventh grades in this country. -Tredgold gives a careful description of the highest work in a London -special day-school for the highest grades of deficients. It shows that -even fifth grade work would be beyond what is actually taught the -children in this school. He says: - - “The work done by this class consists of reading and writing, - equivalent to normal Standard II; compound addition and subtraction - up to 1000, and simple multiplication and division. Excluding a few - children—who, in my opinion, are not really defective—it may be said - that the scholastic acquirements of none of these children come up - to the Standard II. In occupations and manual work they are - decidedly better, and a considerable portion of the children of this - class can cut out and make simple artificial flowers, knit rugs and - weave baskets, with a really very creditable amount of dexterity, - which redounds in no small measure to the patient, persevering and - systematic care of their teacher” (_14_, p. 173). - -Some of our group with doubtful intellects do better than this. When -considering the borderlines with the Binet tests we decided that a child -was presumably passable if he scored a test-age of XI. This score would -not be made by 11-year-olds as a group, but could probably be attained -by 12-year-olds. We may then ask what is the corresponding school -position attained by 12-year-olds who have been continuously in school. -At the same time we must ask whether the lowest 1.5% of the children of -any single age can attain this school grade since it should be high -enough to exclude the deficients, no matter how long they have attended -school. We happen to have this information for a random group of -Minneapolis elementary school pupils on the basis of census of school -progress per years of schooling. Considering only the children who had -been in school since they were six years of age, we found that 82% of -186 12-year-olds and 92% of 174 13-year-olds had reached the seventh -grade, and that the lowest 1.5% of neither age nor of any of the older -ages could apparently carry the work of this grade no matter how long -they had remained in school. Our records included older pupils who were -in their eleventh year of attendance on the elementary schools. - -Another indication that reaching the seventh grade is presumptive -evidence of passable intellects is found in the fact that none of our -group of 653 15-year-olds testing presumably deficient with the Binet -scale and only four of the six who tested doubtful intellectually had -reached the seventh grade. On the other hand those that think that a -15-year-old testing XI is deficient will be interested to find that 42 -out of 51 who tested XI with the 1908 scale were in the seventh grade or -above. We are convinced, therefore, that it is a conservative position -to take that either passing the Binet tests XI in the 1908 series or -ability to pass successfully the seventh grade in school is good -evidence of a passable intellect. The rule, of course, does not apply to -those who are passed along to the seventh grade because of their size or -age regardless of ability to carry the work. - - - B. CHECKING DEFICIENCY AMONG DELINQUENTS BY THE SCHOOL TEST. - -Let us see what the rough preliminary estimates on the basis of school -retardation would indicate for the Minneapolis delinquents. We may -disregard the upper limit of 14 years since compulsory attendance in -Minnesota for backward pupils continues until age 16. For the limits of -five and four years of retardation in school below the standard of 7 -years in the first grade we would have estimates of 2.6% to 6% of -deficiency among the ordinary cases of delinquent boys and 14.7% to -23.1% among the ordinary delinquent girls. Among the recidivist group of -boy offenders 3% to 11% would be below these borderlines. Among the Glen -Lake School group 12% are four years or more and 4% five years or more -retarded. This last is to be compared with our judgment on the basis of -individual examinations with the Binet scale in which we concluded that -2% were presumably deficient and 5% doubtful as to deficiency. The -estimates on the basis of school retardation are somewhat too large. -This would certainly be true for older delinquents. In as much as the -laws for compulsory school attendance usually do not enforce attendance -after 14 years of age, it would probably be better generally to treat -all over 14 years of age as if they were of this age at the time of -leaving school. This limiting age of 14 checks more closely with the -mental examination records reported by Williams (_149_) and Ordahl -(_41_) for groups of delinquents in the California state schools. - -With her unselected group of 88 women at the Bedford reformatory, -Weidensall found that 39% had not completed the fifth B grade (_60_, p. -23). This is not far from the estimate of presumable deficiency among -such inmates on our borderline with the Binet scale. Considering the -actual years of school retardation relative to years of attendance, so -far as she was able to discover, and adding the 8 who never attended -school, we have 20% five or more years retarded in school and 28% four -or more years retarded (_60_, p. 251). She says further regarding the -bi-modal distribution of ability which she found among her group: - - “The division which alone served to separate the better from the - poorer subjects was that of the grade completed upon leaving school. - Those who had accomplished the completion of at least 5B grade - formed a curve which paralleled very closely that of the Cincinnati - girl of fifteen, while those who had not succeeded in passing 5B - comprised the majority of those who collected at the poorer mode of - the Bedford 88 curves. Throughout, the grade completed has proved to - be more often a measure of our subjects' ability to progress in - school, less often a measure of their opportunity to attend school.” - -The administrative officers of institutions may make rough estimates of -the frequency of serious deficiency among their charges by regarding all -over 14 as if they were 14 years of age or under, disregarding those -under 12 years of age, tabulating the highest school positions reached, -and finding the frequency of those four or more and five or more grades -retarded below a standard of age 7 for the first grade. It would be well -for each court also thus to make an estimate of the size of the problem -of deficiency in its jurisdiction. According to the second suggestion -which we have made, the Minneapolis Juvenile Court, for example, should -plan to examine for mental deficiency all those two or more years -retarded in school or about 20% of the boys found delinquent and nearly -half of the girls. The prospect would be that the number sifted out as -having feeble intellects will be less than 10% of the ordinary run of -cases. - -Let us study a little further into the detention home cases tested by -the Binet scale and see what additional light their school position -throws upon the question whether or not they are defective delinquents. -Four years retardation in school position would have called attention to -both of our sure cases of feeble-mindedness. On the other hand, it would -have brought in for examination only 4 out of the 7 doubtful cases. -Three years of school retardation would have sifted out all but one. Two -years school retardation, the rule suggested above, would have detected -all those who tested doubtful. It would have required 56 examinations in -this group to have found the eight cases suspicious under our test -criteria. We also find that, among the random 15-year-olds not -delinquent, examining all those 3 years retarded would have discovered -all that tested even doubtful intellectually. - -Applying the rule that ability to carry seventh grade work is a good -indication of a passable intellect, we find that none of our Glen Lake -delinquents testing either presumably deficient or doubtful had reached -the seventh grade. On the other hand, if one were disposed to object to -saying that a person who passes Binet tests XI (1908) has a passable -intellect, one finds in reply that 16 out of the 22 Glen Lake delinquent -cases testing XI and three or more years retarded intellectually, _i. -e._, presumably passable, were carrying seventh grade work or better. - -In examining individuals the importance of checking each of these tests -with the other seems perfectly clear. If a boy fails in the Binet tests -and shows better school ability one should certainly be cautious in his -diagnosis. On the other hand a boy who is seriously behind in school may -be found by the Binet scale to have a better intellect, so that the -inquiry must be further extended to determine the cause of his school -retardation. Retardation in school is generally not as fundamental a -symptom of deficiency as retardation in the tests because of the -numerous other causes of delay in school. - -After allowance for the external causes of backwardness in school one -finds that the test of progress in school and the Binet examination not -rarely reach two different sides of the nature of unusual children found -in juvenile court. Working with these exceptional children, Dr. Kramer -observed that school performances were often notably different from -ability in the tests. After checking the two tests against each other in -examining 59 cases sent to him from the Society for the Care of -Delinquent and Dependent Children in Breslau and 59 children at the -psychiatric clinic in Berlin, he says regarding the result of this -comparison: - - “For the valuation of the Binet method, it shows us that the first - objection which occurs to one, that the method tests only school - knowledge, is not correct. On the contrary it was found that we had - to do in high degree with that which was independent of what the - child had learned in school and with real abilities which the normal - child is accustomed to acquire by a certain age uninfluenced by - training and instruction.” - -He emphasizes, however, that to answer practical questions regarding the -training of a child, “we must not only examine into the understanding -but the total personality must be taken into consideration” (_184_, p. -519). - - - - - CHAPTER X. BAD SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT AS A CAUSE OF DELINQUENCY - -The comparison of the Binet and school tests for our group of serious -delinquents suggests another important comparison. Many delinquents are -found to be apparently wrongly placed in school relative to their -intellectual development. They form a group for which not isolation but -training is needed, a group notably larger than that which should be -sent to institutions for the feeble-minded. This bad adjustment of -juvenile delinquents to their school work is not the same problem as -backwardness in school. It means attendance in school classes unsuited -to the child's mental ability. In a paper before the Minnesota Annual -Conference of Charities and Corrections in 1910, I briefly forecasted -this problem (_152_). It is now clearly indicated by the records of the -group of delinquents at the Glen Lake Farm Training School. This -comparison is made in Table XVI. - - TABLE XVI. - - SCHOOL POSITIONS OF DELINQUENTS AT GLEN LAKE RELATIVE TO THEIR - INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT - - ────────────────────┬─────────────┬───────────────────────────┬────── - School position │ Alike[32] │ Better │Total - worse │ │ │ - ──────┬──────┬──────┼──────┬──────┼──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┼────── - 3 yr. │2 yr. │1 yr. │ │ │1 yr. │2 yr. │3 yr. │4 yr. │ - ──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼────── - 1 │ 8 │ 21 │ 21 │ 29 │ 16 │ 4 │ 2 │ 2 │ 104 - ──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴────── - -In order to be thoroughly conservative in estimating this problem of -maladjustment to school work, let us not only allow for two mental ages -to be satisfactory for each grade, as indicated in the table, but in -addition omit all cases which might be credited with an intellectual -development above XII. This eliminates the objection to considering -higher age tests, for nobody questions that tests XII or above indicate -at least a 12-year-old intellect. After these extremely liberal -allowances we still find 54 of the 104 boys in the detention home -testing less than XIII who were in school grades the work of which was -presumably not suited to their intellectual level. Seventeen of the boys -(16%) were at least two years out of adjustment to their school work. If -we disregard those who were trying to carry work too difficult for their -capacity because placed a year or more ahead of their ability, we find -30 out of adjustment because at least one grade behind the class suited -to their intellects. Over a quarter of our detention-home group was thus -placed in school a year or more below grades attended by the pupils of -corresponding intellectual development. It may be said that some of -those behind their proper intellectual position in school may have been -kept back because of instability, laziness, or other volitional -characteristics which might fail to show in tests of intellectual -performance. This is probably rare, and, when found, it often means -merely that the pupil requires more attention to secure results. - -That our delinquents are not unique in their maladjustment to school as -judged by their tested abilities, is indicated by the report of Ordahl -on the school position of the special group of 341 delinquents in the -state school at St. Charles, California. The median of their school -positions, counting seven years as satisfactory for the first grade, -fell a grade and a half below that which their tested mental development -seemed to justify. He notes that “mentality is not alone responsible” -for their low grades in school. Moreover, he believes that it shows the -necessity for a more objective pedagogical method in dealing with them -(_41_, p. 81). - -Only a prolonged trial of special instruction for those presumably -behind their proper grade would finally determine how large is this evil -of maladjustment. Such an experiment could be satisfactorily carried out -only with the co-operation of the board of education. It would mean the -employment for some years of expert teachers to train those delinquents -found behind their intellectual level in school. Until that time we -shall have to take the estimate from psychological tests which indicated -that, in our group of serious juvenile delinquents, presumably 29% of -those compared had been held back by the school machinery. Since the -retardation of these pupils may be attributed to a late start in school -life or prolonged absence, the inadequacy of the schools so far as these -pupils are concerned may be supposed to lie in their failure to promote -pupils quickly up to the school position of their equals. On account of -the expense of special teachers such pupils presumably could not be -given a chance to make up the school subjects which they had missed and -could not be advanced to the grades requiring this knowledge. Whenever -this is the case or under any circumstances which keep the pupil behind -the school class of his intellectual equals, we have a fundamental cause -of distaste for school work. No wonder that such pupils dislike school, -become disgruntled and stubborn, run away and rebel at the treatment -they receive under the traditional school system. One can hardly blame a -self-respecting boy, forced to remain behind his peers, for breaking -away from the lock step, playing truant and seeking his education in the -streets. - -The trouble is not with the school authorities alone. They are doing -about as well as can be expected with the funds which the people have -been willing to provide. The public must be educated up to the -recognition of the fact that every child in the school should be allowed -to progress as rapidly as his abilities permit. The public schools of -Mannheim, Germany, are the great illustration of what can be done to -bring the school instruction close to the varying degrees of capacity -among the pupils. In the Mannheim schools children may carry from four -to eight years of the regular curriculum in eight years, and the -brighter pupils may also take additional subjects. The Industrial School -in Cleveland has demonstrated that some 14-year-old boys two years -backward in school may, with special help, be successfully prepared for -high school with about as much likelihood that they will continue the -high school course as the ordinary boys (_107_). - -It is self-evident that a boy with ability to carry a higher grade of -work cannot ordinarily be allowed to skip one or two classes without -special instruction and be expected to succeed with studies which -require preliminaries that he has had no opportunity to learn. The -necessary knowledge and sufficient skill in particular habits of thought -needed could probably be acquired in a brief time under the right sort -of special instruction. It is not sufficient that special classes for -pupils mentally backward should be provided in the schools. They will -not take care of this problem, which has to do mainly with pupils -intellectually capable of carrying the work of a higher grade than that -in which they are placed. These children can now be found by means of -mental tests and they should be assisted in making up the intermediate -work by collecting them into redemption groups, so to speak, where they -can have individual instruction. In the public schools of Faribault, -Minnesota, the plan of thus picking out older minds in a class and -promoting them one or two grades with very little extra instruction has -been successfully tried in an experimental way. - -If all of the children in a school system who are thus seriously out of -intellectual adjustment cannot be cared for, it is plain that the -children in danger of delinquency might well receive the first -attention, since the lack of adjustment with these may cause the most -serious social consequences. That the problem is more acute among the -serious offenders in juvenile court than among school children generally -is indicated by a comparison with Goddard's figures for school children -generally in a typical community tested with the same scale. If we -select from his tables only that group of mental ages which could -actually be in a class ahead or behind their mental development, we find -that only 20% of this group would be outside the standard of 6 and 7 -years in the first grade, etc., as compared with 52% of our detention -home group on the same basis. On the other hand Terman's records with -the Stanford scale (_193_) indicate 44% of ordinary children similarly -maladjusted to school. This condition should probably be regarded, -therefore, as a supplementary stimulus for delinquency rather than a -fundamental cause comparable with mental retardation. - -While this lack of adjustment is undoubtedly the most pressing -_training_ problem connected with juvenile delinquency, we must not -expect that when it is solved we shall have eliminated the problem of -mental backwardness of delinquents as a class. The most that we could -expect from perfect adjustment of the school work to mental ability -would be that the average amount of school retardation for the group -would be materially reduced. How much retardation in school relative to -the life-ages would still remain, cannot be determined on account of the -uncertainty of the tests for older ages and the factor of volition. For -the mentally deficient pupils still remaining behind the regular pupils -it is necessary to provide other special classes. In these classes or -schools the feeble-minded children would remain for their entire school -course. - -That the correction of the lack of adjustment is a much more agreeable -and hopeful task than the care for deficients is shown by the facts -regarding the detention home group in Table IX. There is at least the -possibility that 10 of the school laggards in this group of serious -delinquents might be brought up to a satisfactory grade. Discount this -prospect as you may, it is still to be compared with the fact that no -actually feeble-minded boy can ever, by special instruction, be brought -up to a satisfactory school grade. Moreover, we might expect that 30 of -the 84 laggards might, by special help, catch up one or more grades. - -That the correction of lack of school adjustment is a bigger problem in -connection with juvenile delinquency than the detection and isolation of -the mentally unfit can only be said in relation to the numbers affected. -Taking the lowest estimate of those in the detention home group out of -adjustment with their school environment it was at least 30, while only -9 of that group fell below the borderline of passable intellects and -only 2 were surely feeble-minded. If one guessed as we have on the basis -of school position that a maximum 6% of the ordinary juvenile -delinquents in Minneapolis might be feeble-minded, who would venture to -guess that ill-adjustment of school to mental ability affects so small a -proportion? On the other hand one feeble-minded person, through the -transmission of his deficiency, may, perhaps, do more damage to society -than many intelligent delinquents. Who shall say? Certainly both the -isolation of the feeble-minded and the adjustment of school training are -vitally important problems in the care of juvenile delinquents today. -Nobody can say that one is more important than the other except from a -special point of view. From the eugenics standpoint feeble-mindedness is -more important; from the point of view of the numbers affected and the -skill required for training the child, there can be little question but -that the correction of bad adjustment to school environment is the -bigger problem. When one considers how much of the child's time is spent -out of school, at home, with playfellows, or at work we cannot be sure -that other external influences might not ultimately be found to be more -important in connection with juvenile delinquency than either the school -life or mental incapacity. The further consideration of the causes of -delinquency we shall now make the subject of a broader inquiry. - ------ - -Footnote 32: - - Mental ages VI and VII regarded as satisfactory for the first grade, - etc. - - - - - CHAPTER XI. DEFICIENCY AS A CAUSE OF DELINQUENCY - -In a preceding chapter we have shown the frequency of tested deficiency -among various types of delinquents. We may now further consider the -significance of this association of delinquency with deficiency. The -best plan for discovering its meaning is provided by the technical -method of correlation. The data in the published reports of the score or -more of investigations which I have reported is wholly inadequate for -following out this method. We must, therefore, for the present content -ourselves with noting what has been discovered by the better analysis of -similar data which was supplemented by the necessary information as to -the distribution of the different types of crime in the corresponding -general populations. To this we can add certain correlations in -connection with the small Minneapolis group of tested juvenile -delinquents. - -We are indeed fortunate to have the fundamental work of Dr. Charles -Goring on “The English Convict,” from which to formulate a point of view -regarding the relation of deficiency and delinquency. This work -represents ten years labor in making observations, collecting, -tabulating, and statistically evaluating data on 3000 convicted men, who -were found in the English convict prisons where they had been sent after -conviction in the higher courts because guilty of grave or repeated -offenses. It was carried out with the co-operation of a corps of workers -who had the help of Professor Karl Pearson and his assistants at the -Biometric Laboratory of the University of London, in the statistical -reduction of the almost overwhelming mass of data. By the large use of -partial correlation the _relative_ influence of various factors upon -criminality was investigated as it never had been before. It is, of -course, not possible to reproduce here the conclusions of this -monumental work which should be made more widely available in the -libraries of this country. We shall, however, select certain conclusions -which bear most directly upon our problem and which rest upon well -established statistical deductions, and compare them with a few other -studies which have contributed interesting side lights upon the causes -of delinquency. - - - A. THE CHANCES OF THE MENTALLY DEFICIENT BECOMING DELINQUENT. - -“Every feeble-minded person is a potential criminal,” says Goddard in -his work on _Feeble-Mindedness_ (_112_, 514), and this sentiment finds -an echo in the emotions of many social workers. On the other hand we -have the careful work of Bronner in which she compares by their test -records a group of delinquent women with groups selected from night -classes and the servant class who had never been known to be immoral. On -the average she finds that the delinquents do not test below her servant -group. She says: - -“Thus, though our delinquents are not as capable as their sisters, many -of them from congested districts, who in other ways are proving -themselves ambitious [the group from night classes,] yet they are no -less equipped intellectually than others who are earning a livelihood -and caring for themselves without coming in conflict with the law in the -least. Whatever their mental status might be, measured by other means, -the fact remains that there is no _necessary_ correlation between their -immoral or criminal tendencies and their intellectual ability and that -others, no more endowed than they, are fighting life's battles without -manifesting the same immoral or criminal tendencies” (_112_, p. 43). - -What portion of these moral household servants of equal ability with the -delinquents may later fall under temptation, we, of course, cannot say. -Neither can we say that any of the delinquents would test deficient, -since we do not know the border lines of deficiency with the tests which -were used. The conclusion, however, is clear that, if corresponding -grades of intellect may be delinquent or not at maturity, we must be -cautious in assuming that the lowest grades of intellects would all -become delinquent if not under supervision. - -What chances we are running by allowing feeble-minded individuals to be -abroad might be determined if we could find out the probability of -tested deficients becoming delinquent. This question cannot be answered -by showing for a single year or a period of years that crimes are -relatively more common among the defective classes, although such -figures give some impression of the danger of deficiency to the -community. - -Kinberg, for example, calculates that in Sweden during the years -1901-1907 murder was relatively 200 times as common as among those not -in institutions, but lacking criminal responsibility through insanity or -deficiency, as among those who were responsible, arson was 72.5 as -common, manslaughter 12.63 times, other injuries to property than arson -6.55, rape 6.1 times, infanticide 4.59 times, larceny 0.99 times, and -fraud 0.26 times (_132_). The data were based upon the reports of the -Royal College of Health which makes the diagnosis as to criminal -responsibility that is required for all cases in which this question -arises. Such examinations, it is estimated, miss at least 15% of the -deficient criminals. - -Goring gives a table which shows what crimes are most likely to be -committed by deficients. He found that 10% of the convicts in England -and Wales were definitely treated in prison as deficient, and he -estimated that 0.5% of the non-criminal population were equally -deficient. His table is based upon the tabulation of 8,290 crimes past -and present of 948 English convicts (Fig. XXXIX, p. 258). It is given -below: - - TABLE XVII. - - GORING'S DATA AS TO THE PERCENTAGE OF MENTAL DEFECTIVES AMONG MEN - CONVICTED OF VARIOUS OFFENSES. (_948 Convicts_) - - Firing of stack 52.9% - - Wilful damage, including maiming of animals 22.2 - - Arson 16.7 - - Rape (child) 15.8 - - Robbery with violence 15.6 - - Unnatural (sexual) offenses 14.3 - - Blackmail 14.3 - - Fraud 12.8 - - Stealing (and poaching) 11.2 - - Burglary 10.0 - - Murder and murderous intent 9.5 - - Rape (adult) 6.7 - - Receiving 5.1 - - Manslaughter 5.0 - - Coining 3.3 - - Wounding, intent to wound, striking superior officer 2.9 - - Embezzlement, forgery, fraudulence as trustee, bigamy, performing 0.0 - illegal surgical operation - - General population 0.5 - -Another table from Goring shows which groups of crime are most likely to -be committed by the deficients compared with the frequency of that type -of crime in the general population. It is reproduced in part below. - - TABLE XVIII. - - GORING'S DATA AS TO GROUPS OF CRIME COMMITTED MOST FREQUENTLY BY THOSE - MENTALLY DEFICIENT - - ─────────────────┬─────────┬─────────┬────────────────┬──────────────── - Nature of crimes │ Total │Mentally │ Percentages of │ Percentages of - │criminals│defective│ mental │ general - │ │ │defectives among│ population - │ │ │those committing│ committing the - │ │ │ various crimes │several offenses - ─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼────────────────┼──────────────── - Malicious damage │ 55│ 22│ 40.00│ 0.406 - to property │ │ │ │ - Stealing and │ 442│ 45│ 10.18│ 4.180 - burglary │ │ │ │ - Sexual offences │ 101│ 13│ 12.87│ 0.199 - Violence to the │ 183│ 11│ 6.01│ 1.606 - person │ │ │ │ - Forgery, coining │ 167│ 4│ 2.40│ 0.722 - and fraud │ │ │ │ - ─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼────────────────┼──────────────── - Total │ 948│ 95│ 10.00│ 7.203 - ─────────────────┴─────────┴─────────┴────────────────┴──────────────── - -Some very striking instances of recidivism on the part of the -feeble-minded were summarized by Dr. Smalley in his evidence before the -Royal Commission (_83_). He said: - - “Against 130 out of 333 weak-minded prisoners who were unfit for - ordinary penal discipline by reason of mental deficiency, no - previous conviction had been recorded; but for this absence of - record their nomadic habits might in part account. Against fifty-six - 1 conviction had been recorded, against twenty-eight 2; the - remainder varied from 4 to 105 convictions. About half had been - convicted from 5 to 10 times.... Dr. Hamblin Smith, Medical Officer - of Stafford Prison, as the result of a special inquiry into 100 - mentally defective prisoners, found that 100 had a combined record - of 1,104 convictions, or an average of 11 per prisoner, and this - number was regarded as being below the actual truth. Ten of the - prisoners had over 30 convictions. Dr. W. R. Dawson found that in - the two prisons in Dublin 12.21 per cent. of the inmates were - defectives. The average number of previous convictions for the - females was 44.13. Many of them ran into hundreds, and one was in - prison for the two-hundred and thirty-sixth time, and she was only - twenty-nine years old.” - -So far as I can discover nobody has directly attacked the specific -problem, what percentage of individuals of a given degree of deficiency -who are not under supervision, become legally delinquent at some time in -their lives. A slight contribution to the empirical study of the problem -is made in the reports of the follow-up work in connection with pupils -formerly in special classes in the public schools which I reviewed in -Chap. IV, f. We have also a telling report by Bullard of the New York -Prison Association published by Moore in 1911 (_156_). It follows the -records of 85 feeble-minded boys and men 16-29 years of age, paroled -from the Elmira State Reformatory in 1904. The whereabouts of 3 were -unknown and 2 died. Of the remaining eighty, 31 were arrested again and -6 others violated their parole. One was arrested 19 times in this short -period. - -The best approach to this problem of measuring the potential delinquency -among deficients is afforded by Goring's four-fold table for calculating -the correlation between deficiency and criminality in the male -population of England and Wales (_20_, p. 259). By means of the annual -data on first convictions of crime at different ages and the probable -length of life among criminals and in the general population he has been -able to predict a potential criminality on the part of 7.2% of the -general male population. In other words, the best estimate seems to be -that about 7 in every hundred males in England and Wales will be -convicted of crime at some time in their lives. About 10% of the -convicts in England for a series of years have been isolated in prison -treatment because of deficiency. If we now also assume with him that -0.46% of the non-criminal population is mentally deficient, we arrive at -the table which enables us to determine, on these assumptions, that it -is most likely that 63% of the deficients will be convicted of crime at -some time in their lives. If instead of taking this estimate of 10% of -the criminals being deficient we had taken 20%, then the probability of -a deficient individual being convicted of crime would rise to .77. - -On the basis of our summary of tested delinquents in the last chapter it -seems extremely conservative to suppose that 10% of the manifest and -potential criminals are as deficient mentally as the lowest 1.5% of the -general population. Even with this assumption we find that the chances -would be 48 out of a hundred that a person of this degree of deficiency -would be convicted of crime. - -These estimates, I believe, afford a telling argument for the indefinite -isolation of at least those who are in the lowest 0.5% mentally on the -ground of their potential criminality, independently of any question of -the danger to society from the hereditary transmission of the diathesis -of deficient delinquency. - -We have heard much in recent years of the particular danger of allowing -the better grade of feeble-minded, especially the morons, to be abroad -in the community. Time and again it is asserted that it is this class of -deficients which is most likely to become delinquent. There is a -widespread confusion here between the statement that criminals in -absolute numbers are drawn more frequently from the moron class and the -statement that morons are relatively more likely than imbeciles or -idiots to become delinquent. To the first alternative there would be no -objection since morons are much more frequent than the lower grades of -deficiency. On the other hand if morons are relatively more likely to be -delinquent than imbeciles, then we should expect those just above the -morons in ability to be more likely than morons to be delinquent. The -technical answer to the problem whether the lower grades of deficiency -are more likely to become delinquent could be best reached by -discovering the correlation of delinquency with the different grades of -deficiency. - -Goring's data throw some light on this question since he has found the -correlation between grades of intelligence and the degree of recidivism -and also between intelligence and the frequency of bad reports in the -penal institutions where the convicts were held. In both cases the -tendency is clear for the weak-minded and imbecile to be more frequently -convicted and to be reported more frequently for bad conduct than for -the higher grades of intelligence which he classifies as unintelligent, -fairly intelligent and intelligent. The correlation coefficient with -frequency of convictions relative to time out of prison is -.16 and with -frequency of bad reports is -.33. The correlation ratios are slightly -higher in both cases. On the other hand the more intelligent are likely -to be given longer sentences, the correlation being +.10.[33] It might -be contended that his distinction between the lowest grades of -intelligence is not objective and not very clear; but that the general -tendency of the regression lines would be reversed at the lower extreme -seems very improbable. In other words there is some reason to suppose -that, relative to their numbers, the idiots and imbeciles would be more -likely to be delinquent than the more intelligent feeble-minded provided -none was confined in an institution. No idiot and few, if any, imbeciles -could survive honestly in any environment without assistance. - -How closely the degrees of immorality are associated with the degrees of -deficiency remains one of the most important problems to be answered -authoritatively by the correlation of these traits when properly -measured. That the greater degrees of immorality and of deficiency are -on the whole associated and not opposed we have good reason to believe, -but there are undoubtedly examples in which the degree of immorality or -delinquency is out of proportion to the degree of deficiency. The fact -that certain instances are found of moral imbeciles without -corresponding intellectual deficiency, which has been noted by Stern -(_188_, p. 75) and by Anton (_67_), does not of course determine the -direction of the tendencies. We must base our deductions as to the -danger of delinquency among lower and higher grades of deficients on our -knowledge of the general tendencies. Are morons, relative to their -numbers, more dangerous to the community than lower grade deficients? We -must not make the absurd deduction that because morons are most numerous -they are most likely to be delinquent and should therefore be most -carefully isolated or supervised. - - - B. THE CORRELATION OF DEFICIENCY AND DELINQUENCY. - -Modern statistical methods afford the ultimate quantitative tool for -determining the cause of delinquency, whether or not we also require -that the data should be assembled under experimentally controlled -conditions. The rapid strides which have been made in answering this -fundamental question of criminology may be judged by noting the -treatment of it in such a work as Goring's compared with the -impressionistic literary style which has prevailed. Illustrations of -particular cases, opinions subconsciously formulated by experts from -wide experience in dealing with delinquents, even the votes of the -majority of leaders in the field, give way before the acid test of -measurement of tendencies in human traits just as poorer methods -succumbed in the Middle Ages in the realm of the physical sciences. -Quantitative determinations can no longer be brushed aside with a smile -on the supposition that statisticians are the biggest liars. They must -be answered by better data or more refined methods. The form of the -discussion of social questions has changed. Correlation is a powerful -new weapon for attacking these problems which promises to go far beyond -the range of earlier blundering methods. - -While partial correlation affords an ideal approach to answering the -question of causation, it has been used only to a very limited extent. -The necessary data for comparing the closeness of relationship of -various suggested causes of delinquency are not available and too few -who are interested in social problems have appreciated the significance -of the method. We should, therefore, lay especial emphasis on the -measurement of the correlation of deficiency and criminality by Goring. -He laboriously assembled the only data which are sufficiently extensive -to allow much reliance to be placed upon their statistical reduction. In -his use of correlation, moreover, he acted under advice from the main -center for this work at the Galton Laboratory in London. - -If those who were “mentally defective” under Goring's designation were -always convicted of crime and none of those who were not defective were -ever convicted of crime, the measure of the relationship between -criminality and deficiency would be expressed by a correlation -coefficient of +1.00. If there were no relationship whatever between -deficiency and criminality the coefficient would be 0.00. If the -deficients were never convicted of crime and the non-deficients were -always criminal the coefficient would be -1.00. Intermediate degrees in -the relationship of these tendencies would then be represented by -decimals which would be either positive or negative, depending upon -whether the traits were associated together or were opposed. The -coefficient which he found for the male population was +.6553, which was -much higher than that for any other constitutional or environmental -factor which he measured. - -In calculating this correlation Goring regarded 10% of the criminal male -population as defective. He found that this was in agreement with the -common tendency in English convict prisons to class officially about -this portion of the criminals as defectives and needing care. He also -assumed that 0.46% of the non-criminal male population in England and -Wales was defective, the proportion suggested by the report of the Royal -Commission on Feeble-mindedness. By a careful computation he calculated -that 7.2% of the males either have been or will be convicted of crime -before they die. He then constructed the four-fold table on the basis of -these estimates as applied to the 948 convicts whom he examined as to -their mental condition. The coefficient was then calculated by Pearson's -method for a four-fold table. This method assumes that the mental -ability and the tendency to criminality are distributed normally in the -population and that the difference in numbers between the criminal and -the non-criminal, deficient and non-deficient are not too great. In case -the percentage of defectives among the criminals were taken as 20% -instead of 10% the correlation would be increased to .79. - -Using the same four-fold method we may calculate the correlation between -deficiency and juvenile delinquency among Minneapolis boys. It is -necessary to make a good estimate of the proportion of boys who annually -become delinquent in Minneapolis for the first time, and of the -proportion of these boys who are correspondingly deficient. Fortunately -these comparisons can be made fairly accurately on the basis of the -reports for the year 1915 and of our tests of juvenile delinquents. We -may use a minimum and a maximum estimate of deficiency among the -delinquents corresponding to those that tested below borderlines which -represented the lowest 0.5% and the lowest 1.5% of the population of -corresponding ages. We need to assume that the frequency of tested -deficiency among the boys found delinquent would correspond within these -limits to the frequency among the Glen Lake group. The indices for the -amount of school retardation in these two groups (Table XIV) indicate -that this is a liberal estimate. We must also assume that the proportion -of juvenile delinquents for the year 1915 may be regarded as typical for -a series of years. The number of new cases of boys in juvenile court in -1915 was within 18 of the median number for the last four years. The -result of these estimates is Table XIX for the minimum estimate of -deficiency. A similar table for the maximum estimate of deficiency would -be the same, except that the proportion of all boys of these ages who -were deficient would be 1.5%, and of the delinquent group, 7.3%. - -The computation of the correlations by Pearson's tetrachoric _r_ shows -the relationship between juvenile delinquency and deficiency among boys -to be .16, P. E. .07, on the minimum estimate of deficiency. On the -maximum estimate the correlation is .29, P. E. .05. In order to make a -closer comparison between Goring's calculation and my own I have -recalculated the correlation for his group on the assumption that 0.5% -of the general male population were deficient and that 1.29% would be -convicted felons of the type among which he found 10% to be deficient. -This brings the minimum correlation for his figures to .59, P. E. .03. - - TABLE XIX - - FOUR-FOLD CORRELATION TABLE FOR JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND DEFICIENCY IN - MINNEAPOLIS (MINIMUM ESTIMATE). - - BOYS 8-16 YEARS OF AGE - - ─────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────┬───────────────── - │ Non-Deficient │ Deficient │ Total - ─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼───────────────── - Non-Delinquent │ 22,305│ 109│ 22,414 - ─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼───────────────── - Delinquent │ 268│ 4│ 272 - ─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼───────────────── - Total │ 22,573│ 113│ 22,686 - ─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┴───────────────── - - The total number of boys is taken from the census of school children - for 1915-16 compiled by the attendance department of the Board of - Education. It includes those in public, parochial and private - schools and those not attending. The number of delinquent boys is - taken from the report of the Juvenile Court of Hennepin County, - Tables H and I. The number of repeaters and the proportion of - delinquent cases dismissed at the hearing are subtracted from the - total number of new cases. - -The difference between a correlation of .29, the highest I found, and -.59, Goring's lowest result, indicates that conviction for felony in -Great Britain is more closely associated with deficiency than juvenile -delinquency is associated with deficiency in such communities as -Minneapolis. It is to be remembered, however, that Goring's calculation -gave the convicts a life-time in which to be convicted, while ours gave -the boys only 16 years. The relation of potential delinquency after 16 -years of age to deficiency might be greater among Minneapolis males than -the corresponding relation we found among the boys; but the difference -in these correlations is more easily explained by supposing that the -type of serious delinquency represented by sentences to penal servitude, -in England at least, is more closely related to deficiency than are the -lighter forms of delinquency found among the youth of an American city. - -The most significant fact demonstrated by the correlations between -juvenile delinquency and deficiency is that there is a positive -relationship which is significant in amount. With the maximum estimate -the correlation is nearly 6 times its error. This is the first time that -the relationship has actually been calculated in connection with any -group of juveniles. We can say that when a Minneapolis boy is below the -average in tested ability for his age, he is most likely to be .16 to -.29 of the same amount below the average in legal conduct, both -measurements being in corresponding units. - -What then, is the significance of correlation in answering the problem -of causation? So far as the statistical method itself is concerned it -shows only a mathematical functional relation between the conditions -measured, not a physiological relationship. In other words a correlation -between deficiency and delinquency might be explained by both conditions -being related to some more fundamental factor which might be the causal -factor involved. One cannot reason from correlation to direct causal -connection. On the other hand, by correlation we may directly compare -the relation between any one trait and various factors. We can find out, -for example, whether the association of delinquency with deficiency is -closer than the association of delinquency with other factors which it -has been suggested are causes of delinquency. Goring's work allows us to -compare the correlation of the tendency to be convicted of crime with -deficiency and with many other constitutional and environmental factors -which have been measured, and thus our attention may at once be directed -to that factor which the present evidence indicates as most fundamental. -Unless the measurement of the various factors is shown to be seriously -faulty or incomplete the outcome should determine our point of view as -to the main cause of delinquency, until new evidence is forthcoming. -This is the problem of the next section. - - - C. THE CAUSES OF DELINQUENCY. - -As we have noted above, the correlation of delinquency with various -factors should give us a scientific point of view as to the main causal -influence in criminality. Thanks to Dr. Goring this work has recently -been carried far. His findings mark a new and higher scientific level in -the study of criminology. No data are now available which modify his -position in any important regard. I shall, therefore, attempt to give -his evidence in the briefest possible manner, hoping that it may lead to -a closer reading of his basal investigation. - - - (a) CONSTITUTIONAL FACTORS. - -First comparing a dozen factors in the individual's own constitution -which may be measured by the death rates, Goring found the tendency to -be convicted of crime was correlated most closely with alcoholism, .39; -sexual profligacy (syphilis and aneurism), .31; and epilepsy, .26; while -it was found to correlate with intelligence, .66. The closeness of the -relationship of defective physique to criminality was expressed by -coefficients of .18 and .19. Among the inner factors investigated were -many of Lombroso's characteristics of the so-called criminal physiognomy -of which so much use is made by phrenologists, such as asymmetries, -projection of the chin, complexion, form of the face and features, kind -of hair, tattooing, left-handedness, temperament, etc. - -Following this analysis, we find that alcoholism, epilepsy, and probably -social profligacy are closely associated with intelligence as well. By -means of partial correlations he shows that when individuals of the same -degrees of intelligence are compared there is only slight additional -relation between alcoholism or epilepsy and criminality. The relations -to these other conditions are therefore accidental, depending upon the -fact that deficients are more likely to be alcoholic and epileptic, the -fundamental constitutional factor being intelligence. Among over forty -physical and mental factors, the only other condition which he found to -have significant relation to criminality is a generally defective -physique as shown by height and weight, neither of which is correlated -with intelligence. - -Regarding the above inner factors he summarizes his conclusion as -follows: - -“Our final conclusion is that English criminals are selected by a -physical condition, and a mental constitution which are independent of -each other—that the one significant physical association with -criminality is a generally defective physique; and that the one vital -mental constitutional factor in the etiology of crime is defective -intelligence” (_20_, p. 263.). - - - (b) EXTERNAL FACTORS. - -Turning now to certain factors which might be supposed to be important -mainly as environmental influences, Goring studied the length of -imprisonment and the frequency of reconvictions for crime relative to -the periods of freedom as two measures of the degree of recidivism among -his criminal group. He measured the correlation between the degree of -recidivism and such outer factors as formal education classified by the -kind of school training, whether received in the elementary school, -secondary school, or at a compulsory industrial or reformatory school -for delinquents, also formal education as measured by the age at leaving -school; effective education as measured by the grade in school reached -at the time of leaving and by the educational grade assigned the convict -in the prison school; regularity of employment classified under the -headings regular, occasional, voluntarily unemployed, unemployable; -alcoholism under estimates as to the convicts' intemperance, temperance -or abstinence; family life, in which the standard of life was classified -as well-to-do, prosperous poor, poor, very poor, and destitute; the -influence of maternal authority measured by the age at death of the -mother, order of the subject in the family, and number in the family, -thus reaching the question of only sons and of size of family; -nationality; and finally the relation of age at which the first sentence -was received and the nature of the sentence to subsequent convictions. - -The significance of the relation of these external influences upon the -degree of _recidivism_ is not directly comparable with the influence of -these factors upon the tendency to be convicted or not to be convicted -of crime at all, as he carefully explains. Since the distribution of the -above factors in the population at large is not known, the relationship -to criminality in general could not be measured for the outer factors as -it was for the inner factors discussed previously. Reserving, then, our -judgment as to how closely these environmental factors may be related to -the criminal tendency not represented by recidivism, we can reach -important conclusions as to their relation to the degree of recidivism. -Only one of the coefficients was found to be large enough to be twice -its probable error, so that as a whole they were not at all significant. -He summarizes his conclusions as follows: - - “The relative values of these contrasted coefficients demonstrate - effectively and conclusively one truth: that an adverse environment - is related much more intimately to the intelligence of the convicts - than it is to the degree of their recidivism, or to the nature of - the crimes they commit. Moreover, since mental defectiveness is - closely related to crime, an easily imagined corollary to this truth - is that the mental defectiveness of the convict is antecedent to his - environmental misfortunes, rather than that his unfortunate - circumstances have been responsible for the mental defectiveness of - the convict, and his lapse into crime....” - - “From the general trend of the results tabulated above, our interim - conclusion is that, relatively to its origin in the constitution of - the malefactor, and especially in his mentally defective - constitution, crime in this country is only to a trifling extent (if - to any) the product of social inequality, or of adverse environment, - or of other manifestations of what may be comprehensively termed - 'the force of circumstances'” (_20_, p. 287-288). - -The caution which we have noted above, as to the influence of outer -factors having been measured in relation to recidivism rather than to -criminality, becomes more important when we find that the correlation of -high intelligence with frequency of convictions is also low, only -.16 -and to fractions of a year imprisoned +.10. Since the relation of -intelligence to criminality in the general population is +.66, we cannot -be at all sure that these outer factors, or some of them, might not also -be much more closely related to criminality than they are to recidivism. -Besides this caution we might also urge that some of the most important -outer influences have not yet been evaluated by correlations. We know -nothing, as yet, except by inference about the correlation of -delinquency with the influence of bad companions outside the home, bad -school adjustment, the effect of broken families aside from the early -death of the mother, absence of proper recreation, and many other -stimuli for delinquency which social workers have been studying for -years by less conclusive methods. - -Just to recall the frequency of some of these other conditions -associated with the environment of the youth we may note that -Aschaffenburg says that Abanel found in Paris “among 600 criminals under -twenty years of age in 303 cases the family life of the parents was -destroyed owing to death, divorce, desertion, illicit relations, or to -some similar cause” (_208_, p. 133). Again he states that in 1841 Father -Mathew, by making 1,800,000 total abstainers temporarily reduced serious -crimes in Ireland from 12,096 to 773 per annum in a period of three -years. Miss Rhoades by a personal evaluation of many factors involved in -each of 81 random cases of juvenile delinquency in Chicago found that -the main cause in 67 cases was some home condition and in 9 others it -was a special temptation in street gangs, while only in 5 was the main -cause mental subnormality (_171_). That nearly half of the juvenile -delinquents come from broken families, affected by death, divorce, or -desertion has been frequently shown. A study of more than a thousand -successive cases in the Minneapolis juvenile court by Miss Finkle showed -that 39% of them were from families not normally constituted, families -in which one of the natural parental guardians of the children had been -removed (_105_). We also have an important study of the relation of the -delinquent child to his home by Breckenridge and Abbot (_82_). - -While there is always a possibility of finding some other factor closely -related to delinquency and independent of capacity, nevertheless we -should hardly urge this possibility at the present time as overweighing -the accumulation of negative evidence which has been assembled in recent -years, especially at the Galton Laboratory. We should remember that many -so-called outer influences are, like the temptation to drink, related to -the incapacity which precedes the temptations. There is also good reason -to suppose that many bad environmental surroundings result from rather -than cause deficiency. Even broken homes may be a result of incapacity, -to which undoubtedly early death is related. The first essential for -social philosophers is to recognize that so-called environmental factors -may have their corresponding inborn correlates. This is almost -invariable with home conditions. The problem is to weigh the relative -importance of these outer and inner factors on the same individuals. - - - (c) WEIGHING HEREDITY AGAINST ENVIRONMENT. - -Both subjective and objective methods have been used in trying to -determine whether heredity or environment has the most influence upon -criminality. The earlier and subjective method is one for which Gruhle -is perhaps the leading advocate. By this method an expert with wide -experience judges the relative effect of inner and outer causes of -delinquency in particular cases. In his study of 105 minor delinquents -in a German industrial school Gruhle, after a thorough and systematic -clinical and sociological study of each person, gave his judgment -whether heredity or environment was the main cause of delinquency in the -case. In his summary he concluded that in 9 cases the fundamental cause -was found in the environment, in 8 cases in environment plus a -subordinate influence of heredity, in 41 environment and heredity were -balanced, in 20 cases heredity was the main influence but environment -was a subordinate factor and in 21 heredity was considered the causal -factor. This shows that, when each case was estimated separately, in his -opinion heredity on the whole turned out to be more important than -environment for this group. By the same subjective method Gruhle weighs -the influence of family taints such as mental abnormalities, deficiency, -and drunkenness as against the hereditary influence in crime, and comes -to the surprising result that in 9 cases where both parents were -abnormal mentally or drunken in only two cases was heredity the -predominant cause of the delinquency, while in 7 cases where neither -parent showed these taints the delinquency was invariably explained by -heredity. The group whose delinquencies were in his opinion mainly due -to heredity showed, curiously enough, less family taints from nearly -every point of view. He concludes: - - “The knowledge that so many of the criminal youths are abnormal is - indeed very significant for the therapeutic treatment of the social - offenders, for the choice of the ways which should be used to - improve the youths; but this knowledge has no significance for - establishing the causes of delinquency.... The abnormal parents - really have more children who are abnormal and under the average in - capacity, but their children are actually more seldom delinquent - because of the natural tendencies than the children of normal - parents” (_121_). - -Healy has followed a similar plan in subjectively weighing the influence -of various factors as causes of the delinquency of 823 recidivists -before the Psychopathic Institute at the Chicago Juvenile Court. -Although he does not directly estimate hereditary and environmental -factors as such, his summary of these estimates of separate cases shows -the main cause of delinquency in 455 of these cases to be some form of -mental abnormality or peculiarity. Abnormal physical conditions, -including excessive sex development accounted for 40 more. His other -causes, which embraced only 26% of the cases, might possibly be regarded -as directly environmental. They included defective home conditions, -including alcoholism, bad companions, mental conflicts, improper sex -experience and habits, etc. - -Thus we find that the two most important expert estimates of individual -cases after exhaustive study apparently agree in placing the main causal -influence on factors which are predominately inner rather than outer. -The most serious objection to this method of approaching the problem is -that we have no way of determining how far such a result is the effect -of the expert's unintentional bias. Gruhle's analysis of his delinquent -group, however, raises very clearly the question whether the total -influence of heredity may not be markedly greater in the production of -delinquency than merely the heredity influence through mental deficiency -and abnormalities in the families. - -A better method of evaluating the relative influence of heredity and -environment would avoid the danger of subjective bias by studying -objectively measured factors. With either the subjective or objective -method correlation affords a better way of statistically handling the -results. The best approach to an objective study of the inner and outer -causes of delinquency by the correlation methods is furnished by Goring. -The ingenuity of the biometrical procedure in applying correlation to -resolving this perennial question of heredity and environment must be -recognized by all who take the time to understand its methods. We can -only briefly consider the results of Goring's chapter on “The Relative -Influence of 'Inheritance' and 'Contagion' upon the Occurrence of Crime -and the Production of Criminals.” - -This work conclusively demonstrates that crime runs in families. The -probable value of the correlation between conviction for crime on the -part of the father and son was found to be .60, while the correlation -between mother and son was only slightly less. The tendency to resemble -brothers in criminality was shown by the probable fraternal correlations -of .45. Whether this family resemblance is mainly through nature or -nurture is the problem. - -In analyzing the influence of the home he uses partial correlation and -finds that the correlation between age at first conviction and the -number of convictions for a constant period of time after the first -conviction is -.243. “From the value and sign of this coefficient, we -see that the earlier in life a child commits a criminal offence, and is -consequently removed from his home, the worse criminal does he become; -and, accordingly, we conclude that criminal proclivities are more bred -in the home than inoculated there” (_119_, p. 368). This argues against -the predominant influence of the home training or example as explaining -_family resemblance_ in criminality. Nevertheless, it would seem that -the result might also be interpreted as meaning that the contact with -other delinquents and official discipline outside the home at a more -impressionable age notably increases the tendency to recidivism. - -Besides the argument as to the earlier removal from home, we have a test -of the question whether those kinds of crime that are most influenced by -contagion show closer correlation within the family. His statement of -the results is as follows: - - “Our table 177, above, starting with crimes of fraud, passes to - stealing and burglary—professional crimes, where the influence of - criminal contagion should be the most intense; and then - progressively to violence, arson and sexual offenses, in which last - it is difficult to understand how the influence of example could - have any effect at all. We can understand the influence of parental - training in the original moulding of a professional burglar or - thief, and, to a certain extent, it is conceivable that the constant - spectacle of the lack of control in parents might lead their - offspring to emulate them in acts of unlawful violence. But, that - parental example could play any part of importance in the - perpetration by their offspring of crimes such as arson and wilful - damage to property, and, particularly, of sexual offenses, is not - reasonably to be supposed. As seen in the above table, 177, the - parental correlation for sexual crimes, and crimes for wilful damage - to property is from .45 to .5; for stealing, it is from .48 to .58. - We would assume then, from this evidence, that the tendency of the - inherited factor in criminality is from .45 to .5, and the intensity - of criminal contagion is anything between .05 and .1” (_20_, p. - 367). - -Other evidence as to the relative influence of heredity and training, -which Goring suggests, is in connection with the difference in influence -of the two parents. If the contagion were from either the mother or -father alone, the difference in resemblance to that parent and the other -might indicate the strength of the contagion. The difference amounts to -about .05. This again, in his opinion, gives some idea of the relative -importance of nature and nurture within the family. The measure would -not be complete unless the hereditary tendency to resemble mother and -father were equal and the contagion were all from one parent. - -Husbands and wives tend strongly to resemble each other in crime, the -correlation being .6378. This resemblance is of course not due to -heredity. Goring believes that it is not due to contagion and argues -that besides the subjective tendency for the criminals to associate -together, there is here a large element of conscious choice of a mate -among the criminal classes, especially as the criminal woman shows the -tendency most clearly and would not be able easily to get a non-criminal -husband. - -This work of Goring illustrates how an important beginning has been made -in applying the correlation method to objective records, in order to -weigh the relative importance of hereditary and environmental sources of -crime. Perhaps its most important support is the close agreement between -his conclusions as to the importance of the native diathesis of -criminality and other studies by the biometric school as to the family -tendencies in physical traits such as stature, eye color, tuberculosis, -insanity, and deafness. These all tend to show a correlation between -parents and children or brothers and sisters of about .5 as compared -with relations to environmental factors which tend to be less than .1 -(_165_). - - - (d) THE CRIMINAL DIATHESIS. - -If one accepts the point of view that the cause of crime is to be -considered analogous to that of pulmonary tuberculosis, his -understanding of the etiology of crime gains immensely. The old question -of whether the criminal is born or made is answered, “both.” But the -emphasis from our present data is on the inborn tendencies. Moreover, -being born with the criminal diathesis does not mean that a person is -predestined to commit crime, but that he is more likely than his -neighbor to be infected by the contagion of delinquency. We have only to -catch the trend of recent scientific research to extend our vision -further. The criminal does not lack a simple unit character which would -otherwise make him whole as some of the disciples of Mendel seem to -argue. Neither is the criminal diathesis a simple instinctive tendency -like the tendency to make a specific response to a specific stimulus, -_e. g._, to wink when an object approaches the eye; the criminal is not -charged with a specific propensity to commit murder or to steal. The -safety of those who are more susceptible lies in keeping away from the -contagion of bad example and temptations to fall, toward which he is -generally less resistant than others. Specific training in strengthening -and guarding his weakest spots may in time build up a resistance to -temptations, the amount of which we cannot yet measure. His hope lies in -the recognition of his weakness and the adjustment of his living so that -his whole organism may support the breach in his make-up during the -struggle with himself and with society. - -In this complex diathesis which means greater susceptibility to -temptations, there is little doubt that mental deficiency is the main -factor. Aschaffenburg has well expressed one effect of this particular -causal factor: “The weak-minded are generally children of the moment.... -The lessons of experience, which serve normal persons as a guide, in -later events, soon fade, be cause they cannot be fitted into the -existing condition of the ideas. The inability to understand, much less -to form general points of view, is the direct result of mental weakness” -(_20_, p. 180). Lacking the ability to organize their experience, fixed -punishments have little restraining influence. Only prolonged training -and supervision can save them from being the victims of the moment. Even -the large majority above the grade of ability which would justify -indefinite supervision still show their stupidity in the offenses they -commit. Goring gives an instance of a watch repairer who was legally -punished nine times for pawning watches entrusted to him to repair. Who -would doubt that native stupidity is an important cause of the -recidivism which is so common a criticism of our present forms of legal -discipline? It is stated, for example, that 10,000 of those convicted in -one year in England had been convicted more than twenty times before -(_165_, p. 59). Even with school punishments the same association of bad -conduct and stupidity holds. Kemsies has shown, as quoted by Terman, -that the 16% ranking lowest in a group of pupils received 80% of the -punishments, while the brightest third received almost none (_194_). - -That the criminal diathesis is not limited to mental deficiency is -demonstrated by Goring's results. He shows its smaller correlation with -deficient physical size, alcoholism and suicidal tendency with such -pathological conditions as insanity and epilepsy, independent of their -relations to mental deficiency. In this connection Gruhle's opinion that -the hereditary tendency to crime was greater among his non-defective -families may be borne in mind. - -That mental ability, and especially mental deficiency, is primarily a -question of inherited capacity rather than training, is now indicated by -a number of fundamental objective studies of the correlation of -abilities within the family, which have been analyzed to show the -relative influence of inborn and external factors. Among these studies -Thorndike's investigation of the tested abilities of twins compared with -brothers and sisters in the same family is the most objective, and is -very convincing (_199_). He has also summarized the evidence so well -that it is not necessary to go into the question here (_198_). One of -the most important facts is that equal practise under the same -conditions increases the difference between individuals rather than -makes them more alike. The work of the English biometricians appearing -in Biometrika and the monographs from the Eugenics Laboratory is the -most important in this field, and cannot be summarized here. It includes -family resemblance in both pathological and healthy mental traits -(_126_). - -As compared with these studies the attempt to show that -feeble-mindedness is inherited, because many of those in institutions -for the feeble-minded are from families showing mental taints, lacks -cogency, since we are still uninformed as to what portion of the -offspring of parents with and without deficient minds are deficient. -Even if 85% of the children in institutions for the feeble-minded have -tainted parents this does not mean that we know what percentage of -deficient parents have deficient offspring. It is this latter fact that -we must know in order to predict the danger of defective offspring from -deficient parents. From what we know about the correlation of parents -and offspring in mental ability, it is clear that the more deficient are -the parents, the more likely it is that their offspring are deficient. -Children of morons are, therefore, not so likely to be deficient as are -children of parents with lower grades of ability. From the eugenic point -of view, it is, therefore, most important first to protect society from -propagation by the lowest grades of deficients, provided that all grades -of deficients are equally likely to have children when left unrestrained -in society. Since mental and moral qualities are probably correlated -positively, the same emphasis would be placed on first isolating the -lowest grades in order to reduce inheritance of criminality. The eugenic -emphasis waits, however, on the discovery whether the greater tendency -for the lowest types to be produced by the lowest types is overbalanced -by any tendency of deficients or delinquents of lower degrees to be less -productive when unrestrained in society. - -The conception of a criminal diathesis does not stop merely with the -notion that there is an inborn predisposition to crime. It considers -further that offenses do not occur except under the stimulus of certain -situations, even if such stimuli may be even more common than the -tubercle-bacillus. The important question which it now puts to science -is, “How much may the actual outbreak of delinquency be reduced with -better methods of social prophylaxis?” Even if, “the chief tasks of -social hygiene” are the “struggle against alcohol and against poor -economic conditions,” as Aschaffenburg believes (_68_, p. 228), the -chief emphasis from the best scientific work still seems to be that the -problems of alcoholism, poverty and crime are more closely related to -internal than to the external conditions which have thus far been -measured. Guarding against the propagation of mental deficiency thus -seems to be the most direct and hopeful method of attack, while the -removal of infecting temptations, and training for greater resistance, -should receive hearty, albeit subordinate emphasis. - ------ - -Footnote 33: - - See the next section for the significance of these coefficients of - correlation. - - - - - CHAPTER XII. SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS - -1. In our attempt to interpret the volume of results concerning tested -delinquents, we have accepted the common conception that the -feeble-minded are those who, through lack of mental development, are -_social deficients_. They cannot survive in society without supervision. -In the words of the English Mental Deficiency Act, “they require care, -supervision, and control for their own protection or for the protection -of others.” Our present scales of development tests do not detect those -deficients whose failure is not directly due to intellectual incapacity. -We have called those not detected by tests “purely conative cases,” to -distinguish them from the tested deficients, who were said to be -“intellectually deficient.” These conative cases would not be -feeble-minded except for their incapacity for prolonged acts of will. -Deficiency thus specialized in volition is so unusual, however, that the -study of tested deficients gives us a useful picture of the problem of -feeble-mindedness. To get a general view of the relation of deficiency -to delinquency we determined conservative borderlines with the Binet -scale and then reinterpreted on a common conservative basis the results -obtained in more than a score of investigations covering thousands of -objectively selected delinquents who had been tested. This has enabled -us very largely to remove the question of the frequency of deficient -delinquents from the realm of subjective opinion. We may now be certain -that under present conditions the problem of deficiency is most pressing -in institutions for female offenders. The evidence also points to the -greater frequency of deficiency among prostitutes and repeaters, rather -than among ordinary juvenile delinquents. We have thus been able to -restate the problem of the deficient delinquent more conservatively and -to modify some of the current conceptions. This enables us to direct our -efforts more intelligently, with greater foresight, and more hope of -success. - -2. A still broader outcome of this interpretative study is to increase -the precision of the test scales for use in the diagnosis of social -deficiency. This has been accomplished by an extended reconsideration of -the borderlines of deficiency on test scales, particularly the Binet -scale. A percentage definition of tested deficiency is suggested for -determining the borderline below which an individual may be presumed to -be so deficient as to justify isolation, and for setting off a distance -above this on the scale for which the test diagnosis of social -deficiency should be regarded as uncertain. By this means it is hoped -that the developmental scale may be made safer and more useful as an -instrument for diagnosing feeble-mindedness. - -A quantitative definition for tested deficiency has its main -justification in its success in discovering social deficients and in -predicting social failure. With this in mind the percentages suggested -as representing the social deficients or uncertain cases in the -community were chosen after a careful search through the evidence as to -the success of children who had been in special classes or institutions -and an extensive résumé and analysis of the best expert estimates of the -frequency of social deficiency. The conclusion was that these -percentages may tentatively be placed so that those who would at 15 -years of age be in the lowest 0.5% in tested ability among a randomly -selected group, may be presumed to be so deficient as to justify -isolation. Above these the next 1.0% may be regarded as uncertain, since -the bulk of them would require some supervision or guardianship during -life. These two borderlines have then been located on the Binet scale -for both the immature and the mature so far as possible from the -available data. In particular these borderlines for the mature have been -found for the first time on the basis of a randomly selected group. -Besides the records of Minneapolis delinquents these Binet borderlines -for a typical random population of 643 15-year-olds is the main -contribution of new data in the study. - -The practical consideration of these borderlines in Part One and their -location on the test scale emphasizes that a test diagnosis is only -symptomatic, that the suggested borderlines on the Binet scale are -determined from limited data which may not be verified in other -communities, that the scale itself is imperfect, and that the results -should be checked by other tests, especially by the school retardation, -a new example of which is given for the Minneapolis delinquents. The -plan of the percentage method of describing the borderlines readily -allows for adjustment to more complete data or better developmental -scales. The alternative to the use of a test record as symptomatic of -deficiency is dependence upon the history of the case or physical signs, -such as are found among Mongolians, cretins, epileptics, etc. These -signs have been found among only about 13% of the deficient children -(_141_). Expert opinion given on the history of the case is clearly less -reliable than such opinion checked by even a crude objective test -standard. In Part Two of this study the theoretical background for the -percentage definition is compared with that of other quantitative -definitions on the basis of the conceptions of mental measurement and -mental development. - -3. In attempting to suggest methods for diagnosis and control, which our -summary of the scientific data makes necessary, we shall be led beyond -the evidence presented in this study. To those to whom these suggestions -may seem remoted from the foregoing pages, it may be said that they are -the result not only of a review of the available research work, but also -an outcome of several years observation of the practical handling of -this problem both in this country and abroad. In that study I was led to -visit several scores of institutions and schools for delinquent or -deficient children in Austria, England, France, Germany, Italy and -Switzerland. The methods suggested below for the case of the deficient -delinquent are only modifications of what has been observed in actual -operation. - -An adequate diagnosis of deficiency involves not only the accurate -knowledge of the present mental condition of the individual, but an -understanding of the causes of that condition. This requires a complete -family and social history of the individual and a knowledge of the -medically removable handicaps. It would seem, therefore, that such a -diagnosis may be best made by a commission which shall include a -physician as well as a psychologist, or else by an _expert in mental -development_ who is provided with adequate facilities and assistance for -discovering other handicaps than innate incapacity. For the group of -uncertain and conative cases a final diagnosis should, if possible, be -made only after prolonged observation in a temporary home school. - -Frankfurt a. M. in Germany seems to have been the first to provide a -specialized observation cottage for uncertain cases among children. This -was established in 1900 and is much used by the juvenile court. Although -it has a separate building and an isolated division of the grounds it -is, however, connected with the local hospital for the insane. An -improvement in this respect was made with the first provincial school -for psychopathic children under compulsory training established near -Leipzig at Kleinmeusdorf. This serves also as a distribution station and -has two observation divisions through which all _fürsorge_ children in -the province pass. Only the psychopathic cases remain indefinitely. -Detention homes for juvenile delinquents in this country quite generally -are used for temporary quarters for cases to be observed, although these -are not isolated from the other children. If an entirely separate -observation institution is not possible, a more definitely recognized -probationary period for observation of the uncertain cases should be -arranged within other institutions. The efforts for clearing-houses for -mental defectives such as that in New York City and the Ohio Bureau of -Juvenile Research will help to distribute individuals to their proper -institutions. The ideal is a separate observation home where all cases -in which the question of mental deficiency and mental disease is raised -may be sent before the individual is labeled. The effect of commitment -to an institution for the feeble-minded, insane, or delinquent can be -guarded against much better if the observation home is entirely isolated -from all other institutions. The separate institution, however, is more -difficult to obtain than a separate division or cottage in an existing -institution. The latter forms a valuable intermediate step and is better -than merely giving uncertain cases additional attention when other -duties permit. - -As a matter of legal procedure, diagnosis raises the troublesome -question of expert advice in court. Two decisions have to be made about -each case. First, is the individual deficient enough to justify -isolation or guardianship? Second, considering the means of care -available in the particular community, how should the deficient be cared -for? The first is primarily a question which requires expert knowledge -in mental development and should be so handled. The second decision -requires knowledge about the individual's home and about the facilities -for guardianship or isolation. It should be left with the authorities -thus informed. This will usually be the court unless there is a -commissioner or a committee especially charged with this duty. - -An important advance in the legal definition of criminal responsibility -of deficients should be made by avoiding all subtle questions of -psychological analysis such as would be involved in deciding, for -example, under the New York statute whether the accused “was laboring -under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of -the act he was doing or know the nature of the act as wrong.” Obsolete -legal descriptions could easily be cleared away by adopting the -statement of the law suggested by the Committee of the Institute of -Criminal Law and Criminology for criminal responsibility and insanity. -In substance such a law would then state that the accused was mentally -deficient “so as not to be responsible ... for his acts or omissions at -the time when the act or omission charged was made.” The New York law -places an emphasis on knowledge which should be placed on will, only one -feature of which is an understanding of the situation. - -4. What should be the aim in the care and control of deficients and -delinquents after diagnosis also depends upon a proper understanding of -the causes of these conditions. We have summarized some of the best and -most recent investigations in which a notable advance toward solving -this problem has been made by means of the correlation method. This has -proved to be a new and vigorous force for directing social progress. By -no other method have we approached so near the solution of the cause of -delinquency. It enables us to restate the problem of criminality as -mainly a problem in the treatment of a hereditary criminal diathesis in -which mental deficiency is the largest factor. These recent scientific -measurements have deprived neither the eugenist nor the euthenist of the -opportunity for service. There is plenty of congenial work to be done by -those whose sympathies may exaggerate the influence of heredity, -contagion, or training. As in the control of tuberculosis, so with the -diathesis of delinquency, some effect is produced by predisposition, by -training, and by external influences. Unless the present evidence, -however, is outweighed by improved data obtained in the future, the most -strategic point for attacking persistent delinquency is through the -relation to deficiency, with heredity holding the heights. - -With the immediate campaign against delinquency centered against the -propagation of the social deficients, we have the atmosphere cleared so -that it is possible to turn attention to the best means of attaining -this end. Sterilization, isolation, or guardianship, by force or by -consent, which of these methods promises best? This is not a question -for detailed discussion here. We may, however, call attention to the -strides that have been made by such legislation as the British Mental -Deficiency Act of 1913 and to the summary of the laws of the several -states in our country published at the University of Washington, -Seattle. The question whether sterilization is desirable must at present -be settled apparently by the judgment whether the benefit in reducing -the propagation of the unfit outweighs the danger to morality through -the temptation of known sterility. The question of isolation of the -sexes by either sterilization or segregation resolves itself into the -question of accuracy of diagnosis and prognosis. Our review of the -uncertainties of diagnosis should make us cautious. When we consider the -social survival of many of those trained in the public school classes -for deficients and when a dozen girls discharged from the Massachusetts -institution for the feeble-minded succeeded in getting along in society -(_164_, p. 49), it would seem wise to place the emphasis on first -isolating those about whose danger to the community through delinquency -or propagation of deficiency there would be the least question. This -would mean those of uncertain mentality who were already repeated -delinquents or in imminent danger and those who were of the lowest -grades of deficiency, not the morons who were of uncertain moral and -mental ability. Among the clearly deficient there is no question but -that the emphasis should be to isolate first the girls and women of -child-bearing age, since their chance of obtaining mates is greater than -that of the deficient males. With doubtful cases public guardianship, -such as that provided by the British Mental Deficiency Act of 1913, -affords a promising remedy. Even those who are of uncertain ability -should, when in danger, be provided with whatever protection -guardianship can give. In this connection a suggestion of Dr. Goddard in -the Survey, March 2, 1912, may be utilized. A court in returning an -individual who is of uncertain ability to his family or guardian may -well warn them: “We shall leave him in your custody, but we insist that -you shall care for him, shall be responsible for him throughout his -life, shall see that he does not get into mischief, and above all that -he does not become a parent. Whenever the time comes that we find you -are incapable of performing or are neglecting this duty, then we shall -take him and place him in a colony.” - -The question where to isolate the deficient delinquent, whom Kuhlmann -says is “equally well placed or misplaced in the institution for the -feeble-minded and the reformatory,” (_140_) is answered in substance by -Supt. Murdoch of the State Institution for the Feeble-Minded in Western -Pennsylvania. He suggests that in large states the deficient delinquents -might be cared for in an institution which should bear the same relation -to the state institutions for the feeble-minded and the penal -institutions as is now held by the asylums for the criminal insane. -Where a separate institution is not possible the affiliation with the -institutions for either the delinquents or the deficients may be tried -by means of colonies especially set apart in them. In Massachusetts -these divisions for the deficient delinquent are connected with the -institutions for delinquents. - -5. Turning to external influences upon delinquency, we find that their -effect has been measured mainly in connection with the tendency to -repeat criminal acts. It has been shown by Goring that even such -important influences as the example of criminality in the home, kind and -amount of schooling, irregularity of employment, alcoholism, size of -family, low standard of living, early death of mother, etc., have -generally been found not to increase notably the tendency to recidivism -while they do correlate decidedly with deficiency. Nevertheless, it has -not been determined whether these external factors may not have an -important influence upon the first manifestation of the criminal -diathesis even though they tend only slightly to increase recidivism. -Should these external influences prove to be not more than a fifth as -important as deficiency and heredity, which now seems to be indicated, -we need to hunt for other outer influences which may really prove to be -more important. - -Among bad external influences as yet unmeasured is maladjustment to -school among those of passable ability. We have given some evidence as -to this which we found among a group of delinquent boys at a county farm -school, when their test records were compared with their positions in -school. As a possible serious source of delinquency, bad adjustment to -school work should be studied further, since it is a matter that could -be easily corrected by the assistance of special teachers. With the -earlier discovery of deficient children by means of mental tests, it -should also be possible more definitely to direct the training so as to -build up resistance to worldly temptations. How much could be done in -this direction we cannot yet say. We have undoubtedly wasted much effort -in the past in trying to create intellectual capacity in those who are -innately deficient in intellect. Fortunately we are now directing our -attention to training them to acquire passable ability in simple -occupations, or to adjust themselves to the life of a colony. In the -education of the mentally weak the most promising field is undoubtedly -with the conative cases with passable intellects. At Templin, outside of -Berlin, there has been established the first home school devoted -entirely to the training of such unstable and inert boys. This -specialized institution for conative cases, which was founded by a -philanthropic society at the suggestion of Prof. Thiedor Ziehen, marks a -most important advance step in the problem of training the mentally -deficient. The results of specific training for the social adjustment of -the intellectually and of the volitionally deficient will be awaited -with great interest. - -6. Shall the public authorities have the power to compel isolation and -special training at local or state schools? These powers have already -been provided by laws in a number of states. Thus far the law has not -outstripped scientific knowledge. How far the authorities should use -their discretion under these laws to force isolation is a question which -calls for the utmost good judgment on their part. In case the parents or -guardians of the socially deficient can be convinced of the desirability -of such isolation, this procedure is undoubtedly to be urged. When the -guardian has once consented to the isolation of his charge, he should -not be permitted to remove the individual from such care without the -consent of the proper public authority, which would of course be -reviewable in court. During this period of uncertainty as to the -prognosis of social deficiency, such a procedure would perhaps be -preferable to forced isolation in most cases, since the authorities -might be less troubled by the frequent annoyance of legal actions begun -by parents who had their children forcibly removed to institutions. In -some states unscrupulous attorneys have deliberately stirred up parents -to try to get back their children who had been taken away by force, thus -seriously interfering with the administration of laws for compulsory -isolation. Without the possibility of compulsory isolation of the -socially deficient for an indefinite time, we shall perpetuate the -disgraceful spectacle now observable in many states which cannot legally -prevent a feeble-minded parent removing a feeble-minded girl from an -institution to which she may be brought back a few years later with one -or more illegitimate, feeble-minded children. Our legal omissions should -not thus handicap the wisdom of society. The 1917 codification of the -Minnesota laws relating to defective, delinquent and deficient children -should be seen by those who are interested in the legal aspects of these -questions. It was brought about by the Minnesota Child Welfare -Commission, of which Judge Edward F. Waite was chairman. - -7. In case we suddenly segregate for life all those who are so deficient -that we are justified in isolating them, would that solve the problem of -delinquency for the next generation? Although this would be the most -important attack which could be made on the most important known cause -of delinquency, we must still answer that the results would hardly be -comparable with a jail delivery. There is nothing to be gained by -turning our backs upon the facts. Goring has estimated that 7.2% of the -male population of England and Wales commit crime before death. We could -not possibly suppose that more than 1% of the male population could be -justly isolated for deficiency. Even if all the deficients committed -crime, at least six-sevenths of the criminals in these countries, about -which we have the best means of estimating, are presumably individuals -who could not be isolated for deficiency. - -Moreover, Goring's estimates regarding the British convicts enable us to -judge that only about 25% of the criminals of this generation inherit a -predisposition to crime from parents who were the criminals of the last -generation (_20_, p. 336). Nobody has suggested isolating all persistent -delinquents. We could not expect that the isolation of both the -deficients and delinquents would completely remove the diathesis of -delinquency from society. The predisposition is received not only from -the deficients and delinquents, but also to some extent from those above -the borderlines. We could not raise the borderlines of deficiency -without isolating many whose social deficiency or delinquency it would -be presumptuous to predict. We should not look forward, therefore, to -the sudden elimination of the problem of delinquency even when it is -attacked at its most vital spot. On the other hand Dr. Hart, in a -bulletin of the Russell Sage Foundation, has worked out a practical plan -which would isolate the lowest 0.3% of the girls and women of -child-bearing age in this country within five to ten years. Some similar -plan for isolating all deficient delinquents would materially lessen the -cost of recidivism in the present generation. - -The most hopeful sign is that we are no longer content merely to guess -at the relative importance of the sources of delinquency and deficiency, -but our efforts to promote social welfare are directed by scientific -investigations which are utilizing new and more efficient methods of -research. - - - - - PART TWO THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS - - - - - CHAPTER XIII. THE THEORY OF THE MEASUREMENT OF MENTAL DEVELOPMENT - -In defining the borderline of feeble-mindedness it will be found that -certain assumptions are usually tacitly made as to the form of the -curves of normal and retarded development. These assumptions which are -often based on vague conceptions of mental measurements should be -brought clearly to mind if we are to compare the relative merits of -different scales of mental tests or different ways of stating the -borderlines of deficiency. With this in view it is proposed to take up -in this second part of the monograph a brief technical discussion of the -units of mental measurement, the equivalent individual differences at -different ages, and the curves of mental development. The bearing of -these conceptions on the various quantitative definitions of tested -deficiency, including the percentage definition, will then be discussed -in the following chapter. Practical advice as to individual diagnosis or -group comparisons has been confined to Part One, so that those who are -not concerned with the theoretical assumptions on which the conception -of mental development and the interpretations of tested deficiency are -based should omit Part Two. - -[Illustration: FIG. 3. _Hypothetical Development Curves (Normal -Distribution)_] - -When we try to picture to ourselves the significance of individual -differences and mental development we are at once forced to think in -terms of graphs showing the distribution of abilities at particular -periods of life and the changes from one life-age to another. To -simplify the discussion I have presented in Fig. 3 the graphic picture -of the conditions on the simplest hypothesis, namely, that mental -capacity at each age is distributed in the form of the normal -probability curve extending to zero ability and that individuals retain -their same relative capacity on the scale of objective units. - - -A. COMPARISON OF UNITS AND SCALES FOR MEASURING INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES. - - - (a) EQUIVALENT UNITS OF ABILITY WHEN THE DISTRIBUTIONS ARE NORMAL. - -In considering the curves of development it is desirable first to notice -the differences between measurement in equal physical units and -measurement in equivalent units of ability or of development. The -difference in the point of view of the two forms of measurement is so -pronounced that I can hardly hope to make myself clear to those who are -not somewhat familiar with such terms as “distribution curves,” -“frequency surfaces,” “standard deviation,” and other phrases connected -with the theory of probability, which are treated at length in such -books as Thorndike's “Mental and Social Measurements” and Yule's -“Introduction to the Theory of Statistics.” We often, by mistake, regard -the growth of an inch in height, for example, as always representing an -equivalent unit of growth. This will lead us into rather serious -misconceptions unless we are careful, for it is perfectly evident that -the growth of an inch in height has a very different significance for -the three-year-old boy than for the eight-year-old. Half of the -three-year-old boys grow about 3 inches during a year while at eight -years of age not more than about one in seven grow that much. Moreover -it is not always satisfactory to regard the same _relative_ increase in -physical size as an equivalent unit of development. To say that a boy 20 -inches tall who grows 1-10 in height shows an increase in development -equivalent to a boy of 50 inches who grows one-tenth, may be quite -misleading. Nearly every 20-inch child grows one-tenth in height in a -year while not one in fourteen of the boys who are 50 inches in height -may grow at that physical rate. In considering human traits, and -especially developmental traits, it would seem to conduce to more -significant thought if we gave up at times our habit of thinking in -terms of equal or relative physical units and thought instead in terms -of more equivalent biological units. - -In the measurement of mental ability, moreover, it is exceedingly -difficult to utilize equal physical units. Most of the objective units -which are commonly called alike are clearly not equal even in the -physical sense. “Spelling one word,” for example, is not equal to -spelling another “one word;” but only equal to spelling the same word. -Out of such units of amount accomplished, it is, of course, not possible -to build a satisfactory scale without referring to some other concepts -of measurement. Some tests, however, are scored in equal units. When the -measurements for example, are in the units of time it takes to perform -the same task under the same outward conditions we have the possibility -of a scale of equal objective units. Such a scale is approached by the -results with the form board test which give the number of seconds it -takes children to place blocks of different shapes in their proper -openings. - -Even the unit of time may be deceptive in name, as it is with the Binet -scale. A year of time is, of course, the same physical unit and the task -proposed with the Binet scale is always the same, but the other -essential with this scale, the children of each age who pass the tests -at each age norm, varies decidedly. “Test-age five,” for example, means -44% of the children pass and “test-age eleven” means 88% pass, even with -approximately random samples of children of these life-ages. This -question of the equality of the Binet age units will have to be -considered further, therefore, in connection with the other concept of -equivalence used in psychology. - -In order to determine equivalent units of activity we find that a number -of different concepts have been utilized. With some of the scales for -measuring educational products, such as Thorndike's Scale for -Handwriting, equal units of merit in handwriting mean differences judged -equal by relatively the same proportion of competent judges. This form -of unit has not been used, however, in any scale of mental development -thus far proposed. - -In the measurement of mental ability the most commonly accepted idea of -equivalent units is that they are provided by the units of standard -deviation for a series of measurements which distribute in the normal -form. The meaning of these units may be understood by referring to Fig. -3 which shows Gaussian or normal distributions of abilities of -individuals at various periods of life in curves A, B, C, D and E. The -straight lines of the measurement scales form the bases of these -distribution curves. These graphs represent the normal form of -distribution usually expected when any fundamental ability is measured -in a random group. If the number of cases at each unit of measurement -are plotted by a point placed relatively as far above the scale, used as -a base line, as the number of cases found at that unit of the scale, it -will be discovered that these points arrange themselves in the form of a -symmetrical curve high at the middle and flaring out along the base-line -scale. This bell-shaped curve, known as a normal probability curve, -shows that the largest number of cases occurs at the middle or average -measurement. From this middle point on the scale the number of cases -falls off gradually and symmetrically in both directions. Distances -along the base line of this distribution surface may then be measured in -terms of the standard deviation regarded as unity. This S. D. is the -best measure of the scatter of the deviations. It is the square root of -the average of the squares of the deviations of the separate -measurements from the average of all the measurements. There are -approximately four units of the standard deviation between the average -and either extreme when the distribution is normal, as in Fig. 3. Only -six cases in one hundred thousand fall outside these limits. - -The studies of biological traits suggest that a unit of the standard -deviation is the most important measure we have for equivalent degrees -of any trait which distributes normally. It measures the same portion of -the total distance from the lowest to the highest ability on any -objective scale so long as the distribution of measurements is in the -_normal_ form. It thus affords the best interchangeable unit from -measurements at one life-age to those at another, provided that the -distributions keep close to the form of the normal probability curve. -This is the assumption on which practically all the developmental scales -have been based. The difference in ability between an individual at the -average and at -1 S. D. (standard deviation) below the average is -equivalent to that between the last individual and one at -2 S. D. The -same distances along the base line of different distribution surfaces -measured in terms of their respective deviations set off equivalent -portions at each age so long as the distributions are normal. For -example individuals measuring between -2 and -3 S. D. in any -distribution in Fig. 3 are equivalent in ability to those lying between --2 and -3 S. D. in any other of these normal distribution surfaces. -Later we shall consider equivalent units when the form of the -distribution of ability is not normal or is unknown. - -We may now compare the relations of the units in the physical scale, -shown at the left of the figure, to units of the scales for adults or -for the immature of any age, expressed in units of the standard -deviation from the averages of these groups. Relative ability measured -on the physical scale or any one of the distribution scales in Fig. 3 -will be found identical since they all start from the same zero point -and the distributions are all normal. But the ability of an individual -in one distribution can hardly be compared with that of an individual in -another distribution in a biologically significant way by their actual -positions on the physical scale. A physical unit, does not measure the -same sort of fact of development in a scale for the immature that it -measures in the scale for adults or that it measures in another dynamic -scale for the immature. This can be seen when a physical unit is -compared with the amount of standard deviation which it measures in the -different scales. Moreover, the correspondence of relative distances on -the physical scale and any one of these other scales will not hold the -moment the distributions do not start from the same point or are -unsymmetrical. - -It does not seem seriously wrong to suppose that there are some -individuals at any age who have no more mental ability than the baby of -the poorest mental ability at birth. At any rate our intelligence scales -are hardly fine enough to measure the difference in intellectual -capacity between the dullest adult idiots and the dullest idiot babies. -We shall, therefore, here assume that mental capacity extends to zero at -each age. The importance of this will be evident when we consider the -question whether the distributions of ability are symmetrical around the -average point at each age. Postponing for the present the discussion of -unsymmetrical or skewed distributions, we may consider the several -meanings of stages of development. - -In applying the concept of the probability curve we should distinguish -between individuals who have attained their mature mental capacity and -those who are still maturing. The former would be represented by a -random group of adults (Distribution E, Fig. 3) the latter by a group of -nine-year-olds (Distribution C). If we say, for example, that a child -has reached a certain stage of development we might have in mind the -final distribution of mature capacity or the distribution of capacity -among those of his particular age or of all ages. When we compare stages -of development we must, therefore, be careful to indicate the -distribution surface to which we are referring. - -An increase in development may refer to at least five different things -depending upon the scale of measurement to which reference is made. -Besides an increase measured by the physical scale, the scales for -adults, for the immature or for all ages, to which we have already -referred, it may mean an increase judged by the distribution of -increases which individuals of the same life-age and capacity make in -the same period of time. This last meaning may be the most significant, -although it has never been used. It has reference to a distribution -surface of _increases_ such as is represented in Distribution F, Fig. 3. -This is intended to show the increases in one year of all two-year-old -children who had average ability at 2 years, on the assumption that at 3 -years these children would on the average equal the average of all -three-year-olds. It is clear that when these increases are measured in -objective units the latter have a still different significance from that -assigned to them in connection with other scales. An increase of one -objective unit here might represent twice the standard deviation, while -it only represents 0.2 of the standard deviation in another -distribution. - - - (b) THE YEAR UNIT OF THE BINET SCALE. - -A sharp disagreement of opinion as to whether the Binet year units can -be regarded equivalent has arisen between Karl Pearson, Director of the -Galton Laboratory in London, and certain psychologists who have used the -Binet scale. Cyril Burt, for example, says, as quoted by Pearson: - -“Except for rough and popular purposes, any measurement of mental -capacity in terms of age is unsatisfactory.... The unit fluctuates in -its significance all along the scale. When the child is just beginning -to walk and talk, when he is 7 or 8, when he is 10 to 11, when he is on -the verge of puberty—at these different periods a retardation of a -single year means very different things” (_164_, p. 36). - -A number of good psychologists including Yerkes, Terman, and Kuhlmann, -agree with Burt in maintaining that a year of retardation at different -ages has very different significance. - -With this statement of Burt, Pearson takes issue, saying: - -“Can the psychologist to the London County Council ever have seen the -growth curves of children, or would he write thus?... There is no valid -reason to suppose that a year's growth in mental power may not be taken -for all practical purposes to mean the same unit for ages of 6 to 15, -the period for which Binet and Jaederholm have used the tests” (_164_, -p. 44). - -Like many other apparently opposite statements both contain truth. The -conflict arises apparently, first from a disagreement between the data -obtained with the Jaederholm form of the scale, on which Pearson bases -his statement, and data obtained with other forms of the scale; second, -from a discrepancy in the points of view. Pearson stresses the fact that -the mental year-marks equal average growth increment with the Jaederholm -scale (_167_). He shows that the regression of years of mental excess -(or deficiency) on increase of life-age is a straight line, just as he -found it with physical measurements. Moreover, the standard deviation of -the mental measurements for the entire group of normal school children, -6-14 years of age, was found to be about one year of mental age (.96 -year for the corrected data) (_167_). To which Pearson's opponents might -reply, these facts are of comparatively little significance unless the -_deviations for the separate ages_ are alike in terms of these year -units on the scale. Neither linear regression nor the balancing of years -of excess by years of deficiency at each age indicates that the -deviations of the separate ages are alike in terms of the year units. -The new Stanford scale, for example, shows both of these conditions and -yet the range of months of life-ages which sets off the middle 50% of -the children of the different tested ages increased decidedly from 6 to -14 years of age. The middle half of the tested ages, for example, at age -VI on the scale include a randomly selected group of six-year-old -children whose range of life-age is ten months, at age VIII on the scale -this range is 13.4 months, at X it is 16 months, at XII, 20 months, and -at XIV, 26 months. “The number of 6-year-old children testing 'at age' -is approximately twice as great as the number of 12-year-olds testing at -age, and 50% greater than in the case of the 9-year-olds” (_196_, p. -557). - -To this argument Pearson might reply that he had not overlooked the -question of variation in the deviations from one age to the next for he -has a footnote in which he states regarding the Jaederholm data: “There -are, however, relatively little differences in these mental age -standard-deviations of the normal children beyond what we may attribute -to the effect of random sampling” (_164_, p. 46). In this respect, then, -the Jaederholm data differ notably from Terman's data obtained with -random groups with the Stanford scale and, as I shall show, from data -obtained by Goddard with the 1908 Binet scale, the two largest groups of -Binet test data which have been collected. Even with the Jaederholm data -on efficient school children, although the largest difference between -the standard deviations of different age groups is only about twice its -probable error, it is notable that 24 of his 39 7-year-olds are included -within an interval of the middle year of tested age, while only 9 of his -35 11-year-olds are included within the same middle year interval. - -Taking Goddard's data for the 1908 scale for the separate ages from 5-11 -at which probably the factor of selection for his groups may be -neglected, I have calculated the standard deviations from his Table I -and find them as follows: - - ────────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────── - │ Life-Ages - ────────────────────────────────────┼────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬──── - │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │ 11 - ────────────────────────────────────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼────┼──── - Standard deviations in Mental Excess│1.10│.98 │.93 │.99 │1.04│1.23│1.19 - or Deficiency │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - ────────────────────────────────────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴──── - -The differences between the deviations for ages 7 and 11 or between ages -8 and 10, are more than three times their standard errors, so that we -would not be justified in assuming that the standard deviations of the -separate ages measured in terms of years of excess are equivalent. There -seems to be a tendency for the deviations to increase, at least from age -7 to 10 and 11. - -The comparison of the year units on the Binet scale with the diagrams in -Fig. 3 shows that if the scale at each life-age shut out the same lowest -proportion, say half, of the children of that age, then the year units -might be regarded as equal in the sense of equal average growth -increments, as Pearson suggests. A child 7 years of age testing VII -would be at least one annual average-growth unit higher in mental -development than one of 6 years testing VI, and so with each age until -the limit of development had been reached. This is the condition -approximated closely for children by the new Stanford scale and the -corrected Jaederholm data. Since there is little prospect, however, even -with a scale perfected so far as its age norms are concerned, that the -total distributions for each of the different years would be the same -multiple of the year-units, the main significance of the age units is in -permitting the statement that a child had reached the tested development -normal for the children of a certain age. - -It is also legitimate to use years of retardation as a short way of -expressing rough borderlines when they happen thus to afford an easy -method of empirically describing equivalent borderlines for a particular -scale. This is what I have done for convenience in Part One of this -book. I certainly do not mean to contend that four-years retardation has -theoretically the same significance at different ages, in terms of the -deviation of the separate ages. To me the Binet years are no more than -names for certain positions on the scale. - -To most psychologists who have been dealing with the measurement of -mental development, I believe that the most significant concept of -equivalent units would be in terms of the deviations for each age -provided that the form of the distributions remained normal. But the -deviations vary so much in the terms of the year units that it is not -likely that they will be willing to accept a _year of excess or -deficiency_ as an equivalent unit for different ages with the common -forms of the scale in use in English-speaking countries. Moreover, below -the age of 6 and above 15, the limits which Pearson discusses, there is -good reason to expect the year unit to vary still further. This Pearson -recognizes for the complete developmental curve. It is only at the -intermediate years, in which the average increases are most constant in -relation to the deviations of the separate ages, that the year unit may -be at all serviceable in measuring the deviation of a child from the -norm of his age. - -With the scales in use in this country the Binet year units are not -equivalent in the sense in which they are usually spoken of as -equivalent. We should recognize this and emphasize it. Even if the norms -at each age marked off the same proportion of the individuals, as shown -in A and B of Fig. 4, unless we knew that the forms of distribution were -always alike, we should not know that the distance between successive -age norms was the same on any sort of objective scale other than average -age increments. Moreover, we would not have an objective scale of equal -units applicable to measuring the deviation of children of any one age. -The average annual increments would not necessarily represent the same -proportion of the total distance from the lowest to the highest ability -at different ages even if the distributions were all normal. With normal -distributions it would also be necessary to demonstrate empirically that -the annual average growth increment between successive ages always bore -a constant relation to the deviations at these adjacent ages as shown in -B of Fig. 4 where the increment is equal to 1 S. D. at each age. This -could not possibly hold when the increment lessened near maturity. - -[Illustration: FIG. 4. _The Question of Equivalence of Year Units._] - -If the distributions of ability were variously skewed, the year units of -excess or deficiency would not be shown to be equivalent at the -different ages even if the proportion of individuals one year -accelerated was equal to the number one year retarded, two years -accelerated equal to those two years retarded, etc., at each age and the -norm at each age shut out the same proportions of the age group. This is -shown in C of Fig. 4 in which the year units are clearly not equal steps -from lowest to highest ability even for the same age and yet the usual -criteria which have been suggested for discovering the equivalence of -the units are fulfilled. Whether the actual distribution of ability is -skewed or normal cannot be determined by the Binet scale, of course, on -account of the uncertain and probably varying size of its year units in -measuring deviations at any age. - -With the empirical evidence against the equivalence of the year units -and the impossibility of determining their equivalence unless we first -know that ability is distributed normally at each age, it is certainly -hazardous to assume that individual deviations measured in terms of year -units are equivalent at different ages. - -It may be noted that it is quite as hazardous to suppose that the units -of the Point scale are equivalent in any theoretical or practical sense. -This question will be discussed later in Chap. XIII, B, (b). - - - (c) IS TESTED CAPACITY DISTRIBUTED NORMALLY? - -Before leaving the question of the significance of units on a scale -described in terms of the standard deviation we should ask whether -tested mental abilities have been found to distribute normally, _i. e._, -in the form of the symmetrical Gaussian curve with each extreme the same -distance from the middle measurement. Contrary to the usual supposition -in this matter, it seems as if the evidence was somewhat against this -assumption, although neither position can be asserted at all -dogmatically on the basis of our present data. A résumé of this evidence -which I have given below makes it appear that the assumption of a normal -distribution will not conflict with a practical use of normal -probability tables for medium degrees of ability, but may quite -seriously interfere with such use for the borderline of deficiency. -There is little doubt, as Pearson believes, that the bulk of the -children now in special classes for the retarded in the public schools -would fall within the lower range of a normal distribution fitted to the -general population. On the other hand, there is likely to be a -respectable minority of the deficients which will be beyond such a -normal curve. These facts are sufficiently evident, I believe, to make -it impossible to base quantitative descriptions of borderline of -deficiency on a hypothesis of normal distribution. - -The best evidence on this point is probably the data of Norsworthy with -eleven tests on groups of 100 to 150 feeble-minded children in -institutions and special classes and 250 to 900 normal children. She -expressed the position of each child in terms of the deviation of the -group of normal children of his age for each test. Pearson has presented -her data graphically on the assumption that her defective group -represented 0.3% of a general population of 50,000 children, and then -fitted a normal distribution curve to her data with her normal group. -The result makes it evident, especially for the intelligence tests, that -the defective group would better be described as part of a skewed -distribution. To less extent this is also true for the maturity and -memory tests (_15_, p. 30). Norsworthy's own table of data show that 43 -of the 74 feeble-minded taking the intelligence tests were over -5 times -the probable error of their ages below the averages of the normal -children, a criterion which she proposes as indicating ability outside -of that included in the normal species. Moreover, 9 children score -between -22 P. E. and -32 P. E. which is far beyond any conceivable -extension of the normal curve. Her figure for the composite results of -all her mental tests is also manifestly skewed toward deficiency -although she hesitates to adopt this conclusion, and was content with -showing that they grade off into the distribution of normal children. - -The other data, which I have found, that indicate that tested ability, -when measured in equal physical units for the same task, is skewed -toward deficiency, have to do with tests that are pre-eminently for -psychomotor activities rather than intellectual. They consist of -Sylvester's and Young's results with the form board test on Philadelphia -school children, Stenquist's results with his construction test, and -Smedley's results with the ergograph test on Chicago school children. -Here we may apply the better criterion of the distance of the quartiles -above and below the median of the group. These positions would be less -likely, through extreme records, to be affected by chance conditions -during the testing. - -It is to be remembered that if the records of school pupils appear to be -normally distributed this would not settle our problem, since it is -apparent that idiots and many imbeciles are not sent to the public -schools at all. The lowest children at any age would not be represented -in the regular school groups. On the other hand, the brightest children -are not generally drawn away from the public schools at least before 14 -years of age in this country. We shall confine ourselves, therefore, to -school-children 6-13 years of age. If we find that they show ability -skewed toward deficiency the results will underestimate rather than -over-estimate the skewness. - -Sylvester (_191_) tested with the form board a group of 1537 children in -the Philadelphia public schools, from 80 to 221 at each age from 5 to 14 -inclusive. “Except that no especially backward or peculiar children were -included there was no selection.” This study gives, with the complete -distribution tables, the number of seconds required for the same task by -the children at each age. If we find that the limit of the lower 25 -percentile was farther from the median than the limit of the upper 25 -percentile we can be reasonably sure that the difference would be still -greater if the excluded deficient and backward children were also -included. By calculating the quartiles and their differences from the -medians at each age, I find that for only two of the eight ages is the -upper quartile farther from the median than the lower quartile. The -average excess of the distances of the lower quartile is .64 of a -second. At only age 7 is the difference three times its probable error, -2.1 seconds, P. E. .67. The form board distributions thus tend to be -slightly skewed toward deficiency. The errors of the quartiles were -found by the method given in Yule's _Introduction to the Theory of -Statistics_, Chap. XVII, which assumes normal distribution, so that they -are too small. The skewness is more manifest when the extreme -measurements are compared with medians at each age. It is not possible, -unfortunately, to compare his group of normal children with those in the -special classes since he did not use the same method of giving the test. - -Since it was not important to compare the amounts of skewness in -different data, I have not attempted the more elaborate calculations of -coefficients of skewness. These would give the results a more elegant -statistical expression. The simpler method I have here used affords more -convincing evidence of asymmetry for the non-mathematical reader. - -Young has published the results with Witmer's form board test on -approximately two hundred Philadelphia children for each age, giving the -results for the sexes separately for each half year of life-age (_227_). -This affords 36 different groups in which he gives the median and upper -and lower quintiles for the shortest time records. The lowest quintile -is farther from the median in 25 cases, equal in 6 and less than the -upper quintile in only 6 of the 36 comparisons. This skewness would have -been even greater if children of the special classes had not been -excluded from his groups. - -Stenquist's results (_54_) with his construction test are scored in -arbitrary units in which allowance is made for the quality of the score, -but we should expect no constant effect on the form of the distribution -from the character of these units of measurement. At ages 6 to 13 he -tested from 27 to 74 pupils randomly selected from the public schools, a -total of over 400. For six of these eight ages the lower quartile is -farther from the median than the upper quartile, when calculated from -his distribution table. The number of cases at each age, however, is so -small that the largest difference, 15 units, is not three times its -probable error, 6. - -Smedley gave his ergograph test to about 700 school children of each of -the ages we are considering. Since he tested so many more subjects than -any other investigator this should provide the most valuable data on the -question of distribution with a test recorded in the same physical units -for the same task. Unfortunately, his results for two succeeding years -are so directly contradictory to each other that they seem to have no -significance for our problem. The simplest explanation of this -contradiction is that the groups tested may have been selected on a -different basis each year. - - A casual observation of his standard percentile curves for the - ergograph test at the different ages gives the impression that the - distributions are decidedly skewed toward deficiency, but this - impression is not justified by a careful analysis of his results - (_51_). In the table which accompanies his standard percentile - curves, giving his total results for the two years, we find that - there is a sharp disagreement between the distributions of the - boys and the girls. The distributions for the boys at each age - between 6 and 13 years show a greater distance, measured in - kilogram-centimeters, from the median to the 80-percentile than - from the median to the 20-percentile, in 5 ages out of 8. The - total difference is also slightly greater between the median and - the upper 80-percentile. On the other hand, the table for the - girls at these ages shows the 20-percentile farther from the - median in 5 out of 8 ages, with a total difference considerably - greater than that shown for the boys. Usually the differences were - small compared with their errors. With the boys only at age 13 was - the difference in favor of the 80-percentile three times its - probable error, while with the girls the four oldest ages show the - distance of the 20-percentile greater by three times its probable - error. - - A comparison with the reports of Smedley on this test for the - previous year (Report No. 2), leaves his results still more - uncertain. While he does not give the medians at each age, we may - make less satisfactory comparisons between the distance of the - 10-percentile from the 25-percentile and the distance of the - 90-percentile from the 75-percentile. If we do this, we find the - distance is uniformly greater at the upper end of the distributions - for each age both for the boys and girls. The Smedley results are, - therefore, decidedly contradictory. The first year shows - distributions skewed toward excellence and total results for two - years show distributions skewed mainly toward deficiency. - -Broadly considered, the Binet records with school children point to a -skewed distribution toward deficiency when large allowance is made for -the difference in value of the year units. It is extremely rare to find -a child testing 4 years in advance of his life-age, while 15-year-old -idiots are presumed to test 12-year-units or more under a mature -standard. - -Pearson believes that “the Gaussian curve will be found to describe -effectively the distribution of mental excess and defect” for -intermediate ages as measured by Jaederholm's form of the Binet scale. -The data on which Pearson places reliance are Jaederholm's results in -testing 261 normal children 6-14 years of age in the Stockholm schools -and 301 backward children in the special help classes of the same city. -The best fit of a normal curve to the data was obtained with a group of -100 8-year-old children, in which case the chances were even that -samples from a normal distribution would fit. With his larger normal and -backward groups combined in proper proportions in one population the -chances were 20 to 1 that such a distribution as was actually found -would not fit into the Gaussian distribution. He admits that “this is -not a very good result,” although it is better than when the Gaussian -curve is fitted to either the normal or the backward group alone. In a -subsequent paper he gives each child a score relative to the standard -deviation of the normal child _of his own age_, a method comparable to -his treatment of Norsworthy's data. He then finds that “10% to 20% or -those from 4 to 4.5 years and beyond of mental defect could not be -matched at all from 27,000 children” (_164_, p. 46). In each case the -distributions actually found were skewed somewhat toward deficiency. -Furthermore, when he suggests that -4 S. D. may be used as a borderline -for tested deficiency, he recognized that the mental ability of children -is skewed so far as the empirical data are concerned. With a normal -distribution there would not be two children in 100,000 who would fall -below this borderline. Nevertheless, the normal curve serves for most -practical purposes to describe the middle ranges of ability. - -Pearson thinks that the skewed distributions of his data may possibly be -explained by the drawing off of older children of better ability to the -“Vorgymnasium,” or to the higher-grade schools, by the incompleteness of -the higher age testing, or by the “possibility of the existence of a -really anomalous group of mental defectives, who, while continuously -graded _inter se_, and continuously graded with the normal population as -far as intelligence tests indicate, are really heterogeneous in origin, -and differentiated from the remainder of the mentally defective -population” (_164_, p. 34). The last hypothesis, of course, supposes -that mental ability is skewed and suggests the cause. He supplements -this explanation by stating that the heterogeneous cause of the “social -inefficiency” of the deficients may not be connected directly with the -intellect but affect rather the conative side of the mind. A skewed -distribution under biological principles of interpretation supposes a -single cause or group of causes especially affecting a portion of the -population. - -It is also to be noted that the apparent form of distribution may be the -result of the nature of the test and the units in which it is scored. -Some tests might not discriminate equally well a difference in ability -at the lower and at the upper ranges of ability. If the test were too -easy the group might bunch at the upper portion of the scale and the -distribution appear to be skewed toward the lower extreme where there -were only a few cases. If too difficult a test were used the form of -distribution might shift in the opposite direction, most of the group -ranking low. It is extremely difficult to formulate mental tests so that -they will equally well measure differences at each degree of ability. -This objection should not hold, however, if the scoring were in units of -time for the same task, as with the form board test. The essential -characteristics of a test in order that it may indicate the form of a -distribution is that the units of scoring shall be objectively equal -under some reasonable interpretation and that they shall be fine enough -to discriminate ability at each position on the scale. Under such -conditions the variations in the difficulty of tests should not obscure -the form of the distribution of the ability tested. - -Turning to the analogy of measurements of physical growth, a strong -argument may be made for the hypothesis of shifting forms of -distribution. As Boas points out regarding measurements of the body at -adolescence, owing to the rapid increase of the rate of growth the -distribution of the amounts of growth is asymmetrical, “the asymmetry of -annual growth makes also all series of measurements of statures, -weights, etc., asymmetrical.” Moreover, “acceleration and retardation of -growth affects all the parts of the body at the same time, although not -all to the same extent.... Rapid physical and rapid mental growth go -hand in hand” (_80_). There is no reason to suppose that the brain is -free from this phenomenon of asymmetrical distribution of annual -increments of growth among children of the same age when the rate of -growth is changing as at adolescence. It is therefore to be expected -that the separate age distributions would be skewed at early ages and at -adolescence even if the distribution should be normal with a static -population. The presumption from physical measurements is that the form -of distribution shifts with age. - -Again we may note that if some of the idiots reach an arrest of -development before any of the normal individuals, as several -investigators contend, this would imply that the distributions must be -skewed unless there is a curious corresponding acceleration of growth on -the part of geniuses to balance this lagging by idiots. - -In spite of these arguments and the evidence of asymmetry of -measurements at least at some periods of life it is to be noted that -current opinion is probably contrary to this hypothesis, although, as I -believe, because it has been concerned mainly with those who are not of -extreme ability. For all large medium ranges of ability slight skewness -might well be negligible. It is interesting to note that Galton says -that “eminently gifted men are raised as much above mediocrity as idiots -are depressed below it” (_159_, p. 19). Measured by intelligence -quotients with the Stanford scale, Terman finds among school children -that deviations below normal are not more common than those above -(_197_, p. 555). Burt, following a suggestion of Cattell as to college -men, however, seems to incline to the opinion that the general -distribution of ability, like wages, is skewed toward the upper end. He -adds, “In crude language, dullards outnumber geniuses, just as paupers -outnumber millionaires” (_85_). - - - (d) EQUIVALENT UNITS OF DEVELOPMENT WHEN THE FORM OF DISTRIBUTION IS - UNCERTAIN. - -For our problem of units and scales of measurement, an asymmetrical -distribution sets a very difficult problem. It may be that this very -difficulty has been one of the main reasons for slowness in recognizing -the drift of the evidence. In order to set forth the difference in the -conception of measurement when distributions become asymmetrical I have -presented this hypothesis in connection with the curves of development -in Fig. 5. It will be noted that if the distributions of mental capacity -vary in symmetry, the units of standard deviation change in significance -from one form of distribution to another. Minus 2 S. D. may exclude very -different portions of groups differently distributed, while it would -always exclude the same proportion if the distributions had the same -symmetry, or skewness. - -Under conditions of variable symmetry there is a sense in which the same -relative physical score in units running from zero ability to the best -ability would always have an equivalent objective meaning, but this -might not express equivalent development conditions at different ages. -For example, with shifting forms of distribution, to say that a child of -six years had reached three-fifths of the best development for his age -on an objective scale might give no significant indication of how nearly -he was keeping pace with those three-fifths of the best ability of -another age. Neither would his position in units of the deviation of -ability at his age give this information without knowledge of the form -of the distribution of ability at his age. With varying forms of -distribution at different stages of development this would afford an -insurmountable difficulty. - -[Illustration: FIG. 5. _Hypothetical Development Curves (Changing Forms -of Distribution)_] - -With unknown or varying types of distribution it is desirable to utilize -percentiles as equivalent units for comparing individuals at different -stages of development. They differ somewhat from ranks in an order of -noticeable differences. With an indefinitely large group, such ranks -would mark off only those cases which were indistinguishable in merit. -These units would be numbered in order from the highest to the lowest in -ranks of just distinguishable merit, a different number of individuals -conceivably occurring at the single steps. Psychologically the -percentiles are somewhat less significant because they are not -conceivable in steps of just noticeable differences. Percentiles have -less value in _comparing abilities in the same distribution_, but have -decided advantages when _comparing corresponding abilities in different -distributions_. Except at points where merit is indistinguishable, they -signify that a certain proportion of a group is ahead in the struggle -for existence. They are thus units of relative rank. Moreover, they are -directly translatable into units of the deviation in case the form of -the distribution of ability has been determined. This is a special -advantage if the forms of distribution turn out to be normal or even -uniform. - -In using percentiles it is to be remembered that equal differences -between percentiles _are not comparable in the same distribution_ except -in the sense of the same extra proportions of the group to be met in -competition. A change in the degree of ability from the lowest -percentile to the lowest 2 percentile would be very different from the -change in the degree represented by the 50 percentile to the next -percentile above. Differences in the ability of individuals ranking near -each other in the middle of the same percentile series would be -distinguished with difficulty while it would be easy to make such -discriminations at the extremes. - -The special value of the percentile units in measurement of ability lies -in the comparison of individuals of corresponding position in -corresponding groups in which the ability may not be assumed to -distribute alike. The concept that 995 out of every 1000 randomly -selected individuals at his age are ahead of a particular individual in -the struggle for existence has very definite and significant meaning -which is quite comparable from one period of life to another regardless -of the form of the distribution. We shall return to this question of -equivalent units in distributions of unlike symmetry when we compare the -definitions of the borderlines of deficiency in terms of intelligence -quotient, coefficient of intelligence, standard deviation and -percentage. Corresponding percentages of corresponding groups have a -more useful definite significance of equivalence than any other units of -measurement of mental ability available when the forms of distribution -vary at different stages of development or are uncertain, as seems to be -true with tested abilities. - - - B. THE CURVES OF MENTAL DEVELOPMENT. - -When we endeavor to make our ideas of mental development more definite, -we are assisted by thinking of the various stages in graphic form. This -is especially true when trying to think of the position of the deficient -individuals, relative to the average individuals and to genius. - -In diagrammatically presenting these concepts in Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 we do -not wish to assume that all the principles on which the developmental -curves have been plotted have been decided. If they make clearer the -points still under discussion and direct the discussion to specific -features so that more data may be brought to bear upon the empirical -determination of their characteristics, they will serve a useful -purpose. For our present ends, we shall consider only certain features -which have a bearing upon the interpretation of developmental scales and -the quantitative definition of the borderline. - -In the graphic presentation of the curves of development in Figures 3 -and 5 the relative position at various ages has been suggested -hypothetically for those of the best ability and median, or middle -ability, as well as the borderline of the deficients. - -It is evident that these graphs should represent equivalent ability at -each stage of development measured by as objective a scale of -measurement as possible. In the graphs this scale is assumed to be -composed of physical units with its zero at zero ability. The deficient -group is distinguished by the portion with a grated shading. The -distribution curves of individual ability we have already mentioned in -connection with scales of measurement. Fig. 3 is constructed on the -assumption of a normal distribution of ability at each age extending to -the same zero ability. Fig. 5 on the assumption of distributions of -varying form. - -Otis has given a very able logical analysis of certain concepts -underlying the testing of mental development (_163_). His discussion -differs from the present in its aim to determine the proper mental age -for particular tests, a question which I have not considered. It also -supplements the present discussion by showing the changing value of the -same intelligence quotient with normal distributions of ability under -certain assumptions as to range of ability and decrease in the annual -increments of ability with age. - - - (a) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AVERAGE CURVES OF DEVELOPMENT. - -Some investigators are apparently inclined to question the significance -of any curve of mental development on account of the very different -forms of development which they have found in particular cases. A -quotation from Goddard will state this problem: - - “It seems to me that there is considerable evidence that there are a - good many children that develop at a normal rate up to a certain age - and then slow down; some slowing down gradually and others rapidly. - This is possibly accounted for by accidental conditions. Dr. Healy's - case of traumatic feeble-mindedness is a good illustration of this. - We have quite a good many cases, not a large percentage as yet, - where it is pretty clear that they have developed very nearly - normally up to the age of seven, eight or nine, so that I am very - skeptical as to the possibility of formulating a rule for - determining the rate of development. Many cases are uniform in - slowness while others vary a great deal; some slow up more rapidly - than others as has already been stated.... - - “Morons are not usually discovered until twelve or fourteen years of - age. The picture to me of the development of the feeble-minded is - rather that these different types develop each in his own way very - much as the physical side develops. Different families have - different determiners of development. Just as it was determined - before I was born that I should be five feet, ten inches tall, I - developed that height and no further. In the same way, probably, - that determiner carries with it the determination of the rate of - development and the time. This carries with it the fact that I - should have been an average boy from birth. As a matter of fact I - was very much under-size until I was fifteen or sixteen years of - age. Then I shot up. Other cases are over-size. It may be a false - analogy, but it seems to me to illustrate the rate at which these - cases develop” (_111_). - -This view raises clearly the question how far the curve of average -development represents a common tendency of different individuals in -development. Are the individual curves of development so varied in form -that an average curve does nothing but obscure their significance? The -study of individual curves of growth in height and weight by Baldwin -indicates that the bigger children tend to develop earlier, the smaller -later (_73_). The individual curves of mental development may be -analogous. If so, the average curves may not adequately represent the -common tendencies of development. Nevertheless, it is to be remembered -that with height and weight the average curves do retain a decided -usefulness, which nobody, I suppose, would seriously question. - -An analogous problem arises when we consider the question of variations -in the maturity of different mental processes. Besides the question -whether the average curve is useful in view of the variation among -individuals in their rates of maturity for the same process, the -psychologists have a still more difficult problem about curves of -general ability. These curves are built by combining the results of -numerous psycho-physical tests which are very different in type. We need -to raise the question whether the type of process measured by memory for -digits, for example, matures at the same rate as those processes -measured by other memory tests: in general, how much a single test or -combination of tests represents a common process. Furthermore, we need -to inquire whether processes measured by memory tests mature like those -measured by tests emphasizing reasoning, imagination, motor ability and -other groups of activities. We thus have the problems of the different -rates of maturity of the different tested processes in the same -individual and of common tendencies among these specific processes. - -In order more clearly to present this problem of the significance of -developmental curves for different processes, I have brought together -the age norms from 8 to 14 years for 40 tests as given by different -investigators. No norms were included which were not based on tests of -at least 25 individuals. After 14 years the data which have been -collected are open to the objection that the norms for the older ages -would be seriously affected by the fact that they were obtained upon -children remaining in school, usually in the elementary school, _i. e._, -upon groups, among which a large portion of those of better or of poorer -ability had been eliminated. The relative position of the norms for -older ages are, therefore, not comparable with those of children who are -of the ages of compulsory attendance. The results published are -inadequate below 8 years for most of the tests, so I have not extended -the curves to earlier ages. In 14 instances the data for boys and girls -were only given separately. In these I have used the norms for the boys. -A prepubertal break in a combined curve may, therefore, indicate a sex -difference. In most cases the norms were given for the sexes combined, -and the difference is unimportant for the points considered. - -The variation in age norms with different tests is shown graphically in -Figures 6, 7 and 8. In order that the various tests may be plotted on -the same scale, so as to compare changes in development for the -different tested processes, I have used the average increase in ability -from 8 to 9 years of age for each test as a common measure and -arbitrarily plotted the slant of the curve between these ages at 45 -degrees. The increase from 8 to 9 is represented by 10 units on the -objective scale to the left of the graphs. On this basis it is possible -roughly to compare changes in the absolute annual increase at different -ages for the same test and for different tests. It assumes that the -units in which each test is scored are equivalent for that test. An -average difference between the basal ages or between any two ages cannot -be assumed to be accompanied by the same distribution of increases. -Moreover, the 8-year norm is at different distances from zero for the -different tests so that the relative increase from 8 to 9 cannot be -regarded alike for the different tests. The method, however, is -sufficiently accurate for illustrating the very different forms of the -developmental curves which might be expected if they were measured by -absolute increases from year to year. Even the variation in the slant of -the lines at the different ages gives a graphic picture which will -assist in interpreting the significance of average curves of general -ability. As the curves stand, they show the norms for each age for any -test, as if placed on its own objective scale, and the various objective -scales have been harmonized on the assumption that the norms at 8 and 9 -years are accurate. We thus have a simple representation of the absolute -changes in the abilities tested from age to age by the same tests -relative to a single objective scale. It will not give a seriously -erroneous picture for any tested ability so long as the units in which -the particular test is scored may be presumed to be objectively equal. - - The tests on which Figures 6, 7, and 8 were based included - practically all which were reported in the researches used. They - were as follows: Norsworthy (_159_), perception of 100-gram - weight, cancelling A's (boys), ideas remembered from four simple - sentences, memory of related and of unrelated words, part-wholes, - genus-species, opposites and reverse of opposites given the next - day, “a-t” test. J. Allen Gilbert (_108_), taps in 5 seconds, - fatigue in tapping, visual reaction time, color-discrimination - reaction time, reproduction of 2-second interval. Smedley (_51_, - No. 3), strength of right-hand grip (boys), taps in 30 seconds - (boys), ergograph; visual, auditory, audio-visual, and - audio-visual-articulatory memory for digits. W. H. Pyle, Standards - of Mental Efficiency (J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, IV., 61-70), - uncontrolled association, opposites, part-wholes, genus-species, - digit-symbol and symbol-digit substitution, memory for concrete - and for abstract words, memory of Marble Statue selection, (only - boys' norms used for each). Pyle and Anderson combined by Whipple - (_220_) two word-building tests (boys). Anderson as given by - Whipple memory for letter squares. D. F. Carpenter, Mental Age - Tests (J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, IV., 538-544), substitution of - colors in forms and of numbers in forms, perception time in - marking A's, concentration, _i. e._, difference in time of last - test under distraction, memory of pictures of objects, all tests - devised by Carrie R. Squire. Stenquist (_54_), construction test. - Sylvester (_191_), form-board test. - -[Illustration: FIG. 6. _Tests of the Development of Memory Processes. -Medians at Each Age of the Central Tendencies of the Tests._] - -[Illustration: FIG. 7. _Different Types of Development. Medians at -Each Age of the Central Tendencies of the Tests._] - -[Illustration: FIG. 8. _Forty Curves of Development. Distribution at -Each Age of the Central Tendencies of the Tests._] - - In Fig. 6 curves A and B are Smedley's tests; curve C includes in - addition Norsworthy's unrelated words, Pyle's memory for concrete - and abstract terms, Anderson's letter-squares, Carpenter's memory - for pictures, and Gilbert's for the time interval; curve E includes - Pyle's two and Carpenter's two substitution tests; curve F includes - Pyle's Marble Statue and Norsworthy's memory for related words and - for sentences; curve S is Norsworthy's; curve D is the combination - of these 17 tests. - - In Fig. 7 curve H includes Gilbert's visual reaction time, - Norsworthy's A and a-t tests, Carpenter's two A tests; curve I - includes Gilbert's and Smedley's tapping tests; curve J is the - median of the central tendencies of all 40 tests; curve K includes - Norsworthy's two opposites and her part-whole and genus-species - tests, the Pyle opposites, genus-species and part-whole tests; curve - L is the same as D, curve M includes Smedley's strength of grip and - ergograph tests and Gilbert's fatigue of tapping; curve N includes - Pyle and Anderson's word building tests and Pyle's uncontrolled word - association test. - - In Fig. 8 curve P is Gilbert's visual reaction time test, curve S is - Norsworthy's test for memory of unrelated words, the other curves - are the median and quartiles for the central tendencies of all 40 - tests after each was expressed at each age in terms of the gain from - 8 to 9 years taken as a unit. - -Several points are to be noted about the nature of the curves for -different tests. In Fig. 6 showing the curves for different forms of -memory tests, that for the memory of digits is very different in -character from that for memory of related material. The most extreme -differences in the time of maturity are shown by the test for memory for -digits presented orally and the substitution of color in forms, the -former continues to increase so rapidly relative to the absolute -increase from 8 to 9 years that it cannot be represented in the graph -reaching 539 units of the scale by 14 years of age, while improvement in -ability in the latter is not measured after 9 years. We cannot take time -to discuss how much of the differences between the various curves may be -due to the nature of the tests themselves, the form of scoring the -results, or the condition under which they were given, selection of -subjects, etc. The conclusion is safe, however, that when groups of -three or four tests of similar type show such marked differences as -those for memory of digits and memory for related material we may expect -similar differences in the rates of maturity of the corresponding -processes. - -From Fig. 7 we may learn that tests emphasizing functions such as speed -of motor or perceptual motor reaction, curves H and I, are notably -different in their form from curves for tests of imaginative processes, -curve N. As we group tests together covering larger ranges of activity -we approach the median curve for general ability. Note the median curve -for 17 memory tests (curve L) compared with the median for the 40 tests -(curve J). By empirical studies we might pick out types of tests which -would most closely represent the maturity of average ability. For -example, the median for the substitution tests, curve E, resembles the -median for the memory tests, curve D, more closely than does that of the -4 digit tests, curve B. Curve K, for 7 association tests, resembles the -median for the 40 tests, curve J, much more closely than the curve for -the perceptual-motor speed tests, curve H. This difference can not be -explained by the use of 7 instead of 5 tests in calculating the central -tendency of the group. It probably means that the sort of -psycho-physical processes usually tested more closely represent on the -average the abilities shown in association tests than they do the -abilities shown by speed of motor reaction. The significance of this -sort of analysis for those constructing a scale for measuring -intellectual ability is obvious. - -Fig. 8 shows the median and quartile range for the central tendencies of -the 40 tests and gives examples of two extremely different tests, visual -reaction time and memory for unrelated words. How closely these -particular tests represent fundamental differences in the maturity of -different processes, we cannot, of course, be sure without prolonged -research; but nobody would question that analogous differences would be -found in different processes. When we think of curves of general ability -we must, therefore, keep in mind the light which might be thrown on them -by an analysis of the various processes tested in the particular scale -used. - -Another feature of all developmental curves which is apparent as soon as -the causes of development are considered, is that growth in an -individual is the result of several factors. These include the native -capacity, the rate at which that capacity manifests itself -instinctively, and the external stimuli which encourage or retard that -manifestation. To some extent these factors vary independently. Our -curves of development will never completely express all the facts until -they analyse out all these factors for each of the processes. In the -meantime we shall be able to think of general trends of development by -considering average curves. The fact that they represent combinations of -unanalyzed factors must, however, make us very cautious in interpreting -our norms. - - - (b) CHANGES IN THE RATE OF DEVELOPMENT. - -There has been considerable discussion of the form of the curves of -mental development. The logical aspects of the curves on the assumption -of normal distribution of ability at each age and uniform age of -maturity have been treated by Otis (_163_) and the bearing of these -assumptions upon the Binet scale pointed out. Thorndike has plotted the -developmental curves for a dozen tests on the basis of the variability -at 12 years of age used as unit and gives a chapter in his Educational -Psychology to the changes with maturity (_198_, Chap. XI). Bobertag -suggests that the rates of development of normal and deficient children -are analogous to the upward progress of two projectiles fired from such -different heights that the force of gravity would retard the lower -projectile more than the upper (_81_). This analogy supposes that the -rate of maturity would continually decrease and that those who were -feebler mentally would be arrested in their developmental earlier. -Bobertag, Kuhlmann (_137_, _138_) and Otis give evidence from the -results of Binet testing that the rate of development decreases with -age. The percentages of older children passing certain positions on the -Binet scale or certain tests taken from it were found to change less at -year intervals for the older ages. This evidence is not conclusive -unless we know that the positions compared are at the same point in the -distributions of ability at the beginning of the periods of growth. The -same percentage change at a point farther away from the central tendency -would mean a larger growth than at the middle of the distribution, when -judged either in reference to a physical scale or to units of deviation. - -While recognizing that the complete curve of mental development is -logarithmic in form Pearson contends that, when measured by Jaederholm's -adaptation of the Binet scale, development is adequately represented by -a straight line from 6 to 15 years of age (_164_). As this conclusion is -based upon the use, as equivalent units, of years of excess and -deficiency at all these ages the data lacks the cogency of a scale of -equal physical units. - -With the Point Scale it is not known whether the units in different -parts of the scale are equivalent. Without assuming that they are equal -it is impossible to discover the form of curves of development from the -records of children at a series of ages. Yerkes and Wood publish a curve -of the increase of intellectual ability based upon point-scale -measurements, which resembles in form the hypothetical curves. They say: - - “The point-scale method has the merit of indicating directly the - rate, or annual increments of intellectual growth. We do not claim - for our measurements a high degree of accuracy, especially in the - case of the early years of childhood. But even the roughly - determined curve of intellectual growth from four to eighteen years, - which we present below, has considerable interest for the genetic - psychologist and for the psychological examiner. We have ascertained - that whether measured by the ratio of the increment of increase, - year by year, to the norm for the appropriate year or by the ratio - of the extreme range of scores to appropriate year norms, - intellectual development rapidly diminishes in rate, at least from - the fifth year onward” (_169_, p. 603). - -Waiving the question whether annual increases or the range of -measurements relative to the age norms would be satisfactory indications -of the change in the rate of growth, it seems to be fairly clear that -neither of these criteria would be adequate unless we first knew that -the units in which they were measured were equivalent at different -portions of the scale. To show that the point scale units are even -theoretically equivalent it would seem to be necessary to assume, on the -basis of normal distribution of ability, that each unit of the deviation -for each age distribution either equaled the same number of scale units -or the same proportion of the total distance from lowest to highest -ability at each age measured in the point-scale units. The originators -of the scale do not seem to have planned it with this in view. Moreover, -the difficulty of empirically demonstrating such equivalence of units on -a point scale or any form of the Binet scale prevents its use for -indicating curves of mental development, however serviceable it may be -for other purposes. - -The simplest demonstration of the form of the development curves is -applying the same test, scored in equal physical units, to children of -different ages. In Figs. 6, 7, and 8 the evidence from tests was -assembled for ages 8 to 14 inclusive. It is probable, however, that the -form of these development curves, when the unit of measurement was -anything but time taken for the same task, has been affected by the -difference in the real value of units called by the same name, _e. g._, -giving the opposite of one word is not always equal to giving the -opposite of another. - -The best developmental curves empirically determined are probably those -for the form board presented by Sylvester (_191_), Wallin (_212_) and -Young (_227_) since in each of these cases the same test was presented -at all ages and the scores were in equal physical units of seconds. It -can hardly be supposed, however, that the form board curves alone would -be typical of average mental development. To know something about the -general curve of mental development we need a combination of a number of -mental tests scored on scales of equal units. These may be either equal -physical units or units on scales for mental development similar to -those of Thorndike and others for measuring educational products, -handwriting, arithmetic, spelling, _etc._ - -That either a straight line or a simple curve would represent the -development of ability from birth to maturity is very doubtful. When we -consider the entire developmental curve from birth nobody doubts that -there is a change in the rate of development at the time of the arrest -of instinctive changes at adolescence. There are probably fluctuations -in the rate before this final arrest. Pintner and Paterson also assume a -complex curve of development (_44_). Whether the fluctuations should be -allowed for in the description of the borderline of deficiency is the -important question in our study. With measurements of bodily growth we -noted that changes in the rate of maturity are accompanied by a skewness -of distribution of ability at the ages affected. The same effect may be -expected with mental measurements. The percentage method of defining the -borderline of deficiency has an advantage when the form of distribution -at any age is uncertain (See Chap. XIV, d.). Since the changes in the -rate of development are most likely to be important at the prepubertal -and adolescent ages the description of the borderline in terms of -deviation or quotient may be expected to be most uncertain at this -period. Moreover, none of the quantitative definitions of the -borderline, except the percentage method, remain equivalent if rates of -development of normal and deficient children change relative to each -other, a question we shall now consider. - - - (c) THE QUESTION OF EARLIER ARREST OF DEFICIENT CHILDREN. - -It has been assumed by Bobertag (_81_), Stern (_88_), Goddard (_117_) -and others that deficient children reach their maturity earlier than -normal children. If this were true the curves of mental development for -the average and for the deficient children should not be expected to -retain their same relative positions after the idiots had begun to show -arrested development. Moreover, unless this arrest were compensated by -some peculiar form of accelerated growth among those above normal -ability, we might expect that the distributions of ability would change -in form at the various ages after arrest had begun. A relative increase -in the distance of older deficients from the average as compared with -younger deficients may be interpreted as meaning either the earlier -cessation of growth of the deficients or a change in the relative rates -of growth of individuals of different mental capacity. When fully -considered the present evidence from the Binet tests fails, I believe, -to demonstrate the earlier arrest of the deficients, although it is -undoubtedly true that the Binet scale may not be fine enough to measure -the improvement of idiots. We shall take up certain investigations that -bear upon this point. - -Goddard has reported tests upon the same group of 346 inmates in an -institution for the feeble-minded who were tested three years in -succession (_117_). The paper suggests that the idiots, as a group -increased less in absolute ability than those of higher mental age. The -average gain for 55 idiots who tested I or II mentally was about half a -test in the two years. In order to reach our present problem, however, -we must know that the idiots, for example, developed relatively less -mentally than did those of the higher grades of ability in the imbecile -and moron groups of _the same life-ages_. This question cannot be -answered from the paper. It probably cannot be adequately answered from -mental age results on account of the irregularity in the value of the -year units at different points on the Binet scales. - -Bobertag summarizes Chotzen's data obtained by the examination of the -children in the Breslau Hilfsschulen with the Binet scale. He believes -that the position on an objective scale attained by the average of these -retarded children is progressively lower with advancing age relative to -the average position attained by normal children, assuming that the -quotient for normal children remained constant at each age. The average -intelligence quotients of all the children in the special schools -(exclusive of those testing III or less) was 0.79 for those 8 years of -age, 0.72 for those 9 years, 0.70 at 10, and 0.67 at 11-12 (_81_, p. -534). - -Stern also compiled a table from Chotzen's results which shows this -decrease in intelligence quotients with life-age separately for each -group of those whom Chotzen by his expert diagnosis regarded as -imbeciles, morons, doubtful, and not feeble-minded although attending -the special schools (_188_, p. 80). This table is reproduced here as -Table XX. On the surface it suggests that the quotients of the extreme -groups are nearer together at the older ages, instead of being farther -apart. The objection to this evidence from the Binet scale is that the -norms are not equivalent for different ages on the scale used. Since the -objective norms on the Binet scale are more difficult to attain at the -older ages this variation would tend to make older children show lower -quotients than the same children would show at younger ages, so that -such tables are quite uncertain in significance. - - TABLE XX. - - AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS OF CHILDREN OF DIFFERENT ABILITY. (From - Chotzen's Tables X & XI.) - - ─────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬─────────────┬───────────── - LIFE-AGE │ NOT │ DOUBTFUL │ MORONS │ IMBECILES - │FEEBLE-MINDED │ DEFECT │ │ - ─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── - 8 │ 0.92 │ 0.84 │ 0.76 │ 0.71 - 9 │ 0.85 │ 0.81 │ 0.77 │ 0.67 - 10 │ (0.80) │ (0.80) │ 0.74 │ 0.62 - 11 │ (0.73) │ (0.68) │ 0.71 │ (0.64) - 12 │ (0.75) │ (0.75) │ (0.73) │ (0.61) - 13 │ │ (0.73) │ │ - ─────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴─────────────┴───────────── - -The Jaederholm data with his form of the Binet scale, as treated by -Pearson, shows a straight regression line for the backward children -which falls below the normal development line on the average four months -of mental age for each additional year of life from 7-14 (_167_). -Accepting Pearson's interpretation that a year of excess or deficiency -and a year of growth is a constant unit, we find that the deficient -group from special classes was falling continually behind the normals -with increase of age a relatively greater distance from any rational -reference point. Pearson accounts for this change in the distance -between the two groups of normal and backward children, as I understand -his paper, by supposing that with increase in age more and more normal -children become deficient. It would seem that this data would be more -easily explained by supposing that the distributions became skewed -toward deficiency for the older ages, rather than that the distributions -remained normal and became flatter. - -The best evidence as to the relative positions of the curves for -deficients and those for average ability would be provided by using -psychological tests that could be adequately scored in terms of equal -physical units for the same task. The position of various lower -percentiles relative to the average or to an assumed reference point -could then be compared on the same objective scale. I have reviewed -studies of this type in discussing skewed distributions in Chap. XIII, -A, c. I there reached the conclusion that the weight of the evidence was -that the distributions were slightly skewed in the direction of -deficiency, although the evidence was not conclusive. We are now raising -the further question whether this skewness increases with age. - -On account of the difficulty of determining the points for zero ability -in terms of the physical scales used, let us see what conclusion might -be reached if we calculated the relative distance of median and low -ability of equivalent degree from the scores of the same higher degree -of ability assumed as a reference point at the various ages. There seems -to be no reason in the theory of measurement why the highest score -instead of the lowest score in random samples might not be used for a -reference point for comparing the distances between normal and deficient -children at different ages. Instead of using the highest single score, -it would be better to use the upper quartile or quintile since it would -be less affected by a chance error in giving the test. - -Applying this method to determining the relative position of median and -retarded ability I have calculated the data for the form board test -cited previously from Sylvester (_191_) and from Young (_227_). This -affords the only adequate evidence of which I know, derived from tests -scored in equal physical units given to sufficiently large groups to -indicate whether or not the retarded group changes its relative position -from the normal group at different ages. The comparison is shown in Fig. -9. With Sylvester's data the distance of the lower quartile in ability -from the median is compared with the distance of the upper quartile from -the median, the latter distance being taken as a unit. With Young's data -for Witmer's form board the quintile is used instead of the quartile and -each sex is given separately. Since Young's table shows the scores for -half ages, it was necessary to take the average of the two scores, thus -giving the approximate score for the middle of the complete age group. -The graph discloses no pronounced tendency for the retarded group to -fall relatively farther behind the median with increase in age. There -are, however, notable fluctuations in the relative positions of the -groups so that at 7 years with Young's data for boys and at 13 years for -Sylvester's curve the retarded group is twice as far from the median -relative to the distance between the median and the corresponding better -group as it is at some other times. It is possible that the curves for -the older groups of those of poorer ability are too high since it is -likely that more of the actually deficient children tend to be dropped -from the public school classes with increase in age. Nevertheless, so -far as the evidence at present goes it is not sufficient to determine -whether the backward and the corresponding better group show a general -change in their relative distances from the median with approach to -maturity. - -[Illustration: FIG. 9. _Relative Positions at Each Age of the Median and -of Corresponding Bright and Retarded Children with the Form Board -Test._] - -On the other hand the curves indicate the tendency for the distributions -to be skewed toward deficiency and for the relative distances to -fluctuate as we should expect if the accelerations in growth occurred at -different ages for those of different ability. The data of Young suggest -that there may be sex differences in the age of acceleration, the -backward girls showing accelerations, relative to the upper group at -ages 7 and 12, a year or more before the boys. For Sylvester's data the -ratio of the distance between the median and the lower quartile divided -by the distance between the median and the upper quartile for each of -the age groups is as follows: 5 yrs. 1.8, 6 yrs. 2.4, 7 yrs. 3.0, 8 yrs. -2.0, 9 yrs. 2.2, 10 yrs. 2.4, 11 yrs. 2.0, 12 yrs. 1.8, 13 yrs. 3.0, 14 -yrs. 2.1. For Young's data the corresponding ratios are—Boys: 6 yrs. -1.5, 7 yrs. 1.9, 8 yrs. 1.5, 9 yrs. 0.8, 10 yrs. 1.6, 11 yrs. 1.2, 12 -yrs. 1.4, 13 yrs. 1.0, 14 yrs. 1.3. Girls: 6 yrs. 1.7, 7 yrs. 1.0, 8 -yrs. 1.5, 9 yrs. 0.9, 10 yrs. 1.0, 11 yrs. 1.3, 12 yrs. 0.9, 13 yrs. -1.5, 14 yrs. 1.4. Changes in the rate of growth causing asymmetrical -distributions are to be expected throughout the periods of growth. A -fundamental skewness toward deficient mental capacity, therefore, would -be indicated only if it were found at maturity or at ages when the -average rate is decreasing, when the more capable individuals would -theoretically approach relatively nearer the deficients if the latter -accelerated later. - -So far as physical growth is concerned Baldwin (_74_, _75_) has shown -with repeated annual measurements on the same group of children that the -period of adolescent acceleration shifts from 12½ years for the tallest -boy to 16 years for the shortest boy. For the tallest girl the maximum -height was attained at 14½, for the shortest at 17 years, 3 months. -Maturity may be reached at 11 years by a tall well nourished girl, while -with a short girl light in weight it may be delayed until 16. “Children -above medium height between the chronological ages of 6-18 grow in -stature and in physiological maturity in advance of those below the -medium height, and they may be physiologically from one to four or five -years older than those below the medium height. Those above the medium -height have their characteristic pubescent changes and accelerations -earlier than those below; there is a relative shifting of the -accelerated period according to the individuals' relative heights” -(_74_). - -Doll presents evidence from the physical measurements of a large -feeble-minded group in institutions which he suggests shows that the -shorter among them cease growing earlier. When the height of these -feeble-minded is measured in relation to the Smedley percentiles of the -height of normal children of their corresponding ages, he finds a -correlation of -.20 between age and percentiles of height, the taller -relative to normals being younger. He says: “This confirms Goddard's -similar conclusion, but negatives for the feeble-minded at least, the -theory affirmed by some writers, that children who grow at a retarded -rate continue their growth to a later age” (_98_ p. 51). On the contrary -this minus correlation is more likely to mean only that the Smedley -norms on school children are too high for the older ages because of the -excess of taller children who remain for the high school work. This -would give the minus correlation without supposing that the taller -individuals continue their growth to a later age, as he thinks. - -Moreover, a total longer period of physical growth for smaller, less -normal, children has been demonstrated. Boas (_80_) says: “Among the -poor the period of diminishing growth which precedes adolescence is -lengthened and the acceleration of adolescence sets in later; therefore, -the whole period of growth is lengthened but the total amount of growth -during the larger period is less than during the shorter period of the -well-to-do” (_80_). A reversal in growth tendency between brain capacity -and size of body, which is supposed when the mentally deficient are said -to arrest earlier, would be one of the most puzzling paradoxes in the -study of development. We should, therefore, be exceedingly cautious -before accepting the hypothesis of the earlier maturity of deficient -children. - -A complicated situation is presented when we come to represent -graphically the effect on the distributions of these differences in -growth among those of different intellectual capacity. In the -hypothetical diagrams, Fig. 5, it is shown how arrest of development -might be presented graphically in relation to the distribution curves, -ability being measured on the same physical scale. The earlier -acceleration and earlier maturity of those of better ability are -indicated. The distributions are shown as skewed at all ages after -birth. Equivalent units of mental development at different ages can be -found only in corresponding percentages of the groups, not in the units -of the deviation or in development quotients relative to the averages at -different ages. In other words the lowest 0.5% continues to be an -equivalent unit while -3 S. D. measures different portions of the group -and different portions of the distance from lowest to highest ability. -Corresponding percentages retain one common significance, namely, that -the same proportion of the group is ahead in the struggle for survival, -regardless of the form of the distribution. - -It is hoped that the discussion of the statistical problems connected -with the quantitative study of mental development has given more meaning -to the different attempts to devise scales for measuring mental ability. -It should be noted that the same relative development at different ages, -expressed relative to the distance from lowest to highest ability -measured in equal objective units, does not correspond to the same -relative development measured in percentages of the groups, as soon as -the forms of the distributions change. The theoretical considerations -show that we have available at once a perfectly definite and clear -method of stating relative development in terms of corresponding -percentages of corresponding groups. If the groups distribute normally -these units are translatable into units of the standard deviation of the -group. If the distributions change in symmetry the only equivalent units -of deficiency available are in terms of corresponding percentages -reading from either end of the group. On the other hand percentile units -are not equivalent in _amount_ of change for the same distribution, so -they are of most importance for comparing different age distributions of -uncertain forms. - -Until we have a scale of equal objective units for mental ability, it is -not possible to obtain a measure of relative development which shall -take into account the _amount_ of relative change. We must be content to -measure the change in percentile rank (changes in serial position) of an -individual relative to those of his own age. - -Having clarified our conceptions of mental development and brought them -into harmony with certain suppositions regarding the distribution of -ability and its change from year to year, we are in a better position to -evaluate in the following chapter the different objective methods of -defining the borderline of feeble-mindedness. - - - - - CHAPTER XIV. QUANTITATIVE DEFINITIONS OF THE BORDERLINE - -On the basis of the detailed conception of the developmental curves and -distributions of ability at different ages, which we have been -considering, we can now compare the percentage method with other -quantitative methods of describing the borderline on developmental test -scales. - - - A. DIFFERENT FORMS OF QUANTITATIVE DEFINITIONS - -The earliest form of the quantitative description of the borderline on a -scale of tests, was in terms of a fixed unit of years of retardation. -This was taken over apparently from the rough method of selecting school -children to be examined for segregation in special classes by choosing -those who were two or three grades behind the common position for -children of their ages. As this amount of school retardation was greater -for older children, an additional year of retardation was required after -the child had reached 9 years of age. I believe that nobody would -seriously defend a practice of making an abrupt turning point of this -kind, except on grounds of practical convenience. The theory of stating -the borderline in terms of a fixed absolute unit of retardation is so -crude that it has now been generally superseded by methods which make -the amount of retardation a function of the age. - -In order to relate the definition to the age of the child, at least -during the period of growth, Stern suggested the “intelligence -quotient,” consisting of the tested age divided by the life-age (_188_). -This has been adopted by Kuhlmann with his revision of the Binet scale -(_139_) and by Terman with the new Stanford scale (_197_). With the -Point scale Yerkes utilized a similar ratio method for stating -borderlines by what he calls a “coefficient of intelligence.” He defines -it as “the ratio of an individual's point-scale score to the expected -score, or norm” (_226_, p. 595). Haines also uses these coefficients, -dividing the individual's score on the Point scale by the average number -of points scored by those of his age (_26_). The difference between the -“quotient” and the “coefficient” seems to be mainly empirical since they -are theoretically alike in principle provided the scales by which they -are determined are composed of equal units. Empirically, however, the -units of the point scale would have to be compared with the 0.1 year -units of the Binet scale to determine which showed the greater -uniformity within its own scale. The coefficient has an advantage over -the quotient in that the scale norms for the different ages would -automatically become readjusted with additional data, and that -physiological age norms could be more readily stated if they were ever -available. - -The suggestion of defining the borderline of tested deficiency in terms -of a multiple of the standard deviation of ability of children who are -efficient in school was made by Pearson in 1914. Tested inefficients did -not with him include all inefficients, as he recognized other sources of -deficiency. He had previously suggested a scale of mental ability in -units called “mentaces”, 100 of which were equivalent to a unit of the -standard deviation of all ability assumed to be normally distributed. On -this scale of mentaces the imbeciles were 300 mentaces or more below -average ability and would be expected to occur once among 1000 -individuals chosen at random. Very dull, including some mentally -defective individuals, were also to be found from 208 to 300 mentaces -below the average (_166_, p. 109). Defining the borderline in terms of -the deviation of a normal population was definitely forecasted by -Norsworthy, although she did not specifically discuss the problem of the -borderline. She indicated that if children tested below -5 P.E., they -might be regarded as outside the normal group. - -The following quotation from Pearson will make the method of stating the -borderline in terms of a multiple of the deviation clearer: - - “Now the question is, what we mean by a 'special or differentiated - race': I should define it to mean that we could not obtain it by any - selection from the large mass of the normal material. Now in the - case of the mentally defective, we could easily obtain children of - their height, weight, and temperature among the normals. We could, - out of 50,000 normal children, obtain children practically with the - same powers of perception and memory as the feeble-minded, as judged - by Norsworthy's data. But not out of 50,000, nor out of 100,000 - normal children, could we obtain children with the same defect of - intelligence as some 50% of the feeble-minded children. In other - words, when the deviation of a so-called feeble-minded child from - the average intelligence of a normal-minded child is six times the - quartile or probable deviation of the group of normal children of - the same age, it falls practically outside the risk of being an - extreme variation of the normal population. Now six times the - quartile variation is almost exactly four times the standard - deviation or the variability in intelligence of the normal child, - and in the next material I am going to discuss [Jaederholm's], we - have shown that the standard deviation in intelligence of the normal - child is just about one year of mental growth” (_164_, p. 35). - -With the Jaederholm data obtained in testing children in the regular and -in the special classes in Stockholm by a modified form of the Binet -scale, Pearson found that a year of excess or defect in intelligence was -practically a uniform unit from 7 to 12 years of age and was about -equivalent to the standard deviation of normal children measured in -these year units. He, therefore, uses a year unit and the standard -deviation as interchangeable for these data. He does not, however, -always make it clear whether he means that the equivalence of the year -units is determined by the standard deviation of the children of all -these ages grouped together in one distribution, as it is in determining -the regression lines, or by the equivalence of the standard deviations -of the separate ages, especially when these two deviations are not equal -in terms of the year units on the scale. I shall assume, however, that -he would use the deviations of the separate years in case of such an -inequality of the two concepts. - -The quotation from Pearson, which we have given above, indicates that he -would determine the borderline on the scale by the standard deviation of -'normal' children. In his case he actually used children who were -efficient in school, as contrasted with those in special classes. On the -other hand, he argues at length that all mental ability, including that -of the social inefficients, is distributed in the form of the normal -curve (_167_). Under this assumption it is, therefore, little -theoretical change in his position to suppose that the borderline might -be described in terms of the standard deviation of a random sample of -the population. Defining the borderline in terms of a multiple of the -deviation of a random sample at each age thus becomes directly -comparable with the other forms of the quantitative definition, -supposing that all refer to conditions to be found in a completely -random sample. It is in this sense that I shall refer to the method of -defining the borderline in terms of a multiple of the deviation. - -The percentage method of defining the borderline seems to have been the -spontaneous natural working out of the problem in the minds of several -investigators. At the same time that I suggested this method in a paper -before the American Psychological Association (_151_) Pintner and -Paterson had prepared a paper suggesting a percentage definition of -feeble-mindedness (_44_) and Terman had worked out his use of the -quotient so that the borderline in terms of the quotient was given -equivalent form in terms of percentage. Nobody, however, seems to have -attempted to work out the details of the method as in the present -monograph. - - As a point of detail it is to be remembered that in translating - percentages into terms of the deviation, the size of the group for - which the percentages are determined is important if the groups are - small, since the same percentage lies above slightly different - multiples of the standard deviation with different sized groups. On - this point the reader may see a paper by Cajori and the references - cited there (_86_). - - - B. COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF QUANTITATIVE DEFINITIONS - -In distinction from qualitative methods of describing the mentally -deficient, all quantitative definitions assume that those of deficient -mentality do not represent a different species of mind; but that they -are only the extreme representatives of a condition of mental ability -which grades up gradually to medium ability. The deficient are not an -anomalous group such as we find with some mental diseases. Except for -the comparatively rare cases of traumatic or febrile origin, the -deficient individual is a healthy individual so far as his nervous -system is concerned, even though his capacity for brain activity is -below that of those who socially survive. They are not as a group -abnormal in the sense of diseased, but only unusual in the sense of -being extreme variations from medium ability in a distribution which is -uninterrupted in continuity. This distinction has been fully discussed -by Goring in his work on _The English Convict_, which those who are -interested in a full mathematical discussion of the significance of -mental deficiency are urged to read. - - Schmidt urges that the deficients are qualitatively different in - being “unable to plan”, and then suggests tests which most markedly - bring out this distinction between deficient and normal children - (_178_). As I have said before, however, this seems rather to be a - failure to recognize that such an attempt to find tests which - “qualitatively” distinguish the two groups is only an effort to pick - those tests which best make measurable the differences between - individuals at the extreme of mental ability. As such it is a - valuable contribution to this problem. If it is intended as an - attempt to set up a qualitative distinction in a mathematical or - biological sense, between deficient and passable ability, it seems - to me wholly to fail. As I take it, a “qualitative” distinction with - Schmidt is only a bigger quantitative distinction and is intended - only to mean this. - -None of those who advocate quantitative definitions would contend, I -believe, as some of their opponents seem to think, that such definitions -afford a final diagnosis for particular cases. In attempting to place -the borderlines on a scale of tests, this is always done with the clear -recognition that such borders are _only symptomatic of deficiency_. The -diagnosis of “social inefficiency,” to use Pearson's term, rests upon -many facts among which the test result is only one, albeit the most -important. - -Other characteristics which each of the above quantitative definitions, -except that of a constant absolute amount of deficiency, have in common, -or might easily have if they were stated in their best forms, include -the possibility of adaptation to any developmental scale, the suggestion -of borderlines for both the mature and immature, the distinction of a -group which might be regarded as presumably deficient from one that was -of better but doubtful ability and of this from a still better group -which was presumably socially efficient. - -Perhaps the most curious and important thing about these definitions is -that they are all substantially identical, except in their terminology -so long as general mental capacity is found to distribute in the form of -the normal probability curve and to extend to absolute zero ability at -each age. This can easily be seen by comparing the distribution curves -in Fig. 3. The position of the percentage borderline would always -represent the same distance from the average in terms of the standard -deviation of each age and the same ratio when the life-age of arrest of -development had been determined as the largest divisor. Under these -conditions, therefore, these main statements of the quantitative -definition agree in supposing that the same proportion of the -individuals of each life-age would test deficient. Those who advocate -any of these quantitative definitions logically commit themselves to -assuming that the percentage of deficients at each age is practically -constant, unless they suppose the symmetry of distribution varies or -does not extend to the same zero point. - -If the distributions do not extend to the same zero points of lowest -ability on an objective scale (see Fig. 5), the ratio is clearly at a -disadvantage compared with either of the other methods, since it assumes -that the same percentage of average ability is an equivalent measure. -This does not hold when the lowest ability at different ages is not at -the same point on the scale of objective units. For example, .7 of an -average 100 units above 0 is not equivalent to .7 of an average 150 -points above a zero ability of 30 points on the objective scale. The -idea of regarding percentages of averages as equivalent is therefore -generally avoided in mental measurement. In case the position of the -absolute zero points of ability may be different, the distance from the -average should be stated in terms of the deviation. In this respect the -method of the deviation or the lowest percentage are equally good so -long as the form of distribution does not change. - - - C. PRACTICAL ADVANTAGES OF THE PERCENTAGE METHOD - -1. With the percentages fixed at the lowest 0.5% as presumably deficient -and the next 1.0% doubtful, these borderlines for tested deficiency have -the advantage of being more conservative than those at present -advocated. On the basis of our empirical knowledge this is an important -reason for urging borderlines on the scales at least as low as those -suggested herein. Disregarding the extremely high borderlines which have -fallen into disuse, we still find that social deficiency is often -presumed for those testing above the lowest 1%. With the new Stanford -scale, Terman presumes “definite feeble-mindedness” below an -Intelligence Quotient of .70, below which he finds that 1% of 1000 -unselected children fell. I Q's from .70 to .80 would include his -uncertain group, which he describes as “border-line deficiency, -sometimes classified as dullness, often as feeble-mindedness” (_57_, p. -79). His tables show 5% below an I Q of .78. We have no results with a -_random_ group of adults by which to judge how many would be below these -borders. When the I Q has been applied to scores with other scales a -larger percentage has often been found to be excluded. Fernald has shown -that Haines' suggestion of a coefficient of .75 with the Point scale -would exclude 16% of 100 Cincinnati girls selected at random from among -those who left school at 14 years to go to work (_16_). - -Unless the examiner wishes to assume that social inefficiency is more -frequent than it has been demonstrated by the practical tests of life, -the success of those who have low quotients should make him exceedingly -cautious about accepting the various borderlines which have been -suggested by those who have not tested their criteria by the percentage -method. It is not merely that the borderlines should be lowered, but -that they should be lowered under some consistent plan so that we should -know as much as is possible about their significance in the prediction -of ultimate social inefficiency, and that we should be able to readjust -them on the basis of new data or to new scales. - -With the Point scale Yerkes and Wood say regarding “the coefficient of -intelligence .70, which we accept as the upper limit of intellectual -inadequacy or inferiority”: “Our data indicate that grades of -intellectual ability measured by the coefficient .70 or less are -socially burdensome, ineffective, and usually a menace to racial -welfare” (_226_). With the most reliable part of their data, that for -children from 8-13, this coefficient excludes the lowest 8.39%. -Moreover, the lowest group for which they suggest a borderline, the -dependents, falls at .50 or below and includes 1.05%. - -2. A second practical advantage of the percentage borderlines on the -scale is that they make no assumption as to the uniformity of the norms -for the different ages. Except for the Stanford and the Jaederholm -scales, there is little evidence that the age norms exclude equivalent -portions of the children at the different life ages. - -Goddard's Table I gives the data from which the following percentages of -those who pass the norm are calculated, not counting those above 11 -years, since the older groups are clearly affected by selection:—5 yrs., -88%; 6 yrs., 79%; 7 yrs., 81%; 8 yrs., 51%; 9 yrs., 60%; 10 yrs., 73%; -11 yrs., 44%. Kuhlmann's figures when using his own revised scale with -public school children including the seventh grade, are:—6 yrs., 100%; 7 -yrs., 95%; 8 yrs., 90%; 9 yrs., 87%; 10 yrs., 81%; 11 yrs., 80%; 12 -yrs., 57%. It is clear that any change in the test norm from age to age -must disturb the quotient which is based on these norms, although it -would not affect the intelligence coefficient with the Point scale. - -3. A third advantage of the percentage method arises from the fact that -we cannot presume that the same ratio in terms of the scale units will -exclude the same degrees of ability at different ages even when the -norms for these ages are properly adjusted. The earlier results with the -Stanford revision show a large variation as to the percentage excluded -by the same I Q at different ages. For example, an I Q of .76 would have -shut out 1% of 117 non-selected 6-year-olds, 2% of 113 9-year-olds and -7% of 98 13-year-olds. The lowest 1% of the last group was below a -borderline of .66 (_197_). - -With widely varying norms of the other scales, the I Q borderlines show -much greater variation. In a recent review of the evidence, including -Descoudres' report (_96_) on retesting the same children for several -years Stern recognizes that an I Q index is not constant after 12 years -(_187_). Doll records decided changes in quotients for the same -individual at different ages (_99_). So far as the 1908 scale is -concerned, using Goddard's data, our Table V shows that at five years of -age the lowest 1.8% would fall at or below a quotient of .40, at eight -years the lowest 1.9% would show a quotient of .62 or less, and at 15 -years the lowest 2.8% fall below a quotient of .75. The rough tentative -approximation of scale limits which I have suggested for the lowest 1.5% -shows that a series of quotients for children from 5 to 15 years of age -would be below .75 at every age and below .65 for half of these ages. -For the presumably deficient group the quotients would be still lower in -order to be as conservative as the borderlines that I have suggested -with the Binet scale as at present standardized. - -With the coefficient of intelligence and the Point scale, the Yerkes and -Wood data show that their borderline of .70 excluded 13% of 196 children -8 and 9 years of age, while it excluded only 5% of each of the next two -groups of double ages. With the group of 237 18-year-old Cincinnati -working girls it excluded only 3% (_226_). - -The data at present available thus indicate that we should not expect to -find the same ratio at different ages excluding similar percentages. If -the ratios have a value for comparing individuals of different ages, -they seem to fluctuate so decidedly from age to age that they can hardly -be trusted for stating the borderlines of deficiency without empirical -confirmation for each age. - -Pearson found that the children of the older ages in the special classes -were more and more deficient, measured in terms of the standard -deviation of the normal group. This shift on the average was four months -of mental age downward for each year of life during the period 7-14 -which he studied. It makes uncertain the definition of the borderline in -terms of a constant multiple of the deviation or of a constant quotient, -unless this shift is shown to be due to imperfections of the tests which -can be corrected, or to changes in the selection of the tested groups at -advanced ages. - -Pearson's suggestion of -4 S. D. as a borderline with the Jaederholm -data gives some very curious results with the group of children in the -special schools at Stockholm. Under his interpretation at life-ages 8-11 -from 0 to 5.2% of the pupils in these classes would be regarded as -deficient, while for life-ages 12-14, 15.2% to 44.4% are beyond -4 S. D. -In passing it is to be noted that if one accepted Pearson's suggestion -that the borderline should be fixed at -4 S. D., in case the -distribution of mental capacity were strictly normal, only four children -in 100,000 would be found deficient, according to the probability -tables. - -With the method of the standard deviation it would be necessary either -to show that the deviation was constant in terms of the year units or -else to restate the borderline for different ages in terms of the scale -units. The irregularity of the norms with the Binet scale could also be -allowed for, of course, by stating different quotients for the different -ages, but when this readjustment is required for either the ratio or the -deviation in terms of the scale units, these methods lose all their -advantage of simplicity. Instead of one ratio or one multiple of the -years of deviation, we might have a different statement for each -life-age. With the percentage method there would be only one statement -of the borderline for all ages in terms of percentage, although the -scale positions change which shut out the same lowest percentage. - -4. All the quotient methods of defining the borderline encounter a -serious practical difficulty in fixing the borderline for the mature, so -that it will be equivalent to that for the immature. With the Stanford -scale in calculating the quotient for adults, no divisor is used over 16 -years. Yerkes and Bridges also think that this is about the time that -the development of capacity ceases. Kuhlmann and others use 15 as the -highest divisor. Wallin objects to either of these ages being used as -the age of arrest of mental development (_15_, p. 67). Both the methods -of the standard deviation and percentage have a similar difficulty, in -that the borderline for the mature has to be empirically determined on a -test scale. In this dilemma, however, the data collected with the random -group of 15-year-olds in Minneapolis and published in the present study, -places the borderline for the mature on either the 1908 or 1911 Binet -scale in a much safer position, so far as empirical data is concerned, -than the borderline for the mature for any other scale. This is true -whether that borderline be then stated in terms of either the quotient -or percentage methods. Translated into terms of the quotient, our -percentage borderlines for the mature with these scales, below X for -presumably deficient and below XI for the uncertain, would amount to -quotients .60 and .66 on the basis of our findings with this random -group of children who have presumably about reached adult development. -Pearson does not attempt to define any borderline for the adults on the -basis of the deviation, since Jaederholm tested only children. Moreover, -this is not possible empirically with our group of 15-year-olds, since -we tested only the lower extreme of this group. - -Unfortunately, the borderlines of the mature for the Stanford and other -scales depend upon empirical results obtained not with random groups, -but upon a composite of selected groups of adults built up by the -investigator on an estimate that this combined group represents a random -selection among those with a typical advance in development, an almost -superhuman task. Fortunately the empirical determination of this -borderline for the mature might be improved later by obtaining data on -less selected groups. The clearer significance of the empirical data for -the borderline for the mature which I have presented for the Binet 1908 -and 1911 scales from a random group of 15-year-olds seems to be an -important practical advantage. It provides an empirical basis for -judging the implication of test results with adults. It gives adults the -benefit of the doubt if they improve after 15 years of age. - -5. Compared as to their popular significance, there is no doubt that the -lowest 0.5% of the individuals of a particular age has very much more -significance to those not familiar with detailed statistical practise -than a coefficient or a multiple of the standard deviation. A statement -that an adult has only the tested ability of a child of 7 years is -certainly much more impressive than his score in other quantitative -terms. It will probably always be desirable, therefore, to supplement -any other method of scoring by a statement of the individual's test age. - - - D. THEORETICAL ADVANTAGE OF THE PERCENTAGE METHOD WITH CHANGES IN THE - FORM OF THE DISTRIBUTIONS - -With our present series of tests, the percentage method will best -provide a concept of the equivalence of the borderlines at different -ages provided the form of the distribution does not remain uniform. I -discussed this question briefly in connection with units of measurement. -In considering curves of development, I assembled some of the evidence -which makes the assumption of normal distribution or even of a constant -skewness at least uncertain. In my opinion the weight of the evidence is -against the hypothesis that the distributions retain a constant form -during the period of development. If this were clearly demonstrated, -both the ratio methods and deviation would fail to express equivalent -borderlines for the different ages with the Binet scales. A fixed -multiple of the standard deviation or a fixed quotient would exclude -different percentages of the population at each age when the skewness -varied. By reference to Figures 3 and 5, it can be seen that, if our -physical units in which we expressed the measurement were uniform and -ability always extended to the same absolute zero point, it is true that -.01 of the physical units reached by the best at each age would be the -same relative amount of ability of the best at each age, stated in -physical units, _regardless of the form of the distributions_. Such a -concept, however, has an unknown biological or social significance so -far as I can see, except for a constant form of distribution. The same -relative physical score compared with the highest at each age, -theoretically might exclude the lowest 40% of one age group, for -example, and only 10% of another group provided the distribution varied -enough in form. The concept of the same relative amount of ability -measured in physical units, so soon as the form of distribution varies -from age to age, thus loses significance in terms of the struggle for -existence. In that struggle, a vital question is—do the individuals at -different ages have to struggle to overcome the same relative number of -opponents of better ability at their age? If they do, the individuals -might properly be regarded as in equivalent positions in the struggle -for social survival, disregarding how far the next better individual is -above them on the objective scale. This is the concept accepted by the -percentage definition of the borderline as the best available under -uncertain forms of distribution. - -The recent rapid perfection of objective scales to measure educational -products, like ability in handwriting, etc., in equal units running to -an absolute zero of ability, suggests that it might be possible -ultimately to state the borderline of deficiency in terms of the same -relative objective distance between the best and zero ability at each -age on a scale of general ability. This ideal could be approached, for -example, with the Sylvester form-board test in which the units are -seconds required to complete the same task, if we could agree upon a -maximum number of seconds without success which should mean no ability, -and if this zero should remain the same at each age. It would only be -necessary to take, for example, the best position or the median or the -upper quartile at each age as the other point of reference. We could -then say that a borderline in physical units was always, for example, -.01 of the median record at each age above zero. Such a method would -provide relatively equal objective borderlines at each age and it would -afford a measure which would take into account the ability of the -individuals to be competed against instead of merely counting them as -the percentage method must. It would be better than a description in -units of the standard deviation in that its significance would be more -easily understood if the form of distribution varied with age. - -To demonstrate its worth, however, this method of defining the -borderline in terms of _the same proportion of the physical difference -between zero and the median at each age_, would also have to provide a -better prediction of ultimate social failure. It would have to be shown -that individuals below the relative objective borderline at maturity -were below the same relative objective borderline during immaturity. -Moreover, it would have to be shown that this relationship was closer -than it would be with percentile records. It is a form of this relative -objective measurement which Otis advocates in his “absolute intelligence -quotient,” which he proposes as logically the best measure of ability. -It consists of the ratio of the score of the individual measured in -equal absolute units of intelligence, divided by his age (_163_). - -While a relative objective borderline might under certain circumstances -afford a better criterion than the same lowest percentage of -individuals, there are two very serious practical difficulties which at -present make it impossible. In the first place, with the exception of a -few motor tests, there are no test results with children of different -ages measured in terms of equal objective units for the same task. Even -if the Binet year units are equal, as applied to the same task, there is -no accurate means of dividing the year units into smaller physical units -on the basis of scores with the tests. This makes the use of the Binet -scale impossible and we should be forced back upon such tests as the -form-board, the ergograph, etc., for which we should have to agree upon -an absolute zero of ability. Moreover, mental tests do not lend -themselves to measurement in terms merely of rapidity in doing the same -task or in terms of other equal physical units since the quality of the -work also has to be evaluated and this is usually done in units assumed -arbitrarily to measure equivalent degrees of perfection. - -The second practical difficulty which at present makes a relative -objective borderline impossible is that we know nothing as to the -prediction of social failure and success from relative positions on the -objective scale used even with the few isolated tests that might be made -available. Until we have data on this question, as well as scales of -tests for native ability that are measurable to zero ability in -objective terms, the percentage method affords the only available way of -stating equivalent borderlines when the form of distribution changes. - -If the age of arrest of development shifts either earlier or later with -different degrees of capacity, then there seems to be no logical escape -from a change in the form of distribution. Stern recognized this when he -concluded that idiots reach an arrest of development earlier than those -better endowed, so he stated that his quotient would not hold for them. -He said: - - “The feeble-minded child, it must be remembered, not only has a - slower rate of development than the normal child, but also reaches a - stage of arrest at an age when the normal child's intelligence is - still pushing forward in its development. At this time, then, the - cleft between the two will be markedly widened. - - “From this consideration it follows that the mental quotient can - hold good as an index of feeble-mindedness only during that period - when the development of the feeble-minded individual is still in - progress. It is for this reason that there is no use in calculating - the quotient for idiots, because, in their case the stage of - arrested development has been entered upon long before the ages at - which they are being subjected to examination” (_188_). - -Perhaps the most interesting characteristic of the percentage method is -that it automatically adjusts itself to any form of distribution. In -case the distributions of ability turn out to be normal for each age and -the arrests of development for different degrees of ability distribute -alike, then the borderline fixed by the percentage method becomes -identical with the corresponding borderlines by the quotient, deviation, -or relative objective distance. It can be directly translated into a -quotient or a multiple of the standard deviation. This fact affords a -good check upon the empirical borderlines fixed by the percentage method -for different ages. If the distribution is normal, the lowest 1.5% and -0.5% would be identical with -2.17 S. D. and -2.575 S. D. in samples of -10,000 cases. We may check these percentage borderlines by Goddard's -results for ages 5-11 tested with the 1908 Binet scale. I have given the -standard deviation for the ages 5-11 with this data in Chap. XIII a, 2. -Applying the criterion of 2.575 S. D. to these deviations, we find that -to be in the lowest 0.5%, if the distribution were normal, would be -about a year less of deficiency than we have suggested, while Pearson's -borderline of -4 S. D. would be close to that we suggest. The empirical -data thus suggest that the assumption of a normal distribution is faulty -at the borderline or else Goddard's data is incorrect for fixing the -limits on the scales. I have already given the evidence for supposing -that the distribution is skewed during the years of growth. - -When approximately random samples are not available, a multiple of the -deviation of an efficient group such as -4 S. D. at the particular age -seems to afford a practical way of discovering a tentative borderline -until a random sample can be measured. The serious theoretical -objections to such a procedure as a regular method is that the efficient -group would be selected by the subjective standard of somebody's opinion -and that the form of distribution of ability may vary from age to age. - -Recalling the practical advantages of the percentage method which we -enumerated in the preceding section, we can now better understand the -value of a method that is not disturbed by the form of distribution of -mental capacity which may ultimately be found to prevail at different -ages. It is safer at present to assume that the distributions do change -enough in form at the lower end seriously to affect the borderlines of -deficiency as defined by other methods. If, however, the form of -distribution remains uniform, it would first be necessary for those -advocating the use of any of the other quantitative definitions to show -that the units of their scales are equal under some reasonable -hypothesis. A ratio or a deviation statable only in scale units which -are not demonstrably equal is a hazard, with the chances badly weighted -against its reliability. So far as both the Binet and the Point scales -are concerned we have found that the units are not equal. A quotient or -coefficient arrived at by assuming their equality is sure to mean -seriously erroneous fluctuations in the borderlines. - -Referring to the percentage method, Yerkes and Wood say: “Frequency of -occurrence is unquestionably a useful datum, which should be presented, -if not instead of, then in addition to, certain other statistical -indices which possess greater scientific value” (_226_). These other -indices require both equal scale units and uniform distributions from -age to age. The ratio and deviation methods fail at present in both of -these particulars, so that it seems necessary to depend upon the -percentage definition of tested deficiency, incomplete as that may be. - -This leaves us in the unfortunate situation that the borderline -positions on the scale will have to be stated separately for each age -and will have to be found empirically. Moreover, we shall need to -determine more accurately in what lowest percentage an individual must -test in order reasonably to predict that he will require social care for -the good of himself and society. - -As soon as anybody can discover a means of defining the borderline, -which is equally accurate and significant, and which, in addition to -counting the proportion of better individuals to be met in the -competition of life, will also evaluate the distance they are above the -borderline, we all shall be eager to accept this better criterion of -deficiency. A form which it might take is that of relative objective -distance between zero and median ability. If measurable in equal -objective units, this would be independent of the form of distribution -and would improve the quantitative description of equivalent deficiency, -provided that it also forecasted future social failure as well as the -percentage method. - -What form of stating the borderline of tested deficiency may ultimately -meet with approval, a verbal definition of feeble-mindedness will never -remain an ideal scientific statement until it finds expression in -quantitative terms. - - - - - BIBLIOGRAPHY ON TESTED DELINQUENTS[34] - -1. BALDWIN, BIRD T. _The Learning of Delinquent Adolescent Girls as -shown by a Substitution Test._ J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, =4=, 317-332. - -2. BLUMEL, C. S. _Binet Tests on the Two Hundred Juvenile Delinquents._ -Training School Bull., 1915, =12=, 187-193. - -3. BRIDGMAN, OLGA LOUISE. _An Experimental Study of Abnormal Children -with Special Reference to the Problems of Delinquency and Dependency._ -Announcement of Examination for Ph.D., Stanford University, Calif. - -4. BRIDGMAN, OLGA LOUISE. _Delinquency and Mental Deficiency._ Survey, -1914, =32=, 302. - -5. BRIDGMAN, OLGA LOUISE. _Mental Deficiency and Delinquency._ J. of -Amer. Med. Assoc., 1913, =62=, 471-472. - -6. BRONNER, AUGUSTA F. _A Comparative Study of the Intelligence of -Delinquent Girls._ Columbia Contrib. to Educ. 1914, No. 68, pp. v + 95. - -7. BRONNER, AUGUSTA F. _A Research on the Proportion of Mental -Defectives Among Delinquents._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., Nov. 1914. - -8. CHICAGO MUNICIPAL COURT. _The Psychopathic Laboratory Eighth and -Ninth Annual Reports for the years Dec. 1, 1913, to Dec. 5, 1915, -inclusive_, pp. 34-48. - -9. CRAFTS, L. W. _Bibliography of Feeble-Mindedness in its Social -Aspects._ Monog. Sup., J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1916, 1, No. 3, pp. 72. -_A Bibliography on the Relations of Crime and Feeble-Mindedness._ J. of -Crim. Law and Criminol., 1916, 7, 544-555. - -10. CRAMER, A. _Bericht an das Landesdirektorium ueber die -psychiatrisch-neurologische Untersuchung der F. Z. in dem Stephansstift -bei Hannover_, u. s. w., Klin. Jahrb., Jena, 1907, =18=. - -11. DAVIS, KATHERINE BEMENT. _Feeble-minded Women in Reformatory -Institutions._ Survey, 1912, =27=, 1849-1851. - -12. DOLL, E. A. _Supplementary Analysis of H. B. Hickman's Study of -Delinquents._ The Training School, 1915, =11=, 165-168. - -13. DOSAI-RÉVÉSZ, FRAU. _Experimenteller Beitrag zu Psychologie der -moralisch verkommenen Kinder._ Zsch. f. angew. Psychol., 1911, =5=, -272-330. - -14. EASTMAN, FREDERIC C. AND ROSANOFF, A. J. _Association in -Feeble-Minded and Delinquent Children._ Amer. J. of Insanity, 1912, -=69=, 125-141. - -15. FERNALD, GUY G. _The Defective Delinquent Class: Differentiating -Tests._ Amer. J. of Insanity, 1912, =68=, 523-594. - -16. FERNALD, MABEL R. _Practical Applications of Psychology to the -Problems of a Clearing House._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1917, =7=, -722-731. - -17. GIFFORD, MRS. E. G. AND GODDARD, HENRY H. _Defective Children in the -Juvenile Court._ The Training School, 1912, =9=, 132-134. - -18. GODDARD, HENRY H. _The Criminal Imbecile._ Macmillan, New York, -1915, p. 157. - -19. GODDARD, HENRY H. _The Responsibility of Children in Juvenile -Court._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1912, =3=, No. 3. - -20. GORING, CHARLES. _The English Convict._ A Statistical Study. Wyman & -Sons, Ltd., London, 1913, pp. 440. - -21. GRABE, E. VON. _Prostitution, Kriminalität, und Psychopathie._ -Archiv. für kriminal Anthropologie und Kriminalistik, 1912, 48 ff. - -22. GREEN, E. F. _Report of Physician and Psychologist on the -Reformatory Population of St. Cloud, Minn._ J. of Crim. Law and -Criminol., 1913, =4=, 420-421. - -23. GREEN, E. F. _The Defective Delinquents._ Minnesota State -Reformatory, St. Cloud, 1913, pp. 7. - -24. HAINES, THOMAS H. _Feeble-Mindedness Among Adult Delinquents._ J. of -Crim. Law and Criminol., 1917, =7=, 702-721. - -25. HAINES, THOMAS H. _Point Scale Ratings of Delinquent Boys and -Girls._ Psychol. Rev., 1915, =22=, 104-109. - -26. HAINES, THOMAS H. _Relative Value of Point Scale and Year-Scale -Measurements of One Thousand Minor Delinquents._ J. of Exper. Psychol., -1916, =1=, 51-82. - -27. HEALY, WILLIAM. _The Individual Delinquent._ Little, Brown & Co., -Boston, 1915, pp. xvii + 830. - -28. HICKMAN, H. B. _Delinquent and Criminal Boys Tested by the Binet -Scale._ The Training-School Bull., 1915, =11=, 159-164. - -29. HICKSON, WILLIAM J. _The Defective Delinquent._ J. of Crim. Law and -Criminol., 1914, =5=, 397-403. - -30. HILL, HELEN F. AND GODDARD, H. H. _Delinquent Girls Tested by the -Binet Scale._ The Training School, 1911, =8=, 50-56. - -31. JENNINGS, H. M. AND HALLOCK, A. L. _Binet-Simon Tests at the George -Junior Republic._ J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, =4=, 471-475. - -32. JONES, ARTHUR M. _The Relation of the Psychiatrist to the Juvenile -Court._ Wis. Med. J., 1914, =13=, August. - -33. KOHS, SAMUEL C. _The Practicability of the Binet Scale and the -Question of the Borderline Case._ Bull. No. 23, 1915, Research Dep't., -Chicago House of Correction, pp. 23. - -34. KRAMER, FRANZ. _Intelligenzprüfungen an abnormen Kindern._ -Monatschrift für Psychiatrie and Neurologie, 1913, =33=, 500-519. - -35. MCCORD, CLINTON P. _One Hundred Female Offenders._ J. of Crim. Law -and Criminol., 1915, =6=, 385-407. - -36. _Massachusetts._ _Report of the Commission for the Investigation of -the White Slave Traffic._ House Report No. 2281, 1914, pp. 86. - -37. _Michigan._ _Report of the Commission to Investigate the Extent of -Feeble-mindedness, Epilepsy and Insanity and other Conditions of Mental -Defectiveness in Michigan_, 1916, State Printers, Lansing, pp. 175. - -38. MOORE, FRANK. _Mentally Defective Delinquents._ Proc. of Nat. Conf. -of Char. and Cor., 1911, 65-68. - -39. MORROW, LOUISE, AND BRIDGMAN, OLGA. _Delinquent Girls Tested by the -Binet-Scale._ The Training School, 1912, =9=, May. - -40. _New Hampshire._ _Children's Commission Report to the Governor and -Legislature of New Hampshire._ Concord, 1914, pp. 136. - -41. ORDAHL, GEORGE. _A Study of 341 Delinquent Boys._ J. of Delinquency, -1916, =1=, 72-86. - -42. ORTON, G. L. AND MOORE, FRANK. _The Procreative Regulation of -Defectives and Delinquents._ J. of Amer. Med. Assoc., 1912, =58=, No. -26. - -43. OTIS, MARGARET. _The Binet Tests Applied to Delinquent Girls._ -Psychol. Clinic, 1913, =7=, 127-134. - -44. PINTNER, RUDOLF, AND PATERSON, DONALD G. _A Psychological Basis for -the Diagnosis of Feeble-mindedness._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., -1916, =7=, 32-55. - -45. PORTEUS, S. D. _Mental Tests with Delinquents and Australian -Aboriginal Children._ Psychol. Rev., 1917, =24=, 32-42. - -46. PYLE, W. H. _A Study of Delinquent Girls._ Psychol. Clinic, 1914, -=8=, 143-148. - -47. RENZ, EMILE. _A Study of the Intelligence of Delinquents and the -Eugenic Significance of Mental Defect._ The Training School Bull., 1914, -=11=, 37-39. - -48. ROSSY, C. S. _Report on the First Three Hundred Cases Examined at -the Massachusetts State Prison._ Bull. No. 17 of the Mass. State Brd. of -Insanity, 1915. - -49. ROWLAND, ELEANOR. _Report of Experiments at the State Reformatory -for Women at Bedford, N. Y._ Psychol. Rev. 1913, =20=, 244-249. - -50. SCHLAPP, MAX G., AND HOLLINGWORTH, LETTA STETTER. _The Mentally -Defectives as Cases in the Courts of New York City._ Bull. of U. S. Bur. -of Educ., 1915, No. 50, 150-157; N. Y. Med. Rec., Feb. 27, 1915. - -51. SMEDLEY, FRED. W. _Child Study Reports No. 2 and No. 3, 1901, 1902._ -Chicago Public Schools. - -52. SMITH, M. H. _The Binet-Simon Method and the Intelligence of Adult -Prisoners._ Lancet, 1915, =17=, 120. - -53. SMITH, STEVENSON. _First Annual Report of the Bailey and Babette -Gatzert Foundation for Child Welfare._ Bull. of the Univ. of Wash. No. -60, 1912. - -54. STENQUIST, J. L.; THORNDIKE, E. L.; TRABUE, M. R. _The Intellectual -Status of Children who are Public Charges._ Archiv. of Psychol., 1915, -No. 33, pp. 52. - -55. STORER, MARY. _The Defective Delinquent Girl._ J. of -Psycho-Asthenics, 1914, =19=, 23-30. - -56. SULLIVAN, W. C. _La mesure de developpement intellectual chez les -jeunes delinquantes._ L'année psychol., 1912, =18=, 341-361. - -57. TERMAN, LEWIS M. _The Measurement of Intelligence. An Explanation of -and a Complete Guide for the use of the Stanford Revision and Extension -of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale._ Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1916, -pp. xviii + 362. - -58. _Virginia. State Board of Charities and Corrections._ _A Special -Report to the General Assembly of 1916 on Weak-Mindedness in the State -of Virginia; together with a Plan for the Training, Segregation, and -Prevention of the Procreation of the Feeble-Minded._ Richmond, Va., -1916, pp. 128. - -59. WEIDENSALL, JEAN. _Psychol. Tests as Applied to Criminal Women._ -Psychol. Rev., 1914, =21=, 370-375. - -60. WEIDENSALL, JEAN. _The Mentality of the Criminal Woman._ Educ. -Psychol. Monog., Warwick & York, Baltimore, 1916, pp. xx + 322. - -61. WILLIAMS, J. HAROLD. _A Study of 150 Delinquent Boys._ Bull. No. 1. -Research Laboratory of the Buckel Foundation, Stanford University, Cal., -Feb. 1915, pp. 15. - -62. WILLIAMS, J. HAROLD. _Intelligence and Delinquency._ A Study of Two -Hundred and Fifteen Cases. J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1916, =6=, -696-705. - - - OTHER REFERENCES CITED - -63. ABELSON, A. R. _The Measurement of Mental Ability of Backward -Children._ Brit. J. of Psychol., 1911, =4=, 268-314. - -64. _American Association for the Study of the Feeble-Minded._ _Report -of Committee on Classification of Feeble-Minded._ Chippewa Falls, 1909. -J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1910, =15=, 61. - -65. ANDERSON, V. V. _The Laboratory in the Study and Treatment of -Crime._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1915, =5=, 840-850. - -66. ANONYMOUS. _Recommendations on the Binet._ Ungraded, 1915, =1=, 7. - -67. ANTON, G. _Das moralische Fühlen und Begreifen bei Imbezilen und bei -kriminellen Degenerierten_, Hermann, Juristisch-psychiatrische -Grenzfragen, 1912, =8=, Heft. 4, 5. - -68. ASCHAFFENBURG, GUSTAV. _Crime and Its Repression._ Translated by -Adalbert Albrecht. _Modern Crim. Sci. Series._ Little, Brown & Co., -Boston, 1913, pp. xxviii + 331. - -69. AUDEN, GEORGE A. _Feeble-Mindedness and Juvenile Crime._ J. of Crim. -Law. and Criminol., =2=, 228-238. - -70. _Australian Minister of Public Instruction._ _Report for 1911-12._ -Albert J. Mullett, Melbourne, 1913. - -71. AYRES, LEONARD P. _Laggards in Our Schools._ Russell Sage -Foundation, New York, 1909, pp. xii + 236. - -72. BACHMAN, FRANK P. _Supplementary Report on Overage and the Method of -Determining Overage._ New York. - -73. BALDWIN, BIRD T. _Individual Differences in the Correlation of -Physical Growth of Elementary and High School Pupils._ J. of Educ. -Psychol., =2=, 315-341. - -74. BALDWIN, BIRD T. _Physical Growth and School Progress._ Bull. U. S. -Bur. of Educ., 1914, No. 10. - -75. BALDWIN, BIRD T. _The Normal Child. Its Physical Growth and Mental -Development._ Pop. Sci. Mo., 1914, =75=, 550-567. - -76. BINET, ALFRED. _Application of the New Methods to the Diagnosis of -the Intellectual Level Among Normal and Subnormal Children in -Institutions and in the Primary Schools._ L'année psychol., 1905, -245-236. Translated by Elizabeth S. Kite in The Development of -Intelligence in Children. The Training School, Vineland, N. J., 1916, -pp. 336. - -77. BINET, ALFRED, AND SIMON, TH. _Mentally Defective Children._ -Translated by Drummond, W. B. Longmans Green & Co., London, 1914, pp. -viii + 180. - -78. BINET, A. AND SIMON, TH. _Method of Measuring the Development of the -Intelligence of Young Children._ Translated by Clara H. Town. Courier, -Lincoln, Ill., 1913. - -79. BINET, ALFRED, AND SIMON, TH. _The Development of Intelligence in -Children._ Translated by Elizabeth S. Kite. The Training School, -Vineland, N. J., 1916, pp. 329. - -80. BOAS, FRANZ. Growth, Monroe Cyclop. of Educ. - -81. BOBERTAG, OTTO. _Ueber Intelligenz Prüfungen (nach der Methode von -Binet und Simon)._ Zsch. f. Angew. Psychol., 1916, =6=, 531 ff. - -82. BRECKENRIDGE, SOPHONISBA P., AND ABBOTT, EDITH. _The Delinquent -Child and the Home._ Charities Publication Committee, New York, 1912, -pp. 355. - -83. _British Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the -Feeble-Minded._ _Report of the Commission._ Wyman and Sons, Ltd. London, -1908, =8= vols. - -84. BURT, CYRIL. _Experimental Tests of General Intelligence._ Brit. J. -of Psychol., 1910, =3=, 94-177. - -85. BURT, CYRIL. _The Measurement of Intelligence by the Binet Tests._ -Eugenics Rev., 1914, =6=, 36-50, 140-152. - -86. CAJORI, FLORIAN. _A New Marking System and Means of Measuring -Mathematical Abilities._ Science, 1915, =39=, 874-881. - -87. CARPENTER, D. F. _Mental Age Tests._ J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, -=4=, 538-544. - -88. _Children's Bureau of the U. S. Department of Labor._ _Mental -Defectives in the District of Columbia._ Children's Bull., 1915, No. 13, -pp. 39. - -89. CHOTZEN, F. _Die Bedeutung der Intelligenzprüfungsmethode von Binet -und Simon für die Hilfsschule._ Hilfsschule, 1915, =5=, 153-162. - -90. CHOTZEN, F. _Die Intelligenzprüfungsmethode von Binet-Simon bei -Schwachsinnigen Kindern._ Zsch. für angew. Psychol., 1912, =6=, 411-494. - -91. CIMBAL, W. _Taschenbuch zur Untersuchung nerväser und psychischer -Krankheit under Krankheits-ver-dachtiger Zustädige._ J. Springer, -Berlin, 1909. - -92. CLARK, TALIAFERRO; COLLINS, GEORGE L.; AND TREADWAY, W. L. _Rural -School Sanitation Including Physical and Mental Status of School -Children in Porter County, Indiana._ U. S. Public Health Bull., 1916, -No. 77, pp. 125. - -93. CORNELL, WALTER S. _Health and Medical Inspection of School -Children._ F. A. Davis Co., Phila., 1912, pp. xiv + 614. - -94. COULTER, ERNEST K. _Mentally Defective Delinquents and the Law._ -Proc. Nat. Conf. Char. and Cor., 1911. - -95. DAVENPORT, C. B.; CASTLE, WM. ERNEST; COULTER, JOHN MERLE; EAST, -EDWARD MURRAY; AND TOWER, WM. LAWRENCE. _Heredity and Eugenics._ Univ. -of Chicago Press, 1912. - -96. DESCOUDRES, A. _Les tests de Binet-Simon comme mesure du -developpement des enfants anormaux._ Archiv. de psychol., 1915, =15=, -225-254. - -97. _Detroit Board of Education._ _Seventy-Second Annual Report for the -year ending June 30, 1915._ - -98. DOLL, E. A. _Anthropometry as an aid to Mental Diagnosis._ Pub. of -the Research Dept. The Training School, Vineland, N. J., 1916, No. 8, -pp. 91. - -99. DOLL, E. A. _Note on the “Intelligence Quotient.”_ The Training -School, Vineland, No. 7, Jan. 1916. - -100. DOLL, E. A. _Preliminary Note on the Diagnosis of Potential -Feeble-Mindedness._ Training School Bull., 1916, May. - -101. DRUCKER, A. P. _A Study of One Hundred Juvenile Adult Offenders in -the Cook County Jail._ Chicago, Ill. J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., -1913, =4=, 47-57. - -102. FARRELL, ELIZABETH E. _A Preliminary Report on the Careers of Three -Hundred Fifty Children Who Have Left Ungraded Classes._ J. of -Psycho-Asthenics, 1915, =20=, Nos. 1 and 2. - -103. FERNALD, GUY G. _The Recidivist._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., -=3=, 866-875. - -104. FERNALD, WALTER E. _The Imbecile with Criminal Instincts._ Amer. J. -of Insanity, 1909, =65=, No. 4. - -105. FINKLE, KATE T. _Significant Figures from the Juvenile Court of -Hennepin County._ Proc. Minn. Acad. of Soc. Sci., 1910. - -106. GAULT, ROBERT H. _Editorial._ J. of Crim. Law and Crimol., 1913, -=4=, 322. - -107. GAULT, ROBERT H. _Preventives of Delinquency._ J. of Crim. Law and -Criminol., 1914, =4=, 637. - -108. GILBERT, J. ALLEN. _Researches on the Mental and Physical -Development of School-Children._ Stud. from the Yale Psychol. Lab., -1894, =2=, 40-100. - -109. GLUECK, BERNARD. _The Mentally Defective Immigrant._ N. Y. Medical -J., 1913, =98=, 760-796. - -110. GODDARD, HENRY H. _Binet's Measuring Scale for Intelligence._ The -Training School, 1910, =6=, No. 11. - -111. GODDARD, HENRY H. _Discussion of Degree of Mental Deficiency in -Children as Expressed by the Relation of Age to Mental Age._ J. of -Psycho-Asthenics, 1913, =17=, 143 ff. - -112. GODDARD, HENRY H. _Feeble-mindedness: Its Causes and Consequences._ -Macmillan, N. Y., 1914, pp. xii + 599. - -113. GODDARD, HENRY H. _Four Hundred Feeble-Minded Children Classified -by the Binet Method._ J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1910, =15=, 28. - -114. GODDARD, HENRY H. _School Training of Defective Children._ World -Book Co., New York, 1914, pp. xi + 97. - -115. GODDARD, HENRY H. _The Binet-Simon Measuring Scale for -Intelligence._ Revised Edition, 1911. Department of Psychological -Research, The Training School, Vineland, N. J. - -116. GODDARD, HENRY H. _The Diagnosis of Feeble-Mindedness._ Illinois -Med. J., Sept. 1913. - -117. GODDARD, HENRY H. _The Improvability of Feeble-Minded Children._ J. -of Psycho-Asthenics, 1913, =17=, 121-131. - -118. GODDARD, HENRY H. _The Prevention of Feeble-Mindedness._ -Transactions of the 15th Internat. Cong. of Hygiene and Demography. - -119. GODDARD, HENRY H. _Two Thousand Normal Children Measured by the -Binet Measuring Scale for Intelligence._ Ped. Sem., 1911, =18=, 232-259. - -120. GORING, CHARLES. _On the Inheritance of the Diatheses of Phthisis -and Insanity. A Statistical Study based upon the Family History of 1,500 -Criminals._ Biometric Laboratory Pub., Drapers' Co. Research Memoirs, -Biometric Series No. V. - -121. GRUHLE, HANS W. _Die Ursachen der jugendlichen Verwahlosung and -Kriminalität._ J. Springer, Berlin, 1912, pp. iv + 454. Reviewed by J. -B. Miner in J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., March, 1913. - -122. HAINES, THOMAS H. _Diagnostic Values of Some Performance Tests._ -Psychol. Rev., 1915, =22=, 299-305. - -123. HART, B. AND SPEARMAN, C. _Mental Tests of Dementia._ J. of Abnorm. -Psychol., 1914, =9=, 217-264. - -124. HEALY, WILLIAM. _Mental Defects and Delinquency._ Proc. of the Nat. -Confer. Char. and Cor., 1911, =38=, 59-63. - -125. HEALY, WILLIAM AND FERNALD, GRACE M. _Tests for Practical Mental -Classification._ Psychol. Monog., 1911, No. 54, p. 53. - -126. HERON, DAVID. _A First Study of the Statistics of Insanity and the -Inheritance of the Insane Diathesis._ Eugenics Laboratory Publications, -Memoir Series No. 11. Dulau & Co., Ltd. - -127. HERON, DAVID. _Mendelism and the Problem of Mental Defect. A -Criticism of Recent American Work._ Questions of the Day and Fray 1914, -No. XII, p. 51. - -128. HINCKLEY, ALICE C. _The Binet Tests Applied to Individuals Over -Twelve Years of Age._ J. of Educ. Psychol., 1915, =6=, 43-58. - -129. HUEY, EDMUND BURKE. _Backward and Feeble-Minded Children._ Educ. -Psychol. Monog. Warwick and York, 1912. - -130. KELLEY, TRUMAN LEE. _Educational Guidance._ Columbia Contributions -to Educ., 1914, No. 71, pp. xi + 116. - -131. KEY, WILHELMINE E. _Feeble-Minded Citizens in Pennsylvania._ Public -Charities Assoc. of Penn., 1915, Pub. No. 16, pp. 63. - -132. KINBERG, OLAF. _Obligatory Psychiatric Examination of Certain -Classes of Accused Persons._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1912, =2=, -858-867. - -133. KNEELAND, G. J. _Commercialized Prostitution in New York City._ -Century Co., 1913. - -134. KNOX, HOWARD A. _Alien Mental Defectives, A Collection of Papers._ -C. H. Stoelting Co., Chicago. - -135. KUHLMANN, F. _A Revision of the Binet-Simon System of Measuring the -Intelligence of Children._ Monog. Sup. to J. of Psycho-Asthenics, =1=, -No. 1, pp. 41. - -136. KUHLMANN, F. _Binet and Simon's System for Measuring the -Intelligence of Children._ J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1911, =15=, Nos. 3 -and 4. - -137. KUHLMANN, F. _Degree of Mental Deficiency in Children as Expressed -by the Relation of Age to Mental Age._ J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1913, -=17=, 132-144. - -138. KUHLMANN, F. _Some Results of Examining a Thousand Public School -Children with a Revision of the Binet-Simon Tests of Intelligence by -Untrained Examiners._ Jour. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1914, =18=, 150-179, -233-269. - -139. KUHLMANN, F. _The Binet and Simon Tests of Intelligence in Grading -Feeble-Minded Children._ J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1912, =16=, 173-193. - -140. KUHLMANN, F. _What Constitutes Feeble-Mindedness?_ J. of -Psycho-Asthenics, 1915, =19=, 214-236. - -141. LAPAGE, C. PAGET. _Feeble-mindedness in Children of School Age._ -Manchester Univ. Press, 1911, pp. viii + 359. - -142. LINDSAY, S. M. _Juvenile Delinquency._ Monroe's Cyclopedia of -Education. - -143. _London County Council._ _Annual Report, 1909-10._ - -144. _London County Council._ _Annual Report, 1912, Chap. XLI. Special -Schools, Industrial and Reformatory Schools and Places of Detention. -Also Board of Education, Statistics of Public Educ. in Eng. and Wales_, -Part 1, Educ. Statistics, 1912-13. - -145. MCKINNIE, ADELE E. _The Feeble-Minded in One Michigan County._ J. -of Psycho-Asthenics, 1914, =18=, 142-146. - -146. MACMILLAN, D. P. _The Physical and Mental Examination of Public -School Pupils in Chicago._ Charities, Dec. 22, 1906. - -147. _Manheim._ _Bericht ueber den stand der dem Volksschulrektorat -unterstellten Stadtischen Schulern in Manheim in den Schuljahren -1909-10, 1910-11, 1911-12._ - -148. MERRILL, LILBURN. _The Clinical Classification of Delinquent -Children According to Causative Pathology._ Seattle, Wash., 1913. - -149. MERRILL, MAUD. _A Chart of Mental Examinations._ Quarterly, -Representing the Minnesota Educational Philanthropic Correctional and -Penal Institutions. State Board of Control, St. Paul, Nov., 1915, pp. -78. - -150. MEUMANN, ERNST. _Vorlesungen zur Einjuehrung in die experimentelle -Paedagogik and ihre psychologishen Grundlagen._, 1913, =2= vol. - -151. MINER, JAMES BURT. _A Percentage Definition of Intellectual -Deficiency._ Psychol. Bull., 1916, =13=, 89-90. - -152. MINER, JAMES BURT. _The Discovery of Capacity in Backward -Children._ Proceedings of the Twentieth Minnesota State Conference of -Charities and Correction, 1911, 150 ff. - -153. MINER, JAMES BURT. _The Scientific Study of Juvenile Delinquents in -Minneapolis._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1913, =3=, 781-782. - -154. _Minnesota State School for Feeble-Minded._ _Biennial Report for -1912._ - -155. MONROE, WILL S. _Feeble-Minded Children in Public Schools._ -Proceedings of the Assoc. of Med'l. Officers of Amer. Institutions for -Idiotic and Feeble-Minded Persons, at Fort Wayne, Ind., May, 1894, pp. -11. - -156. MOORE, ANNE. _The Feeble-Minded in New York._ A Report Prepared for -the Public Education Association of New York, United Charities Building, -N. Y. City, 1911, pp. iii + 57. - -157. _New Orleans._ _Public School Alliance._ Report of the Committee on -Exceptional Children in the Public Schools of New Orleans, March, 1913. - -158. _New York State Board of Charities._ _Eleven Mental Tests -Standardized._ Eugenics and Social Welfare, 1915. Bull. No. 5, Albany, -pp. 87. - -159. NORSWORTHY, NAOMI. _Psychology of Mentally Deficient Children._ -Archives of Psychol., 1906, No. 1. - -160. NORSWORTHY, NAOMI. _The A Test with the Feeble-Minded._ The -Training School, June, 1913, =10=, No. 4. - -161. OLSON, HARRY. _A Constructive Policy Whereby the Social Evil May Be -Reduced._ Barnard and Miller, Chicago, 1913. - -162. ORDAHL, LOUISE ELLISON, AND ORDAHL, GEORGE. _Qualitative -Differences Between Levels of Intelligence in Feeble-Minded Children._ -J. of Psycho-Asthenics. Monog. Sup., 1915, =1=, No. 2, pp. 50. - -163. OTIS, ARTHUR S. _Some Logical Aspects of the Binet Scale._ Psychol. -Rev., 1916, =23=, 129-152, 165-179. - -164. PEARSON, KARL. _Mendelism and the Problem of Mental Defect. III. On -the Graduated Character of Mental Defect and on the Need for -Standardizing Judgments as to the Grade of Social Inefficiency Which -Shall Involve Segregation._ Questions of the Day and Fray, 1914, No. IX. - -165. PEARSON, KARL. _On Certain Errors with Regard to Multiple -Correlation Occasionally made by those who have not Adequately Studied -this Subject._ Biometrika, 1914, =10=, 181-187. - -166. PEARSON, KARL. _On the Relationship of Intelligence to Size and -Shape of Head and to other Physical and Mental Characters._ Biometrika, -1906, =5=, 105-146. - -167. PEARSON, KARL, AND JAEDERHOLM, GUSTAV A. _Mendelism and the Problem -of Mental Defect. II. On the Continuity of Mental Defect._ Questions of -the Day and Fray, 1914, No. VIII. - -168. _Philadelphia Department of Public Health and Charities._ _The -Number of the Feeble-Minded_, 1910. - -169. PORTER, LANGLEY; HUFFAKER, A.; AND RETTER, A. _Physical Survey of -Supposedly Normal Children._ J. of Amer. Med. Assoc., 1915, =45=, -675-678. - -170. REED, MRS. FREDERICK W. _Research Work in the Minneapolis Juvenile -Court._ Amer. Rev. of Rev., Aug., 1913, =48=, 214-217. - -171. RHOADES, MABEL CARTER. _A Case Study of Delinquent Boys in the -Juvenile Court of Chicago._ Univ. of Chicago Press, 1907, pp. 25. - -172. ROGERS, A. C. _Classification of the Feeble-Minded Based on Mental -Age._ Bull. of Amer. Acad. of Med., 1912. =13=. - -173. ROGERS, A. C. _Discussion of the Mentally Defective and the -Courts._ J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1910, =15=, 58. - -174. ROSANOFF, ISABEL R. AND ROSANOFF, A. J. _A Study of Association in -Children._ Psychol. Rev., 1913, =20=, 43-89. - -175. ROSSOLIMO, G. _Die psychologischen Profile, zur Methodik der -quantitativen Untersuchung der psychischen Vorgänze in normalen und -pathologischen Fällen._ Klinik f. psychische u. nevöse Krankeiten, 1911, -=6=, Heft. 2. - -176. RYBAKOW, TH. _Atlas zur psychologischen Untersuchungen auf gesund -und geistes Kranken._ - -177. SCHAEFER, H. _Allgemeine gerichtliche Psychiatrie für Juristen, -Mediziner und Pädogogen._ Ernst Hoffman, Berlin, 1910. - -178. SCHMIDT, CLARA. _Standardization of Tests for Defective Children._ -Psychol. Monog., 1915, =19=, No. 3. - -179. SCHMIDT, CLARA. _The Binet-Simon Tests of Mental Ability, -Discussion and Criticism._ Ped. Sem., 1912, =19=, 186-200. - -180. SCHWEGLER, RAYMOND A. _A Teacher's Manual for the use of the -Binet-Simon Scale of Intelligence._ Kansas State Printing Office, -Topeka, 1914, pp. 56. - -181. SHUTTLEWORTH, G. E. AND POTTS, W. A. _Mentally Deficient Children._ -3rd Ed. Blakistons Son & Co., 1910, pp. 236. - -182. SIMON, TH. _Measurement of Intelligence._ Eugenics. Rev., 1915, -=6=, 291-307. - -183. SPAULDING, EDITH R. _The Results of Mental and Physical -Examinations of Four Hundred Women Offenders, with Particular Reference -to their Treatment during Commitment._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., -1915, =5=, 704-717. - -184. SPEARMAN, C. _The Heredity of Abilities._ Eugenics Review, 1914, -=6=, 219-237. - -185. SPEARMAN, C. _The Theory of Two Factors._ Psychol. Rev., 1914, -=21=, 101-115. - -186. STARCH, DANIEL. _The Measurement of Efficiency in Spelling and the -Overlapping of Grades in Combined Measurements of Reading, Writing and -Spelling._ J. of Educ. Psychol., 1915, =6=, 167-186. - -187. STERN, WILLIAM. _Der Intelligenz quotient als Mass der kindlichen -Intelligenz, inbesondere der unter normalen._ Zsch. f. angew Psychol., -1916, =11=, 1-18. - -188. STERN, WILLIAM. _Psychological Methods of Testing Intelligence._ -Trans. by G. M. Whipple. Psychol. Monographs, Warwick and York, -Baltimore, 1914. - -189. STRAYER, GEORGE DRAYTON. _Age and Grade Census of Schools and -Colleges._ Bull. of the U. S. Bureau of Educ., 1911, No. 5, pp. 144. - -190. STRONG, ALICE C. _Three Hundred Fifty White and Colored Children -Measured by the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence. A -Comparative Study._ Ped. Sem., 1913, =20=, 485-515. - -191. SYLVESTER, REUEL HALL. _The Form Board Test._ Psychol. Monog., -1913, No. 65, pp. 56. - -192. TERMAN, LEWIS M. _The Binet Scale and the Diagnosis of -Feeble-Mindedness._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1916, =4=, 530-543. - -193. TERMAN, LEWIS M. _The Mental Hygiene of Exceptional Children._ Ped. -Sem., 1915, =22=, 537-539. - -194. TERMAN, LEWIS M. _The Significance of Intelligence Tests for Mental -Hygiene._ J. of Psycho-Asthenics, 1914, =18=, 119-127. - -195. TERMAN, LEWIS M. AND CHILDS, H. G. _A Tentative Revision and -Extension of the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence._ J. of -Educ. Psychol., 1912, =3=, 61-74, 133-143, 198-208, 277-289. - -196. TERMAN, LEWIS M. AND KNOLLIN, H. E. _Some Problems Relating to the -Detection of Borderline Cases of Mental Deficiency._ J. of -Psycho-Asthenics, 1915, =20=, 1-15. - -197. TERMAN, LEWIS M.; LYMAN, GRACE; ORDAHL, GEORGE; GALBREATH, NEVA; -AND TALBERT, WILFORD. _The Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon Scale, -and Some Results from its Application to One Thousand Non-Selected -Children._ J. of Educ. Psychol., 1915, =6=, 551-564. - -198. THORNDIKE, EDWARD L. _Educational Psychology._ Revised Edition. -Columbia, Teachers' College, N. Y. City, 1914, pp. x + 408. - -199. THORNDIKE, EDWARD L. _Measurement of Twins._ Archives of Psychol., -1905, No. 1, pp. 64. - -200. THORNDIKE, EDWARD L. _The Significance of the Binet Mental Ages._ -Psychol. Clinic, 1914, =8=, 185-189. - -201. TOWNE, CLARA H. _Mental Types of Juvenile Delinquents, Considered -in Relation to Treatment._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1913, =4=, -83-89. - -202. TRAVIS, THOMAS. _The Young Malefactor._ N. Y., 1908. - -203. TREADWAY, WALTER L. _Care of Mental Defectives, the Insane, and -Alcoholics in Springfield, Illinois._ The Springfield Survey, No. VIII, -1914, pp. ix + 46. - -204. TREDGOLD, A. F. _Mental Deficiency (Amentia)._ 2nd Ed. Revised and -Enlarged. Bailliere, Tindall & Cox, London, 1914, pp. xv + 491. - -205. _United States Bureau of Census, Dept. of Commerce._ _Insane and -Feeble-Minded in Institutions in 1910_, 1914. - -206. _United States Bureau of Census, Dept. of Commerce._ _U. S. Special -Report of Census Office on Mortality._ Government Printing Office, 1916. - -207. _United States Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce._ _United -States Life Tables, 1910._ Prepared under the Supervision of James W. -Glover, Government Printing Office, 1916. - -208. _United States Commissioner of Education._ _Annual Report_, 1914. - -209. VAN SICKLE, JAMES H.; WITMER, LIGHTNER; AYRES, LEONARD P. -_Provisions for Exceptional Children in Public Schools._ Bull. of U. S. -Bur. of Educ., 1911, No. 14, pp. 92. - -210. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE. _Eight Months of Psycho-Clinical Research at -the New Jersey State Village for Epileptics, with Some Results for the -Binet-Simon Testing._ Trans. of the Nat. Assoc. for the Study of -Epilepsy, 1911, 29-43. - -211. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE. _Mental Health of the School Child._ Yale -Univ. Press, 1914, pp. 463 + ix. - -212. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE. _Psycho-Motor Norms for Practical -Diagnosis._ Psychol. Monog., 1916, =22=, No. 2, pp. 102. - -213. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE. _Re-Averments Respecting Psycho-Clinical -Norms and Scales of Development._ Psycho. Clinic, 1913, =7=, 89-97. - -214. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE. _Who is Feeble-Minded?_ J. of Crim. Law and -Criminol., 1915, =6=, 706-716. - -215. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE. _Who is Feeble-Minded? A Reply to Mr. Kohs._ -J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., 1916, =7=, 56-78. - -216. WALLIN, J. E. WALLACE, AND KOHS, SAMUEL C. _Who is Feeble-Minded? A -Rejoinder and a Rebuttal._ J. of Crim. Law and Criminol., =7=, 219-226. - -217. WEBB, E. _Character and Intelligence._ Brit. J. of Psychol., Monog. -Sup., 1915, =3=, pp. ix + 99. - -218. WEIDENSELL, JEAN. _Criminology and Delinquency._ Annual Summary, -Psychol. Bull., 1913, =10=, 230-236. - -219. WEYANDT, PROF. DR. _Ein Schwachsinns-Prüfungskasten von Prof. Dr. -Weyandt._ Zsch. f. Erforschung and Behandlung des jugendlichen -Schwachsinns, 1910, =4=, Reprint by P. Johannes Muller, Charlottenburg -5. - -220. WHIPPLE, GUY MONTROSE. _Manual of Mental and Physical Tests._ -Warwick and York, Baltimore, 1915, =2= vols. - -221. WITMER, LIGHTNER. _Children With Mental Defect Distinguished from -Mentally Defective Children._ The Psychol. Clinic., 1913, =7=, 175-182. - -222. WOOLLEY, HELEN THOMPSON. _A New Scale of Mental and Physical -Measurements for Adolescents and Some of its Uses._ J. of Educ. -Psychol., 1915, =6=, 521-550. - -223. WOOLLEY, HELEN THOMPSON AND FISCHER, CHARLOTTE R. _Mental and -Physical Measurements of Working Children._ Psychol. Monog., 1914, =18=, -No. 1. - -224. WYATT, STANLEY. _The Quantitative Investigation of Higher Mental -Processes._ Brit. J. of Psychol., 1913, =6=, 104-133. - -225. YERKES, ROBERT M.; BRIDGES, JAMES W.; AND HARDWICK, ROSE S. _A -Point Scale for Measuring Mental Ability._ Warwick and York, Baltimore, -1915, pp. viii + 218. - -226. YERKES, ROBERT M., AND WOOD, LOUISE. _Methods of Expressing Results -of Measurements of Intelligence. Coefficient of Intelligence._ J. of -Educ. Psychol., 1916, =7=, 593-606. - -227. YOUNG, HERMAN H. _The Witmer Formboard._ Psychol. Clinic, 1916, -=10=, 93-111. - -228. YULE, J. UDNY. _An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics._ -Charles Griffen and Co., London, 1911, pp. xiii + 376. - ------ - -Footnote 34: - - Additional references on tested delinquents will be found as footnotes - in Chapter VI. - - - - - APPENDIX I - - - TABLE XXI. - - TEST RECORDS WITH RANDOM FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLDS - - ───┬───┬───┬─────┬─────┬──────────────────┬─────┬──────────────────┬────── - No.│Sex│Age│Grade│ │Kuhlmann 1911, all│1911 │Other Kuhlmann or │ 1908 - │ │Mo.│ │ │ passed in lowest │Score│Goddard 1908 tests│Score - │ │ │ │ │ age given │ │ passed │ - ───┼───┼───┼─────┼─────┼──────────────────┼─────┼──────────────────┼────── - 1│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.4│XI 2. XIII 1 │XIII ⅔ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,5 │ │ │ - 2│ M │ 1│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5 │XI.8 │None │XII.0 - 3│ M │ 10│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.4│XIII 1 │XIII ⅔ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4 │ │ │ - 4│ M │ 5│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.2│None │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 3,5 │ │ │ - 5│ M │ 8│ 8 A │IX, │X 2,3,4. XI │XI.4 │IX 2,3,4,5. X │XII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. XII │ │ 1,2,4. XI 2 │ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. XV 4 │ │ │ - 6│ F │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4. XV 3 │XI.4 │None │XII.2 - 7│ M │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4. XV 1,3 │XII.0│XIII 1 │XIII - 8│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.4│XIII 1 │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 3,4 │ │ │ - 9│ M │ 9│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 1,3 │XII.0│XI 2, XII 3. XIII │XI.6 - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1 │ - 10│ M │ 10│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4. XIII 1 │XI.8 │XI 2. XII 3 │XII.0 - 11│ F │ 0│ 5 B │IX, │X 2,3,4. XI 2,3. │X.8 │IX 2,3,4,5. X │XII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ XII 1,2,4,5 │ │ 1,2,4. XI 2 │ - 12│ M │ 11│ 6 B │VIII,│IX 2,3,4,5. X 2,4.│IX.6 │VIII 1,5. IX │X.0 - │ │ │ │ │ XI 3. XII 1 │ │ 2,3,4,5. X 1. XI│ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 2 │ - 13│ F │ 10│ 7 A │XI, │XII 2,3,4. XV 2? │XI.9 │XI 2. XV 1? │XII.2 - 14│ M │ 11│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4 │XII.0│XI 2. XV 1? │XII.0 - 15│ F │ 4│ 7 A │XII, │XV 2,3 │XII.6│XV 1. │XIII.0 - 16│ M │ 8│ 7 A │XII, │XV 1 │XII.2│None │XII.0 - 17│ F │ 8│ 8 B │X, │XI 2,3,4. XII │XI.4 │X 1.2,4. XI 2 │XII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4 │ │ │ - 18│ M │ 3│ 8 B │IX, │X 2,3,4. XI │XI.0 │VIII 1,5. IX │XI.4 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. XII │ │ 2,3,4. X 1,2,4. │ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,5 │ │ XI 2 │ - 19│ M │ 10│ 8 B │XII, │XV 1,4,5? │XII.5│None │XII.2 - 20│ F │ 3│ 8 B │XII, │XV 5 │XII.2│None │XII.0 - 21│ F │ 3│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4 - 22│ F │ 11│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,4,5 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4 - 23│ F │ 1│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5. XV 3 │XII.4│X 1. XI 2 │XII.2 - 24│ M │ 2│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV 3 │XII.0│XI 2 │XII.2 - 25│ F │ 3│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.4│XII 3 │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3,5 │ │ │ - 26│ M │ 2│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4 - 27│ M │ 11│ 6 A │X, │XI 2,3,4,5. XII │XI.4 │VIII 1,3,5. IX │XI.4 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,4,5 │ │ 2,3,5. X 1,2,4. │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ XI 2 │ - 28│ F │ 8│ 6 A │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.4 - 29│ M │ 4│ 7 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XII.0 - 30│ F │ 1│ 7 B │XI, │XII 2,4. XV 1,3 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.6 - 31│ M │ 7│ 7 B │XI, │XII 1,2,5. XV 3 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.6 - 32│ F │ 4│ 7 A │X, │XI 3,4,5. XII 1,4.│XI.2 │X 1.2,4. XI 2 │XI.0 - │ │ │ │ │ XV 1 │ │ │ - 33│ F │ 0│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,5. XV 1 │XI.8 │IX 2. X 1,2,4. XI │XI.4 - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 2 │ - 34│ F │ 0│ 8 B │X, │XI I,2,3,4. XII │XI.6 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4. XV 3 │ │ │ - 35│ F │ 9│ 8 A │X, │XI 2?,3,4. XII │XI.3 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XI.1 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,3,5 │ │ │ - 36│ F │ 8│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 3,4 │ │ │ - 37│ M │ 2│ 8 A │XII, │XVI │XII.2│XIII 3 │XII.0 - 38│ F │ 6│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2. XV 3? │XII.2│None │XII.0 - 39│ M │ 2│ 8 A │XII, │XV 3,4 │XII.4│None │XII.2 - 40│ F │ 0│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,3,5 │XII.6│XII 3. XIII 1 │XIII.0 - 41│ F │ 7│ 8 B │XII, │XV 2,3,5 │XII.6│None │XIII.0 - 42│ M │ 11│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4, XV │XII.4│XI 2 │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,5 │ │ │ - 43│ F │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │ │XI.0 │XI 2 │XI.0 - 44│ F │ 1│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4 │XII.0│XI 2 │XII.2 - 45│ M │ 5│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,5 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.4 - 46│ F │ 7│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 3 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.6 - 47│ F │ 1│ 8 B │XII, │XV 5 │XII.2│None │XII.0 - 48│ M │ 7│ 8 B │XII, │XV 1,3 │XII.4│XII 3 │XIII.0 - 49│ F │ 8│ 7 B │VIII,│IX 2,3,4,5. X │X.0 │VIII 1,5. IX │IX.8 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4,5. XI 2,5 │ │ 2,3,5. X 1 │ - 50│ F │ 0│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 1 │XII.0│XIII 1 │XI.6 - 51│ M │ 11│ 7 A │XI, │XII 2,3,4. XV 2,3 │XII.0│XI 2 │XIII.0 - 52│ F │ 11│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2,5. XV 5? │XI.5 │XI 2 │XI.2 - 53│ M │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,5. XV 4,5 │XII.0│XI 2 │XI.6 - 54│ M │ 11│ 8 B │XII, │XV 5 │XII.2│None │XII.0 - 55│ F │ 3│ 7 A │VII, │VIII 2,4,5. IX │IX.4 │VI 2,6. VII3,7. │X.8 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,4. X 2,4,5. XI│ │ VIII1,3,5. IX2. │ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2. XII 1,2 │ │ X4, XI2 │ - 56│ M │ 1│ 8 A │XI │XII 1,2. XV 2,3,5 │XII.0│XI 2 │XI.8 - 57│ M │ 10│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,2 │XII.4│XII 2 │XII.2 - 58│ M │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2,3. XV 1,3 │XI.8 │XI 2. XII 3. XIII │XI.8 - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1 │ - 59│ M │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4. XV 5 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XII.2 - 60│ M │ 11│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV 2 │XII.0│None │XII.2 - 61│ M │ 0│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,2,3,4 │XII.8│XI 2. XIII 1 │XIII.0 - 62│ M │ 0│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.4│XI 2 │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4 │ │ │ - 63│ F │ 10│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,4,5. XV 1 │XI.8 │XI 2. XIII 1 │XI.6 - 64│ F │ 0│ 7 A │XII, │XV 3 │XII.4│None │XII.2 - 65│ F │ 9│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.4│XI 2. XIII 1 │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3 │ │ │ - 66│ F │ 7│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,5. XV │XII.6│XI 2. XIII 1 │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4,5 │ │ │ - 67│ M │ 3│ 8 B │XII, │XV 2,3,4? │XII.5│None │XIII.0 - 68│ M │ 4│ 8 A │XII, │XV 2 │XII.2│None │XII.2 - 69│ M │ 2│ 8 A │XII, │XV 2,3?,4 │XII.5│None │XII.2 - 70│ M │ 0│ 7 A │XII, │XV 2,4 │XII.4│None │XII.2 - 71│ F │ 6│ 8 A │X, │XI 1,2,3,4. XII │XI.4 │XIII 1 │XI.6 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2. XV 3 │ │ │ - 72│ F │ 2│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 3,4 │ │ │ - 73│ F │ 10│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,3,4,5 │XII.8│XIII 1 │XIII.0 - 74│ F │ 7│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.6 - 75│ F │ 4│ 7 B │XI, │XII 1,2 │XI.4 │XI 2 │XI.4 - 76│ F │ 2│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3 │XI.6 │X2. XI 2 │XII.0 - 77│ F │ 11│ 7 B │X, │XII 1,4,5 │XI.2 │IX 5. X 4. XI 1 │XI.4 - 78│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XII, │XV 2,3 │XII.4│None │XIII.0 - 79│ F │ 8│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2,4. XV 3,4 │XI.8 │None │XI.6 - 80│ F │ 1│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,5 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.4 - 81│ M │ 9│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XII.0 - 82│ F │ 5│ 8 A │XII, │XV 3,4 │XII.4│XII 3 │XII.2 - 83│ F │ 5│ 8 A │XI, │XV 3,4? │XII.3│None │XII.2 - 84│ F │ 1│ 6 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV 2 │XII.0│XI 2 │XII.2 - 85│ M │ 3│ 8 A │XV, │ │XV.0 │XIII 1 │XIII.0 - 86│ M │ 4│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,5. XV │XII.2│XI 2. XII 3. XIIII│XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2 │ │ │ - 87│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1 │XI.2 │XI 2 │XI.2 - 88│ F │ 5│ 8 A │X, │XI 2,3,4,5. XII │XI.8 │VIII 1,3,5. IX │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2 │ │ 2,3,5. X 1,2,4. │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ XI 2. XII 3 │ - 89│ M │ 0│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,5. XV 1,3,5 │XII.0│XII 3 │XI.4 - 90│ F │ 0│ 7 A │X, │XI 2,3. XII │XI.9 │IX 2,3,5. X 1,2,4.│XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4,5. XV │ │ XI 2. XII 3 │ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4? │ │ │ - 91│ F │ 6│ 7 A │VIII,│IX 2,3,4,5. X │X.4 │VIII 1,3,5. IX │XI.4 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,4,5. XI 1,2,3.│ │ 2,5. X 1,4 │ - │ │ │ │ │ XII 1,2 │ │ │ - 92│ F │ 11│ 8 A │X, │XI 2,3,4. XII 2. │XI.0 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XI.4 - │ │ │ │ │ XV 3 │ │ │ - 93│ F │ 0│ 7 B │IX, │X 2,3,4,5. XI 1,5.│X.8 │IX 2,3,4,5. X 1,2.│X.6 - │ │ │ │ │ XII 2,3,5 │ │ XI 2 │ - 94│ F │ 9│ 6 A │IX, │X 2,3,4,5. XI │XI.3 │IX 2,3,4,5. X │XII.1 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4,5. XII │ │ 1,2,4. XI 2 │ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4. XV 3? │ │ │ - 95│ M │ 6│ 8 A │X, │XI 1,2,4,5. XII │XII.0│X 1,2,4 XI 2 │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3. XV 2,3,4.│ │ │ - 96│ M │ 10│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4. XV │XII.2│None │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3,5 │ │ │ - 97│ F │ 6│ 7 B │X, │XI 4,5. XII 2,5 │X.8 │IX 2,3,4,5. X 1,2.│X.6 - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ XI 2 │ - 98│ M │ 1│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.2│None │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 3,4 │ │ │ - 99│ F │ 1│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2. XV 2,3 │XI.8 │None │XIII.0 - 100│ M │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5. XV │XII.4│None │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3 │ │ │ - 101│ F │ 3│ 6 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3?,4?,5. │XII.4│None │XI.7 - │ │ │ │ │ XV 1,3,4 │ │ │ - 102│ F │ 3│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5 │XI.8 │None │XII.0 - 103│ F │ 0│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,5. XV 1,3 │XII.0│XIII 1 │XI.6 - 104│ M │ 0│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4. XV 3 │XI.8 │None │XII.2 - 105│ F │ 10│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV 4 │XII.0│XII 3 │XII.0 - 106│ F │ 3│ 6 A │XII, │XV 1,3,4,5 │XII.8│XIII 1 │XIII.0 - 107│ F │ 1│ 8 A │IX, │X 2,4,5. XI │XI.4 │IX 1. X 1,2 │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4,5. XII │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3. XV 2,3 │ │ │ - 108│ F │ 8│ 8 A │IX, │X 2,3,4,5. XI │XI.2 │IX 2,3,5. X 1,2,4 │XI.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 3,4,5. XII │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,5. XV 3 │ │ │ - 109│ F │ 2│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV 1 │XII.0│None │XII.0 - 110│ F │ 6│ 7 B │IX, │X 2,3?,5. XI │X.9 │IX 2,3,5. X 2,4. │X.8 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4. XII 1,3. │ │ XII 3 │ - │ │ │ │ │ XV 1,3 │ │ │ - 111│ F │ 2│ 6 A │XII, │XV 1,3,4,5 │XII.8│XII 3. XIII 1 │XIII.0 - 112│ M │ 1│ 5 A │IX, │X 1,2,3,5. XI │X.6 │IX 2,3,4?,5. X │X.5 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4. XII 2 │ │ 1,2,4? │ - 113│ F │ 0│ 6 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XI.6 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4 │ │ │ - 114│ M │ 8│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,3,5 │XII.6│XIII 1 │XIII.0 - 115│ F │ 8│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV 3 │XII.0│XIII 1 │XII.2 - 116│ M │ 2│ 7 B │XI, │XII 2,3,5 │XI.6 │XI 2. XII 3 │XI.4 - 117│ F │ 5│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5 │XI.8 │XIII 1 │XI.6 - 118│ M │ 0│ 7 A │XII, │XV 1,2 │XII.2│None │XII.2 - 119│ F │ 9│ 8 A │XV │ │XV.0 │None │XIII.0 - 120│ F │ 9│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV 3 │XII.0│XI 2 │XII.2 - 121│ M │ 4│ 7 B │XII, │XV 1,5 │XII.2│XII 3 │XII.4 - 122│ F │ 3│ 8 A │XII, │XV 4,5 │XII.4│None │XII.0 - 123│ M │ 5│ 8 B │XII, │ │XII.0│None │XII.0 - 124│ M │ 1│ 8 A │XII, │XV 3,4 │XII.0│None │XII.0 - 125│ M │ 8│ 6 A │X, │XI 1,2,3,4. XII │XII.4│None │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,4 │ │ │ - 126│ M │ 8│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2,4. XV 2,3,4 │XI.2 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XIII.0 - 127│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2,4. XV 3,4 │XII.0│XI 2 │XI.8 - 128│ F │ 9│ 8 A │X, │XI 1,3,4,5. XII │XI.8 │X 1,2,4. XI 2. XII│XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. XV 3 │ │ 3? │ - 129│ F │ 10│ 7 A │XI, │XII1,2,3,5. XV 3,5│XII.2│XI 2 │XI.6 - 130│ F │ 4│ 7 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 3 │XI.8 │None │XI.6 - 131│ M │ 3│ 7 A │VII, │VIII 1,3,5. IX │X.5 │VII 3,4,7. VIII │XI.4 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. X │ │ 1,3,5. IX │ - │ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4,5. XI │ │ 2,3,4,5. X 2,4. │ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,4,5. XII │ │ XIII 1 │ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3. XV 4? │ │ │ - 132│ F │ 3│ 7 B │VIII,│IX 1,2,3?,4,5. X │XI.2 │IX 1,2. X 2,1,4. │XII. - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4?,5. XI │ │ XI 2? XII 3 │ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4,5. XII │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4 │ │ │ - 133│ M │ 7│ 7 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,5 │XI.8 │None │XI.6 - 134│ M │ 1│ 8 B │VIII,│IX 1,2,3,4. X │XI.6 │IX 2,3,4,5. X │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. XI │ │ 1,2,4. XI 2 │ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,5. XII │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4. XV 2,3 │ │ │ - 135│ F │ 1│ 8 A │X, │XI 2,3,4,5. XII │XII.0│X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4. XV 3,4,5 │ │ │ - 136│ F │ 5│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4?. XV │XII.5│XI 1. XII 3. XIII │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4,5 │ │ 1 │ - 137│ M │ 6│ 8 I │XI, │XII 2. XV 2 │XI.4 │XI 2 │XI.4 - 138│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,4,5. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XI.6 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3,4 │ │ │ - 139│ M │ 3│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,3 │XII.4│None │XII.2 - 140│ M │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 3 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.6 - 141│ F │ 7│ 7 A │X, │XI 2,3,4,5. XII │XI.6 │X 4. XI 2 │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,5. XV 2,3 │ │ │ - 142│ M │ 0│ 8 A │XII, │XV 3,4,5 │XII.6│None │XII.2 - 143│ F │ 2│ 5 A │X, │XI I,2,3. XII 5 │X.8 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XI.0 - 144│ M │ 8│ 8 A │XII, │XV 2,3,5 │XII.6│None │XIII.0 - 145│ F │ 11│ 8 B │XII, │XV 3 │XII.2│None │XII.2 - 146│ M │ 10│ 8 A │XV │ │XV.0 │XIII 1 │XIII.0 - 147│ F │ 2│ 7 B │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 3,5 │ │ │ - 148│ F │ 7│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,5. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XI.6 - │ │ │ │ │ 3,5 │ │ │ - 149│ M │ 0│ 8 B │XII │ │XII.0│None │XII.0 - 150│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 2. XV 3,5 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4 - 151│ F │ 7│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV 3 │XII.0│XI 2 │XII.2 - 152│ F │ 5│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5. XV │XII.2│XI 2. XIII 1 │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3 │ │ │ - 153│ M │ 2│ 8 A │XII, │XV 2,3,4,5 │XII.8│None │XIII.0 - 154│ F │ 0│ 4 B │VIII,│IX 2,3,4,5. X 1 │IX.0 │VII 3,4,7. VIII │IX.0 - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1,3. IX 2,5. X 4│ - 155│ M │ 7│ 7 A │XI, │XII 2,5 │XI.4 │XI 2 │XI.2 - 156│ M │ 6│ 8 B │XII, │XV 3 │XII.2│None │XII.2 - 157│ F │ 0│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,3 │XII.4│XII 3. XIII 1 │XIII.0 - 158│ M │ 2│ 8 B │XII, │XV 1,2,3,4 │XII.8│XII 3 │XIII.5 - 159│ F │ 1│ 7 B │X, │XI 1,2,3,4. XII │XI.6 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4 │ │ │ - 160│ F │ 6│ 8 B │XII, │XV 3,5 │XII.4│None │XII.2 - 161│ M │ 1│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1 │XII.2│XII 3. XIII 1 │XII.2 - 162│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XII │ │XII.4│XII 3?. XIII 1 │XII.2 - 163│ F │ 6│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.2│None │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 3,4 │ │ │ - 164│ F │ 10│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,5 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4 - 165│ M │ 8│ 8 A │X, │XI 1,2,3. XII │XI.4 │VIII 1,3,5. IX │XI.4 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,3,4,5 │ │ 2,3,4,5. X 1,4. │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ XI 2 │ - 166│ F │ 1│ 7 A │X, │XI 3,4,5. XII │XI.8 │X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4. XV 1,3 │ │ │ - 167│ M │ 8│ 6 B │XI, │XII 2,3 │XI.8 │XI 2. XII 3 │XI.6 - 168│ M │ 10│ 6 A │X, │XI 1,3,4,5. XII │XII.0│X 1,2,4. XI 2 │XI.6 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,5. XV 2,5 │ │ │ - 169│ M │ 10│ 6 B │XI, │XII 1,4?,5. XV 2? │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4 - 170│ M │ 10│ 8 A │XI, │XII 3,4,5. XV 5 │XI.8 │None │XI.4 - 171│ M │ 1│ 8 A │XII, │XV 2,4 │XII.4│None │XII.2 - 172│ M │ 3│ 8 A │X, │XI 2,3,4. XI │XI.4 │X 1,2,4 │XII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4 │ │ │ - 173│ F │ 4│ 8 A │X, │XI 1,3,4,5. XII │XII.2│X 1,2,4. XIII 1 │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4,5. XV │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ 1,4,5 │ │ │ - 174│ F │ 2│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.2│XII 3. XIII 1 │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3 │ │ │ - 175│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4. XV 1 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XII.2 - 176│ F │ 4│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.2│XI 1 │XII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,4 │ │ │ - 177│ M │ 3│ 8 A │X, │XI 1,2,3,4. XII │XI.6 │X 1,2,4. XI 1 │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4. XV 3 │ │ │ - 178│ M │ 6│ 8 A │XII, │XV 1,3 │XII.4│XI 2. XII 3?. XIII│XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1 │ - 179│ F │ 2│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 3 │XII.2│None │XII.2 - 180│ F │ 2│ 8 B │XII, │XV 1,3 │XII.4│None │XII.2 - 181│ F │ 2│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 3,4 │ │ │ - 182│ F │ 6│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV 3 │XII.0│XI 2 │XII.2 - 183│ F │ 0│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5. XV │XII.2│None │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,3 │ │ │ - 184│ M │ 5│ 7 A │XI, │XII 4,5 │XI.6 │XI 2 │XI.4 - 185│ M │ 2│ 7 A │XI, │XII 2,3,4. XV 1 │XI.4 │XI 2 │XI.8 - 186│ F │ 9│ 7 B │XI, │XII 2,3. XV │XII.1│XI 2 │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3,4? │ │ │ - 187│ M │ 8│ 7 A │XII, │XV 3 │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2 - 188│ M │ 2│ 7 B │XI, │XII 1,2,4,5. XV │XII.4│XI 2 │XIII.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,3 │ │ │ - 189│ M │ 4│ 7 B │XI, │XII 2,3,4,5 │XI.8 │XI 2 │XI.4 - 190│ M │ 2│ 6 B │XI, │XII 4,5 │XI.4 │IX 2,3,4,5. X │XI.2 - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1,2,4. XI 2 │ - 191│ F │ 1│ 7 B │IX, │X 1,2,3,4. XI 3,5.│X.6 │IX 2,3,5. X 1,2,4.│X.6 - │ │ │ │ │ XII 4,5 │ │ XI 2 │ - 192│ F │ 1│ 8 A │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3 │ │ │ - 193│ M │ 10│ 8 B │X, │XI 1,2,5. XII │XI.2 │IX 2,3,4,5. X │XI.0 - │ │ │ │ │ 2,4,5 │ │ 1,2,4. XI 2 │ - 194│ M │ 8│ 8 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3,4. XV │XII.2│XI 2 │XII.2 - │ │ │ │ │ 1,3 │ │ │ - 195│ M │ 3│ 7 B │XI, │XII 1,2,3. XV 1 │XI.8 │XI 2. XII 3 │XI.6 - 196│ F │ 2│ 8 B │XI, │XII 2 │XI.2 │XI 2 │XI.2 - ───┴───┴───┴─────┴─────┴──────────────────┴─────┴──────────────────┴────── - - - - - APPENDIX II - - - TABLE XXII. - - RECORDS OF THE DELINQUENTS AT THE GLEN LAKE FARM SCHOOL OF HENNEPIN - COUNTY, MINN. - - ───────┬─────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┬────────────────────────── - │Life-Age │ │ Basal │ School │ - │ │ │ │ Grade │ - No. │Yr. │Mo. │Test-Age│Test-Age│Sept. 1 │ Offense - │ │ │ │ │ of │ - │ │ │ │ │Life-Age│ - ───────┼────┼────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────────────────────── - 1│ 9│ 10│VIII.8 │VIII[35]│ 3 B│Truancy - [36]2│ 16│ 7│XIII │XIII │ 12 A│Grand larceny - 3│ 10│ 1│X.8 │IX[35] │ 3 A│Truancy - 4│ 12│ 4│XII │XII │ 4 A│Truancy - 5│ 14│ 3│XII.2 │XII │ 7 A│Petit larceny - [36]6│ 14│ 8│XIII │XIII[35]│ 9 B│Assault & battery - 7│ 16│ 3│XIII │XIII │ 9 B│Check, no funds - 8│ 15│ 7│XIII │XIII │ 7 A│Burglary - [36]9│ 15│ 0│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 8 B│Petit larceny - [36]10│ 9│ 9│IX.2 │VIII │ 2 B│Truancy - [36]11│ 14│ 5│XII │XII │ 9 B│Petit larceny - 12│ 12│ 2│XI.2 │XI │ 4 A│Incorrigibility - [36]13│ 16│ 0│XIII │XIII[35]│ 8 A│Petit larceny - 14│ 13│ 8│IX.6 │VIII[35]│ 4 B│Breaking & entering - [36]15│ 15│ 10│X.6 plus│X │ 4 A│Incorrigibility - [36]16│ 15│ 9│X.6 │IX[35] │ 5 B│Breaking & entering - [36]17│ 11│ 1│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 5 B│Incorrigibility - [36]18│ 14│ 10│XII.2 │XII │ 5 A│Indecent conduct - [36]19│ 15│ 11│XIII │XIII │ 8 A│Truancy - 20│ 13│ 2│VIII.4 │VII │ 3 B│Grand larceny - 21│ 14│ 1│XIII │XIII │ 8 B│Petit larceny - [36]22│ 13│ 9│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 6 B│Petit larceny - 23│ 11│ 0│XI.2 │XI │ 4 B│Incorrigibility - 24│ 16│ 11│XI.6 │XI │ 7 A│Petit larceny - 25│ 12│ 6│XI.2 │XI[35] │ 7 B│Truancy - [36]26│ 12│ 9│XI.2 │X │ 4 B│Incorrigibility - ───────┼────┴────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────────────────────── - │Life-Age │ │ Basal │ School │ - No. │Yr. │Mo. │Test-Age│Test-Age│ Grade │ Offense - ───────┼────┼────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────────────────────── - [36]27│ 11│ 0│X.4 │X │ 5 A│Petit larceny - [36]28│ 15│ 7│XIII │XIII │ 8 A│Truancy - 29│ 14│ 9│XII │XII │ 5 A│Truancy - [36]30│ 11│ 11│XII │XII │ 6 B│Truancy - [36]31│ 11│ 4│IX.8 │IX[35] │ 4 B│Truancy - [36]32│ 15│ 7│XII │XII │ 7 │Vagrancy - [36]33│ 13│ 9│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 5 │Grand larceny - [36]34│ 13│ 8│X.8 │X │ 5 A│Petit larceny - 35│ 16│ 6│XII.2 │XII │ 8 A│Burglary - [36]36│ 10│ 8│IX.8 │VIII[35]│ 3 B│Incorrigibility - [36]37│ 14│ 10│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 7 B│Grand larceny - [36]38│ 13│ 8│XIII.0 │XIII │ 8 B│Disorderly conduct - [36]39│ 14│ 1│X.8 │X[35] │ 4 B│Truancy - 40│ 15│ 2│XI.6 │XI │ 7 B│Petit larceny - [36]41│ 9│ 9│X.2 │X │ 4 B│Truancy - 42│ 11│ 5│XI.4 │XI │ 5 B│Incorrigibility - [36]43│ 7│ 8│VII.6 │VII │ 2 B│Petit larceny - [36]44│ 13│ 11│XI.6 │XI │ 8 B│Grand larceny - [36]45│ 15│ 1│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 9 B│Burglary - 46│ 13│ 10│XII │XII │ 5 B│Incorrigibility - [36]47│ 10│ 6│IX.2 │IX[35] │ 5 B│Truancy - 48│ 14│ 1│X.2 │X[35] │ 6 B│Burglary - 49│ 14│ 3│XIII │XIII[35]│ 8 B│Burglary - 50│ 14│ 7│XII.2 │XII[35] │ 8 B│Burglary - [36]51│ 13│ 2│XII.2 │XII │ 8 B│Malicious destruction of - │ │ │ │ │ │ property - 52│ 13│ 6│X.2 │X │ 7 B│Petit larceny - [36]53│ 13│ 7│XI.6 │XI │ 6 A│Burglary - 54│ 14│ 3│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 5 A│Incorrigibility - 55│ 6│ 0│VII.8 │VII[35] │ 1 B│Petit larceny - 56│ 15│ 0│XII.2 │XII │ 8 B│Incorrigibility - [36]57│ 12│ 0│XI │XI │ 6 A│Petit larceny - [36]58│ 15│ 0│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 7 A│Petit larceny - 59│ 15│ 9│X.4 │X[35] │ 6 B│Petit larceny - 60│ 15│ 1│XIII │XIII │ 7 A│Petit larceny - [36]61│ 11│ 3│XI.4 │XI │ 4 A│Truancy - 62│ 12│ 0│XI │X │ 3 A│Truancy - [36]63│ 15│ 3│XIII │XII I │ 8 B│Petit larceny - [36]64│ 16│ 1│VIII.8 │VIII │ 5 B│Trespass - 65│ 16│ 4│XII │XII │ 6 B│Incorrigibility - [36]66│ 15│ 0│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 6 B│Trespass - [36]67│ 14│ 5│IX.9 │IX[35] │ 3 A│Incorrigibility - 68│ 16│ 0│XI.4 │XI │ 9 B│Disorderly conduct - [36]69│ 16│ 0│XIII │XIII │ 8 B│Grand larceny - [36]70│ 15│ 7│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 7 B│Jumping on train - 71│ 15│ 8│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 6 A│Disorderly conduct - 72│ 16│ 7│XIII │XIII[35]│ 10 │Taking auto. - [36]73│ 15│ 11│XII.2 │XII │ 6 A│Truancy - [36]74│ 13│ 1│X.4 │X[35] │ 3 A│Truancy - [36]75│ 14│ 10│XI.6 │XI │ 5 A│Truancy - [36]76│ 11│ 4│VIII.8 │VIII │ 3 A│Incorrigibility - [36]77│ 10│ 3│XI │XI │ 4 A│Petit larceny - [36]78│ 13│ 4│X.8 │X[35] │ 4 A│Petit larceny - 79│ 15│ 5│XII │XII │ 7 A│Indecent Conduct - [36]80│ 15│ 4│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 5 A│Furnishing Liquor - [36]81│ 11│ 0│XII │XII │ 5 B│Malicious destruction of - │ │ │ │ │ │ property - [36]82│ 12│ 5│IX.8 │IX[35] │ 4 B│Petit larceny - [36]83│ 11│ 7│XI.4 │XI │ 4 A│Truancy - 84│ 13│ 8│XI │XI[35] │ 6 B│Incorrigibility - 85│ 16│ 4│XII │XII │ 11 A│Petit larceny - 86│ 11│ 4│XI.4 │XI[35] │ 5 A│Malicious destruction of - │ │ │ │ │ │ property - [36]87│ 13│ 9│XI.4 │XI │ 6 B│Petit larceny - [36]88│ 14│ 0│XI.2 │XI │ 8 A│Burglary - 89│ 16│ 5│X │X │ 5 B│Taking auto plug - 90│ 14│ 9│XIII │XIII │ 6 A│Petit larceny - 91│ 13│ 10│X.4 │X │ 4 B│Carrying dangerous weapons - [36]92│ 15│ 4│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 6 B│Truancy - 93│ 15│ 11│XIII │XIII │ 8 B│Truancy - 94│ 12│ 10│XII │XII │ 4 B│Incorrigibility - [36]95│ 10│ 10│IX.2 │VIII[35]│ 3 A│Petit larceny - [36]96│ 12│ 4│XII.2 │XII │ 7 B│Petit larceny - [36]97│ 15│ 7│XIII │XIII │ 9 A│Burglary - 98│ 14│ 9│XII │XII │ 8 B│Incorrigibility - [36]99│ 11│ 0│XI.2 │XI[35] │ 5 B│Incorrigibility - 100│ 13│ 7│X.2 │X │ 5 B│Petit larceny - 101│ 10│ 9│VIII │VII │ 3 B│Breaking & entering - [36]102│ 15│ 1│XIII │XIII │ 7 A│Truancy - 103│ 15│ 5│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 10 B│Incorrigibility - 104│ 9│ 7│IX │VIII[35]│ 4 B│Incorrigibility - 105│ 15│ 10│XI.6 │XI │ 7 A│Receiving stolen property - 106│ 15│ 10│XII.2 │XII │ 5 B│Incorrigibility - 107│ 12│ 2│XII.2 │XII │ 7 B│Vagrancy - 108│ 13│ 1│X.8 │X │ 5 B│Truancy - [36]109│ 13│ 9│X.6 │X[35] │ 5 B│Petit larceny - [36]110│ 15│ 10│XI.4 │XI │ 6 A│Malicious destruction of - │ │ │ │ │ │ property - [36]111│ 12│ 6│XI.2 │XI │ 5 B│Petit larceny - 112│ 10│ 9│XII │XII │ 4 A│Sweeping grain car - 113│ 15│ 2│XIII │XIII │ 9 B│Trespass - 114│ 12│ 10│XII.2 │XII │ 5 B│Incorrigibility - 115│ 14│ 7│XI.6 │XI[35] │ 7 B│Incorrigibility - [36]116│ 15│ 10│XI.4 │XI │ 7 A│Incorrigibility - [36]117│ 13│ 9│XII │XII │ 4 A│Incorrigibility - [36]118│ 9│ 1│XI.2 │XI[35] │ 5 B│Incorrigibility - [36]119│ 16│ 11│XI │X[35] │ 7 B│Disorderly conduct - [36]120│ 13│ 3│XII.2 │XII │ 6 B│Truancy - [36]121│ 9│ 9│IX.6 │VIII[35]│ 4 B│Sweeping grain car - [36]122│ 11│ 9│X.8 │X │ 3 B│Sweeping grain car - [36]123│ 10│ 3│X.2 │X │ 4 A│Truancy - ───────┴────┴────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴────────────────────────── - ------ - -Footnote 35: - - Passed all tests at the basal age. The others passed all but one test - at the basal age. - -Footnote 36: - - Repeater. - - - - - INDEX - - - Ability of the feeble-minded, 74, 92, 197 - - Arrest of development, see maturity - - Average curves, 280 ff - - - Binet Scale, 7, 172 - Year units of, 260 ff - - Borderline of deficiency, 5, 13, 304 ff - For the mature, 82-95, 240, 315 - For the immature, 104-110 - - - Causes of delinquency, 203 ff, 210 ff - Method of studying, 218, 224 ff, 231 ff, 244 - - City jails, 148 - - Coefficient of intelligence, 305, 313 - - Conative cases, 15, 18, 24-30, 34-40, 239, 248 - - Convicts deficient, 142 - - Correlation: of degree of deficiency with delinquency, 217 - Of deficiency and criminality, 220 - Significance of coefficients of, 219 - Of deficiency and juvenile delinquency, 220 - - County institutions, 134, 148 - - Crimes by the feeble-minded, 212, 214 - - Criminal diathesis, 234 - - - Death rates, 30 - - Deficiency, nature of, 21, 211 ff, 239 - See feeble, frequency, correlation, etc. - - Deficient delinquents, 158, 190, 199, 211 ff, 239, 246 - - Delinquency, see frequency of, causes of, correlation, etc. - - Delinquents: first offenders, 165, 167 - Repeaters, 168 - - Delinquents, tested: female, 128-141 - Male, 141-157 - - Development curves, 252 ff., 279 ff - - Diagnosis, 6, 11, 14, 52, 90, 107, 172-176, 194, 197, 201, 241-244 - - Distribution curves, 267-275, 317-323 - - Doubtful cases, 18 - - - Employment of feeble-minded, 74-80 - - Environment, 42, 225 ff - - Estimating deficiency by schooling, 190, 199 - - Expert court advice, 243 - - - Family resemblance versus heredity, 231 - - Feeble-minded not detected by tests, 14, 34-40 - - Feeble-mindedness, 10, 17, 18, 20, 239 - See deficiency. - - Frequency of deficiency, 23, 47 ff., 80, 158 ff - Effect of local conditions, 147, 152, 161, 163 - - Frequency of delinquency among deficients, 211-218 - - - General ability, 34, 45, 282 ff - - Glen Lake Farm School, 122, 177 - - Goddard's Scale, borderlines, 89, 106, 111, 313 - - Goring's study of criminals, 218 ff., 231 ff - - Gruhle's method, 229 - - - Heredity, 229 ff., 236, 244 - - - Individual differences, 41, 280 - - Inert cases, 15 - - Instability, 15, 23 - - Institutional care, 242, 246, 248 - - Intellectual deficiency, 10, 17, 20 - - Intelligence quotient, 304, 313 - - - Juvenile delinquency and deficiency, 220-223 - - Juvenile delinquents, 162 - - - Kuhlmann's Scale, borderlines, 87-90, 111, 118 - - - Legal responsibility, 244 - - - Maturity of mind, 83, 282, 290 - Later for deficients, 294 ff., 230 - - Measurement units, 254 ff., 275 ff., 317 - - Mental deficiency, 11, 20 - See feeble. - - Mental development, 279 ff - - Minneapolis: delinquents tested, 125 - School retardation, 177-185, 199 - Juvenile deficient delinquents, 220-223 - - Minneapolis, school group tested, 85-91 - - Morons: chances of delinquency, 217 - Danger to society, 237, 246 - - - Normal distribution, 256, 267 - - - Observation home, 242 - - Offenses, 168 - - - Percentage definition of deficiency, 5, 13, 20, 65, 75, 80, 240, 304 - ff., 307 - Advantages, 311 ff. - - Percentage feeble-minded, 47 ff. - - Percentiles as units, 276 - - Point Scale, borderlines, 114, 313 - - Prostitutes, 78, 129, 140, 158 - Schooling, 186 - - - Quantitative definitions, 21, 304 ff. - Effect of uncertain forms of distribution, 317 ff. - - - Ranks as units, 276 - - Rates of development, 290 ff. - - Recidivism, 168, 235 - - Reformatories, 128, 143 - - Responsibility of deficients, 244 - - - School test of deficiency, 177, 189 ff. - - School maladjustment, 203-209, 247 - - School retardation of delinquents, 177-188, 190-194, 199 - - Skewed distributions, 267, 300 - - Social care, 47-52, 80, 158 ff., 212-214, 216, 237, 242-251 - - Social deficiency, 10, 15, 74, 239 - - Special ability, 34, 45 - - Special classes, 62 ff., 74-80 - - Standard deviation, 256, 306, 314 - - Stanford Scale, borderlines, 101, 112, 313 - - State prisons, 128, 141 - - State Training Schools, 131, 145 - - Sterilization, 245 - - - Test by school retardation, 177, 189 - - Tested deficiency, 13 - - Tests, mental, 170 ff. - See also Binet, Goddard, Kuhlmann, Point, and Stanford Scales. - - Thorn Hill Detention Home, 151 - - Training for deficients, 205 - - - Units of measurement, 254, 275, 317 - - - Vagrancy, 158 - - Variability, 41-46, 280 ff. - - - Year units, 260-266 - - - - - * * * * * * - - - - -Transcriber's note: - - 1. Changed the total column in Table X on p. 151 for the life-age 8 row - to 1 and the Totals row to 124. - - 2. In TABLE XIII. on p. 179 the GIRLS Percentages columns on the - Ordinary Pupils row only adds up to 99%. - - 3. Silently corrected typographical errors. - - 4. Retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed. - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DEFICIENCY AND DELINQUENCY*** - - -******* This file should be named 52826-0.txt or 52826-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/2/8/2/52826 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |