Chapter 35

INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR VII

VII, 1. GIVING THE NUMBER OF FINGERS

PROCEDURE. "_How many fingers have you on one hand?_" "_How many on the other hand?_" "_How many on both hands together?_" If the child begins to count in response to any of the questions, say: "_No, don't count. Tell me without counting._" Then repeat the question.

SCORING. Passed _if all three questions are answered correctly and promptly_ without the necessity of counting. Some subjects do not understand the question to include the thumbs. We disregard this if the number of fingers exclusive of thumbs is given correctly.

REMARKS. Like the two tests of counting pennies, this one, also, throws light on the child's spontaneous interest in numbers. However, the mental processes it calls into play are a little less simple than those required for mere counting. If the child is able to give the number of fingers, it is ordinarily because he has previously counted them and has remembered the result. The memory would hardly be retained but for a certain interest in numbers as such. Middle-grade imbeciles of even adult age seldom remember how many fingers they have, however often they may have been told. They are not able to form accurate concepts of other than the simplest number relationships, and numbers have little interest or meaning for them.

Binet gave this test a place in year VII of the 1908 series, but omitted it in the 1911 revision. Goddard omits it, while Kuhlmann retains it in year VII, where, according to our own figures, it unmistakably belongs. Bobertag finds it rather easy for year VII, though too difficult for year VI.

Our data prove that this test fulfills the requirements of a good test. It shows a rapid but even rise from year V to year VIII in the per cent passing, the agreement among the different testers is extraordinarily close, and it is relatively little influenced by training and social environment. For these reasons, and because it is so easy to give and score with uniformity, it well deserves a place in the scale.

VII, 2. DESCRIPTION OF PICTURES

PROCEDURE. Use the same pictures as in III, 3, presenting them always in the following order: Dutch Home, River Scene, Post-Office. The formula for the test in this year is somewhat different from that of year III. Say: "_What is this picture about? What is this a picture of?_" Use the double question, and follow the formula exactly. It would ruin the test to say: "_Tell me everything you see in this picture_," for this form of question tends to provoke the enumeration response even with intelligent children of this age.

When there is no response, the question may be repeated as often as is necessary to break the silence.

SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ pictures are described or interpreted. Interpretation, however, is seldom encountered at this age. Often the response consists of a mixture of enumeration and description. The rule is that the reaction to a picture should not be scored _plus_ unless it is made up chiefly of description (or interpretation).

Study of the following samples of satisfactory responses will give a fairly definite idea of the requirements for satisfactory description:--

_Picture (a): satisfactory responses_

"The little girl is crying. The mother is looking at her and there is a little kitten on the floor."

"The mother is watching the baby, and the cat is looking at a hole in the floor, and there is a lamp and a table so I guess it's a dining room."

"The little girl has wooden shoes. Her mother is sitting in a chair and has a funny cap on her head. The cat is sitting on the floor and there is a basket by the mother and a table with something on it."

"It's about Holland. The little Dutch girl is crying and the mother is sitting down."

"A little Dutch girl and her mother and that's a kitten, and the little girl has her hand up as if she was doing something to her forehead. She has shoes that curve up in front."

"Dutch lady, and the little baby doesn't want to come to her mother and the cat is looking for some mice."

"The mother is sitting down and the little one has her hands up over her eyes. There's a pail by the mother and a chair with some clothes on it and a table with dishes. And here's a lamp and here's some curtains."

_Picture (b): satisfactory responses_

"Some people in a boat. The water is high and if they don't look out the boat will tip over."

"Some Indians and a lady and man. They are in a boat on the river and the boat is about to upset, and there are some dead trees going to fall."

"There's a lot of water coming up to drown the people. There are two people in the boat and the boat is sinking."

"There's some people sailing in a canoe and the woman is leaning over on the man because she is afraid."

"There's an Indian and some white people in the boat. I suppose they are out for a ride in a canoe."

"Picture about some man and lady in a canoe and going down to the sea."

"They are taking a boat ride on the ocean and the water is up so high that one of them is scared. Here are some trees and two of them are going to fall down. Here's a little place or bridge you can stand on. The man is touching this one's head and this one has his hand on the cover."

"The water is splashing all over. There's trees on this bank and there's a rock and some trees falling down. The people have a blanket over them."

_Picture (c): satisfactory responses_

"A man selling eggs and two men reading the paper together and two men watching."

"A few men reading a newspaper and one has a basket of eggs and this one has been fishing."

"There's a man with a basket of eggs and another is reading the paper and a woman is hanging out clothes. There's a house near."

"There's a man trying to read the paper and the others want to read it too. Here's a lady walking up to the barn. There are houses over there and one man has a basket."

"There's a big brick house and five men by it and a man with a basket of eggs and a post-office sign and a lady going home."

"They are all looking at the paper. He is looking over the other man's shoulder and this one is looking at the back of the paper. There's a woman cleaning up her back yard and some coops for hens."

"A man reading a paper, a man with eggs, a woman and a tree and another house. That man has an apron on. This is the post-office."

Unsatisfactory responses are those made up entirely or mainly of enumeration. A phrase or two of description intermingled with a larger amount of enumeration counts _minus_. Sometimes the description is satisfactory as far as it goes, but is exceedingly brief. In such cases a little tactful urging ("_Go ahead_," etc.) will extend the response sufficiently to reveal its true character.

REMARKS. Description is better than enumeration because it involves putting the elements of a picture together in a simple way or noting their qualities. This requires a higher type of mental association (combinative power) than mere enumeration. An unusually complete description indicates relative wealth of mental content and facility of association.

Binet placed this test in year VII, and it seems to have been retained in this location in all revisions except Bobertag's. However, the statistics of various workers show much disagreement. Lack of agreement is easily accounted for by the fact that different investigators have used different series of pictures and doubtless also different standards for success. The pictures used by Binet have little action or detail and are therefore rather difficult for description. On the other hand, the Jingleman-Jack pictures used by Kuhlmann represent such familiar situations and have so much action that even 5- or 6-year intelligence seldom fails with them. The pictures we employ belong without question in year VII.

No better proof than the above could be found to show how ability of a given kind does not make its appearance suddenly. There is no one time in the life of even a single child when the power to describe pictures suddenly develops. On the contrary, pictures of a certain type will ordinarily provoke description, rather than enumeration, as early as 5 or 6 years; others not before 7 or 8 years, or even later.

VII, 3. REPEATING FIVE DIGITS

PROCEDURE. Use: 3-1-7-5-9; 4-2-3-8-5; 9-8-1-7-6. Tell the child to listen and to say after you just what you say. Then read the first series of digits at a slightly faster rate than one per second, in a distinct voice, and with perfectly uniform emphasis. _Avoid rhythm._

In previous tests with digits, it was permissible to re-read the first series if the child refused to respond. In this year, and in the digits tests of later years, this is not permissible. Warning is not given as to the number of digits to be repeated. Before reading each series, get the child's attention. Do not stare at the child during the response, as this is disconcerting. Look aside or at the record sheet.

SCORING. Passed if the child repeats correctly, after a single reading, _one series out of the three_ series given. The order must be correct.

REMARKS. Psychologically the repetition of digits differs from the repetition of sentences mainly in the fact that digits have less meaning (fewer associations) than the words of a sentence. It is because they are not as well knit together in meaning that three digits tax the memory as much as six syllables making up a sentence.

Testing auditory memory for digits is one of the oldest of intelligence tests. It is easy to give and lends itself well to exact quantitative standardization. Its value has been questioned, however, on two grounds: (1) That it is not a test of pure memory, but depends largely on attention; and (2) that the results are too much influenced by the child's type of imagery. As to the first objection, it is true that more than one mental function is brought into play by the test. The same may be said of every other test in the Binet scale and for that matter of any test that could be devised. It is impossible to isolate any function for separate testing. In fact, the functions called memory, attention, perception, judgment, etc., never operate in isolation. There are no separate and special "faculties" corresponding to such terms, which are merely convenient names for characterizing mental processes of various types. In any test it is "general ability" which is operative, perhaps now _chiefly_ in remembering, at another time _chiefly_ in sensory discrimination, again in reasoning, etc.

The second objection, that the test is largely invalidated by the existence of imagery types, is not borne out by the facts. Experiments have shown that pure imagery types are exceedingly rare, and that children, especially, are characterized by "mixed" imagery. There are probably few subjects so lacking in auditory imagery as to be placed at a serious disadvantage in this test.

Lengthening a series by the addition of a single digit adds greatly to the difficulty. While four digits can usually be repeated by children of 4 years, five digits belong in year VII and six in year X.

It is always interesting to note the type of errors made. The most common error is to omit one or more of the digits, usually in the first part of the series. If the child's ability is decidedly below the test he may give only the last two or three out of the five or six heard. Substitutions are also quite frequent, and if so many substitutions are made as to give a series quite unlike that which the child has heard, it is an unfavorable sign, indicating weakness of the critical sense which is so often found with low-level intelligence. In case of extreme weakness of the power of auto-criticism, the child in response to the series 9-8-1-7-6-, may say 1-2-3-4-5-6, or perhaps merely a couple of digits like 8-6, and still express complete satisfaction with his absurd response. After each series, therefore, the examiner should say, "_Was it right?_"[54] Very young subjects, however, have a tendency to answer "yes" to any question of this type, and it is therefore best not to call for criticism of a performance below the age of 6 or 7 years.

[54] "_Was it wrong?_" is not an equivalent question and should not be used.

Digit series of a given length are not always of equal difficulty, and for this reason it is never wise to use series improvised at the moment of the experiment. We must avoid especially series of regularly ascending or descending value, the repetition at regular intervals of a particular digit, and all other peculiarities of arrangement which would favor the grouping of the digits for easier retention.

It remains to mention two or three further cautions in regard to procedure. It is best to begin with a series about one digit below the child's expected ability. If the child has a probable intelligence of about 6 or 7 years, we should begin with four digits; in case of probable 10-year intelligence we begin with five digits, etc. On the other hand, we should avoid beginning too far down, because then the result is too much complicated by the effects of practice and fatigue.

It is not necessary, and often it is not expedient, to give the digits tests of all the different years in succession; that is, without other tests intervening. While this may be permissible with older children, in young children the power of sustained attention is so weak that no single kind of test should occupy more than two or three minutes. Children below 6 or 7 years should ordinarily be given the tests in the order in which they are listed in the record booklet.

In his 1911 revision of the scale Binet unfortunately shifted this test from year VII to year VIII. Goddard follows his example, but Kuhlmann retains it in year VII. The data from more than a dozen leading investigations in America, England, and Germany agree in showing that the test should remain in year VII.

VII, 4. TYING A BOW-KNOT

PROCEDURE. Prepare a shoestring tied in a bow-knot around a stick. The knot should be an ordinary "double bow," with wings not over three or four inches long. Make this ready in advance of the experiment and show the child only the completed knot.

Place the model before the subject with the wings pointing to the right and left, and say: "_You know what kind of knot this is, don't you? It is a bow-knot. I want you to take this other piece of string and tie the same kind of knot around my finger._" At the same time give the child a piece of shoestring, of the same length as that which is tied around the stick, and hold out a finger pointed toward the child and in convenient position for the operation. It is better to have the subject tie the string around the examiner's finger than around a pencil or other object because the latter often falls out of the string and is otherwise awkward to handle.

Some children who assert that they do not know how to tie a bow-knot are sometimes nevertheless successful when urged to try. It is always necessary, therefore, to secure an actual trial.

SCORING. The test is passed if a double bow-knot (both ends folded in) is made _in not more than a minute_. A single bow-knot (only one end folded in) counts half credit, because children are often accustomed to use the single bow altogether. The usual plain common knot, which precedes the bow-knot proper, must not be omitted if the response is to count as satisfactory, for without this preliminary plain knot a bow-knot will not hold and is of no value. To be satisfactory the knot should also be drawn up reasonably close, not left gaping.

REMARKS. This test, which had not before been standardized, was suggested to the writer by the late Dr. Huey, who in a conversation once remarked upon the frequent inability of feeble-minded adults to perform the little motor tasks which are universally learned by normal persons in childhood. The test was therefore incorporated in the Stanford trial series of 1913-14 and tried with 370 non-selected children within two months of the 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th birthday. It was expected that the test would probably be found to belong at about the 8-year level, but it proved to be easy enough for year VII, where 69 per cent of the children passed it. Only 35 per cent of the 6-year-olds succeeded, but after that age the per cent passing increased rapidly to 94 per cent at 9 years.

This little experiment, simple as it is, seems to fulfill reasonably well the requirements of a good test. The main objection which might be brought against it is that it is much subject to the influence of training. If this were true in any marked degree, the mentally retarded children of 7-year intelligence should be expected to succeed better with it than mentally advanced children of the same mental level, since the former would have had at least two or three years more in which to learn the task. A comparison of the two groups, however, shows no great difference. The factor of age, apart from mental age, affects the results so little that it is evident we have here a real test of intelligence.

It would, of course, be easy to imagine a child of 7 years who had not had reasonable opportunity to make the acquaintance of bow-knots or to learn to tie them. But such children are seldom encountered in the ages above 6 or 7. Of 68 7-year-olds who were asked whether they had ever seen a bow-knot ("a knot like that") only two replied in the negative. It cannot be denied, however, that specific instruction and special stimulus to practice do play a certain part. This is suggested by the fact that girls excel the boys somewhat at each age, doubtless because bow-knots play a larger rôle in feminine apparel. Social status affects the results in only a moderate degree, though it might be supposed that poor ragamuffins, on the one hand, and children of the very rich, on the other, would both make a poor showing in this test; the former because of their scanty apparel, the latter because they sometimes have servants to dress them.

The following are probably the chief factors determining success with this test: (1) Interest in common objective things; (2) ability to form permanent associative connections between successive motor coördinations (memory for a series of acts); and (3) skill in the acquisition of voluntary motor control. The last factor is probably much less important than the other two. Motor awkwardness often prolongs the time from the usual ten or fifteen seconds to thirty or forty seconds, but it is rarely a cause of a failure. The important thing is to be able to reproduce the appropriate succession of acts, acts which nearly all children of 7 years, under the joint stimulus of example and spontaneous interest, have before performed or tried to perform.

VII, 5. GIVING DIFFERENCES FROM MEMORY

PROCEDURE. Say: "_What is the difference between a fly and a butterfly?_" If the child does not seem to understand, say: "_You know flies, do you not? You have seen flies? And you know the butterflies! Now, tell me the difference between a fly and a butterfly._" Proceed in the same way with _stone and egg_, and _wood and glass_. A little coaxing is sometimes necessary to secure a response, but supplementary questions and suggestions of every kind are to be avoided. For example, it would not be permissible for the examiner to say: "_Which is larger, a fly or a butterfly?_" This would give the child his cue and he would immediately answer, "A butterfly." The child must be left to find a difference by himself. Sometimes a difference is given, but without any indication as to its direction, as, for example, "One is bigger than the other" (for fly and butterfly). It is then permissible to ask: "_Which is bigger?_"

SCORING. Passed if a real difference is given in _two out of three comparisons_. It is not necessary, however, that an _essential_ difference be given; the difference may be trivial, only it must be a real one. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses:--

_Fly and butterfly_

_Satisfactory._ "Butterfly is larger." "Butterfly has bigger wings." "Fly is black and a butterfly is not." "Butterfly is yellow (or white, etc.) and fly is black." "Fly bites you and butterfly don't." "Butterfly has powder on its wings, fly does not." "Fly flies straighter." "Butterfly is outdoors and a fly is in the house." "Flies are more dangerous to our health." "Flies haven't anything to sip honey with." "Butterfly doesn't live as long as a fly." "Butterfly comes from a caterpillar."

Sometimes a double contrast is meant, but not fully expressed; as, "A fly is small and a butterfly is pretty." Here the thought is probably correct, only the language is awkward.

Of 102 correct responses, 70 were in terms of size, or size plus color or form; 12 were in terms of both form and color; 6 in terms of color alone; and the rest scattered among such responses as those mentioned above.

_Unsatisfactory._ These are mostly misstatements of facts; as: "Fly is bigger." "Fly has legs and butterfly hasn't." "Butterfly has no feet and fly has." "Butterfly makes butter." "Fly is a fly and a butterfly is not." Failures due to misstatement of fact are of endless variety. If an indefinite response is given, like "The fly is different," or "They don't look alike," we ask, "_How is it different?_" or, "_Why don't they look alike?_" It is satisfactory if the child then gives a correct answer.

_Stone and egg_

_Satisfactory._ "Stone is harder." "Egg is softer." "Egg breaks easier." "Egg breaks and stone doesn't." "Stone is heavier." "Egg is white and stone is not." "Egg has a shell and stone does not." "Eggs have a white and a yellow in them." "You put eggs in a pudding." "An egg is rounder than a stone." We may also accept statements which are only qualifiedly true; as, "You can break an egg, but not a stone." Likewise double but incomplete comparisons are satisfactory; as, "An egg you fry and a stone you throw," "A stone is tough and an egg you eat," etc.

A little over three fourths of the comparisons made by children of 6, 7, and 8 years are in terms of hardness. The other responses are widely scattered.

_Unsatisfactory._ "A stone is bigger (or smaller) than an egg." "A stone is square and an egg is round." "An egg is yellow and a stone is white." "Stones are red (or black, etc.) and eggs are white." "An egg is to eat and a stone is to plant." "An egg is round and a stone is sometimes round."

It will be noted that the above responses are partly true and partly false. The error they contain renders them unacceptable. Most of the failures are due to misstatements as to size, shape, or color, but occasionally one meets a bizarre answer.

_Wood and glass_

_Satisfactory._ "Glass breaks easier than wood." "Glass breaks and wood does not." "Wood is stronger than glass." "Glass you can see through and wood you can't." "Glass cuts you and wood doesn't." "You get splinters from wood and you don't from glass." "Glass melts and wood doesn't." "Wood burns and glass doesn't." "Wood has bark and glass hasn't." "Wood grows and glass doesn't." "Glass is heavier than wood." "Glass glistens in the sun and wood does not."

An incomplete double comparison is also counted satisfactory; as, "Wood you can burn and glass you can see through."

_Unsatisfactory._ "Wood is black and glass is white." (Color differences are always unsatisfactory in this comparison unless transparency is also mentioned.) "Glass is square and wood is round." "Glass is bigger than wood" (or _vice versa_). "Wood is oblong and glass is square." "Glass is thin and wood is thick." "Wood is made out of trees and glass out of windows." "There is no glass in wood."

The two most frequent types of failures are misstatements regarding color and thickness. The other failures are widely scattered.

REMARKS. The test is one which all the critics agree in commending, largely because it is so little influenced by ordinary school experience. Its excellence lies mainly, however, in the fact that it throws light upon the character of the child's higher thought processes, for thinking means essentially the association of ideas on the basis of differences or similarities. Nearly all thought processes, from the most complex to the very simplest, involve to a greater or less degree one or the other of these two types of association. They are involved in the simple judgments made by children, in the appreciation of puns, in mechanical inventions, in the creation of poetry, in the scientific classification of natural phenomena, and in the origination of the hypotheses of science or philosophy.

The ability to note differences precedes somewhat the ability to note resemblances, though the contrary has sometimes been asserted by logician-psychologists. The difficulty of the test is greatly increased by the fact that the objects to be compared are not present to the senses, which means that the free ideas must be called up for comparison and contrast. Failure may result either from weakness in the power of ideational representation of objects, or from the inadequacy of the associations themselves, or from both. Probably both factors are usually involved.

Intellectual development is especially evident in increased ability to note _essential_ differences and likenesses, as contrasted with those which are trivial, superficial, and accidental. To distinguish an egg from a stone on the basis of one being organic, the other inorganic matter requires far higher intelligence than to distinguish them on the basis of shape, color, fragibility, etc. It is not till well toward the adult stage that the ability to give very essential likenesses and differences becomes prominent, and when we get a comparison of this type from a child of 7 or 8 years it is a very favorable sign.

It would be well worth while to standardize a new test of this kind for use in the upper years and especially adapted to display the ability to give essential likenesses and differences. At year VII we must accept as satisfactory any real difference.

One point remains. In the tests of giving differences and similarities, it is well to make note of any tendency to _stereotypy_, by which is meant the mechanical reappearance of the same idea, or element, in successive responses. For example, the child begins by comparing fly and butterfly on the basis of size; as, "A butterfly is bigger than a fly." So far, this is quite satisfactory; but the child with a tendency to stereotypy finds himself unable to get away from the dominating idea of size and continues to make it the basis of the other comparisons: "A stone is larger than an egg," "Wood is larger than glass," etc. In case of stereotypy in all three responses, we should have to score the total response failure even though the idea employed happened to fit all three parts of the question. As a rule it is encountered only with very young children or with older children who are mentally retarded. It is therefore an unfavorable sign.

Although this test has been universally used in year VIII, all the available statistics, with the exception of Bobertag's and Bloch's, indicate that it is decidedly too easy for that year. Binet himself says that nearly all 7-year-olds pass it. Goddard finds 97 per cent passing at year VIII, and Dougherty 90 per cent at year VI. With the standard of scoring given in the present revision, and with the substitution of _stone and egg_ instead of the more difficult _paper and cloth_, the test is unquestionably easy enough for year VII.

VII, 6. COPYING A DIAMOND

PROCEDURE. On a white cardboard draw in heavy black lines a diamond with the longer diagonal three inches and the shorter diagonal an inch and a half. The specially prepared record booklet contains the diamond as well as many other conveniences.

Place the model before the child with the longer diagonal pointing directly toward him, and giving him _pen and ink_ and paper, say: "_I want you to draw one exactly like this._" Give three trials, saying each time: "_Make it exactly like this one._" In repeating the above formula, merely point to the model; do not pass the fingers around its edge.

Unlike the test of copying a square in year IV, there is seldom any difficulty in getting the child to try this one. By the age of 7 the child has grown much less timid and has become more accustomed to the use of writing materials.

Note whether the child draws each part carefully, looking at the model from time to time, or whether the strokes are made in a more or less haphazard manner with only an initial glance at the original.

After each trial, say to the child: "_Is it good?_" And after the three copies have been made say: "_Which one is the best?_" Retarded children are sometimes entirely satisfied with the most nondescript drawings imaginable, but they are more likely correctly to pick out the best of three than to render a correct judgment about the worth of each drawing separately.

SCORING. The test is passed if _two of the three_ drawings are at least as good as those marked satisfactory on the score card. The diamond should be drawn approximately in the correct position, and the diagonals must not be reversed. Disregard departures from the model with respect to size.

REMARKS. The test is a good one. Age and training, apart from intelligence, affect it only moderately. There are few adult imbeciles of 6-year intelligence who are able to pass it, while but few subjects who have reached the 8-year level fail on it.[55]

[55] For further discussion of drawing tests, see V, 1, and X, 3.

This test was located in year VII of the 1908 scale, but was shifted to year VI in Binet's 1911 revision. The change was without justification, for Binet expressly states, both in 1908 and 1911, that only half of the 6-year-olds succeed with it. The large majority of investigations have given too low a proportion of successes at 6 years to warrant its location at that age, particularly if pen is required instead of pencil. Location at year VI would be warranted only on the condition that the use of pencil be permitted and only one success required in three trials.

VII, ALTERNATIVE TEST 1: NAMING THE DAYS OF THE WEEK

PROCEDURE. Say: "_You know the days of the week, do you not? Name the days of the week for me._" Sometimes the child begins by naming various annual holidays, as Christmas, Fourth of July, etc. Perhaps he has not comprehended the task; at any rate, we give him one more trial by stopping him and saying: "_No; that is not what I mean. I want you to name the days of the week._" No supplementary questions are permissible, and we must be careful not to show approval or disapproval in our looks as the child is giving his response.

If the days have been named in correct order, we check up the response to see whether the real order of days is known or whether the names have only been repeated mechanically. This is done by asking the following questions: "_What day comes before Tuesday?_" "_What day comes before Thursday?_" "_What day comes before Friday?_"

SCORING. The test is passed if, within _fifteen seconds_, the days of the week are _all named in correct order_, and if the child succeeds in at least _two of the three check questions_. We disregard the point of beginning.

REMARKS. The test has been criticized as too dependent on rote memory. Bobertag says a child may pass it without having any adequate conception of "week," "yesterday," "day before yesterday," etc. This criticism holds if the test is given according to the older procedure, but does not apply with the procedure above recommended. The "checking-up" questions enable us at once to distinguish responses that are given by rote from those which rest upon actual knowledge.

The test has been shown to be much more influenced by age, apart from intelligence, than most other tests of the scale. Notwithstanding this fault, it seems desirable to keep the test, at least as an alternative, because it forms one of a group which may be designated as tests of time orientation. The others of this group are: "_Distinguishing forenoon and afternoon_" (VI), "_Giving the date_" and "_Naming the months_" (IX). It would be well if we had even more of this type, for interest in the passing of time and in the names of time divisions is closely correlated with intelligence. One reason for the inferiority of the dull and feeble-minded in tests of this type is that their mental associations are weaker and less numerous. The greater poverty of their associations brings it about that their remembered experiences are less definitely located in time with reference to other events.

The test was located in year IX of the 1908 scale, but was omitted from the 1911 revision. Kuhlmann also omits it, while Goddard places it in year VIII. The statistics from every American investigation, however, warrant its location in year VII. It may be located in year VIII only on the condition that the child be required to name the days backwards, and that within a rather low time limit.

VII, ALTERNATIVE TEST 2: REPEATING THREE DIGITS REVERSED

PROCEDURE. The digits used are: 2-8-3; 4-2-7; 5-9-6. The test should be given after, but not immediately after, the tests of repeating digits forwards.

Say to the child: "_Listen carefully. I am going to read some numbers again, but this time I want you to say them backwards. For example, if I should say 1-2-3, you would say 3-2-1. Do you understand?_" When it is evident that the child has grasped the instructions, say: "_Ready now; listen carefully, and be sure to say the numbers backwards._" Then read the series at the same rate and in the same manner as in the other digits tests. It is not permissible to re-read any of the series.

If the first series is repeated forwards instead of backwards series exhort the child to listen carefully and to be sure to repeat the numbers backwards.

SCORING. The test is passed if _one series out of three_ is repeated backwards without error.

REMARKS. The test of repeating digits backwards was suggested by Bobertag in 1911, but appears not to have been used or standardized previous to the Stanford investigation.

It is very much harder to repeat a series of digits backwards in the direct order at year VII, and six at year X. Reversing the order places three digits in year VII, four in year X, five in year XII, and six in "average adult." Even intelligent adults sometimes have difficulty in repeating six digits backwards, once in three trials.

As a test of intelligence this test is better than that of repeating digits in the direct order. It is less mechanical and makes a much heavier demand on attention. The digits must be so firmly fixated in memory that they can be held there long enough to be told off, one by one, backwards.

Feeble-minded children find this test especially difficult, perhaps mainly because of its element of novelty. School children are often asked to write numbers dictated by the teacher, and even the very dull acquire a certain proficiency in doing so; but the test of repeating digits backwards requires a certain facility in adjusting to a new task, exactly the sort of thing in which the feeble-minded are so markedly deficient.

As a rule the response consumes much more time than in the other digits test. This is particularly true when the series to be repeated backwards contains four or more digits. The chance of success is greatly increased if the subject first thinks the series through two or three times in the direct order before attempting the reverse order. The subject who responds immediately is likely to begin correctly, but to give the first part of the original series in the direct order. For example, 6-5-2-8 is given 8-2-6-5.

Sometimes the child gives one or two numbers and then stops, having completely lost the rest of the series in the stress of adjusting to the novel and relatively difficult task of beginning with the final digit. In such cases the feeble-minded are prone to fill in with any numbers they may happen to think of. A good method for the subject is to break the series up into groups and to give each group separately. Thus, 6-5-2-8 is given 8-2 (pause) 5-6. As a rule only the more intelligent subjects adopt this method. One 12-year-old girl attending high school was able to repeat eight digits backwards by the aid of this device.

It would be well worth while to investigate the relation of this test to imagery type. Such a study would have to make use of adult subjects trained in introspection. It would seem that success might be favored by the ability to translate the auditory impression into visual imagery, so that the remembered numbers could be read off as from a book; but this may or may not be the case. At any rate, success seems to depend largely upon the ability to manipulate mental imagery.

The degree of certainty as to the correctness of the response is usually much less than in repeating digits forwards.