It would be a mistake to suppose that any set of mental tests could be devised which would give us complete information about a child’s native intelligence. There are no tests which are absolutely pure tests of intelligence. All are influenced to a greater or less degree also by training and by social environment. For this reason, all the ascertainable facts bearing on such influences should be added to the record of the mental examination, and should be given due weight in reaching a final conclusion as to the level of intelligence.
The following supplementary information should be gathered, when possible:—
- Social status (very superior, superior, average, inferior, or very inferior).
- The teacher’s estimate of the child’s intelligence (very superior, superior, average, inferior, or very inferior).
- School opportunities, including years of attendance, regularity, retardation or acceleration, etc.
- Quality of school work (very superior, superior, average, inferior, or very inferior).
- Physical handicaps, if any (adenoids, diseased tonsils, partial deafness, imperfect vision, malnutrition, etc.).
In addition, the examiner will need to take account of the general attitude of the child during the examination. This is provided for in the record blanks under the heading “comments.” The comments should describe as fully as possible the conduct and attitude of the child during the examination, with emphasis upon such disturbing factors as fear, timidity, unwillingness to answer, overconfidence, carelessness, lack of attention, etc. Sometimes, also, it is desirable to verify the child’s age and to make record of the verification.
Once more let it be urged that no degree of mechanical perfection of the tests can ever take the place of good judgment and psychological insight. Intelligence is too complicated to be weighed, like a bag of grain, by any one who can read figures.
Alternative tests.
The tests designated as “alternative tests” are not intended for regular use. Inasmuch as they have been standardized and belong in the year group where they are placed, they may be used as substitute tests on certain occasions. Sometimes one of the regular tests is spoiled in giving it, or the requisite material for it may not be at hand. Sometimes there may be reason to suspect that the subject has become acquainted with some of the tests. In such cases it is a great convenience to have a few substitutes available.
It is necessary, however, to warn against a possible misuse of alternative tests. It is not permissible to count success in an alternative test as offsetting failure in a regular test. This would give the subject too much leeway of failure. There are very exceptional cases, however, when it is legitimate to break this rule; namely, when one of the regular tests would be obviously unfair to the subject being tested. In year X, for example, one of the three [alternative tests] should be substituted for the reading test ([X, 4]) in case we are testing a subject who has not had the equivalent of at least two years of school work. In year VIII, it would be permissible to substitute the alternative test of [naming six coins], instead of the [vocabulary test], in the case of a subject who came from a home where English was not spoken. In VII, it would perhaps not be unfair to substitute the [alternative test], in place of the test of [copying a diamond], in the case of a subject who, because of timidity or embarrassment, refused to attempt the diamond. But it would be going entirely too far to substitute an alternative test in the place of every regular test which the subject responded to by silence. In the large majority of cases persistent silence deserves to be scored failure.
Certain tests have been made alternatives because of their inferior value, some because the presence of other tests of similar nature in the same year rendered them less necessary.