TABLE VII
Gain in number of taps in one-half minute, 21 pairs—right hand
| N[16] | Test Group (A) | Control Group (B) | |||||
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Gain | Test 1 | Test 2 | Gain | ||
| 14 | 190 | 138 | -52 | 175 | 175 | 0 | -52 |
| 10 | 68 | 88 | 20 | 70 | 135 | 65 | -45 |
| 23 | 150 | 141 | - 9 | 122 | 140 | 18 | -27 |
| 1 | 135 | 120 | -15 | 106 | 115 | 9 | -24 |
| 9 | 149 | 135 | -14 | 144 | 150 | 6 | -20 |
| 21 | 152 | 132 | -20 | 140 | 138 | - 2 | -18 |
| 22 | 164 | 183 | 19 | 120 | 157 | 37 | -18 |
| 24 | 157 | 142 | -15 | 155 | 155 | 0 | -15 |
| 27 | 108 | 97 | -11 | 115 | 112 | - 3 | - 8 |
| 20 | 105 | 110 | 5 | 150 | 155 | 5 | 0 |
| 15 | 172 | 170 | - 2 | 140 | 137 | - 3 | 1 |
| 26 | 137 | 138 | 1 | 125 | 125 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 140 | 150 | 10 | 148 | 151 | 3 | 7 |
| 3 | 136 | 139 | 3 | 135 | 129 | - 6 | 9 |
| 13 | 160 | 142 | -18 | 150 | 122 | -28 | 10 |
| 18 | 133 | 135 | 2 | 100 | 84 | -16 | 18 |
| 28 | 150 | 162 | 12 | 178 | 170 | - 8 | 20 |
| 8 | 113 | 110 | - 3 | 131 | 101 | -30 | 27 |
| 11 | 125 | 98 | -27 | 155 | 101 | -54 | 27 |
| 2 | 105 | 112 | 7 | 152 | 114 | -38 | 45 |
| 17 | 90 | 150 | 60 | 125 | 121 | - 4 | 64 |
| Av. | 135·19 | 132·95 | - 2·24 | 136·47 | 134·14 | - 2·33 | ·09 |
| M | -2 | -2 | 0 | ||||
| 75%ile | 6·5 | 4·5 | 16·0 | ||||
| 25%ile | -15 | -14 | 19·50 | ||||
| Q | 10·75 | 9·25 | 17·75 | ||||
| P. E. (distribution) | 12·24 | 7·33 | 18·09 | ||||
| P. E. (average) | 2·66 | ±1·59 | ±3·10 | ||||
| Av.= ·03 P. E. | |||||||
| M.= 0 P. E. | |||||||
lost in I.Q., as compared with 7 in the control group. Thirteen test cases lost in comparison with their respective controls. Two gained equally with their controls, and the remaining thirteen showed a larger gain. In regard to the three pairs taken from the nutrition class, number 7 gained 8 points and his control, 4. Number 10 lost a point and his control lost 4, while number 11 lost 3 points with a gain of 1 point by his control. So that these cases, in spite of most favorable conditions, show no consistent gain in I.Q.
The results of the Healy tests are similar. There is a slightly higher average gain in the control group. The test group contains eight cases which made a poorer score at the end of the interval, the control group six. The range of gains is from -22 to +44, or 66 points, in the test group, while in the control group the gains range from -14 to +41·5 or 55·5
TABLE VIII
Decrease in fatigue in tapping—Difference in rates of second half minute over first half minute. Sixteen pairs
| N[16]] | Test Group (A) | Control Group (B) | |||||
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Gain | Test 1 | Test 2 | Gain | ||
| 13 | -·03 | ·05 | -·08 | ·27 | -·28 | ·55 | -·63 |
| 28 | ·01 | ·11 | -·10 | ·17 | ·04 | ·13 | -·23 |
| 20 | ·10 | ·15 | -·05 | ·20 | ·04 | ·16 | -·21 |
| 10 | -·09 | ·07 | -·16 | ·23 | ·19 | ·04 | -·20 |
| 17 | ·01 | ·33 | -·32 | ·07 | ·20 | -·13 | -·19 |
| 25 | ·09 | ·21 | -·12 | ·09 | ·11 | -·02 | -·10 |
| 11 | ·28 | ·11 | ·17 | ·19 | -·06 | ·25 | -·08 |
| 15 | ·03 | ·08 | -·05 | ·18 | ·16 | ·02 | -·07 |
| 22 | ·10 | ·23 | -·13 | ·03 | ·19 | -·16 | ·03 |
| 27 | ·15 | ·05 | ·10 | ·09 | ·03 | ·06 | ·04 |
| 14 | ·09 | ·06 | ·03 | ·02 | ·06 | -·04 | ·07 |
| 18 | ·14 | ·18 | -·04 | ·01 | ·12 | -·11 | ·07 |
| 24 | ·13 | ·11 | ·02 | ·13 | ·35 | -·22 | ·24 |
| 26 | ·18 | ·15 | ·03 | ·16 | ·37 | -·21 | ·24 |
| 23 | ·21 | ·04 | ·17 | ·06 | ·21 | -·15 | ·32 |
| 21 | ·27 | ·05 | ·22 | ·03 | ·20 | -·17 | ·39 |
| Av. | ·104 | ·124 | -·020 | ·121 | ·121 | ·0 | -·020 |
| M | ·045 | -·03 | -0·015 | ||||
| 75%ile | +·03 | +·04 | ·07 | ||||
| 25%ile | -·12 | -·16 | -·20 | ||||
| Q | ·075 | ·10 | ·135 | ||||
| P. E. (distribution) | ·09 | ·11 | ·05 | ||||
| P. E. (average) | ±·02 | ±·03 | ±·04 | ||||
| Av.= -·50 P. E. | |||||||
| M.= -·38 P. E. | |||||||
points. Seventeen of the operative cases showed a smaller gain than their respective controls. The three pairs of cases from the nutrition class show the following gains:—pair 7; the test case loses 22 points, the control gains 23 points; pair 10, test case gains 18·5, but control gains 38 points; pair 11, test case gains 14 points, and control gains 25·5 points. From this test then, we can find no general tendency for cases operated on to improve in intelligence in excess of improvement in a control group which was not so treated.
This question presents itself:—is there any relationship between improvement in physical well-being as revealed in weight, and improvement in intelligence? If, as has been supposed, adenoids and diseased tonsils cause mental retardation indirectly through physical deprivation, it would seem as though greater improvement in intelligence after operation should accompany greater improvement in weight, and smaller intelligence gain should accompany slighter gain in weight. In order to determine whether this was true for our cases, improvement in I.Q. was correlated with gain in weight, for the test group. The order of merit method was used, and the formula ρ = 1 - ((6ΣD_n) /( n(n²-1))) where f = 2 sin (Π/6)ρ. The resulting value of r was -·10 with unreliability of ·226, calculated by the formula σt.r - obt.r = (1·05(1-r²)) / √n. There is therefore no correlation between improvement in intelligence and gain in weight.