Deficiency and Delinquency: An Interpretation of Mental TestingMiner, James Burt
Science
Deficiency and Delinquency: An Interpretation of Mental Testing
Miner, James Burt
Children with mental disabilities; Juvenile delinquents; Mentally ill offenders; Psychological tests
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_).
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account