BOUGHT \»dt^ ?HE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT-FUND' THE GIFT OF Hettrtj W< Sage 1S91 ..^,^556.11 v4-kin!^. uut FEB 4-1941 MAY ££ «eHfp. 11 - A/OVg J953 HV ibn «rt MAY 3 1959H P^ NOVi6t960K L^Jjai3*5^si*fi3fe's3'0iw*ii*aes»a*a* Cornell University Library LC4801 .B86 A comparative study of the intelligence olin 3 1924 030 622 777 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030622777 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE INTELLIGENCE OF DELINQUENT GIRLS BY AUGUSTA F. BRONNER, PH.D. h TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY CONTRIBUTIONS TO EDUCATION. No. 68 PUBLISHED BY (Frarbrra GJnUrgr, (Columbia ImwrBtty NEW YORK CITY 1914 Copyright, 1914, by Augusta F. Bronner ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness to Miss Babcock, Director of the Harlem Branch of the Y. W. C. A.; to Mr. Robbins Gilman, of the University Settlement; to Miss Maud Miner, Secretary of the New York Probation Associa- tion, and her assistants; to Mr. Frederick Ellis, of the New York Neurological Institute; to Professor H. L. Hollingworth, of Barnard College; all of whom made it possible to obtain the subjects for this study. And most of all is indebtedness ac- knowledged to Professor E. L. Thorndike, of Teachers College, for suggestions in regard to tests and methods of scoring, indeed, for valuable help and encouragement throughout the work. A. F. B. CONTENTS PART I 1. The Problem 1 2. The Subjects 4 3. The Tests Employed, Their Administration 7 (1) In General 8 (2) In Detail 9 4. The Scoring of the Tests 11 PART II 1. The Original Scores 13 2. The Final Scores 33 3. Comparison of Final Scores of the Four Groups 37 PART III 1. Results 38 (1) Intelligence Tests 38 (2) Fernald Ethical Discrimination Test 44 (3) Adapted Completion Test 47 (4) Supplementary Test in Physical Endurance 68 PART IV 1. Other Investigations 71 2. Conclusions ■ 86 Bibliography 88 Appendix 89 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE INTELLIGENCE OF DELINQUENT GIRLS PART I 1. THE PROBLEM The question of the delinquent girl is one that has aroused much interest of late. Varied are the explanations that have been given as to the causes that have led to the beginning of her career. Vice Commissions have attempted to investigate the economic and social conditions that are involved. In several places, notably at the Laboratory for Social Hygiene, Bedford Hills, and in Chicago, under the direction of Dr. William Healy, the mental status is being delved into as well. In the latter instance, the delinquent is being studied from every possible viewpoint — mental and physical, as well as environmental and social. These latter investigations tend to show that the problem is no simple one; there is no one ever-present and only cause, but a number of inter-related factors whose relative importance varies with each individual case. However, apart from those who are working experimentally and scientifically, we find many social workers and, indeed, many of the general public who have expressed their views on the subject. Very many of these have stated it as their opinion that delinquency is due very largely to the fact that the offenders are not sufficiently intelligent to care for themselves without running into difficulties, in fact that the large majority are sub- normal or feeble minded. Whether every feeble-minded girl is a potential offender, is easily led, the tool of a stronger-minded, more gifted person, is one question. But it is an entirely different question from the one we have in mind, namely, whether all social and moral offenders are mentally ill or mentally unfit. Are these offenders so lacking in capacity that they are unable to earn a livelihood in legitimate vocations ? Is it because they 1 2 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls are " industrial inefficients " that they begin careers of wrong doing ? Or is it because their lack of ability means lack of moral stamina as well that they are easily influenced, persuaded readily, to join the ranks of offenders ? How do they compare in general intelligence with their sisters who have never come in conflict with the law, with those who are leading lives where, at least, criminal tendencies, should they exist, are controlled ? Of course, one can not compare them with those offenders so much cleverer, or so much luckier, that they can offend without the offense being detected or known. For it must be remem- bered that in all studies of delinquents, it is only the caught delinquent that is discussed. Who knows aught of the many unknown law-breakers — perhaps equally or more culpable — who are clever enough to mingle with their fellows, unsuspected even of guilt. Because the feeble-minded girl is so much morei readily — and therefore so much more often — detected and! brought into court, is she the more likely to predominate inj institutions where investigations are being carried on. In this study that same selective factor is operative among the delinquents investigated. They form one of the four groups that are compared. The second group is made up of students in the Freshman and Sophomore classes of Teachers College and Barnard College of Columbia University. The third is composed of girls who are members of evening clubs at settlements and branches of the Y. W. C. A. in the same districts of New York City from which the delinquent girls here studied largely came. The delinquent and college groups vary widely, of course, in many ways — probably in hereditary and environmental forces. It is conceivable that members of the two groups are equally well endowed intellectually; on the other hand, do certain tests differentiate the two groups, should this not be true ? In the third group, though the environmental factors, at least such as living conditions and educational opportunities, are more nearly the same as in the first group, there is another point to be considered. Those who compose this group are again selected after a fashion. For it is only the brighter, the more ambitious, probably, who join the classes that are available to all, and we have, therefore, subjects for testing who are not The Problem 3 chosen at random from among the residents of these neighbor- hoods, but? a group selected by certain ideals. In order to compare the delinquents with a group not selected for intellectual attainments, it was desired to use as a fourth group, subjects who are doing work of a character where no intellectual standard obtains. It was believed that this require- ment would best be found by using a group of those engaged in domestic service. The problem, then, that is undertaken in this study, is to determine the intellectual status of a group of delinquent girls as compared with the intellectual status of several other groups that represent varying degrees of education and that are engaged in occupations requiring varied degrees of intelligence and ability. If the delinquent is less capable than the college girl or even than the girl who, though working daily, yet desires to improve herself by study at night, how does she compare with those who, though pursuing a vocation that demands less skill and training, yet earn a livelihood and are economically independent ? 2. THE SUBJECTS I. The Group of Delinquents, hereafter called Group D, was composed of 30 girls who were living temporarily at Waverly House, the Detention Home maintained by the New York Probation Association. The subjects were chosen entirely at random, irrespective of the offense because of which each had come in conflict with the law, except that those who were foreign- ers whose command of English was such that they would be placed at a disadvantage, were not included. A second consideration that limited the subjects was that of age; all members of the group were between 16 and 22 years old. The group was composed as shown in Table I. II. The College Group, hereafter called Group C, was made up of students within these same age limits, with two exceptions where subjects were slightly older. Some of these were students of psychology but, with the exception of two, were unfamiliar with the tests, and even these two had performed only one of the actual tests used. III. The Group of Subjects found in Evening Classes, called hereafter Group E, were girls of the same ages who comprised, in one instance, a club devoted to educational pursuits at the University Settlement. They were all Jewish girls, all were working, and none of them had attended high school. The remainder of the group were members of two classes at the Harlem Branch of the Y. W. C. A. They represented, in all, various occupations; some were engaged in clerical work, others were clerks, still others were doing skilled factory work. IV. Because of the difficulty in obtaining subjects in the fourth group, called hereafter Group S, no attention was paid to the age qualification and a number of the subjects were over ' 22 years old. None of them had ever engaged in any wage- earning occupation other than that of domestic service. Several originally included in the group were later omitted when it was found they were pursuing studies whereby they hoped to prepare themselves for other occupations later. All of the subjects in 4 The Subjects TABLE I The Composition of Group D, or Delinquent Girls Place of Birth School Grade Reached Best Occu- pation Highest Wage Offense S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 > 28 - r 29 30 U. S. U. S. U.S. IT. S. 8th. 5th. U. S Canada IT. S....... Canada IT. S? Roumania in IT. S. 18 yrs U. S Austria, U. S. n yrs U. S IT. S Canada. . IT. S. IT. S. U. S. U. S. U.S England. . . IT. S U. S Russia. In U.S. 5 yrs. U. S U. S. U. S. England . . . U. S U.S Graduate high school 3rd 5th 8th 5th 6th Stenographer Candy packer Housework. . Actress Housework. . \ 8.00 a wk. 5.00 " 4.00 " 18.00 " 5.00 " Factory. Factory. Factory. 6th. 7th. 3rd. 6th. 8th. 2nd yr. high school 4th 5th 5th 7th Dishwasher Housework. . Operator... None /Actress \Factory. . . Telephone Operator . Factory Housework. Factory Salesgirl. . . 5.50 10.00 6.00 6.00 5.50 5.00 3.00 a nt. 6.00 a wk, 10.00 " 7.50 " 2.50 " 8.00 " 6.00 " 2nd yr. high school. . 1st yr. high school.. 1st yr. high school... 8th None... Clerical. 6th 1st yr. nor- mal 6th 7th Bookkeeper Salesgirl Waitress.. . . 8.00 10.00 7.00 5.00 Factory. Factory. 7th. 6th. 6th. Cashier Book-binding Housework. . 5.00 10.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 Immorality. Sex, Grand larc'y Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex, Runaway. Kidnapping. Sex, Stealing, False accusat'ns Sex. Sex. ISex. Sex, Stealing. Sex, Runaway. Sex. Stealing, Sex. Petty larceny, pickpocket, Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. Shoplifting, Sex. Sex. Incorrigible, Stealing, Sex. Incorrigible. Sex. Sex, Incorrigible, 6 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls this group were obtained in such a way that it was ascertained none had been guilty of any known wrongdoing; in this respect they were comparable to Groups C and E and differed from Group D. They varied in nationality; 2 were Bohemians, 2 Nova Scotians, but the remainder were Irish or American born. All earned $5.50 or more weekly and all had retained positions for quite a period of time, one having been as long as ten years in one family. 3. THE TESTS EMPLOYED The first group of five tests comprised the Easy Opposites Test, the Hard Opposites Test, Tests for Memory of Words, and Memory of Passages, and the Ebbinghaus Completion Test. These tests were among those used by Dr. B. R. Simpson in his study of " Correlations of Mental Abilities." Dr. Simpson tested two groups of adults representing, as far as possible, the two extremes of general intelligence as judged by the world. The " Good Group " was made up of 17 professors and advanced students of Columbia University; those in the " Poor Group " were 20 men who had never held any position demanding a high grade of intelligence. Eighteen were men found at the Salvation Army and in a mission on the Bowery. The five tests selected were all found by Dr. Simpson to differentiate his two groups. He found the overlapping to be as follows : TABLE II Extent to Which Simpson' s " Poor " Group Overlapped His Group " Good " Percentage of " Poor '" Surpassing Ebbing- haus Test Hard Opposites Memory of Words Memory of Passages Easy Opposites 50% of "Good" 5 S 5 10 10 10 IS 40 Lowest 4 of "Good"or23f% Lowest 2 12 % Lowest 1 " " " 6 % Here we see that in the Easy and Hard Opposites no member of the Poor Group attained as good a record as the poorest member of the Good Group, and in no one of these tests did any subject in the Poor Group reach the median of the Good Group. These tests, then, seemed fair means of determining the in- tellectual status of the subjects. Since our main group is one composed of delinquents, it was desired to find, if possible, some means of determining the in- 7 8 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls telligence of the various groups in regard to moral situations. It was clearly recognized that knowledge concerning moral elements is in no wise a guarantee of moral action. Ethical discrimination as found by tests indicates no necessary correla- tion with behavior. But negative results, and peculiar or con- fused judgments, might prove a help in understanding the atti- tude of the delinquent. For this purpose, two different tests were used. First, the Ethical Discrimination Test of Fernald, reported in the American Journal of Insanity, Vol. 68, April, 1912. In this test the subject is asked to rank in the order of their gravity ten different mis- deeds. The second is an adaptation of the Completion Test. It consists of a series of very brief stories, or situations, containing blanks that permit of the use of alternatives and in which judg- ment is to be given in regard to the incident narrated. The " significant " passages are interspersed with a number of " innocent " passages in order that the subject may not realize the purpose of the test and may react more naively. Method of Administering Tests In General All members of Group D were tested individually; an effort was made to give each subject the advantage of quiet, uninter- rupted work. All tests were completed by all members of the group at one sitting, the time required averaging about two hours. Before beginning the tests, the good will and interest of each subject was sought and in almost every case the girls seemed interested, anxious to do their best, and cooperated in every way. Groups C and E were not tested in every case individually; in all cases they wrote their own replies. It was necessary, in order to save time, to test them in small groups of from two to four. In Group C the speed of writing would be much less variable than in Group D. In Group E it was more difficult to obtain subjects and it was often necessary to perform the work on two different evenings, since the subjects came late after a day's work and had not sufficient time at one sitting to complete them. In this way, the element of fatigue, should it have been a factor, was minimized. The Tests Employed 9 Though no individuals in any group knew the object of the tests, other than that their results were to be used for purposes of comparison, yet all were greatly interested. This was shown by the fact that in Group C the subjects volunteered their ser- vices and without objection gave the necessary time, while in Group E the subjects returned the second evening to complete the work. In Group S the conditions were not quite so uniform for the different subjects. The tests, with several exceptions, were given in the same manner as in Group D. The attitude of the subjects was somewhat different; they were more skeptical in regard to attempting them, they were older on the average and possibly less keenly interested. But as they were paid for their services, the majority endeavored to do what was asked of them as well as they could. Such differences in administration of the tests as circumstances required redounded to the advantage of Groups D and S, espec- ially to the former. Conditions there were best controlled and the tests given as nearly as possible in the same manner. In Detail The main effort in giving instructions as to the performance of the tests was directed towards making the point desired perfectly clear. In Group D and in the majority of Group S the subject did no writing, but responded orally, the experimenter writing the replies verbatim. A sufficient number were written for subjects in Groups C and E to make it practically certain that none wrote at quicker speed than the experimenter, so that none of the subjects was handicapped thereby. The speed of writing would have been so variable in Groups D and S that it would have been a large factor in distorting results in those tests where a time record was taken. In the Easy Opposites Test the subjects were told to give as quickly as possible a word that meant exactly the opposite of the word read. If necessary the word " opposite " was explained and several illustrations were always given. Then the word was read clearly, the reply written by the experimenter and the time record for each group of twenty words recorded. The Hard Opposites Test was given in the same way except that the subject was urged beforehand to give the best opposite 10 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls she could and not to omit any word unless it were altogether unknown. In giving the Memory of Words Test the subject was told that a list of words would be read once and that, as soon as the last word was read, she was to repeat all the words she could remember. In the Memory of Passages Test, the passage was read at uniform rate and as distinctly as possible. At the conclusion the subject retold as much as she could, the experimenter writing it down verbatim. The Ebbinghaus Completion Test was first illustrated by a sample blank, any points not understood being explained. Then the subject looked on while the experimenter read the pas- sage, filling in the blanks as the missing words were given by the subject. Time record was also kept in this test. The adapted blanks, involving moral judgment, were com- pleted in the same way. In the Ethical Discrimination Test the ten cards bearing each one sentence were shown and read to the subject, the purpose of the test explained and each asked to arrange them in order. The tests were administered in the same way for Groups C and E as regards instructions, but the writing was done by the subjects themselves. 4. THE SCORING OF THE TESTS As has been pointed out by a number of experimenters, any method of scoring tests such as those here used must be more or less arbitrary. The method here adopted seemed as fair as any. In the Easy Opposites Test the responses were scored on a scale of — | — 1 ; 1 when the word given was an exact opposite, and I if half right. The final record was obtained by adding 1/8 of the time record for each zero and 1/12 of the time for each credit of §. The average of the four separate tests was then obtained. The same method was pursued in the Hard Opposites Test, except that the scale used here was — 4. What credit should be allowed for each word given was determined by having the list graded by three persons — the experimenter and two assistants in the department of psychology. Where the same word had been given by subjects in Dr. Simpson's study, there were six evaluations that were combined to gain the standard. After this scoring was completed, the time record was increased by i for each word graded as 0; 1/8 for those graded as 1; 1/15 for those graded as 2; 1/10 for those graded as 1J; 1/24 for those graded 2|. These amounts were not taken arbitrarily but after experimenting to discover what penalizing would best evaluate both factors of time and accuracy. In the Memory of Words Test the final score was the number of correct words given. The incorrect additions were scored separately. The replies in the Memory of Passages Test were scored on a scale of — 25 by three persons, again the experimenter and the assistants. The average of these three scores was then used as the final score. In the Ebbinghaus Completion Test the blanks were scored first for excellence alone on a scale of — 10. The scoring was done by three persons as before, the average being again used as the final score for excellence alone. The penalizing for errors 11 12 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls was then made by adding to the time score according to the following scale: Record Addition 25/10 of the time. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 22/10 19/10 16/10 13/10 10/10 8/10 6/10 4/10 2/10 The method of scoring used by Fernald in the Ethical Dis- crimination Test was used, namely, each card was scored ac- cording to its placement for each subject on the scale of 1 — 10, 10 indicating that the act was judged as worst, 1 as least bad. The adapted Completion Test was scored for general intelli- gence on a scale of — 5. In Table III are given the scores for the various tests in detail, while in Table IV are given the final scores which each subject received. Easy Opposites: PART II 1. THE ORIGINAL SCORES TABLE Ilia. COLLEGE GROUP (C) Original Scores A B C D r w t sc r w t sc r w t sc r w t sc 1 m i 44 48 18! li 70 85 19 1 50 58 20 41 2 19 1 42 47 18 2 40 50 19! i 3 38 41 19 i' 45 51 3 191 1 2 57 62 19 1 61 69 20 64 20 47 4 19 1 45 53 18! l! 51 64 19 i' 48 54 19! i 2 46 50 5 20 42 42 20 52 52 20 40 19! ! 47 51 6 19 i" 35 41 20 41 41 20 42 20 46 7 18| li 42 53 19! '! 38 41 19! 38 41 18! ii 42 51 8 18! l! 45 55 20 44 20 42 20 41 9 19 1 47 55 18 "l ii 51 15! i 2 50 88 19 i" 50 58 10 19! 1 2 37 40 20 40 19! 4! 40 43 20 42 11 20 43 20 35 18 1 2 48 56 19 i 40 47 12 19 i' 56 65 20 47 19 2 52 61 20 60 13 19 l 59 69 19 i' 62 70 18 1 42 53 16 i' 48 74 14 19! i 2 45 49 20 35 20 38 19 l 30 34 15 20 38 20 39 19! 2 40 43 20 43 16 20 46 20 50 19! i a 48 52 20 48 17 18! ii 55 69 19 i' 56 63 19 l 2 45 53 18! i! 63 76 18 19 1 55 64 19! l 5 45 49 20 35 19 l 43 48 19 19! 1 2 43 47 20 47 20 45 20 47 20 19! 1 2 44 48 19 1 67 75 19 i' 36 42 20 40 21 19 1 43 50 20 37 19 l 30 34 20 29 22 19 1 44 51 19! i 2 40 43 19! ! 50 54 20 25 23 18! H 37 45 19 1 45 51 20 35 35 19! "i 37 40 24 20 47 47 20 47 20 46 20 46 25 19! i 2 33 36 20 40 19! 1 2 35 38 20 37 26 19 1 40 47 19! 1 2 40 44 19! 1 2 41 44 19! i 2 42 46 27 19! 1 2 48 52 20 50 20 50 20 62 28 19! 1 2 35 38 20 . . 40 20 38 20 36 29 19! 1 2 41 44 20 65 19! 1 2 44 48 19! 1 2 44 48 30 19! 1 2 45 49 20 48 18! 1! 43 52 20 47 31 19! 1 2 41 44 18! 1! 44 57 20 41 20 44 32 19! 1 52 57 18 2 53 66 20 55 19 i' 54 61 33 19 l 2 42 47 20 46 20 27 19! l 2 46 50 34 19 1 37 43 20 49 19 i' 38 44 19! ! 41 44 35 20 46 18 "l 48 60 19! i 2 48 52 20 46 36 20 40 20 20 19! 1 2 35 38 19! "i 40 43 r = number right. w = numbei wrong. t = time in seconds. sc = score after penalizing, in terms of seconds All fractions are dropped in scores. ! + = number above. ! — = number itself. 13 14 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls TABLE Illb. (GROUP C— continued) Hard Opposites: A B C D w and r o t sc r w t sc r w t so r w t sc C 1 48 1 210 386 36 4 130 361 40* 3 175 426 39 3 150 378 " 2 50 2 96 170 43 3 70 158 39* 3 90 205 51 .. 118 187 " 3 53 .. 135 196 49 1 124 315 49* 1 153 266 45* 1 188 375 " 4 48 2 155 291 46 2 147 296 42 3 130 305 50 .. 105 174 " 5 58 .. 180 204 45* 4 140 304 40* 3 145 352 44 3 205 451 " 6 56 .. 130 158 46 1 145 286 43* 2 130 283 45 4 175 384 7 44 4 142 321 35* 6 135 396 26 9 108 400 39 5 133 352 " 8 53| 2 77 119 57 . . 82 97 48* 1 80 145 49 1 85 151 " 9 43* 1 113 239 48* 2 98 182 36 5 90 256 41 3 103 246 " 10 52 1 130 204 55| .. 110 144 52 . . 87 134 54* .. 122 168 " 11 49 1 155 274 34 5 117 343 37* 5 112 307 42 4 170 284 " 12 43 4 110 255 41* 2 126 265 42* 4 160 379 43 4 120 279 " 13 51 1 167 273 44* 3 135 293 28* 3 145 369 44 3 150 331 " 14 53 2 80 105 49 1 95 170 43* 1 88 187 49 . . 85 146 " 15 57 .. 97 117 39 4 89 229 43* 3 92 206 48 2 110 208 " 16 51* 1 190 287 49* 2 128 230 41* 4 148 358 44* 3 140 214 " 17 47 2 128 225 49* 1 122 211 40 2 120 290 41 3 148 355 " 18 53 1 103 156 43 2 115 253 37 2 93 242 42 3 100 233 " 19 55 1 110 152 54 .. 113 158 54 .. 107 152 53* .. 130 185 " 20 44 1 126 277 47 2 108 213 40* 4 135 339 49 . . 77 166 " 21 54* .. 123 168 47 1 105 195 47 2 60 118 53 . . 72 105 " 22 55 1 78 108 51 2 109 185 47* 3 103 201 50 1 97 165 " 23 50 1 105 179 51* 2 132 221 51 . . 98 153 49 1 95 168 " 24 48* 2 224 414 46 2 101 205 31 7 120 333 36 7 100 294 " 25 45 2 75 155 54 . . 72 99 50 . . 80 132 50* 1 105 156 " 26 51 2 84 142 47* 1 87 169 46 2 130 263 47 1 102 193 " 27 56* 1 115 149 53 .. 108 158 55* .. 152 197 47* 2 170 306 " 28 52 2 180 294 41 4 125 303 45 1 110 208 46 2 140 284 " 29 49 1 170 339 46 3 92 192 40* 3 170 417 40 3 130 320 " 30 55 .. 85 112 51* .. 130 217 39 4 110 286 54* .. 145 199 " 31 49 2 97 178 45 2 115 238 49* 1 107 187 56 . . 70 113 " 32 44 3 105 152 46 1 108 211 46 2 105 214 45 2 114 238 " 33 57 1 78 98 53 .. 82 126 46* 2 82 163 45 2 73 152 " 34 47 2 128 249 48* 1 67 120 31* 7 109 354 35 6 100 295 " 35 42* 2 135 234 42 4 90 214 40* 3 100 242 44 2 105 226 " 36 58 .. 85 96 52* 1 120 156 41* 3 110 227 52* .. 95 142 r = score of correct and partially correct. w and o = number wrong and omitted. t = time score in seconds. sc = final score after penalizing, in terms of seconds. The Original Scores 15 TABLE IIIc. (GROUP C— continued) Memory for Unrelated Words: A S c 2? r w r w r ro r a; 1 9 2 7 1 7 1 8 .. 2 7 1 8 8 1 8 .. 3 10 8 'i 5 8 .. 4 7 5 7 9 .. S 7 6 i 8 9 .. 6 13 9 8 10 .. 7 8 7 i 6 i 6 1 8 10 8 10 1 11 1 9 9 7 i 9 8 .. 10 7 i 9 7 7 .. 11 8 l 8 2 8 9 .. 12 9 9 11 i 11 .. 13 11 9 8 5 1 14 9 7 5 8 .. 15 8 8 10 9 .. 16 8 8 6 10 .. 17 10 11 9 2 10 .. 18 12 i 6 2 11 10 .. 19 11 12 2 8 9 .. 20 11 7 1 8 2 9 .. 21 11 10 12 1 12 .. 22 8 6 i 5 1 8 1 23 8 8 9 2 11 .. 24 8 i 6 6 7 .. 25 10 8 8 7 .. 26 9 5 i 9 8 .. 27 7 i 8 l 8 8 1 28 9 l 11 9 12 .. 29 9 7 8 7 .. 30 11 8 10 8 1 31 9 7 7 2 8 .. 32 8 7 8 13 .. 33 6 i 9 9 6 1 34 6 2 6 5 2 7 .. 35 11 11 7, 1 8 1 36 9 8 7 3 9 .. r = number remembered, that are right. w = number added, not on list. 16 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls TABLE Hid. (GROUP C— continued) Memory, Logical Passages: A B C D B C F j4zj. B 11 C 13 F 6 Av. 10. B C F 4». B C F Av. 1 11 12 8 10.3 14 14 11 13. 22 19 14 18.3 2 14 16 12 14. 17 20 13 16.6 11 12 7 10. 14 18 12 14.6 3 10 12 10 10.6 10 10 7 9. 6 6 3 5. 12 11 8 10.3 4 12 12 7 9.6 12 16 7 11. 11 17 7 11.6 22 19 14 18.3 5 12 15 10 12.3 14 15 10 13. 5 4 4 4.3 12 12 9 11. 6 17 10 11 12.6 17 19 12 16. 18 19 11 16. 16 17 11 14.6 7 8 11 7 8.6 10 10 7 9. 6 5 3 4.6 12 14 9 11.6 " 8 16 19 13 16. 17 20 12 16.3 12 16 9 12.3 20 18 15 17.6 •' 9 12 16 8 12. 17 15 14 15.3 11 11 8 10. 17 16 13 15.3 " 10 20 18 17 18.3 22 22 16 20. 17 15 10 14. 24 18 20 20.6 " 11 15 14 9 12.6 14 18 11 14.3 8 11 4 7.6 14 18 6 12.6 " 12 14 13 9 12. 16 22 14 17.3 14 16 11 13.6 12 16 6 11.3 " 13 10 8 6 8. 7 11 5 7.6 7 9 3 6.3 14 15 7 12. " 14 10 9 7 8.6 12 13 10 11.6 14 14 8 12. 10 14 8 10.6 " 15 17 19 15 17. 12 16 9 12.3 12 16 8 12. 24 21 21 22. " 16 11 11 4 8.6 14 15 11 13.3 8 8 5 7. 14 17 7 12.6 " 17 24 22 20 20. 14 14 9 12.3 16 18 11 15. 12 13 8 11. " 18 17 16 9 14. 9 9 4 7.3 20 21 9 16.6 22 22 11 18.3 " 19 14 18 14 15.3 16 18 12 16. 22 22 15 19.6 18 16 12 15.3 " 20 12 16 8 12. 14 17 9 13.3 17 17 12 15.3 22 15 15 17.3 " 21 20 17 12 16.3 14 16 7 12.3 20 18 9 15.6 22 17 14 17.6 " 22 24 23 20 22.3 6 15 6 9. 17 18 10 15. 14 14 10 12.6 " 23 10 12 6 9.3 7 9 3 6.3 8 11 5 8. 23 23 20 22. " 24 10 11 7 9.3 10 12 8 10. 12 12 7 10.3 12 13 10 11.6 " 25 18 14 13 11.6 13 15 5 11. 9 8 4 7. 14 19 12 11.6 " 26 14 13 11 12.6 16 18 12 15.3 22 20 8 16.6 22 21 13 18.6 " 27 17 14 20 17. 15 17 8 13.3 10 11 6 9. 13 14 8 11.6 " 28 14 18 8 13.3 23 18 15 18.6 16 17 12 15. 17 19 10 15.3 " 29 14 16 14 12.6 12 15 11 12.3 14 18 7 13. 17 20 6 14.3 8 30 20 21 18 19.6 22 23 14 19.6 20 19 13 17.3 18 18 16 17.3 " 31 12 13 8 11. 8 10 4 7.3 9 8 6 7.6 8 10 3 7. " 32 7 14 4 8.3 11 9 7 9. 17 14 12 14.3 14 13 9 12. " 33 14 15 11 13.3 12 13 9 11.3 20 18 15 17.6 22 20 17 19.6 " 34 10 12 7 9.6 11 14 7 10.6 6 8 3 5. 10 13 9 10.6 " 35 8 12 4 8. 11 11 7 9.6 5 7 4 5.3 7 10 5 7.3 " 36 16 16 10 14. 18 18 9 15. 22 21 16 19.6 18 22 14 18. B = scored by writer. C = scored by assistant in Psychological Department. F = scored by assistant in Psychological Department. Av.— average of 3 scores. The Original Scores 17 »-H __3 O"*HW)O«iriOtH00OOiO00^00Q0NTfN|« HWNlWHlMNlmNlMNlMWlmHlm H|N H[W r^[NH|N oo^*c©^^r*^c>t^c>^Ocot^^O^^»t^o\oo^o^l>•^^ooc<)^^voc3^ooOlo^-^.o^t^^»^»oo NiCioro^OfO\OOiOT}(vorO'*0 1 ^fO^OOOfOt*000( , OOrC^vOONMVONOOT-(^io rH CN tH rH rH ^-H CS \0 iO '--* ■ *t^O -O^ ■ • © "I ro ,-h ^ £>■>. • • PO 10 ■ CS vo O. © • • • CO * • lOCO'-i -0\ • *Tt 10 »0 - •*©**« -vO^O^rJ* ■ ■ • Jr^ • • CS-'* rH • • i-l • * • H«w|ra h!mim!m iH|c^rt|DC-i!rtw!ra *h|» MlnHtmNlmHln n|m n|mh|» n|psh|wn|m Hw 00iOOOt>-OO0\Ov0\0000O\O0s0sOt^0\00OQ»OO0N0s00O*>-0\OOO v 0OO tH tH tH rH rH rHH rH H tH rH rH 00*4(OO00OOOOOC0NOOa0\0\00 00NOOOOi»OOiO00 0\aOO'OOO Q0\0O0\00OO0\C\OO\WO\OOC\ON0\MO0\OO0sO\00ON0\0\OOOOO «-t rH rH rH rlH -H rH --IH rH rH tH H-H OONTfiOCONV50 00^00N^-HCOTi(iOrf3'#'!t , V5>OOroO'HOw3 0-Hio-#fO*0 NHHrt tH rtrt T-i rH rH rH tH tH rH rH ff ■a Tl a o o co l~l o o H o i-i o CD o ca a C w ■fi „ rt 0) ft p ft s o W IOCSCSOOOCS -OOOWIO-H-*-* -CSrO •'OOOIOttH O^hOOvn .loiONiOHaOfO -thio ■ -OO0\000\NONOO\O0\^OON0\0s0\OOO00OO0\OOO0\C0 0i rH rH rH rH rH rH rH ■i-H rH rH rH rH rH h|m 0\00(>0\0vOOC\00O>00O\0\O0nO0s00OC0C>OiC>O0\OCX3O0\0\O0\C>00O\0\ rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH «-*OOCNHiOOlO00iOiOCi00000Nt000OOOCNO\OO00NO«OCCO(NO00Oui <^iOO0sOu^^tv5OiO^0\00tr)U^J>*rHio^^^iOrt*TtHOv0C0CSCOV0TH\0-^ -r 3 "*5 a a S3 I-l tl Oh Oh aTcF QQ -a -a o o "mm o o -JHru a o CO CO PhPm- ri|M n|» omnlm wlm nIm 000\00\0\0\000000000000000000000000\0\000000\aoOO rH rHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH rH rH HtH rH rH rH rH r- I 0\0\00\0\00000000\00\OC\000\OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSO rH rHvHrHr-Hr-trHrH rH -—i rH rHrHrHrHrHrHr-lrHrHrHrHrHrH rH H|N 0sO*OOOOOOOOOO00OOO00cX)OO\OOOOOOOOO0nOOO0\OO rH HHrtHrtriH rH rH rH -HHHHHrlrtH-H rH rH rH rH 00aO0\O0(OOOOOOO\OWO00G0O0\OOiCJiOOOiOOO^OO^0\00O rHf>JW-dOrHCSrOTF -J nJ cfl CD +' -t- 3 HOrQ.Q TJ ^ 'O aj o cd U U t-H o o o O CJ o U} CO CO cqOfc. 18 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls TABLE lilt DELINQUENT GROUP (D) Original Scores Easy Opposites: A B C D r w t sc r w t sc r w t sc r w t sc D 1 9! . 52 123 141 . 45 79 8 . . 50 125 8 . 62 155 " 2 17 . 67 97 16| . 47 69 17! • . 48 66 15! . 52 85 " 3 19 . 40 47 17 . 45 63 14! ■ . 38 67 18! . 40 48 " 4 m . 52 69 17! . 48 64 19! • .' 34 37 19! . 38 41 " 5 10 . 52 117 141 . 48 82 15 . . 72 120 12 . 50 102 " 6 18| . 64 80 18! . 120 145 16! • . 90 136 16! . 90 132 " 7 12 . 130 154 14 . 115 184 13 . 120 230 ll! . 131 319 " 8 13 . 55 99 15 . 47 77 13 . 75 144 16 . 50 75 " 9 13| . 66 122 114 . 65 135 10 . . 98 221 71 . 63 163 " 10 12 . 59 120 HI . 47 98 11 . 59 125 8! . 56 138 " 11 15| . 65 105 15 . 58 96 16! ■ . 57 83 19 . 43 48 " 12 14 . 52 96 12| . 45 91 10! • . 60 133 11 . 62 137 « 13 18 . 65 84 17 . 70 97 15 . . 70 119 17! . 70 94 " 14 19 . 48 54 17 . 72 102 14! . . 44 76 18! . 49 59 " IS 16| . 42 62 18 . 66 82 18 . . 67 86 13! . 89 164 " 16 74 . 132 341 11 . 116 359 7 . 107 281 6! . 82 222 " 17 14! . 53 93 15| . 49 77 16 . . 66 102 15! . 70 114 " 18 18| . 42 51 15 . 43 70 18 . . 65 87 17 . 57 81 " 19 13 . 77 135 91 . 88 206 8! . . 52 128 10 . 65 146 " 20 18! . 55 69 171 . 50 69 14! • . 60 103 17 . 62 88 " 21 IS . 55 94 15| . 73 116 11 . . 67 145 64 . 72 198 " 22 13 . 145 259 18| . 79 96 16 . . 64 99 16! . 59 86 " 23 19| . 50 54 18 . 55 69 18! • . 70 88 18! . 68 83 " 24 17 . 68 95 18| . 52 65 16! ■ . 58 88 17! . 70 94 " 25 11 . 100 224 12 . 130 258 11 . 80 170 6 . 70 192 " 26 2 . 95 311 2 . 124 412 1 . 65 219 2! . 65 247 " 27 18 . 35 44 19 . 40 45 15| . . 63 100 16! . 48 70 " 28 171 . 43 57 17 . 40 55 18 . 59 76 194 . 43 47 " 29 17 . 47 65 17! . 50 62 15| • . 57 91 17 . 48 66 * 30 4 . 52 164 8! . 53 134 9 . 40 95 11 . 40 87 r = number right. w = number wrong. I = time in seconds. sc = score, in terms of seconds, after penalizing. All fractions are dropped in scores. ! + = number above. ! — = number itself. The Original Scores 19 TABLE IHg . (GROUP D— continued) Hard Opposites: A B C D 1 r Ml t sc r w t sc r w t sc r w t sc D 20 60 360 20 60 360 20 84 424 20 90 450 it 2 '9 16 115 597 20* 12 130 550 a 16 97 491 6 18 75 413 a 3 11 IS 190 951 23 12 95 386 10 15 155 786 23 9 200 770 u 4 29 9 165 579 36 7 200 588 27* 8 165 589 29 6 102 339 a 5 20 60 360 20 53 318 4 18 90 507 1 19 90 529 a 6 it* 16 150 600 2ii 12 210 875 10 13 223 1049 21 12 240 1008 " 7 5 18 150 835 9 17 140 735 5 18 145 808 7 16 153 813 « 8 20 105 630 3 19 110 633 3 19 110 633 14 14 80 381 it 9 3 19 83 477 20 70 420 20 94 564 2 19 60 349 a 10 3 19 70 403 6 18 73 402 •• 20 72 432 20 75 450 a 11 5 18 143 797 20 13 135 583 21* 11 110 447 15 15 140 665 a 12 7 17 60 323 6 18 61 356 15* 13 67 309 6 17 58 316 a 13 29| 9 160 557 27* 9 155 559 21 11 150 624 21 10 125 510 " 14 18 12 147 645 27 9 243 645 19* 10 129 539 17 11 123 539 " 15 16* 14 162 756 18* 13 106 575 14 14 115 549 23 11 120 481 " 16 6 18 170 935 9 17 126 662 3 19 116 667 ..20 99 594 " 17 21 12 124 540 22 12 155 639 18* 11 195 840 12 13 150 723 " 18 25 9 142 535 16 11 115 489 21 10 143 584 19 10 150 630 "19 .. 20 108 648 6 18 84 462 3 19 100 575 3 19 110 633 " 20 12 15 122 603 13 15 92 449 9 17 95 505 8 15 110 571 21 8 15 73 380 6 18 71 391 20 77 462 1 19 72 423 22 11 16 192 984 12 16 208 1040 H 18 125 701 20 125 750 23 35 6 200 440 49* 2 142 256 29 9 132 464 30 6 106 273 24 10 16 110 564 16 14 109 505 15* 14 140 655 6 17 140 762 25 20 80 480 2 19 75 436 20 50 300 3 18 95 517 26 20 100 600 20 120 720 20 90 540 2 19 73 425 27 26 9 140 517 30 9 145 499 19 11 80 341 15 13 100 463 28 37 5 88 240 30 8 102 344 28 7 180 638 24 8 200 643 29 19 13 72 315 19 12 102 441 3 19 97 558 18 13 67 297 30 5 17 60 330 9 17 85 446 2 19 60 349 20 60 360 r = score of correct and partially correct w = number wrong. t = time in seconds. sc = score, in terms of seconds, after penalizing. 20 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls TABLE Illh. (GROUP D— continued) Memory for Unrelated Words: A B C D D 1 4 5 6 2 5 " 2 7 7 i 4 5 i " 3 7 5 1 9 8 " 4 8 8 7 8 " 5 10 i 7 i 5 10 " 6 4 3 7 5 " 7 3 5 i 4 3 "2 " 8 10 i 9 l 8 8 2 " 9 4 1 5 6 i 2 " 10 9 1 8 i 5 7 "\ " 11 5 3 3 3 6 1 4 1 " 12 5 3 7 l 8 9 " 13 8 5 l 6 7 " 14 8 i 7 3 3 "2 7 " IS 7 7 6 1 2 i " 16 6 4 6 2 8 2 " 17 9 8 i 4 2 10 2 " 18 7 3 6 2 6 3 7 1 " 19 4 1 3 1 7 3 6 1 " 20 5 5 1 6 5 2 " 21 13 2 5 10 1 5 1 " 22 7 4 5 1 5 " 23 7 7 6 6 i " 24 2 3 5 '5 5 3 6 1 " 25 2 9 3 1 4 2 1 " 26 3 1 2 1 7 5 " 27 7 5 5 8 " 28 7 i 7 9 i 7 " 29 4 7 6 5 " 30 4 4 4 6 3 '2 6 4 r = number remembered, that are right. w = number added, not on list The Original Scores 21 TABLE Illi. (GROUP D— continued) Memory, Logical Passages: D 4 B C P B C F Av. B C F Av. B C F Av. B C i? ^». 1 3 3 2. 5 4 2 3.6 3 2 1 2. 3 2 2 2.3 2 7 9 3 6.3 7 8 3 5.6 5 5 2 4. 10 10 7 9. 3 12 13 6 10.3 10 12 2 10.6 7 6 4 5.6 6 6 3 5. 4 4 4 2 3.3 13 14 5 10.6 6 5 3 4.6 12 14 7 11. 5 6 9 3 6. 10 12 4 8.6 6 7 5 6. 9 11 6 8.6 6 11 12 2 8.3 11 8 2 7. 2 1 1. 5 7 3 5. 7 4 5 3 4. 5 6 1 4. 4 4 2 3.3 5 5 3 4.3 8 5 6 2 4.3 7 7 2 5.3 3 5 1 3. 2 4 1 2.3 9 2 3 1 2. 5 4 3 4. 3 4 2 3. 3 3 1 2.3 10 3 3 2. 6 5 2 4.3 3 2 1.6 4 3 1 2.6 11 2 3 1.6 4 5 2 3.6 5 10 2 5.6 4 4 2 3.3 12 4 7 2 4.3 8 10 3 7. 4 2 1 2.3 5 5 2 4. 13 4 8 3 5. 11 14 8 11. 10 10 4 8. 7 8 3 6. 14 8 6 3 5.6 7 11 3. 7 4 6 2 4. 5 10 4 6.3 15 3 2 1 2. 8 12 4 8. 5 8 3 5.3 4 9 2 5. 16 4 5 2 3.6 3 2 1 2. 4 2 2 2.6 4 4 2 3.3 17 7 8 2 5.6 10 13 6 9.6 5 9 3 5.6 4 8 2 4.6 18 8 12 4 8. 14 17 8 13. 8 10 6 8. 14 18 11 14.3 19 5 7 1 4.3 4 3 1 2.6 3 3 2 2.6 .... 20 2 2 1.3 8 8 4 6.6 '8 "l '4 6.3 21 2 6 3.6 6 4 4 4.6 5 8 4 4.3 6 6 4 5.3 22 3 3 1 2.3 7 6 2 5. 3 4 1 2.6 4 5 2 3.6 23 12 14 9 11.6 13 17 8 12.6 19 22 16 19. 17 18 11 15.3 24 8 9 5 7.3 7 8 5 6.6 6 7 2 5. 10 8 6 8. 25 3 2 1 2. 3 1 1 1.6 3 1 2 2. 2 2 1 1.6 26 3 3 1 2.3 3 2 1 2. 3 2 1 2. 3 2 1.6 27 6 8 3 5.6 8 8 4 6.6 4 6 1 3.6 4 6 2 4. 28 8 9 6 7.6 14 15 10 13. 10 11 4 8.3 14 15 11 13.3 29 6 4 2 4. 6 7 2 5. 3 2 1 2. 5 4 3 4. 30 5 9 3 5.6 4 8 2 4.6 6 8 3 5.6 10 10 7 9. B = = scored by writer. C = = scored by assistant ; in Psychological Department. F = = scored by assistanl ; in Psychological Department. Av.= = avers ige of 3 scores. 22 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls ft, cj^J f=Q iOCOOOWIO^OOtHXtIIOVOOOOiN^OOCO^hONOOOhvOO i—l i— 1 OOHNONOsOOONOOiN ,_| ,_l ,-H ,-< ,-H i-H i-H i-H i-H iH i-H CN H H N N H t^rtrH M H IT3 H H i-t H Hl«N[P3 H1P3 H[MNl«H|M«|m 0)|WN|«rH[« N|««JeO i-flMN|M Ot*«'*Oi'>O , !HHr0iOW00iOfO«Of0'OO'HfCrCN( , 0OO>Ot^i/)>O O l O l OiO*CfOONHHrOiH\OcOfOfS(N^ , 00' ¥ 3«SNr')OOiOOOT|fiO ^00CNTH0\a^v0O>O'^ONHr0'*00iO00Tl , * i riOrlO«>OOv0 '*OOiOtOOOO'HNNNfOt>.iNN l OOfOO\ 1 OCNCN\Or| 00O'O'O , O«)00O«MNOf0N 1 OONU5OiOOiOOOOO«)NOO O00O.O\'O'O0N v O0\TH00i0t s ' , OO 1 O l O'HNO , O00O»OrH0\O > O i-l r-H *-t i-l »-f *-l i-H i-l CN iH CN CO »-H i— I i-H H|M«InH(nH|m w|n h|cs h|« ih[« n|m hIm n|m h|»r|« H|N ^W H|Ni-((M>-4|e» i-ij« r-.|M iHt^t-.00rf3NOf0*-(HiorJ<00U)f0CNr0 l 0^T}*HrHONOOiO00>Oi> HN'OOOw5COiHnH(N^OrcN\OrotNro , O^TpTHCOO , 000>OCON\0 d O • ° m^ « *o § § «+H 0)4^ O w CU cj.S 8P' S - 8 ® fi ca +j en h-t pq^J PQ ^^ w H en D < O z <-* P3 w cq >0.0\ rOfOtS'HHCS'*^tN(N , *'H'-i*-ifC 1 OrO'-i\0'OCSN ^\0^>H CO OOOWIONOON^OCO -O PO CN ooooo i o ^CSH CO *-t CO "*> ^ CO CO '-I t-H i-l CN CO CS i-l \0 \0 CN »0 CNOO HCSH O O in O O ■ O O iO CO O iO ■OoOOOOOOOaWNOOO'OOCNO fOiOwOOO\ • *-. CN •** *h *0 t*- • CO CO CO lO 00 Tt* CN J>- 0\ *0 ** CO ON \0 O ON C\ i-l i-l i—l -HCSHrHH ■ HHH CN CN tH rlrtrt HH HlwHin rt|«N|MH|pa N[nH|m«l« n!«h|wh|wn|m«Jp3i-(|co hJcs nIm n|co n[«n|m O^^^CNjaCNTtiNCS'nrOOOOiOfOTfit^CNCNlNfOOLOOOoOOOcXJCX) OOt^ONCNOCNiOCNCO^^OONiO^iOCOCOCNCNCNOLOOOONCOONOO 1-H i-l vH OONC\tNOr^fOCNW50fOONiOTHTJiNCNfOCN , *0 , OOOC>000\00 ONCOOvfOO^CN^tNCNiO^OOONCN^OOfOCNCS^O^OOOCOCOOOa iHCNC*}T^lO\0l^00e>Oi-.:>, w XJ1 Anf^ ,0 a +j +j a d u " aj Cfl 'tn la c/} cd >>>.>» JO^QXI *0 Td'O a; at CD i-H i- 1- o o o a o O en w w pqOfc, The Original Scores 23 TABLE Illk. EVENING SETTLEMENT HOUSE GROUP (E) Original Scores Easy Opposites: A B C D r vi t sc r w t sc r w t sc r w t sc E 1 18 . 50 64 184 • 65 78 184 •■ 72 90 194 ■ 81 88 " 2 17 . so 71 184 • 55 67 19 .. 55 62 20 . 53 53 8 3 14J . 104 178 17 . 99 141 154 •• 85 135 20 . 78 78 « 4 19 . 63 71 19 . 52 59 194 •• 50 54 20 . 42 42 " 5 18* . 46 56 174 • 58 78 184 •• 71 71 184 • 74 74 6 19 . 59 69 18 . 46 58 174 •• 54 75 154 • 22 36 " 7 19J • 42 46 174 ■ 58. 77 19 .. 65 76 19 . 50 54 " 8 20 . 91 20 . 63 20 .. 48 48 19 . 83 90 " 9 194 . 50 54 194 • 25 28 184 ■• 38 46 20 . 32 32 " 10 19 . 37 42 20 . 35 194 •• 42 46 20 . . 41 41 " 11 20 . 60 18 . 70 88 194 •• 78 84 19 . 81 88 " 12 20 . 46 19 . 54 61 19 .. 55 64 17 . 42 58 " 13 IS . 70 119 16 . 60 90 184 •• 100 125 154 ■ 125 198 " 14 19| • 52 56 18 . 60 75 17 .. 56 79 194 ■ 57 62 " IS 17 . so 70 194 ■ 41 44 16 .. 82 126 184 • 82 99 " 16 19 . 39 46 20 . 43 20 .. 44 44 194 • 47 51 " 17 20 . 77 19 . 53 60 19 .. 65 76 184 • 51 61 " 18 20 . 41 41 18 . 41 51 19 .. 42 49 20 . 35 35 " 19 19 . 55 64 194 • 56 61 18 .. 58 75 20 . 68 68 " 20 19| • 45 49 17 . 60 83 194 .. 84 91 20 . 73 73 " 21 20 . 46 46 18 . 42 53 174 •■ 74 99 19 . 43 48 " 22 14 . 130 232 17 . 75 107 14 .. 74 132 11 . 66 143 " 23 19 . 80 87 20 . 74 184 •• 76 92 19 . 86 97 " 24 19| . 45 49 19 . 50 56 18 .. 55 69 19 . 43 47 « 25 18 . 83 104 16 . 48 72 16 .. 74 114 114 ■ 82 179 " 26 194 • 72 78 20 . 90 164 .. 79 116 20 . 61 61 " 27 194 • 53 57 19 . 43 48 20 .. 48 48 20 . 65 65 " 28 18 . 59 69 18 . 56 70 18 .. 56 72 19 . 109 109 " 29 19 . 83 93 20 . 65 164 •• 75 113 19 . 83 97 " 30 194 • 100 108 18 . 71 89 17 .. 66 91 154 ■ 66 105 " 31 15 . 90 150 17 . 50 69 144 .. 67 118 15 . 63 106 " 32 19 . 54 63 20 . 45 174 •• 53 70 20 . 50 50 " 33 164 • 118 172 13 . 76 143 184 ■• 92 112 154 • 76 120 " 34 10 . 99 223 174 • 80 107 20 .. 176 '20 . 98 r = number right. ai = number wrong. / = time in seconds. sc = score, in terms of seconds, after penalizing. All fractions are dropped in scores. 4 + = number above. 4 — = number itself. 24 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls TABLE III1. (GROUP E— continued) Hard Opposites: A B C D r w t sc r w t sc r w t sc r w t sc E 1 24* 9 74 353 34 7 200 613 18* 12 110 478 19 11 98 417 " 2 30 8 124 421 38 6 180 489 29 8 240 828 27 8 220 787 " 3 13 5 240 1170 18 12 240 1050 10* 15 215 1086 13 14 210 1012 " 4 34 3 250 557 36 5 188 482 29 7 146 492 37 3 164 434 " 5 35 6 181 536 39 4 108 275 38 5 285 756 30 7 162 536 " 6 52 1 200 316 33 7 198 621 16* 12 100 637 25 8 162 598 " 7 865 666 32 8 345 1127 37 6 192 545 " 8 44 i 60 117 36 '5 200 563 32 5 200 615 32 6 203 609 " 9 53 105 152 44 2 55 117 37* 6 82 229 48 1 66 118 " 10 156 198 44* 2 133 282 45 2 120 235 " 11 603 588 22 11 132 534 36 7 138 398 " 12 34| '5 204 711 33 '7 288 870 25* 8 193 709 38 2 170 427 " 13 21| 9 93 364 26 10 140 525 20 10 190 795 18 11 180 741 " 14 43* 3 135 302 34 6 124 358 31 5 115 362 29 5 83 272 " IS 24 11 142 469 41 4 96 233 23 11 161 645 20 11 156 654 " 16 44 2 103 221 37 5 150 410 41 2 190 437 45 3 146 308 " 17 . , 1087 512 21 11 200 1177 23 7 176 662 " 18 47 3 113 207 43* 3 71 162 29* 6 300 935 47 1 120 213 " 19 47 2 121 236 44 1 105 216 37 5 202 509 32 6 203 638 " 20 180 210 52 144 218 50 157 229 " 21 37 5 162 449 44* 4 134 300 28 7 135 473 30 6 127 408 " 22 3 19 115 661 21 12 57 202 4 18 132 743 20 126 756 " 23 33 7 237 758 31 6 192 590 33 8 300 958 38 6 178 491 " 24 31 9 150 517 34* 5 112 318 25 9 124 485 33 5 118 359 " 25 23 11 111 445 18 3 273 398 4 18 224 1262 14 13 218 1023 " 26 25 9 270 997 34 8 144 451 " 27 43 2 109 220 45* 3 106 223 39 '4 218 551 50 2 177 312 " 28 29* 9 176 213 37 6 200 567 25* 9 166 438 34 5 162 478 « 29 27 7 207 664 32 5 218 685 19* 11 217 933 16 12 231 1026 " 30 1183 595 21* 11 122 424 14 14 125 470 " 31 15* 13 130 599 19 13 150 657 11 15 120 630 13 14 132 636 " 32 44 2 141 275 43 3 80 181 38 3 133 296 52 102 156 "33 9 17 187 982 12 16 112 560 17 3 128 578 16 11 136 575 " 34 20 13 192 805 30 8 133 451 20 123 738 3 19 108 621 r = score of correct and partially correct. w = number wrong. / = time in seconds. sc = score, in terms of seconds, after penalizing. The Original Scores 25 TABLE Him. (GROUP E— continued) Memory for Unrelated Words: A B C D E 1 9 9 10 1 10 . 2 5 5 8 7 . 3 8 8 4 5 . 4 9 7 6 i 7 . S 8 i 5 "l 6 6 . 6 8 7 7 i 9 . 7 8 9 8 9 . 8 9 i 6 i 10 7 1 9 8 i 7 5 8 1 10 9 l 12 i 5 7 2 11 7 7 2 12 6 2 6 ^ 9 '7 ! 13 11 11 7 9 . 14 8 6 9 "i 9 . 15 10 8 'i 10 l 10 2 16 9 7 9 7 2 17 9 11 5 i 8 . 18 11 4 9 8 . 19 8 i 6 2 8 7 . 20 11 8 10 7 . 21 8 7 10 l 9 1 22 6 5 2 8 l 6 1 23 10 "i 7 1 8 9 1 24 8 l 8 2 6 i 6 2 25 6 l 5 2 8 7 . 26 9 l 7 8 6 . 27 11 2 10 3 11 '4 9 . 28 7 4 5 2 6 7 5 4 29 8 8 1 10 9 . 30 10 i 9 2 11 6 2 31 7 2 9 9 9 . 32 12 2 7 2 9 6 9 i 33 6 2 4 1 5 6 . 34 6 1 5 1 4 2 8 . r = number remembered, that are right. w = number added, not on list 26 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls TABLE Illn. (GROUP E— continued) Memory, Logical Passages: E 1 A B C £> B c F Av. B C F ylw. B C F Av. B C F Av. 1 6 5 3 4.6 3 4 3 3.6 11 10 7 8.6 10 10 3 7.6 2 12 13 10 11.6 10 9 7 8.6 2 2 1 1.6 12 16 7 11.6 3 1 3 1 1.6 3 4 3 3.3 6 3 3 4. 8 9 5 7.3 4 1 1 1 1. 6 6 3 S. 8 9 5 7.3 5 12 12 7 10.3 6 8 5 6.3 2 2 1 1.6 9 9 '9 9.' 6 6 5 4 S. 5 5 3 4.3 9 9 7 8.3 20 20 11 17. 7 6 7 6 6.3 2 4 1 3.3 3 2 1.6 11 13 5 9.6 8 S 5 5 5. 4 3 4 3.3 6 S 1 4. " 9 16 13 9 12.6 12 9 6 9. 17 19 9 15. 22 23 17 20.6 " 10 14 12 11 12.3 9 9 5 7.6 10 13 9 10.6 8 10 9 9. " 11 12 14 7 11. 9 10 S 8. 9 8 6 7.7 8 10 7 8.3 "12 6 6 4 5.3 10 10 7 9. 7 8 4 6.3 15 17 12 14.6 " 13 8 5 3 5.3 6 5 2 4.3 9 9 4 7.3 5 5 4 4.6. "14 6 6 4 5.3 9 8 7 8 10 11 9 10. " 15 4 3 2 3. 3 3 2 2.6 1 1 .67836. "16 6 9 4 6.3 7 6 5 6 9 10 9 9.3 " 17 9 7 5 7. 7 7 3 5.6 6 9 5 6.6 14 16 9 13. " 18 12 10 10 10.6 13 10 9 10.6 20 21 10 17. 13 17 9 13. " 19 8 7 4 6.3 4 4 3 3.6 7 11 3 7. 9 7 4 6.6 " 20 14 12 10 12. 6 8 5 6. 17 14 15 15.3 13 8 11 10.6 " 21 12 11 10 11. 10 9 9 9.3 5 10 2 5.6 15 18 11 14.6 " 22 3 6 3 4. 5 4 2 3.6 4 4 2 3.3 2 3 2 2.3 " 23 9 10 6 8.3 8 6 7 7. 3 3 1 2.3 9 12 9 9.3 "24 9 9 8 8.6 11 9 6 8.6 11 10 4 8.3 12 13 10 11.6 " 25 8 8 6 7.3 5 5 5 5. 3 4 1 2.6 7 7 4 6. " 26 7 8 5 6.6 6 6 5 5.6 6 4 2 4. 3 3 2 2.6 " 27 12 12 10 11.3 8 8 7 7.6 15 13 10 12.6 18 18 7 14.3 " 28 8 6 5 6.3 7 6 3 5.3 6 8 4 6. 11 13 9 11. " 29 5 3 3 3.6 7 6 5 6. 2 2 1 1.6 3 7 2 4. 8 30 3 4 1 3.6 8 11 9 9.3 4 4 2 3.3 12 12 9 11. " 31 3 5 2.6 4 5 4 4.3 7 6 2 5. 8 8 5 7. " 32 14 10 9 11. 9 10 9 9.3 10 12 6 9.3 18 19 12 15. " 33 3 6 3 4. 3 4 3 3.3 4 2 1 2.3 12 13 5 10. " 34 8 9 7 8. 6 7 3 5.3 8 5 2 5. 9 12 6 9. B = scored by writer. C = scored by assistant in Psychological Department. F= scored by assistant in Psychological Department. Av.— average of 3 scores. The Original Scores 27 OVONvONONNHtsiHOOOTfNOvONNTjKNOO'H^POfO'HOOHHfOQOOO »00.'*OONvO»-ti-(\00'HO(N«iO0\Oi>OfCONOONOf^ HW)rHTHrHMHHiHHMH^-IHrH HnnHMrHrnHHCNHCNCOrtT-lTHCSCSI COCJO VO VO CO CO VO VO VO co vo vo vo co to vo vo co to co VO CO vO VO to vO co vo ^i>.^t^ioco^*nvo4>-i^^io^*>'COTfl^^oo»o^cN^tocooo^co , ^*--ivoc''4CS covo^*^^to^^^^^-^^^^to^voooo\io^covo-^»oo\t'--.po , <*i--ir , ''-coto uSt^iot^iOTH^^ooooo*>-»o^i^^u^o\^oovou^(Nu^focoooooTh^c^ioe^w iowio*^^^OTt«covoiocsu^tocooooOTt^OOrOH *-H Csl OJ Hrt tH CN »H r-t rtHHrtH CO HCSHtHCN tH C*J ro CO "O vo CO vo VO vo vo v© co vo ro vo vO vo vo to co vO co CO vo *-^t^^tIoO"*vOvOOOOO*-* vp»0 vovovO00iOVOvO0000 i ^\O*^C-JW**»r-.«*^00vOlO*^TtlJ^00C0cN^^00'«-iTH r^r^rHOO^vot^cooooooovOTH^OONVO^i^cc^TH^cocNi^^t^esTjt^oo^eo 2 1 8 .b d a o cu O w O c-S S CO 00 i>- cn vo cn^^- Ov vo VO vO-^h ■-t-00^v0*O00000vCNO\00VO l>-vO000v0000THOiOt*»C00vrH0v00vO OOt^ON-t^t^OO^vOvOOOOOOvcSOsOOt^ t^-OvOvt^l^OOiOVOvOOvOOOvfOOOvt^- ^-KNvO^-tvOi>-vOi-(OvoOcooooovOOO iONiO^t (, OvO(N0000rOJ>^00t>'V0CN ooOvO^HOOVOOOOOO(Ncoco»OvO'^ ^HVOiO'^H-^H'OOviOOvcO'^'^'t^vovOvO CO vO voto CO to vo vo vo CO CO VO O\00 0^00 0\0000i0 0\00 0\00 0\**-TJH ©,|>.00\000\*-*COiOOOvOvOOO\f'-co Ov0\OO000\0000tO0\00O0\O00V0 o\oooo\o>aooooNaoao>Nio 00Ov00OvO(NCOVO FiS tH 53 crt QQ CS — ,-j C4 "Sii'Efl o o o o rsi f.-S >-.>. •* d.!>,>* .a .a .a o o o o o o to to «] cqOfc, 28 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls TABLE IIIp. SERVANT GIRL GROUP (S) Original Scores Easy Opposites: A B C D r VI t sc r w t sc r w t sc r w t sc S 1 131 . . 95 174 17 . 72 99 16! - 69 103 10! • 95 210 " 2 12 . . Ill 235 18 . 65 81 16 . 55 85 15! • . 75 119 " 3 15 . . 52 87 17 . . 38 52 18 . 37 46 18! • . 38 46 « 4 18| • . 52 63 19 . . 68 76 18 . 44 57 18 . 58 73 " 5 m • . 137 291 16 . . 113 170 14 . 91 163 14! • . 87 148 " 6 18 . . 76 95 19 . . 43 48 17 . 65 89 17! • 66 89 « 7 18| . 65 75 19 . . 57 64 17 . 63 89 19 . 48 56 " 8 11* . . 85 180 13! • 45 82 15 . 85 142 10! • 63 139 « 9 15! . . 77 125 16! • . 58 85 15 . 82 137 13! • 63 115 " 10 13 . . 88 169 17 . . 57 78 12! • 85 166 15! • 85 135 " 11 18! . . 52 65 18 . . 60 75 17! • 57 78 18 . 47 61 " 12 18 . . 38 48 18 . . 36 47 18 . 44 58 19 . 44 50 " 13 13 . . 55 104 19! • . 38 41 15! • 60 98 17! • 50 73 " 14 11 . . 55 119 11! • . 46 96 12! ■ 60 118 7 . 51 96 " IS 14 . . 77 138 13 . . 48 90 13 . 60 115 15 . 54 88 " 16 13| • . 86 157 13 . . 50 94 11 . 60 128 131 ■ 54 100 a 17 18 . . 88 114 19! - . 55 61 14 . 81 145 17 . 71 98 " 18 6 . . 150 393 11 . . 160 340 14! • 118 202 8 . 86 219 " 19 15J • . 150 238 16 . . 102 153 12 . 115 235 14 . 97 174 " 20 16! . • 72 105 19 . . 52 59 15! • 63 100 19 . 52 59 " 21 10 . . 75 171 7 . . 104 273 8 . 80 200 8! . 72 177 - 22 18 . . 215 260 11 . . 150 188 14 . 136 243 16! • 123 179 " 23 19! • . 120 130 18! ■ . 100 120 14 . 89 159 18! • 59 71 " 24 19! ■ . 55 60 18! • . 37 45 18! • 40 49 20 . 42 42 " 25 12! • . 110 215 14 . . 95 166 10! ■ 180 397 11! • 115 240 « 26 11! • . 120 255 13 . . 105 196 19! • 40 44 19 . 45 51 « 27 20 . . 52 52 18 . . 45 50 13 . 102 196 11 . 110 238 28 16! • . 72 105 16 . . 73 110 13 . 45 84 15! ■ 45 72 « 29 18 . . 61 79 17! • . 57 76 18! • 57 71 19! ■ 42 46 r = number right. w = number wrong. < = time in seconds. sc = score, in terms of seconds, after penalizing. All fractions are dropped in scores. ! + = number above. ! — = number itself. Hard Opposites: The Original Scores 29 TABLE IHq. (GROUP S— continued) A B C D t sc r w t sc r w t sc r w t S 1 3 18 145 826 16 11 185 856 10 14 150 748 8 15 112 581 " 2 13 15 175 853 20 11 120 495 11 14 155 731 9 14 110 912 " 3 34 7 128 391 37$ 5 100 274 16 13 156 689 34 8 220 689 " 4 35 4 124 351 35$ 7 128 382 25 9 150 560 35 4 130 367 "5 7 16 150 799 19 13 132 579 12 12 140 660 7 15 192 1008 " 6 11 16 199 911 20 141 846 26 8 100 361 32 8 101 341 " 7 21$ 12 202 841 24 10 136 384 23$ 11 100 399 22 12 93 267 "8 9 17 205 1076 20$ 13 189 610 3 19 94 448 3 19 95 452 " 9 17 13 210 946 12 15 151 746 7 16 113 602 10 15 99 502 " 10 10 16 205 1053 22 11 90 368 10 14 116 583 10 16 104 534 11 36 7 92 271 26 10 117 442 14 14 142 676 26 8 130 456 " 12 26 9 99 267 24 12 71 284 11$ 15 71 355 27 11 75 357 " 13 11 16 100 507 13 5 84 410 3 19 77 366 6 18 67 302 " 14 10 15 100 507 9 16 74 384 9 17 75 394 15 15 64 240 " 15 14 14 99 472 27 9 72 262 17$ 11 73 263 10 15 85 430 « 16 11 15 99 496 9 17 71 373 5 18 75 418 10 15 85 420 *' 17 19$ 11 131 556 23$ 11 132 532 8$ 16 64 273 16 13 88 392 " 18 3 19 142 817 9 17 142 746 20 64 384 5 18 90 411 " 19 6 18 81 446 19 13 146 785 20 64 384 4 17 101 562 " 20 20 12 107 555 21 13 105 446 8$ 16 168 879 22 11 112 456 " 21 20 105 630 20 78 468 5 18 72 401 20 121 726 " 22 20 150 900 20 105 630 3 19 97 557 6 18 109 600 "23 3 19 162 932 19 13 78 342 4 18 78 439 5 17 87 479 " 24 24 10 190 738 40 5 102 263 20 12 147 626 32 7 139 443 " 25 6 18 185 1018 6 18 125 673 20 100 600 20 88 528 " 26 45 3 128 273 32 7 136 434 36$ 5 118 335 43 3 115 162 " 27 11 16 121 613 5 17 178 980 3 19 162 932 20 105 630 " 28 12 16 117 585 3 19 117 555 3 19 105 604 2 19 90 524 " 29 36$ 6 252 721 29$ 9 160 557 39$ 4 255 645 43 3 165 384 r = score of correct and partially correct. w = number wrong. t = time in seconds. jc = score, in terms of seconds, after penalizing. 30 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls TABLE Illr. (GROUP S— continued) . Memory for Unrelated Words : A B ( D r ai r TO r TO r w 1 3 3 5 4 2 2 .. 2 4 1 2 '3 7 1 5 1 3 9 7 3 1 6 .. 4 5 i 6 5 5 5 5 5 i 5 5 6 7 i 7 8 9 7 3 7 4 7 8 4 '2 2 2 5 "l 5 9 6 8 5 5 10 6 6 6 i 6 11 8 7 4 1 7 .. 12 5 5 6 5 1 13 6 4 i 4 5 1 14 4 5 1 5 5 .. 15 4 5 5 3 1 16 4 5 7 3 .. 17 7 6 4 '2 6 .. 18 4 5 5 4 2 19 5 5 5 3 2 20 7 i 6 7 8 .. 21 4 6 3 5 .. 22 4 1 3 4 23 6 4 i 5 5 24 6 i 5 5 i 5 25 3 4 6 1 3 26 8 5 6 5 27 4 4 4 1 4 28 9 9 9 8 1 29 7 5 7 6 . r = number remembered, that are right. w = number added, not on list. The Original Scores 31 TABLE Ills . (GROUP S- -continued) Memory, Logical Passages: 4 B C D B C F Av. B C i? 4». B C F Av. B C F 4». S 1 2 2 1 1.6 2 2 1.3 1 4 1.6 2 6 1 3. 8 2 3 3 1 2.3 2 2 1.3 2 .6 2 .6 " 3 7 S 1 4.3 6 6 2 4.6 5 4 5 4.6 6 8 7 7. " 4 9 9 6 8. 4 4 2 3.3 9 7 4 6.6 16 16 10 12. " S 1 1 .6 6 4 4 4.6 5 5 2 4. 10 8 5 7.6 " 6 11 12 11 11.3 10 8 5 7.6 12 6 11 9.6 20 19 10 16.3 « 7 6 8 7 7. 7 8 5 6.6 4 3 2 3. 8 9 5 7.3 " 8 2 3 1.6 0. 7 8 2 5.6 7 7 2 5.3 « 9 10 8 5 7.6 8 7 3 6. 6 4 2 4. 5 5 2 4. " 10 7 6 3 5.3 3 3 1 2.3 2 2 3 2.3 5 6 2 4.3 " 11 6 6 3 5. 9 6 4 6.3 5 5 2 4. 10 12 5 9. " 12 11 9 5 8.3 10 8 5 7.6 12 9 7 9.3 12 13 5 10. " 13 1 3 1 1.6 1 .3 5 6 2 4.3 6 6 4 5.3 " 14 3 4 2.3 4 6 2 4. 2 2 1.3 2 5 2 3. " IS 2 2 1.3 4 3 3 3.3 2 3 1 2. , 6 7 5 6. " 16 1 2 1. 4 4 3 3.6 3 3 2. 4 4 5 4.3 " 17 6 3 2 3.6 1 5 2 2.6 8 4 5 5.6 5 7 2 4.6 " 18 2 1 2 1.6 1 2 2 1.6 0. 1 2 3 2. « 19 2 1 1 1.3 1 2 1. 0. 0. " 20 4 S 2 3.6 8 7 5 6.6 8 6 3 5.6 10 9 4 7.6 " 21 2 2 1 1.6 2 1 2 1.6 1 2 1 1.6 5 6 4 5. " 22 0. 0. 0. 1 .6 " 23 4 s 2 3.6 5 3 4 4. 3 3 3 3. 8 9 7 8. " 24 4 s 2 3.6 5 3 2 3.3 4 5 2 3.6 15 16 9 13.3 « 25 0. 1 1 .6 2 1 1 1.3 1 1 1 1. " 26 2 4 2 2.6 6 5 3 4.6 10 13 12 11.6 10 10 7 9. « 27 0. 2 .6 0. 4 5 4 4.3 " 28 10 10 7 9. 9 8 4 7. 8 7 2 5.6 18 14 11 14.3 « 29 7 7 5 6.3 5 4 2 3.6 5 5 2 4. 10 12 10 10.6 B = scored by writer. C = scored by assistant in Psychological Department. F = scored by assistant in Psychological Department. Av.= average of 3 scores. 32 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls ft, ft} o^ cq 000\0OOHOOOvOOOMHNiONOOOHio>0 0\HOOOOOO QOOOfOOvO^roCSOOnfSfCONOOlOOOOOO^OvMONOOO^NfS T-(»HNNrH t-H iH l-l l-H CN l"H i-l i-l W i-l i-t rH i-lrtrtNNr0\rOO\T)f^yOt^CNOfO »0»00\l>aHOONOVO^O\rHMCO'-(lOTHOVO'HCOH\OC*5NrOfO'H OO^iN(NOO^tHO«h^oO>OOOONCOO(NOOHNN\ONOOIOH OOOONrHNNWjaOaNOOOOOaO^OiaTH^OHOrO^WOOHW THHT-IHrt i-n i-H rH iH rtHNHHHHrlrtrtrtH ca vo vovovo vo vo co *o CO vO CO vO <0 vo OO^N^\0N(NOiOOO>0\OOOOOH iO'HOOiNtoOO\ v O»Ot>.^'*OiVOiOtDO'*roiOOOO ** CN tH CN in CN 10W3CiOOfO(N CO O vo CO vO vo VO VO VO VOCO VO co vo CO co CO VO VO O 00 vo tH io 00 CN CO »H co t-o ^f rf< co CN »o tH i-H CO T-t o ^ »o CO O -r^*-* OO00V0rf)iOOscsr0rtW5^^HiOC0f0'OHrtr0HO'*T)ic*jaO0000 Oi-ioo^i^»ooocoTiHc*]coio»o^^eNvo^»HcoTHO^vocoo\©oooo si S S a. ft PQ || °£ *o 9 O©00^i-iV0O\C0^eNCOVOiOCOC0eNVOi-4Wrti | ^ovtoo^O'*^ NUjlOMVOVOO^HOlON^OTHOOaHOCO^CNrHVOOOOOtTjOO^a VOHHCS i-l CO i-t CO CO WCviHCNMlOroCM^ro^rH^tHlO^ °152^!£^ 00wyo O ,/ 5 0»OfOOCS|iONCSlNOHNOVOOON >OOOOOiONro\OiOiO>OCOOOOOO«ONiO»0 0\0\OOro^O\0 0\vO CN CN t-J *H iH i-H t-J i-l ^-1 HrtrtTHrtrt r-fiHCS CN ■ B S In rt ™ I -si COCO vocovocotoco coco vo VO CO VO vo vo g ■^!-OOCOVOTj<^C30tOCS»OCNOOeNiHVO*-(OeNt^iO*>-iHt^t^. CS|HOOO\OOOOCOIOIOlOOOiOCN>Oi-lQO(NiHVOiHOCSOOiONcNNN CNWOOOlOaOOCTiNlO^avOCNllOCNOOrHrHVOrHOCOOOIOOOiHNOO iHiHCOO\00\0\co\Oi*rliOOiofOvOrOOOcotHNcNOCON\OOOCvjNOO i-ICNr^^lOVONOOOvOrtCNCOTtllOONOOaOr-KNfO^lOVDNOOa rtHiHHiHHrtrtHrtMMMMfvXNCVKSCSCvi ! W in c3 '35 U U *h oop O O CJ OOlO'* ..... O'^lOO000\t-INN^N000000O'-iHi-i^N0\ai0N^aOHCSiO C^O\ON^csco^^Th»0^»OtovoWt^r^C>OescJ>-0000OP0'*^>ON00aOs»HrHU)000\fC^NN\O00N^ ■rH *H T-t ■ OO C>T^lou^^ot^o^^»oooc^coo^^OTt^^*^»ooc^OcMCM^o^o^^^^cq^c^^OlOCMCX)00^ IN'*O\0ON000000000\0\O\OO>-(WiHHf0'*Tj*T)0'010 , 000000000\0\Ow(N(NN(NfO«^^Tf0\0\000\0\ONOtHi-i(NrO»0 ■ • ■ '*NNN00 0\OOOHHHHHHrtWW5rCW)f0C0iOlO l O , ONNO>0\OOOO'H 1 O CMC^CMCSCMCM<>0*^rorofOrOrofOcorofOrofOCOPOrocorococo^cocOf^ NO00>OO'-iT-ii-(OO^HNC>jT-i\ON'HOiNNiO0\r0r0OJN\0iN ^-H0\004>»t^. , O , O'O\O , OlOlO^THrt)CNCNCM'-('H*-li-) cocOlO(NOwc>^COCOt^rt^'lMOOTt^CS^HC^COC<)i>.^O^^O^rHCMCM^*^»^^c«cO'^ ^M^^^OONONCOCOOOcooot^^^^NONONONONONOu^ioiOiO^^TH^cococo 00O^iOV000O\^ l OON00O\Tt(IOO'Hf0N(NtNThNr0^lONIO00«O • ■ • • A •3-° S M b 8 |§ ■Stg - fc! - fc! H O l O>0«\OvO^O^t^Ni>0 0^ Nocsioio^ocscsco^^ONTflooNO^ON^csNOoOrHioNOi^oio^NONOoooo^cocsiio N000000000\OOOOOO»HrHM(NNW5f0f0r0Tl<^Tj<^iOiO'')«O»O>O■ ^ On "^ i>* 00 w co *H t-^ •»# 00 NO *■■•■ *■>■ ■* On »0 •*# NO cs On 10 00 co *h On 0'HioMON'HCNirOvOi>'H'H^^io«NoooO'-(ro^^O\0^wiOoo rocOCOCOCOrpT^TH^ , * l OU^»0"^*OiOiO*OiONONO'O v ONOI>.*^t^l>.Jb* ^0\oONrovOT}(0\Ot^0^iO\OrHO*OT-ircOOO'-i^rOO\0\0\T}iWiHNO\ON iOO^CSCSjcS^^OOMCSNO^ONO-i>-0000000 vOOOH'co^HMOtOfO^^OOrO^CNOfOCvHOOiNiNOiONtniOOfO C^lO^O^CNCSCOlOlONOONWCSCONO'O'O^OOONONtNOO'HCSCSONNOOO rococo^ ^^^^TH^^^«Ou^iO»OU^io*OiOiOio , ONOt^l>.J>-*>- COCO Is 00iC»OVONN>ONW)>O0\OOOO«NO(NN00lOCSNNN00NC0 WMfOfO^^^^<5 , 0* ,, 00000\OiOOCSCSf'5^-t*^*^t^cooococ>o\Oi^cscs Nfs,J >0\0\0\'H'-l'HTf(iOOOOOOOf2 l ON " '^ ^^^T^^^^rHTH^CSCS(NCNCSCNICNl(NCNCNfOfOPOfOrOCOfO Ms go, 00 a a PART III RESULTS (1) Intelligence Tests i. easy opposites test Comparing now the results attained by the four groups on this test, we have the facts of Table VI. TABLE Via Easy Opposites n== num- ber of COMPARISON OF THE FOUR GROUPS cases Barnard College (C) Group n = 36 Delinquent (D) Group n = 30 Evening Settlement House (E) Group n = 34 Servant girl (S) Group .n = 29 COMPARISON WITH C GROUP % of D Group reaching or exceeding median of C Group = 0% " " « « " " " 25%ile " " " = 3.3% a « <■ « « « « io%ile " " " = 10% % of E " " " " median " " " = 12% (.118) " « " " « " " 2S%ile « " " = 15% (.147) a « « « « « « 10%ile « « « = 29% ( 294) % of S " " " " median " " " = 0% " " " " " " " 25%ile « « " =7% (.069) " " " " " " " 10%ile " " " =10% (.103) COMPARISON OF D AND E GROUPS % of D Group reaching or exceeding median of E Group = 16f % " " " " " " " 25%ile " " " =43|% " " " " " " " 10%ile " " " =66f% 23f % of D Group were worse than the poorest of the E Group 12% of E Group were better than the best of the D Group COMPARISON OF D AND S GROUPS % of D Group reaching or exceeding median of S Group = 53|% " " " " " " " 25%ile « « " =93% " " " " " " " 10%ile " " " =90% 6f % of D Group were worse than the poorest of the S Group. 7% of S Group were better than the best of the D Group. That is, if we compare Groups C and D, we find that no member of Group D reached the median score of Group C and 38 Results 39 that 3.3%, or 1 person, in Group D, did as well on this test as the lowest 25% of the Gollege Group, whereas 10% of Group D reached or exceeded the score obtained by the poorest 10% of Group C. That members of Group E compare more favorably with Group C is seen by their record, for 12% of them reach or exceed the median of Group C, as well as by the number reaching or exceed- ing the 25 percentile and the 10 percentile. Thus we see that Group C succeeds far better on this test than the other groups, that the overlapping of Groups C and D is slight and the test differentiates the two groups quite well, but the difference between the two is not much greater than that between Groups C and S, the only distinction being that one more member of Group S reaches the 25 percentile than in Group D, whereas Group E lies between the others. Though 22|% of Group D have results poorer than the poorest record in Group E, and 12% of Group E are better than the best of Group D, yet the overlapping is considerable. More significant, however, is the great overlapping in Groups D and S ; here, though, the upper and lower limits are more favorable for Group S, yet Group D on the whole does quite as well, for 53f % reach or exceed 50% of the members of Group S and 93% reach or exceed the record of 75% of Group S. The groups as a whole are fairly comparable, and 28 out of 30 of our delinquent girls do no worse than some subject in Group S. II. HARD OPPOSITES TESTS The facts are shown in Table VIb. This test differentiates our groups somewhat better than the former; the difference between Group C and the three other groups is accentuated here, yet the general relationships remain much the same. Both Groups D and S are much lower in attainment than Group C and Group E approaches nearer the same standing. But, on the other hand, the overlapping of Groups D and E is much greater here than in the Easy Opposites Tests. The members of Group E are less able to cope with this and do not succeed much better, in fact no better, than Group D, for while the median falls higher the 25 and 10 percentiles fall slightly lower. Though 15% of Group E surpass the best record 40 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls TABLE VIb Hard Opposites comparison of the four groups % of D Group reaching or exceeding median of C Group = 0% « « " « « « " 25%ile " " " = 0% •' « « « « " " 10%ile " " " = 3J% % of E " " " " median " " " = 9% (.088) « « " " « « " 25%ile " " " = 12% (.118) « « « « " " " 10%ile " " " =15% (.148) % of S " " " " median " " " = 0% a « « « « « « 25%ile " " " = 0% « « « " " " " 10%ile " " " =7% (.069) COMPARISON OF D AND E GROUPS % of D Group reaching or exceeding median of E Group = 46 1% " <• " " " " " 25%ile " " " =76f% " " « " " « " 10%ile " " " =93|% 0% of D Group were worse than the poorest of the E Group. 3% of E Group were worse than the poorest of the D Group (.034). 15% of E Group were better than the best of the D Group (.148). COMPARISON OF D AND S GROUPS % of D Group reaching or exceeding median of S Group = 50% " " " " " " " 25%ile " " " =76|% " " " " " " " 10%ile " " " =90% 10% of D Group were worse than the poorest of the S Group. 7% of S Group were better than the best of the D Group. attained by any one in Group D, yet 3% of that same group do worse than the poorest record obtained in the delinquent group. The close parallelism of Groups D and S is striking; the groups almost overlap each other exactly, though the upper limit reached by S is better and the lower is worse in the D group. III. MEMORY OF WORDS TEST The facts are shown in Tables Vic and VId. The results here are much more favorable for Group D ; the lines of demar- cation between the groups here are fainter. The record for Group D is far below that of Group C, and even below Group E, but it is better than for Group S. If we notice the errors made as given in the table below, we find many more in Group D. These represent words given that did not appear in the lists. Just what this signifies, it is rather difficult to say. Possibly it shows less mental control on the part of Group D; associations evoked are not elimin- ated but given as though bona fide memory items. Results 41 TABLE Vic Memory for Unrelated Words COMPARISON OF FOUR GROUPS % of D Group a tt u tt tt tt tt tt reaching u or tt it exceeding median of C Group " 25%ile " " " 10%ile " " * = 6|% = 20% = 30% %ofE a a a a a tt tt a u u a a tt tt tt a tt tt median ° " 2S%ile " * 10%ile * " u u a = 41% (.411) = 59% (.588) = 74% (.735) %of S u tt a tt a a tt tt u it a tt tt it it tt u tt median " " 25%ile " « 10%ile " " tt u a = 3*% (.034) = 7% (.069) = 10% (.103) COMPARISON OF D AND E GROUPS % of D Group reaching u a tt u (t it u u a a or exceeding median of C Group « « 25%ile " * " " » 10%ile " " " = 10% = 30% = 53% 33£% of D Group were worse than poorest of E Group. 21% of E Group were better than best of D Group (.206). COMPARISON OF D AND S GROUPS % of D Group reaching or exceeding median of S Group = 66f % a « « « « « « 25%ile " " " =83i% " " " " " " " 10%ile " " " =93|% 3|% of D Group were worse than poorest of S Group. 0% of S Group were better than best of D Group. Group C TABLE VId Comparison of Groups errors in unrelated memory test (Based on final score) Group D Group E Group S No. of No. of No. of No. of Errors Freq. Errors Freq. Errors Freq. Errors Freq. 1 11 1 3 1 6 1 15 2 8 2 7 2 7 2 6 3 7 3 3 3 4 3 1 4 2 4 5 4 6 5 1 5 1 5 6 1 6 2 7 8 1 9 9 1 11 12 2 17 16 1 Av. C= .28 Av. D = 2.2 Av. E = 1.7 Av. S= .5 Mode =1 Mode = 2 Mode = 2 Mode =1 Med. =2 Med. = 4 Med. = 3 Med. =2 42 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls IV. MEMORY OF PASSAGES TEST The facts are shown in Table Vie. This test proves much more difficult than the Memory of Words Test; for here again the overlapping is slight but the relations between the different groups remain about the same. On the whole, Group D proves to be quite a little better than Group S, particularly as regards the lower 50% of the group. TABLE Vie Memory — Logical Passages comparison of groups c and d % of D Group reaching or exceeding median of C Group = 3|% " " " " " " " 25%ile " " " =10% « « « « « « « moT'iio « « u tl 10%ile " " " =10% poorest in " " = 13$% % of E " " " « median of " " = 3% (2U) " " " " " " " 25%ile " " " = 15%(14«) 8 " " " " " 10%ile " " '< = 33%(32«) « " " " " " " poorest in" * =41% (41 A) % of S " " " median of " " = 0% " " " " " " " 25%ile " " " = 3% ( 3«) 8 " " 10%ile " " " = 10% (lOJi) 8 " " poorest in " " = 10% (lOJf) It u a u a a COMPARISON OF D AND E GROUPS % of D Group reaching or exceeding median of E Group = 23i% " " " " " " " 25%ile " « " =43*% " " " " " " " 10%ile " « " =60% " " " " " " " poorest in " " = 76|% COMPARISON OF D AND S GROUPS % of D Group reaching or exceeding median of S Group = 561% " " " " " " 25%ile " " " =90% " " " " " " " 10%ile " " " =100% V. COMPLETION TEST The facts are shown in Table Vlf. We find this test also difficult for the three groups, D, E and S. Though E does better than D measured by the standard as set by Group C, yet the difference is not so great, and compared with each other there is no great disparity shown, especially as regards the lower half of each group. Here again we find the ability of the members of Groups D and S fairly comparable. Results 43 TABLE Vlf Ebbinghaus Completion Test comparison of groups c and d % of D Group reaching or exceeding median of C Group = 3i% « " « « u « « 25%ile " " " = 62-tf " " " * " " " 10%ile « - « =13|% " " " " " " " poorest in" « =60% % of E » » « « median of " « = 6% ( 5«) " " " 25%ile - « « = 9% 8f|) 8 " " 10%ile " " « = 24% (23X) " " " poorest in" " =71% (70^) a a u « « u % of S " « « « median of " " = 0% " " " " " " " 2S%ile " " •' = 3% ( 3H) " " " " " " " 10%ile « ■ « = 3% ( 3ff) COMPARISON OF D AND E GROUPS % of D Group reaching or exceeding median of E Group = 20% " " " " " " " 25%ile " " " =63f% " " " " " " " 10%ile " " " =86}% " " " " c ' " poorest in " " =90% COMPARISON OF D AND S GROUPS % of D Group reaching or exceeding median of S Group = 561 % " " " " " " " 25%ile " " " =70% " " " " " " " 10%ile " " " =86}% " " " " " " " poorest in " " =93i% " " " " better than best " " " = 3}% If, then, we summarize the conditions regarding the intel- lectual status of the four groups as measured by these five tests, we find, as one would expect, that Group C excels by far the other groups; Group E ranks next in ability, and Groups D and S fall last. While in no test does Group D equal the record of Group E, yet in the Completion Test, which proved to be most difficult for Group E, the gap between is the slightest. But, what is more to the point, we find that Group D not only proves as capable as Group S, but in some instances excels that group. This is true for the Easy Opposites, the Memory of Words (if we take into account only correct replies) and Memory of Passages; while in the two remaining tests the groups fall almost parallel. Thus, though our delinquent girls are not as capable as their sisters, many of them from congested districts, who in other ways are proving themselves ambitious, yet they are no less equipped intellectually than others who are earning a livelihood 44 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls and caring for themselves without coming in conflict with the law at 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. (2) The Fernald Ethical Discrimination Test The scale of deeds used by Fernald is as follows : E. To take two or three apples from another man's orchard. P. To take a cent from a blind man's cup. I. To break windows for fun. C. To throw hot water on a cat or in any way to cause it to suffer needlessly. A. To break into a building to rob it. N. To take money as " graft " or " rake off " when you are a city or government official. T. To try to kill yourself. H. To ruin a nice girl and then leave her. U. To set fire to a house with people in it. S. To shoot to kill a man who runs away when you try to rob him. Just what value the Ethical Discrimination Test has as an evidence of intellect pertaining to moral elements involved in various situations, is doubtful. It is difficult, in the first place, to know how seriously the problems in this test are weighed, how much real decision it represents. It is not, of course, a matter of native ability but to a large extent is the product of environmental conditions. Aside from that, can one judge of the subjects' present attitude toward the various misdemeanors regardless of why and how they have arrived at this point of view ? Furthermore, in this study there is an added drawback; the deeds as here stated were planned to be used in testing boys and the situations therefore are not the most satisfactory as material to be used with girls. Yet the experiment was done for whatever it might reveal. The results are given in Table VII. Results 45 o rH fH * CO 00 CO CM Oi ^ tH !>. CO in CM tN II 00 t> _< r-l •<* CO in tH CO CM *tf in CM CO CO CM e. tO CO CO fH ■«* CM iH rH rH tO S LO CM CM ■* to rH rj* iH cm ^> fH CO t-t tH t- CO CM CM cm a -s o « to - 1 in CO ■* CO CO N en tH t> fl. to CO ^ CM o a ,_i O Q CO CO (M IN tH . • to co to cm CM • CM O (O to ED tH iH . CO CO T}< ,-H f> ■* rH •** • M * N (D 00 t^ tH O tH -*f Tf CM CO in -^Ol^NNrHCO rp tH in N 00 • * CO in in co tH -* tH . ,_, tH ■*# CM "■* CM tH . . CM tH CM CO CM CO CM CM rH CO CO tH 00 CO to rH cm eg tH r>. ^ rH ITJ CO CO t}« ,_, (Q CO ^* CM ^ rH CM CM ^ CO N N N H ■* co c- in co • ,h eo co CO fHCOtHrHCMCOCOrH . Tf rH rH CM CM tH CM tD rH >-i ■ co m eo oi -*# CM tO O (D CO • Tf CO to O CO tH cm c^ o in co ^ t* CO tO 01 CO CM ^ CM rp co to co • r-i in C- Ol CM ' i-i r4 r-i tp in to CM rH rH CO CO • • CM CM CO CM iHCMco'^"intoi>coo)0 rH 46 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls TABLE VIII Offense P C Group ranks it 1-5 in 74% of cases— 5-10 in 26% D « « « i_5 « 30% " " —5-10 " 70% E « « « i_5 « 48% « « —5-10 " 52% s « « « i_5 « 41% " " —5-10 " 59% Offense C C Group ranks it 1-5 in 83% of cases— 5-10 in 17% D « * a « !_ 5 « 49% « « —5-10 " 51% E « « « !_5 « 45% « « —5-10 " 55% S " " " 1-5 " 58% " " —5-10 " 42% Offense N C Group ranks it 1-5 in 29% of cases— 5-10 in 71% D " " " 1-5 " 67% " " —5-10 " 33% E « « « i_s « 63% " " —5-10 " 37% S " " " 1-5 " 87% " " —5-10 " 13% Offense T U S C Group ranks it 1-5 in 24% of cases— in 6%— in 17% D " " " 1-5 " 49% " " — " 23%— " 30% E " " " 1-5 " 18% " " — ;; 6%— " 21% S " " " 1-5 " 31% " " — " 9%— " 31% Offense H C Group D Group E Group S Group Ranked as 1-3 0% 19% 3% 9% 4 and 5 3% 8% 6% 5% 5-10 97% 73% 91% 86% 8-10 82% 52% 84% 73% As regards a number of the actions represented in this test, there is little difference to be found in the four groups. If, however, we compare " P," we notice that though it is ranked as between 1 and 5 by 75% of Group C, yet it is ranked as between 5 and 10 by 70% of Group D. Noting the rankings given by Groups E and S, we find both agree more nearly with Group C than does Group D, but the divergence is still great. The deed is considered a graver injury by Groups D, S and E than by Group C, all three of the former placing it as 1-5 in less than 50% of the cases. So, too, " C " is ranked as between 1 and 5 by 83% of Group C and is so placed by only 49% of Group D, though it is placed as between 1 and 5 by 45% of Group E and by 58% of Group S. On the other hand, offense " N " is ranked as between 1 and 5 by 29% of Group C but is so placed by 67% of Group D, by 63% of Group E and by 87% of Group S. To the latter this offense does not seem serious. Results 47 Offense " H " is ranked 8 to 10 by 82% of Group C as opposed to 52% of Group D, while it is so placed by 84% of Group E and 73% of Group S. Though the judgment of Groups D and S is more nearly alike than any two groups, yet the judgment of Groups C, E and S is not so greatly different in regard to this deed, and Group D stands rather apart from the others. Offense " S " is ranked by Group D the same as offense " P," if we divide the ranking into two groups, 1 to 5 and 5 to 10; here the judgment of Groups D and S is alike, though in the case of the latter, the act is regarded as slightly more serious than offense "P." If one may generalize at all from this test, it would seem that the attitude of Group D towards persons and animals is quite different from that of Group C. They magnify the injury done a dumb animal; indeed, many of them in performing the test expressly stated that because it was an unfair advantage to take of an animal that can not speak they ranked it as extremely bad. Again it would seem that the cruelty which appeals to their emotions as in " P " outweighs the subtler injuries as in "N" and even in " S." As regards Group E, the more serious offenses — T, H, U, S — are ranked very much the same by them as by Group C. Groups D and S judge more nearly alike except as regards offenses N, H, and U, where the discrepancy is considerable. (3) Adapted Completion Test In the Adapted Completion Test the purpose, as has been previously stated, was to determine whether one could discover, by means of a test, the intelligence of a subject regarding the moral element involved in a definite situation. It was not hoped to determine in any way what the subject's actual behavior in real life would be, but it was thought that, should one discover by means of a test that no knowledge or appreciation of the moral element was present in a given case, it might prove a valuable bit of information in the understanding of the subject's problems and difficulties. It was hoped to use material which would embody ideas regarding theft, deceit, display, vanity, cruelty, sex excitement and laziness; but in a number of instances the blanks did not prove successful. In some cases the point was not clearly enough stated to make the judgments expressed 48 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls clear ; in others the situation was too simple, while on the other hand in one or two instances it was too subtle. A number of the instances used proved to be too little related to the real experiences and problems of the delinquents. These unsuccessful ones were dropped entirely and not scored. On the other hand, eight of the incidents used show some points at least of signifi- cance. The difficulty is that it is only after having actually worked with these girls for a considerable length of time that one realizes their problems sufficiently to carry on successfully a test of this sort, and, had time permitted, other more valuable material might have been substituted so that the method would have had a better trial in order to prove its value or its uselessness. The blanks used were as follows: (The unsuccessful as well as the innocent passages are not given). Passage I 1. Mary liked pretty clothes very . She a man who offered to give her a new suit if she would go out with him. She was to do this and to go in this way to the theatre. That was . Passage II 2. A— was very hungry. He passed a with food out- side and wanted . He no money but he rather than be . A girl saw him and thought him . Passage III 3. Mary had gotten a — good position. She could earn a good living if worked steadily. She did not working hard and so she her position. Was this what she de- served ? Passage IV 4. A girl was given 35 cents with which to some coffee. She it for 25 cents and took it . She told her mother about it and the change. Don't you think she was . Passage V 5. Two girls were waiting a street corner for a car. A crowd of men standing near them. The girls knew the men were talking about them and watching them. So the girls began to . This showed they . Passage VI 6. Mary's mother her not to go with John. One day she out saying she was going to a friend. She really met John. She said to herself, " It really is and so I told ." That was . Results 49 7. Jane was at a- Passage VII -show one night. A man sitting next- her, spoke to her several times. When she got up to go home he followed her. Jane and so showed that she- Passage VIII -to buy a hat. The felt hats on one counter A girl went into a were $1.75 and the velvet hats on another counter — marked $2.48. One velvet hat ; by mistake with the felt hats that cost $1.75. So she that one. Wasn't she Comparing the four groups for general intelligence as shown in the moral judgment test, we find the following table of fre- quencies : TABLE IX Frequency Score Group C: 3 5. 11 4.9 16 4.8 4 4.7 1 4.6 1 4.5 Group D: 4 4.8 1 4.7 2 4.6 4 4.5 2 4.4 2 4.3 1 4.1 3 4. 1 3.8 1 3.7 1 3.6 1 3.4 4 3.3 1 3.1 1 2.4 1 1.4 Group E: 1 4.9 4 4.8 4 4.7 3 4.6 4 4.5 3 4.4 3 4.3 5 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.5 3. 50 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls TABLE IX— continued Frequency Score Group IS: 2 4.8 3 4.7 1 4.6 4 4.4 1 4.3 1 4.2 1 4.1 2 4.0 2 3.9 1 3.8 1 3.3 2 3.2 1 3. 1 2.9 2 2.7 1 2.5 From this table it is seen that : 13|% of Group D reach or exceed the median of Group C 13*% " " " " " " " 25%ile " " " 161% " " " " " " " 10%ile " " " 36f% " " " " " " " poorest " " " IS % " " E " " " " median " " " 15 % " " " " " " " 25%ile " " " 27 % " " " " " " " 10%ile " " " 48|% " " " " " " " poorest " " " 114% " " S * " a " median " " " 1U% » « " " " " " 25%ile " " " 154% " " " * " " " 10%ile " " " 31 % " " " " " " " poorest " " " Though an effort was made to have the passages here as simple as possible, yet they proved difficult for many of Groups D, E and S. Of course it must be taken into account that the passages were extremely easy for Group C; except for carelessness, undoubtedly all the members of that group could have attained a perfect score. Still it will be readily seen that some of these passages, simple though they were thought to be, would be difficult to score for moral judgment. In the eight finally used for this purpose the score for general intelligence is somewhat better. In Group C the range is still 4.5 to 5, but the median and mode are 5 ; in Group D 80% reach a score of 4 or over. The general distribution is shown below: Results 51 TABLE X Frequency Score Group C: 21 5. 7 4.9 1 4.8 4 4. 75 1 4.7 2 4.5 Group D: 4 5. 3 4.75 4 4.5 3 4.4 4 4.3 4 4.25 1 4.1 1 4. 1 3.8 1 3.5 2 3.4 1 3. 1 2.25 Group E: 4 5. 2 4.9 7 4.8 4 4.7 1 4.6 2 4.5 2 4.4 2 4.3 1 4.2 1 4.1 1 3.9 1 3.8 1 3.4 1 3.2 1 3.0 1 2.9 1 2.5 Group S: 3 4.8 1 4.7 1 4.6 3 4.5 2 4.4 3 4.3 3 4.2 4 4. 1 3.6 1 3.4 2 3.3 1 3.2 1 3. Since 80% of Group D receive a score of 80% or over for general ability to manage the test, and almost the same per- centage of Group E prove as capable, while 77% of Group S 52 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls attain a score as good, it was felt that the passages were filled out well enough to estimate them for moral judgment. Rather than score the replies on a scale, say, of to 5, it was believed the significance of the inserted words would best be shown by enumerating the replies and endeavoring to summarize them. In Passage I it is seen that the only significant blanks are the last three; the others permit of no alternatives and require no judgment. Group C filled the last two blanks as follows: " She was to go, etc. That was " 3 anxious wicked 3 afraid right [wrong (4) 8 glad lawful (2) Ifoolish (2) | wrong (3) 5 tempted Hsad (1) foolish (1) bad (4) 6 willing j unusual (1) lindiscreet (1) (her decision (1) 4 unwilling Jhonest (1) 1 right (1) lhard (1) 2 persuaded ffoolish (1) \primrose path to devil (1) n=31 All these show an appreciation of the situation with the ex- ception of one where the judgment is obscure (unwilling-hard) and one where no judgment is rendered (unwilling-her decision). In Group D the terms used varied much more widely, yet we find the filled blanks falling into two groups. First: fright (3) 5 afraid i wise (1) [sensible (1) [bad (2) 4 going i wrong (2) (not right (1) 2 glad wrong 1 anxious silly 1 delighted not right 2 persuaded /foolish (1) \bad (1) 1 in humor wrong 1 told wrong 1 wishing wrong 1 willing not right n=19 Results 53 These seem in no wise to differ from the terms used by Group C; the judgments axe certainly comparable and indicate an equal appreciation of the moral element involved. The second group of replies is as follows : 2 dressed /happy (1) \all right (1) [all right (2) S glad I surprising (1) (why so nice ?) (smart (1) [simply fine (1) 1 decided pleasure 1 willing pleasure 1 told bad policy 1 wanted all n=ll Of these 11, the last two are doubtful, the one expressing no judgment, the other being not clear. The remaining nine, or 30%, show little discrimination of ethical values and, since all seemed perfectly sincere and naive in giving the words to be written down, they seem to have expressed their real judgment regarding the situation. It seems clear that the deed here men- tioned means nothing wrong to them; they see in it no particular danger or wrong doing. Group E filled the blanks as follows: 7 willing. 3 going.. result of wanting to dress ■ beyond means (1) wrong (4) wicked (1) bad (1) wrong (1) foolish (1) temptation (1) 2 afraid good (1) right (1) 1 glad wrong 1 anxious wrong 1 reluctant right 1 eager a mistake 1 unwilling sensible 1 displeased right 1 deciding wrong 1 going see 1 pleased her way 1 glad the end 1 afraid all fright (1) luck (1) 3 anxious \imposing on good nature (1) n=26 Here we find the last three, or 13.6%, of the 26 cases showing lack of moral perception and the four immediately preceding evading the issue by forming no judgment. 54 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls In Group S we find — 5 willing wrong (3) foolish (1) not good (1) 4 afraid right (3) wise (1) 3 anxious foolish (1) not right (1) ignorant (1) 1 pleased not right 2 glad not sensible (1) wrong (1) 1 delighted wrong 1 satisfied naughty 3 going not wise (1) awful (1) bad (1) 1 anxious a pleasure 1 pleased a pleasure 1 going nice 1 asked nice 2 willing fine (1) done (1) n=26 The last reply shows no judgment; the five preceding, or 19%, show poor moral judgment. That is, comparing the four groups, we find poor moral perception in Group C, 0%; in Group E, 13.6%; in Group S, 19%; in Group D, 30%. Passage II involves the idea of theft. The significant blanks — again the last three — are filled in only a few different ways by all the groups. The results are as follows : Group C " But he rather than be A girl thought him. 11 stole starved /thief \bad 14 starved a thief /good \honest 1 starved hungry stupid fno judgment 9 starved hungry < beggar n=35 [tramp Group D 12 stole starved /thief ibad 8 starved a thief /good (honest 3 stole hungry right (honest hungry n=26 [tramp Results 55 Group E (bad 3 stole hungry \ wrong (thief (steal pitiful 13 starved • be a beggar honest (be dishonest noble, good 2 went hungry be dishonest brave, model of manhood 1 hungered thief good 1 asked hungry nice 1 died a thief good 2 walked away be dishonest poor, hungry 1 asked hungry poor 1 begged starve rude 1 starved a thief foolish n=26 Group S 13 starved (steal right, good (mean a thief, queer 8 stole hungry thief 2 went hungry be dishonest good, nice 1 asked be hungry right 1 stole hungry foolish n=25 No one in Groups C or E considered the stealing right, though one in each group considered it as stupid not to commit it rather than be hungry; whereas three subjects in Group D feel such an act to be justifiable under the circumstances. But, on the other hand, 21 out of 26, or nearly 81%, in Group D form a judgment that is the same as that of 25 out of 35, or 71%, in Group C. From this we might conclude that the judgment in the two groups is not so greatly different. Here only three subjects, or 11|%, differ from Group C as compared with 30% in the Passage above, while Groups C, E and S are uniform in their judgment of the situation. In Group S two judgments are doubtful, one regards the fact of starving as foolish, but none regards stealing as justified. The next Passage, number III, meant to test the attitude towards industry, is not particularly successful for the purpose; the situation is almost too simple. Yet it shows some difference in the judgment of the groups, as is seen in the filling of the three following blanks : 56 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls Group C " She did not working hard and so she her position. Deserved ? " 28 like lost yes 6 mind held yes n=34 Group D 17 like lost yes 2 mind held yes 6 like lost no 4 no judgment expressed. n=29 Group E 22 like lost yes 5 mind held yes 5 believe in lost yes 1 like lost no n=33 Group S 18 like lost yes 3 mind held yes 1 want left no 1 like took it easy yes 2 like lost no n=2S That is, 20f % of Group D feel that dismissal because of not working is unjustifiable, whereas this is true of no one in Group C. From the remarks that accompanied the expression of the senti- ment on the part of several of these subjects, the experimenter feels confident that they meant what they said, for they expressed themselves in no uncertain terms. Their attitude seemed differ- ent from the other 79J% of the group. In Group E, one subject, or 3% of the group, agreed with the 20f % of Group D, as did 8% of Group S. In the latter group two judgments are doubtful. The last two blanks in Passage IV were filled as follows : Group C "And the change. Wasn't she " IS kept wrong (bad-dishonest- thief) 17 returned good (honest-right) 1 returned generous 1 returned saving 1 hid dishonest n=35 Results 57 Group D 7 kept wrong (bad-mean) 1 kept rude 12 returned good (right-honest-happy) 1 told about correct 1 10c. change bright (" because she got a bargain ") 1 wanted foolish 1 lost bad 1 honest 1 kept smart 1 spent wise 3 kept bright n=30 Group E 15 gave good (honest, right) 6 returned good (honest, right) 11 kept wrong (dishonest, bad, wicked, untrustworthy) n=32 Group S 13 gave good (right, honest) 9 kept wrong (bad, untrue) 2 kept good 1 took smart n=25 In several instances in Groups D and S one does not feel sure that the subjects may have said just what they intended or they may have misunderstood the sentence read and seen, as for example in the reply, " She kept the change. Wasn't she honest ? " Those who answered that such action was right or wise or smart probably meant that. Counting the doubtful case, we should have in Group D 20% of the group showing no moral judgment, without it 16f%; and in Group S, 12%, counting the doubtful cases, and 4% without them. The replies in Passage V are difficult to summarize, the blanks permit of such a variety of words being inserted. Though in the first of the two significant blanks but seven actions were suggested in Group C and 10 in Group D, yet the number of judgments expressed in the second blank varied much more widely. (The verbs inserted in the second blank are omitted.) 58 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls Group C " So the girls began to This showed they " 'flirts (2) common (1) silly (1) not wise (3) no training (1) 14 smile ■ pleased (1) self conscious (3) to attract attention (1) dangerous type (1) ladies (2) annoyed (3) refined (1) modest (1) nice (1) good (2) 16 walk away -mot flirts (1) well brought up (1) didn't want attention (1) didn't want to be spoken to (1) 2 talk vain 1 turn their backs sensible 1 giggle silly 1 run proud n=35 Group D 4 smile knew (2) ignorant (1) bad (1) 4 flirt bad (2) fresh (2) (respectable (4) sense (1) nice (2) didn't like it (3) pride (1) annoyed (1) didn't want to be conspicuous (1) didn't like men (1) 1 talked to them didn't care 1 shout afraid 1 fidget nervous 1 cry feared 1 to be frightened sensible 1 hit them didn't like it 1 get nervous wanted their car n = 29 Group E 16 walk away ("sensible, good, respectable, an- \ noyed, etc. 3 laugh conscious, foolish, vulgar 3 walk ladies, didn't like it, knew 2 giggle foolish 1 talk disliked it 1 talk softly refined 1 smile weak 1 run frightened 1 get frightened didn't like attention 2 move on wise, afraid n==31 Group S 4 laugh. .* silly, flirting 1 get angry nice 1 move good 1 hurry didn't like it 1 got cross disliked it 1 talk friends 1 cry afraid 1 run afraid 1 go afraid 13 walk away /good, sensible, indignant, etc. — \knew something (1) n=25 Results 59 Here, though it is difficult to state briefly differences in moral judgment, it is interesting to note the manner in which the situation is viewed by the different groups. To Group C it is apparently a rather harmless situation to which one reacts in practically one of two ways — either by encouragement or by discouragement. But to many of Group D it is the occasion of alarm and seems to signify something more than is indicated on the surface. " They knew," " they were ignorant," " they were afraid," " were nervous," " they feared," are all responses very different from those given by any member of Group C. In Group E we find in five cases likewise the terms, " were afraid," " they knew." And of the 25 subjects in Group S, three use the word " afraid " and one " knew something." Passage VI proved too difficult for many of Group D; the force of the situation was often not grasped. The point desired was to see if it were recognized that by using the word " friend " the girl in the story was hiding a falsehood by a subterfuge. Though the blanks vary considerably, yet except for four who expressed no judgment in their inserted words, all members of Group C indicated that Mary had lied and that it was wrong. In some instances Mary herself recognized the untruth and the judgment of the subject corroborated this view; in other instances Mary did not, but the subject decided the action was wrong or was moral quibbling. The blanks were filled as follows : Group C "And so I told That was " 8 a lie wrong 1 a He depressing 8 the truth a lie 2 the truth deceitful 1 the truth moral quibbling 1 the truth dishonest 2 the truth wrong 2 all right wrong 2 what was wrong true 4 no judgment n=31 In Group D, however, only nine perceived the true situation, six showed they did not, and nine subjects showed such confusion that the moral value of their replies could not be determined. Thus: 60 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls 2 truth wrong 1 nothing disobedient wrong 1 lie dreadful 1 the wrong true 1 what was wrong not honest 1 what was wrong a lie 1 what was wrong against her mother's wish 1 what was deceitful true n= 9 1 truth truth 1 truth all right 3 truth so 1 mother all right, for pleasure n= 6 6 no judgment 9 confused The confused ones were similar to the reply of one subject who said, " It really is a shame and so I told mother. That was a lie. " Here and in the other eight the two statements are either not true as regards the preceding part of the situation, or the parts contradict each other. But the six cases, 20% of the entire group or 25% of the 24 subjects who filled the blanks in any manner, certainly show no realization of the falsehood. In Group E four subjects found the passage too difficult to attempt and left it entirely blank; the remaining subjects inserted the following words : 4 mother deceitful, right, a lie, all 8 what was wrong so, truth, right 1 what was wicked so 2 a lie wrong, mean and low 5 truth bad, lie, false 1 not right wrong, true 1 the right wrong 1 him. ..'. untruth 1 truth so 1 mother so n=25 Three of these are words which made the significance doubtful but two, or 7% of all the group, or 8% of those who filled the blanks, fail to see the falsity of the subterfuge. The words inserted by 23 subjects in Group S, three having left the entire passage unfilled, are : — Results 61 6 lie wrong, the truth 5 mother bad, untrue 2 truth wrong, falsehood 2 a lie 3 mother my friend, John, all 2 no lie : all right, true 1 a lie better 2 truth so n=23 Here, besides the three passages left blank, five others show no judgment and five no perception of falsehood — that is, 19% of the entire group or 21f % of the 23 subjects who responded in this passage. Here Groups D and S are- almost equal in per cent of those showing poor moral judgment. Passage VII permitted of a great variety of action indeed. Jane could do a great many things as the insertions show. However, except for one subject, no one in Group C had Jane behave in any manner other than most properly, and the one exception regarded the action as " wicked." Just what she did varied from " ignoring " her neighbor to " sticking him with a hat pin." A few characteristic replies are selected which are typical of all the remainder. Group C " Jane and so showed that she " was disgusted was displeased paid no attention was annoyed called police ' a lady ran afraid stuck with hatpin plucky was proud and dignified had good judgment In Group D the replies of 21 subjects are comparable to these as the following typical examples show: was displeased didn't like it was indignant a lady called an officer a lady hurried was annoyed But the replies of seven subjects are quite different: 1 was amazed at his actions appreciated his kindness 1 got acquainted she liked him 1 must have been pretty was all right 1 said she liked his company liked him 1 came over to him was bashful 1 was excited wasn't afraid 1 tried to be a good girl she tried, at least n=7 62 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls These, including the last rather pathetic one, show lack of appreciation of the situation and surely help to understand somewhat better the make-up of the delinquent subject — her intelligence in regard to one social situation at least. In this case we have 25% of the group included. In Group E, the insertions, very similar to those of Group C, are as follows : turned away was lady ignored him was lady very angry disliked it slapped his face not to be fooled with In all cases Jane discouraged her neighbor and none of the replies were comparable to the seven especially mentioned in Group D. The same is true of the fourth group, Group S; all of the subjects show an understanding of the situation, and in no case is the action of the neighbor countenanced or considered all right. Here again typical replies are : — disapproved didn't like it ran home was scared hit with umbrella. was sensible had him arrested good The next Passage, number VIII, proved a very interesting one, for though the groups vary greatly, yet more of Group C agree with those who fail to have a high standard of ethical values in Group D than in any one passage. It is only necessary to give details for the last blank, for in all instances the girl was made to buy the hat, the blank being filled, " So she took that one." Group C " Wasn't she ." 4 clever 2 lucky 2 sly 1 sensible 1 right 25 wrong, i.e., 5 bad 3 a cheat 10 dishonest 1 a crook 1 terrible 4 deceitful 1 horrid n=35 11 smart 3 right 1 pleased 1 sensible 9 lucky S wrong, i.e., 1 a cheat 1 stealing 1 wrong 1 dishonest 1 mean Results 63 Group D n=30 Group E 3 lucky 3 clever 2 wise 1 smart 6 right 15 wrong 7 dishonest 2 wrong 2 deceitful 1 a thief 1 cheating the company 1 unf air 1 untruthful n=30 Group S 5 right 6 lucky 3 wise 1 bright 6 smart 1 happy 1 clever lglad 2 wrong 1 mean 1 dishonest n=26 That is, 28J% of Group C regard this action as justifiable as against 71|% who regard it as wrong. In Group D, however, 83|% regard it as justifiable and 16f % as wrong. In Group E in 50% regard it as justifiable, the other 50% as wrong; while Group S only about 7|% regard it as at all dishonest as opposed to 92|% who believe it to be entirely honest. Thus we see the groups vary widely in their judgment but a greater per cent of Group C shows lower ethical standard here than in any of the situations. This fact, however, makes the experimenter view the type of test rather favorably — it speaks well for the test. For in real 64 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls life, this situation would probably be regarded by many a non-delinquent as perfectly " all right " on the plea that the fault lay with the proprietor of the store or his clerks rather than with the customer. In the table given below, the general results in the eight passages are summarized. TABLE XI Passage I. Lack of moral judgment shown by: 0. % Group C 13.6% " E 19. % " S 30. % " D Passage II. Stealing justified by: 0. % Group C 0. % " E 0. % " S 20f % " D Passage III. Lack of industry countenanced by: 0. % Group C 3. % " E 8. % " S 20| % " D Passage IV. Dishonesty approved of by: 0. % Group C 0. % " E 4. % (possibly 12%) Group S 161 % (possibly 20%) " D Passage V. Notice by opposite sex regarded as dangerous by : 0. % Group C 16J % " E 12. % " D 27J % " S Passage VI. A subterfuge regarded as legitimate and not a lie by: 0. % Group C 8. % " E 21| % " S 25. % " D Passage VII. Unwarranted familiarity on the part of a stranger counten- anced by: 0. % Group C 0. % " E 0. % " S 25. % " D Passage VIII. Taking advantage of known mistake justified by: 28J % Group C 50. % " E 92| % " S m % " D Results 65 Whatever criticisms can be made as to the moral judgment test, one would hesitate to say that nothing is gained by it. For, on the whole, this test does give definite indications of indi- vidual differences in the intelligence of subjects in regard to ethical elements. The impressions of the experimenter in actually conducting the test were often very vivid. Had the situations been more carefully planned and the alternatives more skillfully devised the results would probably have been more satisfactory. The method itself seems capable of improve- ment and its use promises to prove of considerable value. Even in its present unsatisfactory form, certain differences are shown between some members of Group D and other members in that same group, as well, as between the former and the other groups. This is as one would expect; for surely not all delin- quents are lacking in intelligence with regard to right and wrong whatever their behavior might indicate. Nor need they show equally poor intelligence in regard to all ethical elements. The fact that no member of Group C would consider accepting the offer made in Passage I or, at least, that such acceptance was recognized as unwise, wrong or unjustifiable, but that, on the contrary, certain members of the other groups disagree with this, is indicative of different judgment in regard to a situation that might actually arise in the lives of some of these subjects. That it not only might, but does, is shown by the fact that the test blank was based on an incident narrated by a member of Group D. The consequences following from the judgment of the 13.6% of Group E, of the 19% of Group S and of the 30% of Group D might vary according to other character- istics possessed by the subjects, but the point of view in regard to the situation yet enables one to form a clearer opinion regarding the mental make-up of the individual. Just how one would act were he placed in the situation de- picted in Passage II is not, of course, necessarily shown by the replies given by the individual subjects. How one views the action on the part of another is a different matter. Those who stated it as their belief that to steal when one is hungry is " right," show thereby a definite attitude as regards this situa- tion, which, however they themselves might justify the behavior, might, nevertheless, readily lead to conflict with the law. Simple as is the situation presented in Passage III, we find 66 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls quite a difference in the replies given. Is not the fact that, in the test, lack of industry is countenanced 2\ times as often by- Group D as by Group S, and nearly 7 times as often as by Group E, not to mention the still greater variance in judgment on the part of Group C, of some significance ? Some writers place among the causes which lead to entering lives of immorality, the plea that it is " easier " than occupations that are " hard " and tedious, though honest. Perhaps, then, this blank may indicate some trait of character, at least, found in members of the different groups. In Passage IV the actions of the members of the different groups could not be foretold, of course, by the judgments ren- dered in the blanks, for one may know a deed to be wrong and still perform it. Again, the 20f % of Group D may have been franker and more honest in expressing a conviction held also by some members of the other groups, and so it is possible that it may not represent their real intelligence regarding the act. That is, they may have the accepted standard of honesty and yet regard the deed as justified or wise or sensible, whereas members of the other groups may express the accepted standard and in their own minds regard the action of dishonesty here as justifiable in their own if not in another's behavior. Passage V requires little more discussion than has been given in connection with the detailed replies enumerated. Whether the differences in attitude are accounted for by the past ex- periences of the subjects, by differences in environmental conditions in which the subjects live or have lived, is difficult to know. If one felt sure that the significance of the situation presented in Passage VI was recognized equally well by all the subjects in the four groups, one would be able to state that the ethical standard regarding truth telling is not the same for all members of the groups and that it is lowest for Group D. But, on the other hand, the passage was left unanswered or answered in so confused a manner by a large per cent of Groups D and S, of the former especially, that the per cents are based on a compara- tively small part of those groups. Perhaps Passage VII proved more valuable than any other as far as serving to give an insight into the intelligence with which our groups would meet a situation of a kind very possible Results 67 to be encountered by many of them. The blanks permitted of such freedom in reply, so little was suggested by the setting as regards response in behavior, that they could state what they actually believed to be the best action to pursue. The results here are almost startling — the difference between Group D and the three other groups is so striking. That 75% of group D might in real life behave in a manner so different from the other 25% is true, yet to realize that these seven girls would possibly react in this manner through lack of intelligent realization of the situation might prove a help in protecting them, certainly at least in judging them. Compared with this passage, the next, Passage VIII, is inter- esting. Instead of finding Group D standing apart, as it were, we see here much more uniformity in judgment, Group S falling below Group D as regards the standard of honesty; this is the only instance where this is true. Throughout the other seven passages Group D as a whole shows less intelligence in regard to moral elements. Yet in no instance, save in Passage VIII, do we find as many as one-third of the group differing from Group C where the conventional standard is upheld by all except in the last passage. The majority of them show as much under- standing of the situations presented and the same standard in judging right and wrong. But if the test serves to find those among the whole delinquent group whose apperceptive power, or whose judgment, is poor in regard to definite moral situations, it will have been worth while. Referring back to Table I, page 5, we see that all the 30 mem- bers of Group D are guilty of sex offenses except two, numbers 10 and 28. But of the remaining 28 subjects, 8 are guilty of other offenses as well — 7 of stealing and 1 of general incorrigi- bility. Number 1 8 is besides guilty of excessive lying and number 11 had not only told numerous untruths but, among them, had made false accusations against her own father. In order to determine whether this group differed in judgment from the remaining 20 subjects who were held as sex offenders without other charges, the moral judgment blanks were divided into two groups for comparison of the 8 passages. Three deal with honesty or stealing, namely, Passages II, IV and VIII. In the first of these, 2 of the 3 subjects who felt stealing when 68 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls hungry to be justified, are among our smaller group, one being number 19, a girl with a long career back of her, who had served one term of commitment in the reformatory, and who, on being re-arrested just previous to the testing, was found to be a member of a gang of pickpockets for whom the police had long lain in wait. The other, number 30, charged with excessive incorrigibility, showed throughout the tests, as well as in her conversation, distinctly anti-social tendencies. The other six subjects, however, did not indicate lack of knowledge, at least, that stealing is wrong. Again, in Passage IV, two subjects, numbers 30 and IS, are among those who see no wrong in dishonesty, and one other is the doubtful case. In Passage VIII, two of the five subjects who have the highest ideals, abstractly at least, are numbers 25 and 19. These, of all eight guilty of theft, are most proficient in this direction, using it as a means of earning a livelihood, for one is a pro- fessional pickpocket, the other a shop-lifter. Number 18, in whom falsifying is so excessive that it is desig- nated as a delinquency, answers in Passage VI that moral quibbling and lying by means of subterfuge is " all right." Number 30 alone of all the subjects shows consistently throughout the eight passages the same attitude: To steal when hungry is right, to keep money belonging to another is right, to take advantage of another's error is " wise," to lose one's position for not working is wrong, to conceal a lie by quib- bling is justified. Aside from the one subject, however, we find the others are either inconsistent in their lives, or offend though their judgment of right and wrong is no more faulty than is that of other members of the delinquent group not guilty of these particular offenses, or indeed no more faulty than those not delinquent so far as is known. (4) Supplementary Test in Physical Endurance In the American Journal of Insanity, 1911-12, Vol. 68, there appeared an article on " Differentiating Tests for the Defective Delinquent Class " by Guy Fernald. The study as a whole is not comparable to ours for it deals with boys only. However, among the tests used was one designated an " achievement capacity" test, which was intended to determine will power. The subjects were to stand as long as possible with their heels Results 69 raised J inch from the floor. An electrical device recorded the touching of the floor. While it seems valuable to be able to measure in some way will power as measured by physical en- durance, the test is rather inconvenient, since it requires so much time; for after experimentation it was found that the norm for the average is 50 minutes. In hopes of measuring much the same trait in personality or capacity, a simpler test was desired. In this study it was hoped to determine much the same quality by the following means: The subject was given a pair of iron dumb-bells, each of which weighed two pounds. She was told on a given signal to take one in each hand and extend the arms level with the shoulders, holding the dumb-bells in a horizontal position. Previous to this, the object of the test had been explained; she was to show how much grit she had, and it was explained that the longer she held the dumb-bells the better the record would be. There was no elaborate technique, but as soon as the arms were dropped about five inches or more the time score was taken. Comparing then the record for the 28 girls tested in Group D and the 34 in Group C, we have Table XII. The two best records in Group D are hardly fair, since both these subjects were trained athletes appearing on the vaude- ville stage almost up to the time the test was made. In con- sequence, their records show the benefit of unusual practice which all other members of the group had not had. Omitting them, we find that but three of the remaining 26 members of Group D reached or exceeded the median record of Group C. However, it is but fair to say that in Group C a number of the subjects were tested in small groups and a record attained by one acted as a stimulus to the others in an effort to excel their fellow-students. On the other hand, in a number of cases in Group D the subject was told the highest record that had been already attained by any member of the group and was urged to try to surpass it, but the ambition to do so seemed in most cases not worth the discomfort of continued holding of the dumb- bells after some slight pain had begun. Forty-six per cent of Group D reached or exceeded the 25 percentile of Group C and 15% of Group D attained a poorer record than any member of Group C. While it might be thought that Group D were at a decided disadvantage owing to poor physical condition and some other factors, yet, on the other hand, we must remember that 70 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls TABLE XII D C 500 437 408 330 210 314 183 305 145 300 120 300 120 265 110 252 103 225 103 190 93 180 90 180 90 175 90 165 79 150 79 140 78 125 70 115 69 115 68 110 65 110 64 110 63 105 58 100 49 100 32 90 29 90 20 85 85 = 28 83 - — ■■ 75 70 64 55 n = 34 most of the subjects were much more accustomed to performing work in which the muscles of the arms were used than were members of the College Group. Both from the table of results and the notes of the writer at the conclusion of the various tests, it would seem that the members of Group C were much more willing to endure physical discomfort for the sake of a good record than were the members of Group D. Very frequently girls in the latter group would remark, " Oh, it hurts ! " and drop the dumb-bells. They seemed on the whole to have much less will power and physical endurance, at least in matters where there was no necessity for continued discomfort other than mere pride in a deed well accomplished. PART IV 1. OTHER INVESTIGATIONS The studies of the question of the relation existing between mental ability and delinquency have been on the whole quite fragmentary. Lombroso was already interested in the question of the female offender as his book of that title indicates. The English translation appeared in 1909. As is well known, however, Lombroso's interest was largely the study of the physical anomalies of the criminal; so that in this study the emphasis is placed on anthropometrical measurements. He discussed " The Brains of Female Criminals," " The Skull of the Female Offender," and " The Facial and Cephalic Anomalies," but made no study of the native or acquired abilities of his subjects. He did devote one chapter to acuteness of sense, but since his main desire was to corroborate his principle, that there is an intimate correlation between bodily conditions and behavior, he scarcely touched on the question in which we are interested. As a result of his examination, he found that the criminal population as a whole is to be distinguished from the average member of the community by a much higher percentage of physical anomalies, consisting largely of malformations in the skull and brain and face. It is unnecessary to enumerate his findings in detail. Suffice it to say that they have been subjected to much criticism and in the form in which he enunciated them are little held today. Madame Tarnowsky's studies, which preceded his and which he so often quotes, are similar in character to his own. Within the last few years a few studies more comparable to our own have been made. There appeared in The Training School, January, 1912, an article called " Defective Children in the Juvenile Court," by Mrs. E. Garfield Gifford and Henry H. Goddard. This study was based upon 100 cases of boys and girls chosen at random from children then in the Detention Home in Newark, N. J. They were guilty of various misde- 71 72 Comparative Study of Intelligence of Delinquent Girls meanors, largely consisting of stealing, immorality and in- corrigibility. The mental status of these children was determined solely by the use of the Binet tests and the results indicated the discrepancies between the chronological and mental ages. The results are shown in detail below. THE MENTAL STATUS OF 100 CHILDREN IN A DETENTION HOME Chron. No. Years Average Yr. Cases Retarded Mental Age 10 1 Normal 10 10 1 1 9.1 9| 4 11 8 11 9 2 9 lit 6 21 9.2 12| 7 3 9.3 13* 6 o 2 10 14* 26 4 10 14 6 4.1 9.2 14.9 10 5 9.4 14| 4 51 9 16,V 11 6 10 15f 7 6| 9.2 15* 1 7* 7.4 17 1 8 8.2 From the above tables we find that there were in these 100 children 34% who were less than 4 years retarded. These, the authors conclude, might with proper training be helped to make up their backwardness and be aided in becoming eventually useful citizens. The remaining 66% were 4 years or more behind their chronological age and were, therefore, classified as feeble- minded. Presumably these children were considered hopelessly defective, so much so that they could not be reclaimed. The authors conclude that the younger children may already have been arrested in development, and if it were possible to re-test them several years later they, too, might be so backward as to fall into the hopelessly subnormal group. They conclude that all children in the courts should be studied, mentally classified and treated according to their mental condition rather than according to physical size or chronological age. A " Study of Delinquent Girls," by Dr. Anne Burnet, of Chicago, was published in The Institution Quarterly, June 30, 1912. This is an official organ of the Public Charity Service of Illinois. The study dealt with a group of young women, also inmates of a Detention Home. There were 106 subjects, Other Investigations 73 the average age being 15 years 8 months, the range of ages, 8 years to 20. Nearly all were sex delinquents. The problems investigated were much more comprehensive than in the former study reported. They dealt with the physical development, the home conditions, the school career and the occupations in which the subjects had been engaged, as well as with the psychological examination. The results indicated that the physical develop- ment of most of the girls was very good indeed. Only two could be called distinctly poorly developed and both of these were feeble-minded. Thirteen were unusually large and over- developed. There were many cases of defects of one kind and another, such as enlarged tonsils, thyroids, bad teeth, defective speech, general nervousness and so on. In testing the special senses, sight and hearing, a considerable proportion of defect was discovered. The home conditions in the majority of the cases were un- satisfactory. Only six of the 106 subjects claimed to have good homes. As regards the school records, three of the group maintained they had reached high school, fourteen others claimed to have made the eighth grade, while the average attainment was between the fifth and sixth grades. The results of the psychological tests led to an enumeration of the cases under the following headings: (a) Considerably above ordinary in ability and information — the latter estimated with reference to age and social advantages 2