Differential test responses of normals and mental defectives.

Abstract

Ai assumption is implicit in much of the work of clinicians who diagnose mental deficiency that the behavior of mentally deficient subjects is different qualitatively from that of normal subjects of like mental age. Ordinarily this assumption rests upon the informal observation that certain items on standardized scales of intelligence are either less difficult or more difficult for defectives than for normal subjects of equal mental level. The defective is generally considered to be superior in items depending upon rote memory, for example, or in items such as vocabulary or absurdities which might depend upon past experience and therefore upon chronological age.The validity of this assumption has ordinarily been examined through analyses of responses of normal and deficient subjects to standard test items. Numerous studies employing the 1916 Stanford-Binet Scale in this way have established the fact that certain items on the scale are either more or less difficult for defectives than for normals. The usual explanation of these differences has been in terms of the wider experience of the older defectives, al-* The authors wish to express their appreciation to Mrs. V. J. H.

The formation of discrimination learning sets in mongoloid and normal children.

“…Even though the groups were comparable in MA, the factors which go to make up the normals' MA scores may differ from those which make up the Mongoloids' MA scores. A study by Thompson and Magaret (1947) supports such an explanation. These investigators, studying differential test responses of normals and mental defectives on the Revised Stanforcl-Binet, Form L, found that the items which were more difficult for defectives than for normals of equal MA were those which are more heavily saturated with the common first factor extracted by Mc-Nemar.…”

Recall in normals and subnormals of like mental age.

“…300) dence showing a close parallel between longterm memory and intelligence is rare. Sarason (1952, p. 69) points out that of the 20 items in the Binet test, in which according to Thompson and Magaret (1947) normals surpassed defectives, 8 involved memory. He concludes, however, that as fear and anxiety adversely affect performance on memory items, such items cannot be relied upon as a valid indication of intellectual capacity.…”

Genius: Present-day status of the concept and its implications for the study of creativity and giftedness.

“…One line of research that might enhance our knowledge and diminish our disappointments is to make a distinction between levels of giftedness, for example, the level of giftedness that allows some to graduate from college and the level of exceptional giftedness that aids some to graduate from college and complete other preparatory experiences while in their teens or early twenties. Such distinctions would balance the discriminations made on the lower end of the intelligence continuum (Kebbon, 1965;Matthews, 1963;Sloan & Birch, 1955;Taylor, 1964;Thompson & Margaret, 1947), with liner discriminations at the upper end. While at best suggestive, there are data pointing to achievement and professional differences among subjects at different levels of giftedness (e.g., Albert & Barton, 1969;Fowler, 1962;Frierson, 1965;Gallagher & Lucito, 1961;Getzels & Jackson, 1962;Hildreth, 1954;Hollingworth & Cobb, 1928;Lucito & Gallagher, 1960).…”