Group Title: analysis of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children with institutionalized metal defectives
Title: An Analysis of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children with institutionalized metal defectives
Full Citation
Permanent Link:
 Material Information
Title: An Analysis of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children with institutionalized metal defectives
Alternate Title: Wechsler intelligence scale for children
Physical Description: iv, 52, 1 leaves : illus. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Alper, Arthur Eugene, 1928- ( Dissertant )
Anderson, Richard J. ( Thesis advisor )
Kimmel, Herbert D. ( Reviewer )
Kolarik, J. Milan ( Reviewer )
Barret, Albert M. ( Reviewer )
Horne, E. Porter ( Reviewer )
Crigsby, Shaw E. ( Reviewer )
Gropp, A. H. ( Degree grantor )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1960
Copyright Date: 1960
Subject: Children with mental disabilities   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 51-52.
Additional Physical Form: Also available on World Wide Web
General Note: Manuscript copy.
General Note: Thesis - University of Florida.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00097990
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000537983
oclc - 13026257
notis - ACW1189


This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 2 MBs ) ( PDF )

Full Text







January, 1960

BC:'" ~JT,-~Y3:~ "-` i 'I~S

The author wishes to extend heartfelt appreciation to

-Professor Richard J. Anderson, Chairman of his committee; and to

Drs. Albert Md. Barrett, E. Porter Horne, Herbert D. K~immel, J.

IBilan Kolarik, and ShawN E. Grigsby. Special thanks to Dr. A. E.

Brandt of the Agricultural IExperiment Stationg Dr. Herbert A. ~eyer,

Director; Carlis Taylor, Supervisorj and the entire staff of the

University of Florida Statistics Laboratory for their assistance

w~ith the statistical aspects of this research.

This dissertation is humbly dedicated to my wsife, miy son,

and my parents.



AC~iti0WLED(EEN~~TS. .. ... .... .. .. .. ..... .. 11

LIST OF TA~BLES . .. . . .. .... .iV


I. INTODUCTION. .................. .... 1

II. ME~TIOD OF THE STUDY...............,.... 12

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIOL; .. .. .. .. .. ... .. 19

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .. .. ... .. .. .. .. 38

APPENDIl~XES......................... ... L8

LIST OFREFERENCESI~~~III~~~III~~~.........,............... 51



Table ~Pag~e

1. Contributing Institutions, Their Re~gional Locations, and
the Number of SI~SC Cases Contributed .. .. .. .. .. Ilb

2. Distribution of WI~SC Cases by Sex and Diagnosis. .. .. 16

3. Distribution of WI~SC Cases by Sex and IQ Level .. .. .. 17

I. Mans and Standard Deviations of WI1SC Subtests and IQs for
Total Sample and Three Diagnostic Categories .. ... 20

5. Means and Standard Deviations of WBISC Subtests and IQs for
Four IQ Levels ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. 22

6. Means of WTISC Subtests for Ma~les and Females .. .. .. 23

7. Means of WVISC Sub~tests for Sexes and Three Diagnostic
Ca~tegories .. .. ... .. ... .. .. .. .. 2L

8. Results of Analysis of Variance Presented by Variable for
Each of Ten WVISC Subtests, Sho~wing Levels of Confidences. 27

9. Intercorrelation of T sts in the W~echaler Intelligence
Scale for Children for 713 Cases .. .. .. .. ... 31

10. Intercorrelation of Tests in the We~chaler Intelligence
Scale for Children for 1L5 Brain-Danaged Cases .. .. .. 32

11. Intercorrelation of Tests in the Wchs~ler Intelligence
Scale for Children writh 273 Familial Cases .. ... .. 33

12. Intercorrelation of Tests in the Wechsler Intelligence
Scale! for Children w~ith 295 other cases. .. .. .. .. 3L

13. Intercorrelation of Tests in the Wcha~ler Intelligence
Scale for Children Age 13-1/2 -- 100 Boys and 100 Girls9. 35



In 19L9 the W~echaler Intelligence Scale for Children (:IISC)

was introduced to the psychological world as a newr and improved

instrument for assessing the intelligence of children and adolescents.

It is a dowrnward extension and modification of the Wbechsler-Bellevue

Intelligence Scales. Wechsler (19) stated the following in his WISC

Manuals ". most of the items in the WISC are from Form II of

the earlier scales, the main additions being new items at the easier

end of each test to permit examination of children as young as five

years of age." He pointed out that, "Even though the materials

overlap, the W~ISC is a distinct test from the W~echsler-Bellevue

Sales and is independently standardized. The scales overlap in

usefulness since both scales can be used wBith adolescents. However,

it is expected that the W6ISC will be preferred in testing adolescents

up through the ace of fifteen years."

It is apparent that the IWISC has been widely accepted in

this country and abroad. Now, approximately ten years later, it

and the Sta~f'ord-Binet Scales appear to be the two most often used

individual tests for measuring the intelligence of children. It

is used in clinics, hospitals, schools, and mental institutions

of all types. Although there were only fifty-five feebleminded

cases included in the original standardization sample of 2200 boys

and girls, the IIISC is administered to children with subnormal

intelligence in hospitals and training schools throughout the

country. hr~en the author corresponded writh psychologists and super-

intendents at approximately thirty such institutions, he learned

that only a very small percentage of them were not using the WIJSC

as a part of their departments' test batteries. Those wrho did not

utilize the T.ISC stated that this was due to the fact that the test

did not have a low enough "floor" for their specific purposes.

They had in mind the fact that the lowecst possible scores obtainable

are forty-five, forty-four, and forty-six IiQ on the Verbal, Per-

formance, and Full Scales respectively.

A year after the filSC was published, more information from

the original standardization data became available wIhen Seashore,

Wesman, Alexander, and Doppelt (18) published their paper. Besides

including information which was also included in the test manual,

they presented data about sex differences. On the Verbal Scale

boys were higher than girls by more than three points at age eight

and ages ten through fifteen. On the Performance Scale boys wrere

higher than girls by more than three points at ages eight and ten,

and girls were ahead at ages five, six, seven, and nine, On the

Full Scale boys were twoe and one-half to four mad one-half points

higher at age seven, while girls were ahead by smaller amounts at

four other ages. The authors believed that the items chosen may

have been biased slightly in favor of boys; or the sampling of

boys may have been chosen with a slight bias. In addition to the

sex differences, they also mentioned that although there were fifty-

five feebleminded originally, seventy cases, or 3.2 per cent of thme

total sample, had Full Scale I~s below seventy wheon all results were

tabulated .

The following year (1951) Seashore (13) published information

about differences between the Verbal and Performance Scales. He

stated that the standardization procedures for the ilSC wrere designed

to result in a difference of zero points between the average of the

Verbal I~s and the average of the Performa~nce IL~s. While the

theoretical average subject has a Verbal IQ equal to his Performance

Id, many individual cases can be expected to ha~ve relatively large

discrepancies between their Verbal and Performance IC~s. In fact,

equal IQs will probably be rare.

About half of the cases in a random run of children will have

differences between these IQs as great as eight points or more.

About three-fourths of the subjects will showA differences of four

points or more. Five per cent wpill have differences of more than

trwenty-five points. The results from feebleminded in the sample

were also analyzed. Twenty-twro had Verbal I~s which re~re higher

than their Performance IQs, three showed no differences, and thirty

had Performance IQs which were greater than the Verbxal I~s.

Seashore believed that all these differences may be due to errors of

measurement, as wrell as to socio-economic factors.

In the years that followeTd, other studies appeared in the

literature which dealt wiith various aspects of' the W~ISC wrhen it was

administered to mentally subnormal children. A paper by Sloan and

Schneider (15) compared the results obtained from forty mentally

defective children, twenty males and twenty females, on the

Stanford-Binet Scale, Form L, the Arthur Performance Scale, Form I,

and the WI7SC. These subjects wierb diagnosed as either familial or

undifferentiated. They found sex differences in favor of the males

but attributed them to the low IQs of females on all tests. The

mean IL~s indicated that the Performance score wras higher than

either the Verbal or the Full Scale scores. The authors stated

that these findings were, ". in accordance with previous studies

of mental detectives whiljch have found higher Performance than Verbal

I~s to be generally true." Interscale correlations were also

presented and indicated that the closest relationship existed

between the Performance and the Full Scales. Hence, the Full Scale

IQ appeared to be more influenced by the PerformaLnce Scale score than

by the Verbal Scale score.

A contribution by Stacy and Levin (16) was an analysis of

the ImSC and the Stanford-Binet wsith subnormal subjects by correlation

techniques. They used seventy institutionalized children who

ranged in age from seven years, two months, to fifteen years, eleven

months. Forty-five subjects werre morons (fifty to sixty-nine IQ)

and twventy-six wrere considered borderline cases (seventy to eighty-

one IQ). They, too, found that the mean Performance IQ was the

highest of the three obtained. They, also, obtained their highest

correlation between the Performance and Full Scales.

Vanderhorst, Sloan, and Btensberg (17) attempted to determine

the degree of agreement between the W~echsler-Bellevue Scale and the

WISC. They wrere especially concerned about relationships obtained

when mental detectives with ages within the range where the twoe

tests overlap were used. Their sample consisted of thirty-eight

boys and girls wrho were diagnosed as either undifferentiated or

familial. The IQ scores they obtained from the W~ISC again indicated

that the Performance Scale mean score w~as the highest. Mean subtest

scores were also computed by the authors and indicated that Object

Assembly, Picture Completion, and Similazrities w~ere the highest.

The lowesat mean scores were obtained for the Vocabulary, Comp~re-

hension, and Information subtests. Standard deviations were not

given, and wpith only thirty-eight subjects involved, it wvas diiffi-

cult to determine whether these relationships would hold up if

results from a much larger group of subjects were analyzed.

Newman, Loos, and Frank (11) also attempted to determine

differences between Verbal and ~Performance WIISC IQs with mentally

defective children. Their N of 231 was3~ much larger than the Ns

in the studlies (15, 16, 17) mentioned above. Included were 128

famil~ials, 75 undifferentiated, and 28 brain-damaged. The age range

was seven to sixteen years, and no subject was included unles he

had an IQ~ of fifty or higher. The statistical analyses of Newmnan

and Loos with the WISC subtest scores yielded results from which the

following tentative conclusions were made:

1. Familials perform significantly higher as a group on

the Perfommance subtest than on the Verbal subtest.

2. Erdifferentiated mental detectives also perform sig-

nificantly higher as a group on the Performiance than on the Verbal

Scale, but the mean difference was not as great as for the familials.

3. ]Brain-damaged cases due to infection or birth trauma

show no difference between Verbal and Performance I~s.

h.Brain-damaged perform uniquely on the WVISC as a group

to the extent that they obtain a higher Verbal IQ and lower Per-

formance IQ than the undifferentiated group.

The authors determined that less than half of any differ-

ances found between Verbal and Performance IQs will be significant

differences. They caution that when considering the individual case,

caly the largest differences should be considered as trustworthy

and small differences attributed to errors of measuremnent.

In a study by Sandercock and Butler (12), they did not report

the usually found significantly higher Performance I~s. An analysis

of the results obtained from their ninety subjects indicated that

the mean Verbal and Performance IQ scores were quite similar. Thney

also presented data on sub~test variability and stated that, nThke

study of subtest variability in the MIIISC was made in terms of sign

or deviations of individuals from their mean performance. These

signs indicate a trend for individuals in the mentally defective

group to have high scores on Similarities, Digit Span, Picture

Completion, Block Design, and Object Assembly in comparison to lowm

scores on Information, Arithmetic, Vocabulary, Picture Arraingement

and Coding." Due to variation among signs, the authors felt that

it wras not possible to establish a definite sign pattern for the

mental defective group. Guthrie and Pastovic (10), in their study

which considered the validity of the WnISC, found that their data

and that of three other studies cited, indicated a higher mean

Performance IQ than Verbal IQ over a wrride range of intelligence.

Beck and Lam (8) used the SI~SC results obtained from 10L

children in order to evaluate the possibility of predicting organic

deficit. The children, aged sta to fifteen years, eleven months,

werre all referred to a state agency by public schools because of thle

possibility of placement into special classes for the educable men-

tally handicapped. They found that:

1. Organics tend to score lowecr on the WIISC Full Scale

than non-orgainics.

2. Organics tend to do more poorly on the WIISC Performlance

and Full Scales than on the W(ISC Verbal Scale.

3. The possibility of organicity increases considerably as

IQ drops below the borderline range, i.e., seventy to eighty on

the W"ISC.

The authors felt that the following factors should be taken

into consideration in any further study of this type:

1. Lentally handicapped organic have such lowv scores that

there is less chance for variation in the subt;est scores.

2. At the lower age levels the subject may receive a scaled

score even though his rawr score is zero.

3. Different types of organics may off set each other's

scores as some types may do better than others on certain subtests

and vice versa.

b. Children haven't developed intellectually as adults and

the same tests won't necessarily hold up after de: abe.

While the results presented by Sandercock and Butler (12),

above, indicated that the Verbal and Perforrmance I~s wsere approxi-

mately the same, Atchisonl (6) presented results which indicated

that the Verbal IQ was higher than the Performance IQ. He tested

eighty mentally defective, Negro children within the age range six

years, eight months to thirteen years. He concluded that the re-

lationship between verbal scores and performance scores for

mentally defective, Negro children may be different from that found

in normal, Negro children. These results are contrary to what one

would expect and they have not been duplicated by other studies.

In Baroff's recent study (7), in which he was concerned with

F;ISC subtest patterning in endogenous mental deficiency, he analyzed

the results of sixteen Negiro subjects who m;ade up part of his N

of fifty-three. Eighty-one per cent of these sixteen had higher

Performance Scale Iks,which almost duplicated the results obtained

from non-Ndegro subjects, where 79 per cent achieved higher I~s

on the Performance than on the lerbal Scale. Baroff corimented that

Atchison's atypical finding could not be confirmed in his study.

Baroff's patterning analysis, utilizing a rank-order pro-

cedure, indicated that the subjects did best on Object Assembly,

Block Design, Picture Completion, and Coding. Their poorest p~er-

formances w~ere on the Vocabulary and Similarities subtests. Some

of these findings do not agree with others already reported above

(12, 17) and more wrill be said about these findings below.

These selected studies have indicated some of the areas

which have been investigated by various experimenters. For the most

part, those using mental detectives as subjects have been interested

in WISC subscale differences (6, 10, 11, 12, 13), inter-test

relationships (15, 16, 17), and subtest variability (1, 2, 7, 12)

in regard to diagnostic patterning. The present study was designed

to determine, by an analysis of a large number of WISCa of institu-

tionalized nantaly defective children, whether the contributions

of the subtests to the total IQ scores were relatively the same for

thezm as; they were for non-defectives. A basic statistical char-

acteristic of the WIISC is thant the normalized distribution of scaled

scores adts all subtest means at tenl and all subtest standard

deviations at three. The inherent assumption is that each test

contributes equally to the total IQ score. It is hypothe~sized that

among detectives the contributions of the subtests, as determined

bg means and standard deviations, will not be equally but some will

contribute disproportionately m3ore (or less) to the total scaled

score and subsequently derived IQ. The present author has observed,

e.g, the higher Similarities scores and lower Coding scores in
test pro-tocols of mrany mental detectives. Interpretations made

on the basis of WBISC results obtained from detectives may be in-

accurate an~d misleading because of these and other possibilities.

The problem~ of scatter analysis, and its diagnostic impli-

cations, was not a major consideration in this study. However,

reference to this topic will be made below. The major importance

is the determination of what effects the independent variablesj of

sex, clinical diagnosis, and IQ level have on the magnitude and

extent of the possible inequalities in mean subtest scores. Thus,

the problem was twofold. First, we wished to find, to what extent
the subtests varied in regard to their scaled score contributions

to the total IQ; second, we attemp~ted to relate subtest inequalities

to specific independent variables.
The studies previously reviewed have not done this. Those

researchers who did concentrate on subtest patterning related the

results to possible diagnostic functions. However, in practice,

the diagnosis of mental deficiency usually depends heavily upon


IQ score anid not necessarily upon a scattergram. Apparently, it

was in this context that Rabin wrrote, in the Fifth 1EAntal Measure-

rments Handbook (9), the followring: in his critique of the :'750:

"Eerious difficulties in diagnosis of mental deficiency and dis-

crimination in that category Amental deficiency are noted.

Probably a refinement of the scale, especially at the lower end,

would add greatly to its usefulness."

Before any attempbmay be made to refine the I"ISC at its

lower end, it seemed that information miaht be obtained in regard

to how detectives actually functioned on this test. It is felt tbat

this study may help to answer this question.

In addition to the major hypothesis mentioned above,

further hypotheses are presented. The results of a pilot study

and the author's personal experiences with mental detectives

provided the background. It is hypothesized that:

1. Sex differences may be obtained in subtest results.

2. Variability of subtest scores may be related to

magnitude of total IQ scores.

3. Differential results between Verbal and Performance

Ikls may be obtained for different diagnostic groups, and IQ levels.



In order to attack the problems stated in the last chapter,

713 subjects wrere used in this study. All were instituitionalized

mentally defective children, and their IrSC results wecre obtained

by a systematic procedure which was as follows:

1. The author compiled a list of state institutions for

mentally defective children. The source of the list was a directory

which was published by the American Association on Miental D~eficiency

(L). From this same directory it was also determined whether there

wrere psychologists on the staffs of these institutions. The listings

by state and institution in the A~merican Association on EMental

Deficiency membership directory (3) and the American Psycholog~ical

Association directory (5) were also used as cross-references.

2. If a specific state institution did have a Ph.D. psy-

cholog~ist on its staff, its name was` retained on the list; if it

did not, its name was dropped from the list. Although there wrere

ISeventy subjects, or approximately 10 per cent of the total
N, were Negroes. However, for purposes of this study no differentia-
tion on the basis of race was made. The distribution of these
cases in regard to the variables under consideration did not appear
to be different in any way.


probably personnLel changes, it was hoped that by this screening

method the test data requested would have been obtained either

directly by, or under the supervision of, a Ph. D. psychologist

who w~as also a member of the American Psychologi~cal Association

and/or the American Association on Llental Deficiency.

3. Approximately thirty institutions met the requirements

stated above. A form letter (see Appendix I), briefly explaining

what wras desired, was directed to the psychologist at each insti-

tution. Fifteen institutions did eventually contribute WEISC results.

Manyr others replied, however, and either indicated that they did

not use the WCISC, or that they did not have the time and personnel

to compile the data. Thus, 50 per cent of the institutions contacted

responded to the author's request.

h.Once the data we~re collected, a final screening procedure

was carried out. All incomplete W~ISCs (i.e., those with results

from less than the standard ten subtestsX and those with prorated

I~rs, were eliminated from the study. Cases diagnosed as psychotic,

even if this diagnosis was secondary to one of mental deficiency,

weP4re also eliminated. Seven hundred thirteen cases remained,after

this final screening fromn the 8L0 originally collected.

The fifteen institutions (identified by letter), the region

of the country in which they are located, and the number of cases

which they contributed may be found in Table 1,belowr.

Institution Reg~ion N~umber

A Eidwrest 393
B Northeast 61
C iEidwest 38
D E'ar liest 32
L Ibidwiest 30
F Southeast 28
Gj Far Crest 26
Hi Northeast 22
I Bdidwrest 15
J Southeast 15
K; Midwrest 13
L Northeast 12
MS i;idwesst 11
N Northeast 10
0 Far Wfest 9

The data sent to the author for each child were as follows:



Ten scaled subtest scores
Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQ scores
Age of child at time of testing

Thus, sixteen variables were recorded for each child. Of these,

the first thirteen became the dependent variables of the study,

while the last three, along with IQ level, became the independent


The ages of the subjects ranged from five years, one month

to fifteen years, eleven months. The mean age was twelve years,


eight months; standard deviation two years, two months. The dis-

tribution of ages wras skewred to the left. This was not too sur-

prisi!bb when it was considered that five, six, and seven year old

defective children will often perform on the test in such a manner

as to be awa~rded total scores wPhich fall belowr the low~est scaled

scores listed in the manual (19) for which I~ls can be computed.

According to the norms in the manuals scaled scores of six, ten, and

twenty-six are required in order for a given child to receive the

minimum I~s of forty-five, forty-four, and forty-six on the Verbal,

Performance, and Full Scales, respectively. The cases which did

not meet these three criteria were not included in the study.

The distribution of cases by sex and diagnosis may be seen

in Table 2 belowr. Originally, th~e diagnostic categories numnbered

more than the present three (see Appendix II). However, because of

the small N which represented many of the diagnoses, and because

the author wished to classify the data in categories similar to

those used in other studies, the threefold diagnostic division was

used. The cases considered as Brain-damaged included those called

chronic brain syndrome, epileptic, cerebral palsy, encephalitic,

post-infectional, post-traumatic, and brain-damaged.

The Familials included those cases considered and diagnosed

as such by the contributing institutions. There were no other

diagnostic entities used which fell under this category.

Brin-damag~ed Familial Other Totals

b' les 103 151! 212 l669

Fem~ales L2 119 83 2166

Totals 15273 295 713

The Other category included those cases diagnosed as

undifferentiated, mongoloid, cretin, cranial anomaly, idiopathic,

mental defective, etc., and simply other. It should be pointed out,

however, that the majority of cases in this category were either

those called mental defective or other. The other specific diagaoses

made up only a small handful of cases.

It was unfortunate that this third category wras so large.

It was, of course) the result of an arbitrary decision on the part

of the author, but it also reflects, in part, the difficulty which

workers in the field of mental deficiency have had writh the problems

of diagtOEAS and classification. Man~y of the different contributing

institutions evidently used their own systems in diagnosing their

patients, while others relied upon various psychiatric nomenclatures

which w~ere available to them.

Other problems concerned with diagnosis are those of




personnel and equipment. It is speculated, for example, that the

physicians who had elec~tronencephalograms available to the, and the

institutions which had neurologists .cm their staffs, may have been

less hesitantt about calliag a child brain-damaged than the physicians

arnd ins~titutions which were not so equipped and staffed. Regardless

of equipment, staff, orl choice or diagnostic mnethology, the area-
of dianosirs remains one8 of the kcey problems in the field today.

The IQ levels chosen were four in number and began with

forty-six, IQ which, as was mentioned above (19), is the lowest

poJssible Full cale IQ. These levels, and the distribution of cases

by sex at each level may be found in Table 3, below. Cases with

I~s above& that which is ordinarily considered to be the upper limit

of mental deficiency (70-75 IQ) were included in the study. This

was done in order to makea this variable mreQr amenable to study.

As1 can be seen by an inlsp~etion of the table, there were relatively

mroret females at the lower IQ levels. Ma~Eles, on the other hand,

wre, more numerous~~~pppp~~~ppp~~~ within thee categories 56-65 IQ and 66-75 IQ.



lr6-SS IQ 56-64 IQ 66-75 IQ 75+ IQ Totals

unles 111 158 131 69 6~69

Females 76 89 68 11 2W1

Totals 187 21r7 199 80 713


All sixteen variables for each subject used in the study

were punched and encoded on individual IE"' cards. In this wray,

the 11,L08 items which made up the data wjere accurately and effi-

ciently utilized in the various statistical computations which

wrere considered necessary for this research project.



The four bygpotherse stated in Chapter II will new be dis-

reneed in order to determine whether the obtained data have sub-

stantiated themR or not. After each hypothesis is dealt with indi-

vidually, other information and data, obtained in the analysis of the

WISC, will be presented.

The main hyUpothesois stated that subtest scores for mentally

defective children may not contribute equally to the total IQ core

as it was assumed they would for a sample of normal children. The

reader shold recall that nolrmlizEationn procedures utilized by

We-chaler set all subtest means and standard deviations at ten and

three respectively. There was no indication~ given by Wechaler in

the WI~SC manual to the effect thart this equality would not be

expected in the performances of defective children.

An inspection of Table 6, below, overwhelmingly indicates

that inequaality, rather than equality, is the rule in regard to the

contributions of the various subtests. The first two~ columns in

this table indicated the ten subtesct means and standard deviations

for the total ts~aple~ of 713 children. The obvious variability among

~thes statistics mayg be noted. Vocabulary and Alrithma~etic, for example,

both have scaled score mea~hns which are clearly belo those~ for


Total Brain-damaged Familial Other
(N =L 713) (N = 16r5) (N = 273) (N = 295)

Infor. 3.92 1.6r2 3.78 1.6b 3.83 1.28 L.09 1.k0

Comp. L.60 2.1 L.21r 1.96 lr.50 2.13 lr.89 2.17
Arith. 3.72 1.79 3.63 1.86 3.63 1.65 3.98 1.87

similar. 5.1L 2.30 L.72 2.39 5.08 2.13 5.L2 2.36

Vocab. 3.63 1.93 3.67 1.8L 3.38 1.83 3.83 2,02

P. Com~pl. 6.38 2 .52 5.82 2 .56 6.lr8 2.L1 6 .56 2 .57

P. Arrange. t.73 2 .6r 3 .62 2 .05 lr.83 2 .56 5.19 2.80

B1. Design 5.30 2.57 6.79 2.37 5.5L 2.67 5.3t 2.71

Obj. Assem. 6.lrl 2.7t 5.35 2.56 6.88 2.50 6.56 2.89
coding(A&~B) L.22 2.76 3.22 2.51 L.59 2.67 k*37 2.80

v IQ 63.86 8.70 62.L9 9.10 63.00 7.83 65.32 9.05

P IQ 68.21 12.12 62.23 11.10 70.03 11.09 69.LS 11.23
FS IQ 62.73 9.52 58.65 9.36 63.19 8.L1 66.26 11.oo



Simdlarities and ComaprehResion. The differences are significant

beyond conventional statistical levels of confidence. Among the

Performance sub~test the Coding mean is lower than the other

subtests, to a degree that is plainly significant.

Other significant sutbtest differences mway also be observed

in Table he The inequalities of subtest contributions to the sub-

sequently derived IQ scores continue through the various diagnostic

categories of Brain-damaged, Familial, and Other. When all four

categories in the table are considered, it appears that four subtests,

Comp~rehenion and S~imrities among the Vrerbal testg and Pieture

Com~pletion and Object ~Assebly among; the performance tests, are

consirsently; contributing more of the total weighted score than any

of the other subtests in their respective scales.

Table $ indicate the mean subtest scored for four different

IQ levels ranging fraom L6-55 IQ to 75, and above, IQ. Again, it

Btmy be seen that Comprehesnsion, Similarities, Picture Comaple~tion,

;an Object Alssemblyr have the highest mean scoe~s in their respective sub-

sca~les. In fact, t~hey remain the ~tep contributors within their scales

through eight other categories (see Tables 6 and 7).

In regard to low scores, one an~y note that A~ithmE~tic and

Vocaibularyy among the verbal tests, and Picture Arrangement and Coding,

among the de~rformance rteste contribute the least of all to their

respective surbscale IQs, and, thabse~rer, to the Full Scale IQ.

L6 55 IQ 56 65 IQ 66 75 IQa 76 IQ& A borve
(N r 187) (N = 267) (NJ 199) (N = 80)

Infor. 3.02 1.25 3 .67 1.08 L.S9 1.22 5.25 1.38
Comap. 3.19 1.77 L.26 1.69 5.56 1.81 6.69 2.11
Arith. 2 .Lk 1.35 3.L5 1.68s L.63 1.56 5.W6 1.6b

Similar. 3.58 1.88 B.91 2.oo 6.07 1.7 7.28 2.09

Vocab. 2 .62 1.61 3 .35 1.73 b.h9 1.68 5.18 1.69

P. Compl. L.66 2 .05 6.,02 2.0L 7.63 2.28 8.89 2 .17

P. Arr~ange. 2*73 1.56 6.12.19 5.95 2.13 7.99 2.39

Bl. Design 3.L7 1.92 5 .12 2 .05 6 .07 2.37 8.26 2.25

Obj. Assem. L.61 2.11 6.13 2.28 7.69 2.33 9.00 2.58

coding(A&B) 2 .55 2.,01 3.85 2.6r2 5.34 2 .6k 6.L6 2.65

v IQ 55.59 5.Lho 62.16r 5.lr6 69.22 6.2L 75.1 7.05

P IQ 55.13 5.86 65.80 6.60 75.83 7.28 87.26 6.93

FS IQ 51.12 2.78 60.36 2.89 69.90 2.81 79.38 2.70



-;i-IICIIX iP-i~i--i-. --.. 8^....1~------- ~----.. .-.i T^ :li~ ---...........~i~XI ~1*111I......~..~ .~a~-^.




(n =I h69)

(N P 21C6)



















Infor .





P. Compl.

P.~ Arrange.

81. Design

Obj. Assem.

Coding (A&B)

Brain-damaged Familial Other
Maales Females BMals FemleMales Females
(](=103) (NLh2) (N=156 (N=119) (N1212) (N=83)

Infor. 3.92 3.65 3.86 3.79 6.7 3.89

Comrp. L .50 3.62 L.70 lr.21r 5.10 L.36

Arith. 3.60 3 .00 3 .60 3.68 L.19 3.66

Similar. L.73 8.69 11.87 5.35 5.L9 5.25

Vocab. 3.89 3.12 3.62 3.08 L.01 3.37

P. Comp. 5.98 5.163 6.70 6.18 6.85 5.82

P. Arrange. 3.78 3.2L 5.21 L.3L 5.52 h.36

Bl. Design 5.02 L.21 6.03 L.91 5.70 L.lr0

Obj. Assem. 5.50 5.00 7.17 6.50 6.78 6.01

Coding(AES) 3.19 3.29 L.12 5.19 h.05 5.19




Meore wIill be said of the individual subtests and their

variabilities and consistencies beler. It appears, however, that

regardless of howP the total N is divided, whether by sex, diagnosis,

sex and diagnosis, or IQ level, the same inequalities regarding the

sub~tersts contributions persiist.

The second bypothersis indicated that sex differences would

be present throughout the results. It is felt that the available

data substakntia~te this. Tables 6 and 7, already referred to above,

list the mekanas of the subtests for both sexes, as wesll as those for

ther three diagnostic categories (Brain-damnaged, Framilial, and Other)

by each sex. The higher mean scores for the males on mEost of the

sub~tests are evident, and although not indicated in the tables,

this same differential a~lso results in higher IQs for males than

for fem~ales. FromI these higher male Full Scale IQs, it must followr

that males8 wil score generally higher on the subtests.

Thfe mrrlales IQs were approx~imately 8 to 10 per cent higher

than the females' IQa. Since it was thought that an age difference

maly have been an uniderlying factor in regard to the lower femle

I~a (, if females erer significantly older, the~y may at timssa

have to scoreo higher to be, awrded the same werighted scores as the

younger males), mean ages werre comIpared. Femaules wrerr approximat~E~fly

2 per cvent, or roughly three mon~lths, older than the males. This

slight difference, then could only partially account for the

pervasive differences in favor of males.


Ain analysis of variance was also completed writh the same

independent variables of sex anid diagn~osis. The ten subtest scores

were considered as the dependent variable in this analysis. Table

8, follow~ing, lists the results and includes the name of the subtest,

the inde -adernt variables, and the levels of si nificance of the

derived Fs.

The results presented indicate again that sex was a differen-

tiating factor throughout most of the ten subtests. Males scored

significantly higher on all the subtests except Similarities and

Coding. Femrales, however, only scored significantly higher on the

Coding subtest. Similarities sub~test was the only one on which males

and females performed at about the same level.

It is interesting to compare the sex differences found in

the present study with those presented for normal adults by ICechsler

(20) in the fourth edition of his te:Aton the measurement of adult

intelligence. Of the eleven Sechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

(;AIS) subtests, w~ales did significantly better on five, females did

better on three, and three differences wrere not significant. One of

the most significant differences in favor of females was found for

the Digit Symbol test. This subtest is comparable to the Coding

subtect on the UISSC, and it appears that, regardless of age or in-

tellectua~l level, this type test is easier for females.

To close this discussion of sex differences, a quotation from

blechaler (20) about this~ topic may be appropriate. H~e wans writing



O1 ONu


0c h






0 O*r

O rta

S ~cC







* J

rl *

~ m

* *


*a a

V1 !
Ov *






a &

v VC

*Cc 4 l

co f1


about sex differences as they related to tasks used in intelligence

tests and said: nIt thus appears that among the tasks w\Jhich may

be used for tests of intelligence there are somne which are easier

(or more difficult) for one or the other of the sexes. Whether

these differences are presumptive or the better or poorer endowment

in intellectual ability still. remains to be decided, but the fact

that they exist cannot be questioned."

The third hyrpothesis presented above indicated that vari-

ability of subtest scores may be related to IQ$ score. It was felt

that subjects with low Full Scale I~s would manifest less subtest

variability than those subjects whose Full.Scale IQs were higher.

Reference is again made to Table 5, above, where the means and

standard deviations of the ten subtests are presented for each of

the IQ levels. A Maedian Test was applied to the forty standard

deviations and four IQ levels in order to determine whether the

trend implied by the hypothesis was correct.

The results of the Me~IdiaLn Test indicated a chi square value

of 3.2, and a value of 7.82 is significant at the .05 level of

confidence. Although there was a slight indication that subtest

variability was related to IQ score, no clear-cut trend was evident.

It is felt th-at the evidence is conclusive enough to indicate that

the hypothesis was not substantiated.

The last hypothesis stated that there ma~y be differences

between Verbal and PerrformnanceQ IQs. It was felt that cases in thia


study, when classified under different categories, may present

results which would indicate that the Verbal and Perfom~ance IC~s

differ significantly. For some tine, it has been observed that the

defective, usually a famlilial or an undifferentiated type, will score

Nhighr on performance items than he wrill on verbal items. The data

collected aLnd presented in the lower three rcrws of Tables Ir and 5,

gill help to dletermine whether this statement holds true for the

present samnple.

The Verbal and Performance I~s for the total N, the Brain-

damaged, the Familials, and the Other group of subjects may be found

in Table U. An inspection of these scores indicates that the Per-

formance IQs are consistently higher for every group of subjects,

except those considered Brain-damaged. For this group, the Verbal

and Performance IC~s are quite similar. The most significant differ-

ence may be found for the Familial group where the Performiance IQ

is approximately seven points higher than the Verbal IQ.

Table 5 also has information which is relevant to this problem.

When the cases are distributed by IQ level, naturally the I~s increase

as one goes from the lower to the higher levels. However, a close

examination of the Verbal and Performance IC~s in this table will

indicate that the Performance Scale I(2s increase at a more rapid

ra~te from level to level than do the Verbal I~s. The litter increase

from la low of 55.59 IQ to a high of 75.116 I9, while the former

increase from 55.13 I9 to a higher, 87.26 IV.


This information on diagnostic categories and ICF levels

indicates that the hypothesis regarding differences between ~Per-

formance and Verbal IQs is essentially substantiated.

Although the four hypotheses have been discussed above, and

the pertinent data presented in each case, additional data will now

be presented in order to complete the analysis of the WISC. Inter-

correlations were computed for the ten subtest scores for the 713

cases of the total sample, the 16$ B~rain-damnaged cases, the 273

Familial cases, and 295 Other cases. Tables 9 through 12, below,

list the intercorrelations obtained from the present data, while

Table 13' ..s one of three intercorrelation tables found in the

T:ISC manual (19). This table, which represents results from 200

boys and girls, bged t~hirtieen and one-half years, was chosen because

this age is similar to the mean ase twelvee years, eight months)

of the sample used in this study.

The results indicate that the Wechsler subtest inter-

correlations wrere higher than those presented by the author.3

2Adapted from the WI~SC manual (p. 12) with permission from
the author and publisher.

3The \;echsler table also includes correlations between
subtests and Verbal, Performlance, and Full Scale weighted scores,
while the author's tables include correlations with IQs rather than
wi~eighted scores. The present author's correlations are presented
uncorrected for contamination. Intercorrelations for thre Digit
Span and Mazes subtests (alternate tests) have been omitted from
the t;echsler table since they were not part of the present study.



0 O



o, Ela

d %SZ



S CU 9 U\
I ~a39


SH o

O\ & m


a N N


*r *

O v) 1 a O

G 0 H


* *


o 5~

* *

*: **
rrm U

a s m\ ~
* *U *


*o c

e *

m a m o s


a~ r
U rD

( coo
Nu c0 O

* *


* *U *

N 0


* *

H .

* *P

* M 0
da 4 0



* *e


i .


* *

* *n

s mn

-e *

Nf cu O
* *

0 0 0 HIN
cuc c H N

cu 0 0 m


N 4


~tdSH <

CU O On H <

cu cu cu cu m

0 N 4
* *

* *

Ch N
*O *

a m (U

H\ Nlhr H O 4

a, 4M
U~ 0I

O 8 0

I% ~ o

P & H


C N C\









N m u\





*~ *~ *


*r *C *~ *

or\ $ X

4 o H


ca w
*u m

N 0 0

;t N CU c 04

cr O CU H NN

Hs F? 91 m c
*~~r *c **

s. *

pP i e

.\ .l .

O O p 0
o 4 *
* n C
*~ & O
4 A O O

* P

o4 o

r( m m m ~ O m
* \ V r \ *



o rl 03 N
*o **

9mo mw
*\ *

N=Z~ N 0 0 8



o x~


\om Z J

m m 0 N
*i *\ *

& 4 S 3

0 *
*r *r H 4


0 H O
cc il >

pc U\ C

*\ *

Cn cr




4 *
* Ea H4


Four general observations about these intercorrelation

tables are ;resented. These are as follows:

1. Arithmnetic w~as mnost often the subtest which correlated

least w~ith the Verbal Scale ICI. It also correlated more with som~e

of the Perf~ormnance subtests than writh some Verba~l subtosts; and it

did so more consistently than any other Verbal subtest.

2. Vocabulary wras most often the Verbal subtest which

correlated most wri-th the Verbal Scale IQ.

3. Coding was most often the Performance sulbtest which

correlated least w~ith the Perfozrmance Scale IQ.,

b.Object Assembly wras most often the Performance subtest

which correlated most writh the Performan-ce Scale Ict.

An inspection of the WISC manual indicated that these trends

may be found in the. data presented for Vlechsler's standardization

sample as well. There wras d~isa~reem~ent, however, between the inter-

scale correlations presented by WIechsler and those found in Tables

9, 10, 11, and 12. The W~echsler correlations between Verbal and

Performance Scale scores for three different ages (seven and one-

half, ten and one-half, thirteen and one-half) were of such a

mcagnitude that Seashore et al. (1L) co-mented as follows: "The

correlations .. are sufficiently high (.60; .68; .56 for the

three ages) to indicate considerable common variance, yet are low

enough to suggest that the abilities included in the Verbal and

Perf'ormrance Scales cannot be readily inferred from each other."


The four correlations between Verbal and Performance I~s, for total

rampple, Brain**damaged, Familial and Other, (.61; .50; .351 .lr2)

werer of a lower magnitude and indicate less ncolmmon variance."

Certainly they are low enough to indicate! that they are not mieasur-

ing the same abilities.

This discussion of the interoorrelations completes the analysis

of the data. In the summaI~rY which followsa, various conclusions,

based on the extensive data precsnted above, will be formulated.



The W7ISCs of 713 mentally defective children were analyzed

in order to determine whether specific hypotheses regarding thiis

test would be substantiated. The major hypothesis sug~gested tha~t,

among detectives, the contributions of the subtests in the VII~SC

may be unequal. This is contrary to the inherent assumption of

equality mnade by We~lchalers since he arbitrarily set all subtest

means at ten, and all subtest standard deviations at three.

Data presented in Chapter III did substantiate this hypothesis.

It was observed that certain subtests were significantly higher (or

lower) than others. Comprehension and Similarities, for excamnple,

were two verbal subtests which were consistently higher among the

verbal subtests. On the other hands Arithmfetic and Vocabulary were

consistently lower among the verbal subtests.

The Perfonrmnce Scale had its consistent inequalities also.

Picture Completion and Object Assembly were consistently higher

among the Performance subtests, and Picture Arrangement and Goding

were consistently lower among the pezrformance subtests.

The subtest contributions were obviously unequal, and differ-

ences among the means were of such a sa~gnituPde as to be significant

beyond the conventionally accepted levels of confidence. These



inequa~lities w~ere found among the standard deviations as well, since

there were definite indications of variability among these measures.

The second hygpothesis stated that sex differences may be

found amonHg subtest results. An analysis of variance confirmed this

by indica~ting that males scored significantly higher than females
on eight of the ten subtests. Femwale out-performed males on one

s~ubtest, and on one other, the two sexes performed about equally.

These differences werer of a magnitude which could not be influenced

greatly by age differences between males and femrales.

The third hiypothesis stated tha~t variability of subtest

scores mrary be related to mag~nides of total IQ. This wPas not con-

firmedI by the results. As analysis of the subtests' abandard de-

viations, by IQ level, was done with a Median Test. The results

indicated that, wfhile there waes a slight indication that subtest

variability did increase as the IQ increased, this trend could .:ot be

considered a significant one.

The last b~ypetheis was concerned writh sub~scale differences

and suggested that differential results between Verbal and Performa~snce

I~s mary be obtained. This expectatioanwas confirmed. Results for

the tota8il sample, the Familial group, and the Other groucp, indicated

thast the ~Performance IQ was signlificantly higher in each ease Th

results from the Bra~in-damaged garoupg indicated that there Iwas no

appreciable difference between this group's ~twon subscale scores.

The data obtained wrhen the cases wre~ categorizod by IQ


level, indicated that the Performance IQ increased more rapidly,

and to a higher level, than did the Verbal IQ. As one ascended in

IQ level, in these data, the Performance IQZ constituted an increas-

ingly larger factor in the increase of total IQ. The Verbal IQ

tended to fall behind the Performance IQZ to a more marked degree as

all three rose.

The next part of this chapter will be a summary of the

results as they pertain to the ten individual subtes~ts.

Information.--This subtest was one which ranked about half-

way between the most difficult and the easiest of the five Verbal

Scale subtests. Males scored significantly higher on it than did

females. The Other g~roup~ scored significantly higher on this

subtest than did the Brain-damaged and the Famnilial groups. It

correlated higher with Arithmetic than with any other Verbal Scale

subtest. Its highest correlation among the Performance Scale s~ub

tests was with Picture Arrangement.

Com~prehlension.--This subtest had the second highest mean
score among the Verbal Scale subtests. It held second place con-

sistently throughout all the diagnostic, sex, and IQ level categories.

Males performed significantly higher than females on this subtest.

The cases in the Other diagnotits category scored significantly

higher on it than did the Brain-damaged and Familial groups. It
correlated higher with Vocabular than with any other Verbal Seale

subtest. Its highest correlation among the Perform~ance Scale sub-

tests warJs wlith Picture Arrangemnent.

Arithmetic.--This sub~test had, along with Vocabuhry, one of

the twBo lowest moean scores of the Verbal Scale subotests. It held

this position lowestt or next-to-th~e-lowvest) consistenItly. tales

scored significantly higher than females on this subtost. The Other

group scored significantly higher on this subtest then did the Er~ain-

damaged and Familial groups. Ar-ithmletic correlated higher with

Information than with any other Verbal Scale subtest. Its highest

correlation among the Performnance Scale subtetsts was writh Picture


Similarities.--This subtect had the highest mean s core of

anyr Verbal Scale subtest. It apparentlyr was. the easiest in tho

scale, and it remarined so throughout all comparisons made. Simi-

larities also wPas the only subtect in the jilSC on which the performances

of the males and females were about equal. The Other group scored

significantly higher than did the Erain-damaged and familial ,roup~s.

Similarities correlated hligrher writh Informa1tion (wFith T;ocabuilary a

close second) than with any other Verbal Scale subtest. Its highest

correlation among the Performnance Scale subtests was with Picture


Vocabulary.--This subtext was one of twPo which had lower

rme~ans than anly of the other Verbal Scale subtosts. This; low position

was maintained quite consistently. Male~s again scored significantly

higher th~an females. The Other group scored higher on it than did

the Brain-damaged and Famlilial ?;roupos. It correlated higher w5ith

Comprehension than with any other Verbal Scale subtest. Its highest

correlation among the Perf'ormnance Scale subtests wras wsith Picture

Arrangiement. This subtest also correlated lower with the P~erformance

Scale I than any other Verbal Scale subtest.

Picture Comletion.--This sublftest was consistently one of the

two which had the highest mean score of the Performance Scale sub-

tests. :'ale~s scored significantly hi;her than females on this sub-

test. Famzilials scored significantly higher on it thanl did the Erain-

d~amaed group. It correlated higher w~ith Object Assembly and Block

Design~ than writh any other Performance Scale sub~test. Its highest

correlation among the Verbal Scale subtests wa~s with Arithmsetic.

Picture Arrangement.--This subtest had one of the lowezst

means of the Performatnce Scale subtects. It mazintained this position

quite consistently. ';3cs scored significantly higher than females

on Picture Arrangement. Famirlials scored higher than the Erzin-

damlaged group, and the Other group scored highest of the three. It

correlated higher writh Object Assemblyr and Block Design than wvith

any other Performance Scale subtest. Its highest correlation among

the Verbal Scale subtests wams writh Arithmnetic. Picture Arrangement

also was uniq~ue in that it correlated higher with the Verbal Scale

It and the Full Scale IQ than did any other Performance Scale sub-


Block Design.--Th mean of this subbest was in the same

position among the Performiance Scale subtests as Information wlas

among the Verbal1 Seale subtests; it was5 fairly consistently in the

middle. Males scored significantly higher than fematrles on this

asubtrest. The Fam8lial group scored significantly higher than did

the Brain-damaged group. It correlated higher writh Object Assembly

than with any other Performance Scale subtest. Its highest corre-

lation among the Verbal Seale subtests wras writh Arithmetic.

Object Asslembly. --his subtest, and Picture Comnpletion, had

higher mearns than any of the others in the Performance Scale. This

position was maaintained consistently. Fa~les scored higher than

females.o Thet Fami~lial group? scored significantly higher than did

the Brain-damaged group. It correlated higher with Block Design than

with any other Performance Scale subtest. It also correlated higher

with the Plerformanceo Scale IQ than any other Performance Scale rsub-

Seat. Its intero:orre~lationsB with the five Verbal Scale subtests

were lowrr than those of any other Performance Scale subtet.

Coding.--This was~ the oneg subtext which consistently had the

lowest mEahn score of any1~ Per~forma3ne~ subbeat. It apparently was

quite difficult for met of the subjects to whoma it was adrministered.

It wasr also the enly subtest in the WI~SC on wh~ich females scored

significantly higher than maclesr. The Familial rgrou scored signifi-

cantly higher than did the Brain-damaged group. Its correlations

withal other Performance Scale suabtests were rather low, ard it ha1d the

lowest correlation with the Performance Scale and Full Scale IG~s of

any of the Performance Scale subtests. It correlated higher writh

Arithmetic than with any other Verbal Scale subtest.

W~hen the scales themselves are considered, it may be stated

that the Performance Scale I61s were generally higher than the Verbal

Scale IQs. However, among the Brain-damaged, the I~s ~wer approxi-

mately equal. Males had higher Verbal and Performance Scale I~s

than the females. The Performance Scale IQZ correlated highest writh

the Full Scale IQ.

In light at the data :presented above, it appears that

certain subtests have a rather anomalous position wirthin their

respective scales. Arithme~atic and Picture Arrangement have both

been responded to by the present sample of detectives in a rather

atypical fashion. Their low mean scores, lowr intercerrelatio~ns with

other subtests in their respective scales, and relatively higher,

correlations wIith rsubtests in the opposite scales, are some of the

more obvious discrepancies.

The dubious status of the Coding subtest in the IWISC should

also be mentioned. As the results indicated, when mental defectives

are tested wilth it, Cod~ing does a rather poor job of ea~dsuring what-

ever the WBISC is purpoJrted to measure. It had the lost eaasn score

of any subtest in its scale. It correlated quite poorly w~ith other

Performance Scale subtests. Its correlations with the Performance

Scale, and Full Scale, I~s were lower than the equivalent correlations


of all other subtests with their regp+ctive subse~ale IQa, and with

the Full Scale IQ. A possibility worth considering, in regard to

this subtest, is that Cod~ing a, given only to those eight years old

or younger, may be more appropriate fogr testing mental detectives

thamn the mo daifficrult Ceding B. Future research mnay help to answer

this question.

It was stated in Chapter I, that although it was not a major

consideration of the present research, some comment would be ma~de

regarding diagnostic patterns and scattergrans. No attempt was ma~de

toi indicate, by deviations from the mean, rank-order procedures,

etc. which pattern of subtests besrt exemplifies thementalyydefetive

child. However, merely by utilising the data presented in this

paper, som type of identifying pattern will be presented for


Gene~rallY speaking, a typicala" ct~~@ ive-o child, regardltss

of sex, IQ level, or diagnosis, mray~ be expected to score relartively

higher on the Comprehension, S~Iimirities, Pieture Comple~tion, pand

Object Assembly subtests. This child may also be expected to score

relatively lower on the Arithmaetic, Vocabulary, PiictJure Aruranemnt,

ande Coding subtests. Other studies (7, 12, 17) have presente- d

different patterns. In fact, onel such rtstud (7), which anailysed the

results of fifty-three defective chilYre, listecd Coding as one o~f

the easier tests, and Similarities as the most diafficult.

A famlial maenta-l derfec~itive may, according to ther results,


be differentiated from a brain-damaged defective on the basis of

higher scores on all five Performance Scale subtests. This also

means that the familial will probably have a higher Performance

Scale IQ than his Verbal Scale IQ. The brain-dama ged are not

expected to show this difference.

The Other group scored significantly higher than the Brain-

damaged and Familial groups on the five Verbal Scale subtests. Only

one significant difference wras noted, favoring the Other group, among

the YPerformanc~e subtests. However, since the Other category in-

cluded cases of mixed and doubtful diagnoses, one cannot say with

certainty what type of cases wrere involved--except that they wrere


This information regarding diagnostic patterns is presented

merely as an obvious extension of the obtained results. No degree

of validity irs placed upon it beyond that which was inferred w~hen

the data were presented, above.

The WJISC will continue to be used by professional psy-

chologists, and others, to evaluate the intelligence of mentally

defective children. Some have indicated (see Chapter I) that they

have found the WI~SC to be unsuitable for their purposes. Others have

indicated that, in its present formn, this test does not adequately

assess the intellectual capacities of mental detectives. It is

hopoed that this study will shed some light on this problem and will

clarify those aspects of the test which may need revision. If

revision is not feasible, certainly the realization that test results

from detectives are not to be considered i-n the Eame fashido n a these

from n reazls, wrill enable w~orkecrs to access, evaluatei,. and predict

the intellectual aspects of mental deficiency in a more adoq~uate and

valid manner.

Thris author cannot, at this point, determine why the various

inequalities anld differences were manifested. It would. be strictly

speculation to state: that certain subtests mzay have been difficult

for detectives because of the differential effect of education; or

that another subtest was relatively easy because of the specific

scoring procedures for it; or that the contents of certain tests

seemed to be beyond the scope of comprehension for the g1rourp uder

discussion. These statements can only be presented: as possibilities

for future research in this field.



R. C. Philips, Superintendent
Gainenrille, Florida


In order to accomplipsh a certain piece of important research,
it is necerssary that web have for study, the results of the 1Wchaler
Inte~lligence Scale for Children. 3Letters, simflar to this, have
been sent to a large numnber of institutions which deal with mentally
defective children, requesting either one of the followings

a) A number of fully Padministered WISCrs which they
would be able to send to us, or because this may
not be possible in mrany cases;

b) The statistical informationI fromn the WISC blanks which
can be recorded on the! enclosed shetet and mailed
back without the need of sending the original blanks.

In either ears, the information which re, request its as follows:
1) All scaled sub-test scores; 2) Ve~rbal, Performance, and Full Scale
total seald scores and equivarlent IQs; 3) Sex of child; 6) Chrono-
loical ag ttm f test; 6)Clirn5 ) Number of years in institution at
timeof est 6) lincalandor mesdical diagnosis.

We~ realise tht yoeur Psych~olo~gy section is probably occupied
with $their own assigamlents but hope that they will be able to find
time~ tod cooperate with us in this matter. The test blanks, if sent,
will be bacek in the had~es of the1 sending institution within five
days fro the day we recive them,) and upon subsequent publication
of the comrpleted research, a copy will be sent to each contributing
ins titution .


Acting Director
Psychology Depar~tment
/s/ R. G. Philip



Please use one or more of the following for your diagnosis:

EA for Familial
BI for Brain-Injured
CP for Cerebral Palsy
Cong. for Congenital
Epi. for EpilepsyI
HC for Hlydrocephatly
NC: for Mi~crocephaly
Mlong. for Mongoloid
PE for Post-heephalitic
PPO for Phenyl Pyrrvic Oligophrenia
PMa for Post M~eningitic
PT for Post Traumatic
MER for IhAntal Retardation
Sp. for Spastic
Oth. for other types not listed above.

EXAM~PLES 1) MR HC, Cong. = BAntal Retardation secondary to
IRyrdocephaly, congenital.

2) MiR Efong. = M~ental Retardation secondary to

3) MdR, FA = M~dental Retardation, Familial


1. Albana, Be~njam~in. "Nonrms for Scatter Analysis on the Wechaler
Intelligernce Sealeas" Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1951,
Volume~ 7, pp. 289-290.

2. Al~tuss Grace T. "WISC Patterns of a Selective Sample of
Bilingual School Children," Journal of Genetic Psychology,
1953, volum 83, pp. 21r1-268.

3. Ame~rican Association on Mental Deficiency. Direc tory. C ompiled
by Neil A. Dayton, M. D. Willimantic, Conn.s Americann
Association on Antal. Deficiency, 1958, p. 186.

L. American Association onl Antal Deficiency. Directogry Appendix A.
ILstings of State and Private Training Schools and Homes for
the etarded. Willimtantic, Conn.s American Association on
Mental Deficiency, 1958, p. 136.

5. Arrerican Psychologi;cal Association. Directory. Was~hi;ngton,
D. C.s Ameirican~ Psychological Association, 1957, pp. xxyr +701.

6. Atchison, Calvin 0. "Use of the WVISC with Eighty Mnutally
Defective N~egro Childrens" Amaerican Journal of Aental
Deficiency, 1955, Volume 6o, pp7-7-. 318-3/9

7. Baroff', George S. "W~ISC Patterning in Endogenous ]Ikntal
Deficiency," American Journal of Mental Deficieny
1959, Volume~k 61(, pp. 8265

8.Bek, Harry S., and. Lamr, Robert L. "Use of the WCISC in Pre-
dicting Organicity,R Journal of Clinical Psycholo y, 1955,
Volume 11s PP* 156r-1.

9. Braross Oscar. Krisern (ed.). Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook.
Highland Park, New~ Jerseys~y The Gryphon Press, 19599 PP*
xxvii + 1292.

10. Guthrie, G. M. and Pastovic, J. J. "Some~ Evidencesi of the
Vfalidity of the WISC," Journal of Consultine Psychology,
19$1, Volumea 15, PP. 385-386.

11. Newman, J. Robert, and Lroos, Frank M.1 "Differnces between
Verbal and Performance IQ'a with2 Mentally Defective Children
as the WIISC," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1955, volume

12. Sandercock, Lhrion G., and Eutler, Alfred J. "An~ Analysis of
the Performance of Melntal Defectives on the ;,ISC," American
Journal of Mo~t~al Deficiency, 1952, Volumeo 57, pp. 100-1,05.

13. Seashore, Harold G. "tDifferences between Verb3al and Perf~ormnance
IQ's on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children,"
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1951, Volum~e 19, pp. 62-67.

1.Seashore, H~arold G. et al. "The Standardiization of the WVechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children," Journal of Consulting
Psycholog~y, 1950, Volumne 16, pp. 99-110.

15. Sloon, Willian, and Schneider, Bernard. "Ah Study of the :lochsler
Intelligence Scale for Children with Me~ntal Defectives,"
Amlerican Journal of 2.ntal Deficiency, 1951, Volume 55,
PP* 573-575.

16* StaIc6, Chalmers L., and Levin, Janice. "Correlation Analysis
of Scores of Subnormal Sub>jects on the W:-B and WE~ISC,"
American Journal of Mlental DeficiencyI, 19591 Volume 955

17. Vanderhorst, L~eanette, Sloan, W~illiam, and Bensberg, Gerald J.,
Jr. "Per~forma2nce of Zfontal Defe~ctives on the WEtechsler-
Bellevue and the WTISC," American Journal of Me~ntal Deficiency
1943, Volum~e 57, pp. 681-883.

18. Volle, F. O3. 'A Proposal for 'Testing the Limits' writh lental
Defectives for Purposes of Subtest Analysis of the WIISC
Scale,'' Journ3l of Clinical Psy~chology, 1957, volume 13,
pp. 61r-67.

19. Wdechsler, David. Wfechsler Intelligence Scale for Children,
Pa.~nual. H~em York:i The sychological Corp~oration, 1969,
pp. v+ 116.

20* The IAbasurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence.
Baltmor: Te hllias ad klkis Cmpan, 1$8,pp x +297.


Arsthur Eugene Alper wars born in Brooklyn, Newo York, January

5, 1928* He attended Public School 153, Arthur J. Gunning~ha

Junior High School, and Abraha ILincoln H~igh School in this city.

He graduated from~ the latter institution in 1965.

ppon graduation from high school the author enrolled at the
Chiversity of" Florida whre he receiverad his Bachelor of Arts degree

in 1969 and his Master of Arts degree in 1950.

After serving twro years in the Uni~ted States Air Force,

as both an enlisted man and officer, Mri. Alper returned to the

University of Florida to continue wrork toward the Ph. D. degree.

He receives this de&gre on Januallry 30, 1960.

WiVle at the hiversity, Mr. Alper was a member and president

of Nu Rhe Pai Psychology Club. He is presently a member of the

Americanl Pycholo~gical Association, the Am~erican Association oan

Mental Deficiency, and the Florida Psychological Association. He is

alse a charter memraber of Gammroa Theta~ Cha~pter of Tau Kappa Epsilon

fraternity and a membrrr~ of th~e Uhited States Air Force Reseorve.

Mr. Alper was employed as an Assistant Psychologist at Sunland

Training Center, Gainesville, Florida, and recently completed a one

year internship at the Veterans Hosspital in Augusmpta, Georgia. He is
presently Instructor and Staff Psychologist in the Department of

Psychiatry and Neurology at, thee Bhdical College of Georgia, Alugusta,
Georgia .

This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the

chairman of the candidates supervisory committee and has been

approved by all members of that committee. It was submitted to

the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate

Council, and was approved as partial fulfillr;ent of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

January 30, 1960

Dean, College of Arts ard Sciences

Dean, Graduate School


University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs