Table Of ContentA P^CllDLOGIGfiL STOTO OF BRIGHT AHD PULL miLDREH
WITH CXSIARABLS UEOTAL AGES
Ullard Daniel Unsicker
dissertation submitted In partial Itilfillment of the requirement
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the College
of Education in the Graduate College of the
State University of Iowa
August 1$?5>0
ProQuest Number: 10907208
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 10907208
Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
~ T V=b*bO
c o o 1
\
ACKIiaVLED^®IT
An egression of sincerest gratitude to
Dr* James B. Stroud for his careful and patient guidance
iii selecting and carapleting this study* Also, to
Dr. Albert N. Hieronymus, a note of sincere appreciation
for Ms help during the final stages of completing the
problem, and to the Dubuque School System for supplying
the cases used in the study and for the fine cooperation
received while administering the tests*
TABUS OF CONTENTS
Chapter page
I The Problem......... 1
Related Research.*....... »•»«.«••...... ..••••.«• 3
II Procedure • •.. *.... * 6
Selection of Initial Samples. • * *.......... 6
Administration of the Tests .... 7
The Test Battery............................... 8
Selection of Final Samples. »•...... 12
Characteristics of the Samples Matched on the
Basis of KuhlraanrwAnderson Mental Ages 13
Characteristics of the Samples Matched on the
Basis of California Mental Ages........ 20
Analysis of Results. .... ........... 25
III Results....... 26
Differences in Performance on the Kuhlmann-
Anderson T e s t s . 26
Differences in Performance on the California
Test of Mental Maturity. .... 29
Differences in Performance on the Iowa Tests
of Basic Skills.................. 37
Comparison of Bright and Jjuli Groups with Respect
to General Information. ........ U3
Differences in Socio-Economic Status.•«••••••••••••• $h
Differences in Interests.••••••.••••.....
IV Summary and Conclusions .... 72
Bibliography......... 19
Appendix. ................... 80
ill
lAl-LB OF FIGURES
Figure page
1 Means and Twenty-Fifth to Seventy-Fifth Percentile
Range for Bright and Bull Children on California
Teste (Sample Selected on Basis of Kuhlraann-
Anderson Tests)**•..... «..... *****.... 32
2 Means and Twenty-Fifth to Seventy-Fifth Percentile
Range for Bright and Bull Children on California
Teats (Sample Selected on Basis of California
Tests)..... ••*•*••*...... • 35
3 Means and Twenty—Fifth to Seventy-Fifth Percentile
Range for Bright and Bull Children on Iowa Tests
of Basic Skills (Sample Selected on Basis of
Kuhlmann^Anderson Tests)*••••«•....... 39
U Means and Twenty-Fifth to Seventy-Fifth Percentile
Range for Bright and Bull Children on Iowa Tests
of Basie Skills (Sample Selected on Basis of
California Tests)* ...... Ul
iv
TABLE OF TABLES
Number page
I Distribution of Kuhlmann-Andereon M*A*4s of Bright and
Dull Children by Sex and Grade (Sample Selected on
Basis of Kuhlmann-Anclerson Tests)•••*•,«*••.*.....***** 15
II Distribution of Kuhlmann-Anderson I*Q* *8 of Bright and
Dull Children by Sex and Grade (Sample Selected on
Basis of Kuhlmann~Anderson Tests)*** *•«*«•**••••....... 16
HI Distribution of C*A«ls of Bright and Dull Children by
Sex and Grade (Sample Selected on Basis of Kuhlmann-
Anderson Tests)**......................... 17
IV Comparison of Kuhlmenn~Anderson and California M*A* and
1*Q* Distributions (Sample Selected on Basis of
Kuhlmann-Anderson Tests)•• •*••••• #•****•••«............ IB
V Distribution of California S!*A* *s of Bright and Children
by Sex and Grade (Sample Selected on Basis of California
Tests)* •••••••* 21
VI Distribution of California X«Q*ts of Bright and Dull
Children by Sex and Grade (Sample Selected on Basis of
California Tests)*****....*.... *.... 22
VII Distribution of Bright and Dull Children on C*A*’s by
Sex and Grade (Sample Selected on Basis of California
Tests)* ••••••....* •••••• 23
VIII Comparison of Kuhlmann-Anderson and California M*A* and
I*Q* Distributions (Sample Selected on Basis of
California Tests)* •*••.... .......*...... *•••••* 2h
IX Mean Mental Ages of Bright and Dull Children on Each
Kuhlmann~Anderson Subtest***.*********............ 23
X Comparison of Means of Bright and Dull Children on
California Subtests (Sample Selected on Basis of
Kiihlmann-Andcrson Tests)• ......... 31
XI Comparison of Means of Bright and Dull Children on
California Subtests (Sample Selected on Basis of
California Tests)*, ... *......... 3h
v
TABIjB OF TABUES (continued)
Number page
XII Comparison of Means of Bright and Bull Children on Iowa
Basic Skills Subtests (Sample Selected on Basle of
Kuhlm&nn-Anderson Saiftple) •.....«••*.••.»•••••••.. 30
XIII Coiqparison of Means of Bright and Bull Children on Iowa
Basic Skills Subtests (Sample Selected on Basle of
California Tests)•.... 1*0
XIV Distribution of Scores for Bright and Dull Children on
General Information Test for Kuhlmann-Antierson and
California Samples. .•••.. U*
XV Item Analysis of General Information Test (Sample
Selected on Basis of California T e s t s ) . l\6
XVI Distribution of Scores for Bright and Bull Children on
Socio-Economic Eatings for Kuhlmann-A ndorson and
California Samples..e .... 55
XVII Comparison of Interests of Younger Bright Children and
Older Dull Children......... 57
XVIII Summary of R e s u l t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . 75
vi
X
Chapter X
THE PROBLEM
The investigation described herein deals with the
generality of the mental age concept* More specifically, it seeks
to determine whether or not there are systematic differences
between bright and dull children having comparable mental ages* In
educational practice w© have regarded a mental age of ten, for example,
earned by a seven-year-old child, on one hand* and a thirteen-year-old
child, on the other, as the same mental age* This may or may not be
a Justifiable practice# TShile seven-year-old children earning a mental
age of ten, to use the same example, and tMrteen-year-old children
earning a mental age of ten have the same average score, the trro sets
of mental ages may differ with respect to the components of wliich they
are comprised.
It is well known that mental age scores are averages of
perfomance scores of various kinds of scale-tests calling for various
kinds of intellectual operations, such as raemoiy, reasoning, verbal
and spatial ability, cowmen sense Judgments, and so on* There is no
a priori reason why bright and dull children achieving the same
average scores, the same mental ages, should not differ systematically
with respect to performance on measures of these various mental
processes. It would be of considerable importance, educationally, to
know whether or not this is true.
2
We should like to know if they perform equally well on
various kinds of educational achievement tests* Bo the bright and
dull achieve comparable average scores; do they perform equally well
on reading and arithmetic tests, for example? Can we predict that
one group "Will do better than tbs other in general, or that one will
surpass the other in achievement in certain subjects. It would also
be of the greatest 'Importance to Imam whether or not children widely
separated in chronological age but closely resembling each other in
mental age have the same interests. An attempt will be made to
relate the findings on the psychological and educational tests.
If it is found that the two groups resemble each other
closely, it siay be concluded that the investigation supports the
generality of the mental ago concept. Any significant differences
obtained in performance of the two groups may be taken as limitations
to the generality of the concept.
Within recent years various writers have made a plea for
greater use of diagnostic intelligence tests because of lack,
demonstrated or supposed, of generality of the mental age. This
inves tigation is not planned as a general test of the validity of
their argianent. It Is true, however, that any demonstrated
differences in performance on the psychological and educational tests
between the two groups would support their argieaent«
3
Belated Research
Host experimental studies on the concepts of mental age and
I.Q. have been conducted by comparing groups which have comparable
intelligence quotients but differ in mental ages* There is very little
evidence relating to qualitative differences among bright and dull
children of comparable mental age.
Greene’s review of early research (2), particularly that of
Burt (1) and Merrill (k)9 contains conclusions which bear directly
upon the problem. He indicated a tendency for the younger children
in a mental age group to ©reel in speed of performance, particularly
in situations involving observation and inference, whereas mentally
retarded subjects ©re characterised by slow rote performance. He
also claimed superiority for bright subjects in ability for verbal
discrimination, unusual interpretation and number relations. The dull
were selected with an advantage in rote memory.
Merrill’s study (X) deserves special mention. She selected
three brightness groups for successive mental age levels on the
Stanford-Binet test— a retarded group (including a number of I.Q.*s
below 50), a normal group (I.Q. range from 90 to 1X0), and a superior
group (I.Q. *s above 12*0)* These were compared on the Otanford-Binet
subtests and on selected reading, spelling, and arithmetic test©.
The following tabulation shows the Stanford-Binet subtests
which were easiest and most difficult for the extreme groups z
