A 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