The mental growth of children from the low socio-economic levels in relation to certain differentials of home influence

Citation preview

THE MENTAL GROWTH OF CHILDREN FROM THE,.LOW SOCIO-ECONOMIC LEVELS IH RELATION-■TO; C E H T M E .'EHi'FERSaTlALS OF HOME INFLUENCE . ..... m

.i a

^ &

w

Ramona Wallace

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for th© degree of Doctor of Philosophy in th© Department of Child Welfare, in the Graduate College of the State University of Iowa May, 1942

ProQuest Number: 10592889

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality o f this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon th e quality o f th e co p y subm itted. In th e unlikely e v e n t th a t th e author did not send a c o m p le te manuscript an d there are missing pages, these will b e noted. Also, if m aterial h ad to b e rem o ved, a no te will indicate the deletion.

uest. ProQuest 10592889 Published by ProQuest LLC (2017). Copyright o f th e Dissertation is held by th e Author. All rights reserved. This work is p rotected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Th© writer expresses her appreciation to Dr* Harold M. Skeels, the director of this stuciy, for his generous assistance and advice# Grateful acknowledgment is made also of th© inter­ est of Miss Laura L* Taft, Director* and Dr* Emma McCloy Layman, Supervisor of the Section of Psycho­ logical Services, of the Division of Child Welfare Services in th© State Department of Social Welfare, in making available for research purposes the case records used In this study*

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I

II

III

IV

Page

Purpose and Background of S t u d y * Statement" of Problem • * • • • • • • Background of Problem * • * • • • • * Age and Ordinal Position of Siblings as Related to XQ« * » * ♦ # » » • * Environmental Change as It Affects IQ •

* •

*

1 1 3

* •

3 • 13

Source and Collection of Data * # * . . * * 1 Child Welfare Service Program . . . . . . Criteria for th© Selection of Subjects * . « Procedure • * • • * • • • • • * • • 2 Hating of Homes as to Intelligence Level. • * Family Background * * * • * • • * • Description of Homes Economic Status . . . . . . . . Occupations of Parents * * • * * • National Background * * . * • • * Age of Parents* • • • • • • • • Educational Status of Parents* •* Intelligence Test Data on Parents • Status of Homes • • • • • • • • Size of Slbshlp . . . • * * * • Subjects Not in Own Homes When Examined

*

*

8 18 21 1 22

2

8 28 . . 28 • * 2 9 • * 3 1 • • 3 1 • * * 32 • * * 33 • • 3 4 • • 3 6 * • * 38

Results of Initial Examination * • • * * . * 40 Description of Subjects • • • • • • • • 4 0 Intelligence Test Results . . . . . . . 42 Mean IQ and Age • • • • • « • • • • 45 Sibling Differences In IQ * * •• • * * 48 Description of Subjects in Terms ofHome Categories • • • * * . • • * • • • 5 0 Mean IQ by Age for Children from High and Low Level H o m e s ................ ♦ • * • * 5 1 Effect of Home Level on Differences Between Sibling Pairs. ................... . 5 4 Summary • • • • * • * * • • * • 5 4

— ill •*

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter V

VI

Pag©

T@st**R©test Comparisons • • * • • * . * • 5 6 Location of Subjects When Re-examined • • * • 59 Institutionalized Croup * * . * * • • * GO Foster Home Group • • • • • • • • • • 6 2 Own Home Group * . • * . . . * . * # 6 8 Relation of Placement and Home Level to IQ Change • • * « * ** • * 7 0 Summary • • * • • • • • • • • • • 8 1 Findings from Repeated Examination * • * * * 82 Sibships Showing Large Amounts of IQ Change • • 84 Summary*

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

*

•

Bibliography »

*

•

Appendix A.

•

•

•

•

•

«

•

«

Appendix B#

•

«

*

•

•

•

•

*

Appendix C#

•

•

•

«

•

«

-

iv

-

•

•

• •

• •

• •

. •

• •

8 •

8 91

• • * • • • 9 6 • •

• •

• •

• •

•

•

102

*

•

107

TABLE OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 2

Decline in I*Q* With Age,, Skeels and Fillmore Study and Present Study • • • • • • • •

46

Decline in I.Q* With Age (2 Tear Intervals) For Homes of Different Level • • • • •

53

v -

•

TABLE OF TABLES

fables

Page

1

Chronological Age at First Test* • « • • * * *

2

IQ Distribution for 1916 Revision and Form L

and Form M of stanf ord«*BInet •*

41

• *• ♦ * • * « •

43

IQ at First Test (Form L, Form Binet * * * # • « * • •

M, 1916 Stanford* «« » • *

44

4

Mean

IQ by GA at First Test *

* * * ** * * *

47

5

Mean

IQ by Age for Homes of Different

6

Initial Age and IQ of Children in Own Homes and Foster Homes for Baoh Home Level* * * * * * *

71

Initial CA and Final XQ of Children Above 70 IQ In Own Homes and Foster Homes for Bach Level of Home • • « * • • * « « « » * • * • • • • •

74

Initial and Final Mean IQ and IQ Change for All Groups* • • « * • « • * * * * • • • • • • • •

76

Initial and Final Mean XQ for Slbships Showing Large Amounts of Change • » * • • * # • • • •

86

3

7

© 9

~ vl «•

Levels*

52

Chapter I PURPOSE A m

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

Statement of Problem This study Is an Inquiry Into the Influence upon measured Intelligence, over a period of time, of certain characteristics of the home environment of the child#

Repeated investigations have established the

fact that school-age children from the low socio-economic levels have a lower mean IQ than children from the higher levels#

Moreover, some evidence has been presented to

indicate that the mean IQ of children from homes of low socio-economic status tends to decrease with ago*

Th©

significance of these findings from the standpoint of education and sociology, Justifies a more detailed study of the whole problem in order to reveal, if possible, something of th© conditions which may be related to this difference In intelligence. A fundamental assumption of this study can be stated as follows.

The low socio-economic levels of our

society may include not only individuals who have been prevented by actual mental deficiency from competing successfully in the economic world, but those who have remained at or regressed to these levels because of

general personal Inadequacy, physical handicaps, lack of specialised training, and th© like.

Presumably

children from these two different types of parental background— that is, the definitely inferior and the more nearly average from the standpoint of Intelligence— will show different mental growth trends, a fact which may be obscured in the all-inclusive study on the basis of socio-economic level alone.

Furthermore,

th© ques­

tion follows whether children who have been removed from these two types of home background situation may there­ after show changes in mental growth pattern* The three major questions raised are: 1* Are previous findings of a decline in measured Intelligence with continued residence in a culturally poor environment confirmed by data from th© population of this study? 2* What differences In rat© of mental growth exist at th© low socio-economic levels between children whose parents are Inferior according to qualitative criteria of Intel­ lectual status and children whose parents are more nearly average? 3. Does a change in environment, brought about by removal from their own homes and place­ ment In boarding homes, result in any change in the rat© of mental growth of such children? This study draws upon social and psychological records of families for th© investigation of fches© problems.

** 3 **

Th© data used were taken from th.© files of th© Section

0f Psychological Services in the Division of Child Wel­ fare Services of the State Department of Social Welfare. On© hundred forty-five sibshipe composed of 436 children ar© involved.

The principal approaches to the problem

which are utilised are (a) the analysis of the data on intelligence and IQ change by age for the whole group and for certain subgroups, and (b) the rating of the families as to Intelligence level and the analysis of retest data on this basis for children in their own homes and for children removed from their homes to foster homes* Background of Problem Th© characteristics of the mental development of children who have experienced relatively constant en­ vironments throughout their lives have been described In the succession of researches in this area published during th© past twenty-five years*

For purposes of the present

study, It will be sufficient to state the generalizations these researches have yielded which have bearing here. (Reviewed in 38, 33, 30) 1. Within a relatively small time Interval Class than on© year), test and retest scores from individual tests of intelligence on uns©lect©&

« 4-

populations give correlations of about ->*.90, a predictive efficiency of about 55 per cent better than chance. Within such an interval, th© mean teat-retest change in IQ Is about 5 points, with a rang® of change of at least 20 points. 2. Th© scores of siblings on Individual or group standardized tests of intelligence give correlations ranging from *>*.27 to 4**72, with an average of about +*50. 3* Th© Intelligence of children, as deter­ mined by scores on standardized tests, and of their parents, as estimated by tost scores, education, and various measures of socio-economic status, is positively related, the r fs ranging from +.31 to +.80 (average of about +740), depending upon the criterion of parental intelligence used. The degree of relationship does not alter markedly with age from about three years through eighteen years« 4. Intellectual proficiency, a© determined by ©core on standard intelligence tests, grades off with social level* In general, children of th© lowest social group (unskilled common laborers) average about 20 points lower than do the children of professionals* Correlations between Intelligence of children and various measures of parental socio­ economic level range from +.21 to +.53. Within the wide limits set by these generaliza­ tions, two areas ar© of importance for this study: 1. Age of siblings a© related to IQ 2* Environmental change as related to IQ.

Age and Ordinal Position of Siblings As Related to XQ An early Important study in this area is one by Arthur (1)# who gave Khhlmann-BInet tests to all kinder­ garten children In one school system composed largely of Immigrant families•

She reports differences in mean IQ

favoring the younger member of sibling pairs in six of eight groups of subjects*

The two groups of subjects

who showed no difference in mean XQ were children In American families who were not more than two years apart in age when tested.

Arthur comments that "Certain immi­

grant families fail to show any tendency to vary in X.Q* according to position in family:

(1) those whose habits

6f living have become stabilized at the American levdlj (2) those still stabilized at the earlier (original) level*" That the effect of a bilingual handicap is among the traits being measured In these cases is apparent, especially as no difference is observed between sibs with American sur­ names who were examined when close together in age* Willis (47) examined 219 pairs of sibs, the first and second in the family, with the Stanford-BInet test and found a median difference of 4*5 points in favor of the second child.

Commlns (7) reported findings on

142 pairs of sibs examined with the McCall Multi-Mental ‘ H Scale, The mean IQ declined from 115 at nine years to 97*5 at fourteen years*

In the majority of pairings

the younger sib had a higher XQ than the elder*

The

marked difference in mean IQ for age groups separated by only five years raises a question as to th© validity of the measuring instrument.

McFadden (32) examined

74 sibling pairs with the National Intelligence Test and. 126 sibling pairs with the Stanford-Bin©t#

H© ob­

served no differences between siblings In th© former group but a consistent tendency for younger slfos in the latter group to have higher IQ

than the elder*

These results are difficult to evaluate oeeaus© of the fact that the population included clinical cases, special class pupils, and Institutional cases, Two studies made under the direction of Thurston© have drawn upon larger populations than the preceding and have exercised better statistical control of the data* Thurston© and Jenkins (43) examined the Intelligence test findings of siblings among the ten thousand cases which had been referred to th© Illinois Institute to? Juvenile Research*

The Stanford-Blnet or some other revision of

th© Binet was th© t©st used In all cases; the mean IQ

for the sibling population was about 80*

IQ differences

favoring the yoiuiger member of sibling pairs over th© elder ranged from 2*92 points for second born to 18*26 for last-born (I.e., 8th or later).

The only reversal

of this trend occurred for the fifth and sixth birth orders*

The authors state that, MTh© present Investi­

gation seems to justify th© conclusion that the mean intelligence quotient Increases with birth order, and that this effect Is not limited to a handicapping of the first-born*

The effect seems to be progressive at

least as far as the ©ighfch*born child.

The later-born

children seem to b© brighter on the average than their earlier born siblings, and the variability of test in­ telligence seems to Increase with order of birth.w

(p. 23)

Steckel (42) reports findings from group tests of intelligence on 6,970 siblings (2,712 families) in a public school population.

Her data, utilized In the form

of standard scoxies for as oh test, reveal an increase in mean intelligence with birth order up to the eighth-born# The comparison of sibling pairs for all ordinal positions gave a higher mean for th© younger, regardless of the positions compared, and there were no reversals of this tendency throughout her data.

Jones, after reviewing the research on birth order as related to Intelligence which was published prior to 1933 (24), concluded that the obtained differ­ ences favoring the later-born are due to defects In the construction or standardization of the measuring scales. When age and family size are controlled, as was done by Jones and KLlnser (24 » p. 573), or when the XQ*s of the earlier-born are adjusted for th© age differences, as was don© by Hsaio (16), the mean I Q fs for the various birth orders are not reliably different. A study by Richardson ( 35), published since Jones*s review,

sustains his conclusions.

Richardson

found a difference of ^1*0 point in mean IQ for 101 pairs of sibs who differed by nob more than one year In age when tested (mean age of both older and younger sibs, II years, 7 months), as compared with a statis­ tically significant difference of 7.8 points In favor of the younger sibs of 101 pairs who were tested when more than two years apart in age (mean ages, 12 years, 0 months, and 8 years, 5 months).

Correlations of *49

between I Q fs of older and younger sibs In each group were obtained; th© same value resulted when th© correlation

—■ 9 **

was made in terms of the older at test versus the younger#

She concludes that the "difference in mean

intelligence quotient between older and younger sib­ lings is related not to their birth position but to th© nature of th© test at the higher levels*11 reports, further,

Richardson

that in a supplementary study of 92

pairs of fraternal tolas tested within a year of each other,

the relatively high correlations obtained for

the twin group as a whole became smaller, and closer to th© *49 characteristic of singletons, when subjects over 13 years of age were compared with those under 13, and when unlike-sexed twins were compared with likesexed twins*

That is, length of time in the environV

ment, represented by age, and type of environment, represented by sex, noticeably affected th© coefficient of resemblance of fraternal twins* Hirsch {14) gives comparative data on eldest and youngest siblings, examined to group tests which were varied from grade to grade*

In forty-four families

of three or more children, an average difference of 3.2 XQ points In favor of the youngest was found.

In twenty-

four families of four or more children, the IQ average

of th© two youngest was 3*3 points higher than th© average of th© two eldest#

In ten families of five

or more children, the difference of 0*3 IQ points favored the two eldest rather tnan the two youngest* These families were drawn from a single school popu­ lation in an Isolated Kentucky mountain community# Outhlt (34) reports a decrease from first to fourth child

In the same family in correlation

between child’s XQ and father’s and mother 1s XQ®, and between child and

mid-parent IQs*

Her data

were obtained from thirty-six families in which all of the first four children were tested*

All socio­

economic levels ar© represented# In these Investigations the socio-economic background of the subjects is not considered, though probably only one (Stack©!) has drawn upon a repre­ sentative sample in a representative American commu­ nity#

The first study clearly to define the socio­

economic level represented is that by Skeels and Fillmore (40) on siblings In an orphanage population. The father® of none of these children wore classified above the third category (skilled occupations) in the

U* S* Census classification, and 67 per cent fell at th© sixth and seventh categories (unskilled and slightly skilled)*

These authors report differences In IQ between

elder and younger members of sibling pairs, examined upon admission to th© Institution, which favor th© latter. The differences, ranging from 2*67 IQ points for sibs separated In age by one year to 14.75 points for an age difference of nine years, are reliable for age differ­ ences of three and four years and approach significance for all others except one year* Data on another orphanage population are reported by Lock© and Goldstein (29), who found a consistent superi­ ority of younger over older sibs*

However, the ages of

their subjects and length of Institution residence when examined are not stated* Although these studies show remarkable consis­ tency In reporting a higher level of Intelligence for younger than older members of sibshlps, they do not add clear-cut evidence to the hypotheses advanced to explain this finding*

Inadequate construction and standardisa­

tion of th© measuring Instruments is not a satisfactory explanation, In view of the fact that the difference is

observed at all age levels*

The difference cannot be

related to position in the family as such, since when age is held constant, as was don© by Richardson, does not appear*

It

It Is true that Arthur found a differ­

ence with a group In which age was controlled to a degree (Cor most of her comparisons,

tests were made at the end

of one year in kindergarten), but environmental influences can clearly be postulated for her subjects in that most of them came from homes in which a cultural transition was in progress*

In most of the other investigations,

except th© Skeels and Fillmore study, environmental ef­ fects cannot be defined* Two investigations have contrasted upper and lower economic levels,

Honsik (15) reports data for two

groups of children, classified according to father’s occu­ pation and examined on the St&nford-Binet at yearly Inter­ vals from six to eight years of age.

She found a consis­

tent tendency for th© means of the three higher occupa­ tional levels to Increase with age and for th© three lower levels to decrease, so that th© difference of 12 points revealed between th© averages of the three upper and the three lower levels at six years became 17 points

at seven years and 21 points at eight years.

Children

at the three lower levels lost relatively more than those at the three upper levels gained In IQ at these ages. Shuttleworth (39) selected from th© 398 cases of boys In th© Harvard Growth Study for whom data con­ cerning father’s occupation were available,

the 53 from the

two highest occupational

levels andthe 131 from the two

lowest levels.

IQ of cases from the upper levels

Th© mean

was from 10 to 14 points

higher than

the mean for the 1 c m er

levels at each half year

of age from

eight to eighteen

years.

The sis© of the difference decreased from eight

to thirteen years and thereafter* tended to increase, though the small numbers of cases at Hie extremes of the age rang© make

it unlikely that the differences are reliable*

Environmental Change as It Affects IQ The extent to which change in environment may affect intelligence has been given theoretical considera­ tion, and a number of researches reporting re-examination findings following such change have been published.

For

the most part, except forth© nursery school studies, these deal with th© change from the home to the Institutional environment.

Jones and Carr-Saunders ( 25) found that, in an orphanage population, children from the three lower occupational levels tended to Increase in Intelligence with longer residence in th© institution, whereas chil­ dren from the two upper classes showed a reversed trend. Lithauer and Kllneberg (28) report a reliable increase in IQ for 120 children first examined on the Stanford-Binet upon admission to an orphanage and re­ examined, after an Interval of from 3 to 57 months, in the orphanage or in foster homes —

environments con­

sidered to be superior to the homes from which they had come* On examining th© test scores of fii ty children in an institution for high-grade defectives, Keph&rt (25) found a reversal of the downward trend in IQ, observed prior to admission, after children had been in the institu­ tion for an average period of residence of four years.

This

change was noted in children whose ages ranged from four to sixteen years* Reymert and Hinton (35 ) examined the intelligence test records of 100 children selected at random from the population of Moos©heart, an institution for normal chil­ dren which affords an environment that is considered to be,

* 15

on th© whole, superior to that from which the children came*

Ho significant differences were found between

groups classified according to occupation of father, to education of mother, or to intelligence or type of schooling of subjects#

It wa: found that children

under six years of age at admission, both individually and as a group, showed significant gains throughout the four-year period considered, but that the older ag© groups showed no change* Four studies have dealt with the effects of foster home placement as measured by retest after an interval in the home*

Th© first of these is a part

of the pioneer study by Freeman, Holzinger, and their colleagues (12).

Among th© subjects of this study were

74 children who were first examined prior to foster horn© placement (at & mean age of 8 years) and subsequently re-examined after an average residence of four years in the foster home. observed*

A gain of 2*5 points in mean IQ was

Both age on r©-examination and level of home

In which placed differentiated

the members of the group

in regard to amount of change*

The younger subjects and

those In the better homes made statistically reliable gains, whereas th© older subjects and those in the poorer homes

16

showed approximately aero change*

These children had

remained throughout the retest interval in the homes in which they were first placed*

That some selective

placement occurred in this group is indicated by th© fact that th© correlation between home level and intel­ ligence of the child at placement was *34*

This corre­

lation had become *52 upon re-examination of the children* that is, after they had been on th© average four years in the homes* Schott (3 7 ) re-examined 74 children in boarding and adoptive homes, after a median retest interval of 13 months*, and found that the median IQ of the group had in­ creased 5*8 points*

nineteen of these subjects were re­

examined a second time but showed no change in median IQ from second to third test.

Each of th© retest groups had

a lower median IQ on first test than the group from vhlch It was drawn} the subjects were referred for re-examination chiefly because of their failure to adjust in the foster homes* Wells and Arthur (4 4) have reported on two groups of children, one or both of whose parents were feeble-minded. On© group of 100 children from sixty-on© families had been

removed from their own homes and placed in boarding homes} th© other group of 100 from forty-five families were In their own homes.

Differences between test and

retest, after an interval of two years or more, con­ sistently favored the foster home group.

Further ana­

lysis of the data revealed (1) that the greatest losses in the own-chiId group occurred at th© higher XQ levels, whereas the foster child group gained at the low levels and lost at th© upper} (2) that children In their own homes showed no XQ difference whether first examined before or after five years of age, whereas th© foster home children who were first examined before five gained 8*16 IQ points upon re-examination, and those first ex­ amined after five years lost 4*50 points. Layman (26 ) has reported a small average In­ crease in IQ in 83 behavior problem children from homes of low socio-economic level following their placement in boarding homes* ©bout eleven years*

Th© mean age of these children was He attributes extreme variation in

IQ from first test to re-examination to change In ©mo­ tional stability of the subject*

Chapter II SOURCE AND COLLECTION OF DATA Child Welfare Services Program The data of this study were drawn from the records on Individual children accumulated by the Section of Psychological Services of the State De­ partment of Social Welfare*

The Subdivision of Child

Welfare In th© State Department of Social Welfare was set up in 1937 to enable th© state of Iowa to receive Federal funds made available under the Social Security Act for child welfare services* The Manual of Procedure (2 2 ) of th© Section of Psychological Services describes the nature and function of this department as follows: ”The Section of Psychological Services is organized to give diagnostic and consultation service for the purpose of providing a picture of the child1s abilities, capacities, and person­ ality, which will supplement existing information in such a way as to make treatment of the child more effective* It is not a treatment clinic, except insofar as treatment involves short-time or infrequent contacts with the child and his parents* Psychological Services are available in the child*s own county or community, through a staff of clinical psychologists working out from the office of the Division of Child Welfare in Des Moines.” (p. 1) Regarding th© type of cases accepted and the

- 18

— 19 —

referral procedure, the Manual states further: Psychological services are available to those needing help In planning for chil­ dren up to the age of twenty-one. Because of the large numbers of requests for service, It Is necessary to limit the service to those situations where the need Is greatest, and results will be the most far-reaching. Chil­ dren may be referred for study on an indivi­ dual case basis, and cases are accepted for service if the following conditions are met: wl* The problem must be such that better understanding and more effective treatment would be possible, as a result of psychological study# *2# The request for service must be moti­ vated by a sincere desire to help the child, rather than by idle curiosity or less accept­ able motives* ”3* The referring agency must express a willingness to cooperate in preparing for the services, by arranging for medical examinations and preparing social histories* 114# The referring agency must express its intention to carry out recommendations made as a result of a study and discussion of the child, and must Indicate the existence of local re­ sources which would make possible some followup work, or show that there is a possibility of developing such resources# 115# The referring agency must be on© which is ©quipped to handle the type of problem pre­ sented by the child# *••, n6# The problem should be such that a study of the child, with appropriate interpretation, would contribute to a better understanding of children’s problems in the community#” (p# 1, 2)

Because the Federal program was designed primarily for the benefit of children, in rural areas, six counties having a population over forty thousand each were not included in the program* available to the remainder of the state* of cases examined

Service was The number

varied considerably from county to

county, In accordance with the degree of local interest in and understanding of children’s problems, but prac­ tically all counties in the state had received some service# Between the time the program was inaugurated In 1936 until the selection of cases for this study was completed In April, 1940, approximately twelve hundred children had been referred to the Section of Psycho­ logical Services*

The referral problems In these cases

covered the rang© of problems usually encountered In the psychological clinic for children*

However, because of

the close relationship between the State Department of Social Welfare and the local welfare and relief agencies, a much larger proportion of referrals than Is typical for the children’s clinic was made for the reason of dependency

21

and neglect of the children*

About 25 per cent of the

cases were referred for this reason*

This meant not

only that the files contained clinical records of rela­ tively large numbers of children from homes of low socio­ economic status, but that, in such cases, all or most of the children in the family had been examined* Criteria for the selection of Subjects The subjects of this study are white Americanborn children from English-speaking families at low socio­ economic statusn

All children meeting this criterion who

were In their own homes when first examined, or who had been removed from their homes not more than six months before the first examination, have been included* Procedure The information available on the cases In­ cluded a social history,

the report of a recent phyical

examination, the psychological and educational test data, and the summary report of findings and recommendations prepared by the psychologists for the use of the local referring agency.

All case records were read, and from those for cases meeting the criteria for inclusion in the study, all information having hearing on the intelli­ gence of the parents and the cultural level of the home was recorded for each family*

Samples of these abstracts

of case history data are given in Appendix A#

The psy­

chological and educational data for each child were re­ corded on cards which also had space to note special conditions (such as placement outside of the home, death of a parent, Illness or injury) which had affected the child prior to the first examination or during the testretest Interval* Hating of Homes as to Intelligence Level

1— Mim M I 111 |J_|

>I'Ml I ¥1II i!ii iiiiiwipBiimBii.il I f im .i—in iiii'iw in n i m *N.*^> ,-*im iin i. iMU'inw**. i*n H ii*i*M w .iw w m —w w * * ^ —

—w *

In order to classify the homes as to intelligence level, each case history abstract was rated on a four-point scale*

The us© of a four-point scale was decided upon be­

cause it was thought this would not only permit the "higher" and "lower" groups to be separated, but would make it pos­ sible to differentiate the

"highest” and the "lowest” from

the remainder for more detailed study* of

The restricted

range

talent andthe fact that the original c ase records were

not highly specific regarding the Intelligence level of the homes mad© a finer discrimination among the families unwarranted*

Provision was mad© on the scale

to Indicate Inability to rate* Two sets of abstracts, Identical except that the eases were in a different order In each, were used. Selected abstracts representative of the highest and lowest level homes among these cases were given the raters so that they made the ratings with knowledge of the range of talent involved#

Phe Instructions accompa­

nying the abstracts read as followst

"Check at one of

the four points on the scale, from low to high, to rate intelligence level of each home. sufficient for rating, so indicate.

If information Is in­ Disregard positive

or negative factors In the horn© situation except those which, In your estimation, are indicative of Intellectual level•" As the sample abstracts given in Appendix A Indicate, the amount and nature of th© material on which ratings of th© homes were mad©, varied from case to case. In abstracting the social history data, the objective was to include all Information-qu&litativ© as well as

— 24 —

quantitative— on the educational attainments of the parents, on their interests and activities, on occu­ pational history, with regard both to kinds of work done

and quality of performance, and th© Impressions

of social workers and others knowing

them personally*

Objective test data on th© parents were available in a small

number of cases.

Information regarding th© In­

telligence and educational achievement of the children was not given in th© abstracts. Ten raters, five social workers and five clinical psychologists, r©:.d the abstracts and made the ratings.

Four of th© social workers had degrees

from recognized schools of social work; the fifth was a woman of many years of practical experience in family and child welfare agencies.

Four of the psychologists

had advanced degrees in clinical psychology and con­ siderable clinical experience.

The fifth was a psy­

chological intern with one year of experience In clini­ cal work*

Th© raters knew something of the plan of the

study, were acquainted with the kinds of communities In which th© subjects lived, and had had professional contact with families at this cultural level*

Two of

the raters had at some time read all the original

m

35

**'

records represented here, including the Intelligence test data on the children*

Three others had known

some of th© families, though not the same ones, since their contacts with this population cam© about through differing professional responsibilities*

The other

five raters were acquainted neither with these families nor the

records regarding thorn* Notwithstanding the fact that the social

histories varied widely as to the completeness with which they reported data on general intelligence level of the home,

'the raters were in fair agreement regarding

the classification of the homes*

In 61 per cent of the

cases (involving 66 per cent of the subjects) six or more raters agreed in assigning a home to a single category— 1,

2, 3, or 4*

In 72 per cent of the cases (77 per

cent of th© subjects) eight or more raters were in agree­ ment in assigning th© homes to two adjacent categories— 1 and 2, 2 and 3, or 3 and 4*

The ratings of psychologists

and social workers correlated +*83 on th© homes on which at least three members of each group made a rating*

Three

homes were categorized primarily on the ratings of one group; that Is, th© minimum of seven ratings was made up

of five b y one group and two b y the other*

In each of

thee© cases it was the social workers who constituted the majority* In order to take Into account all ratings on a home, a value was arbitrarily assigned to each point on th© scale (lowest ** 1 # low « 2, high » 3, highest « 4)f and an average of ratings was computed for each case In which at least seven raters had been able to assign it to a point on the scale*

Only nine sibships

were Included on the basis of seven ratings; the r©«* mainder of the 129 homes were rated by eight or more of the raters*

The following tabulation gives th©

distribution of families and children falling at each level* Level

Hange of numerical Averages

1 2 3

1*0 — 1*9 2*0 - 2.9 3*0 * 4*0 No rating

Families per N Cent 48 45 36 16 145

33 31 25 111 100

Children Per K Cent 151 156 94 tO S?-£H H CvJOJ

Ca®>OJQE'-E>

03 OJ

02 02 H

OSM

4* I *f I

HOO»HHeCt>HCV3 Ci 03 H i—1 ♦ I 4 I + 4 II

03 02 03 03 03 H rH H

03030W030303^£0 HHHHHHH0203

to ca ca to r-4

02 tO CO H H

4 + + I

H

© £ 43

o o *£—* S3

02 02 CM02

H H H i —!

. «H r" i

Tj 43 d at

or More Two Re-Examined Cases

4^ g

o a oH © m CQ 58

© fcu} e

H«0OC!^O©©Ca

j§ 03 r* O

©

iH

* » +

iH HI

t +

i

i4

§ i t

3? M

o

d o a?

«Ht H

43 +3 m

o toh o a)h o coco0 2 ^ to Ho < 0^ a> C> c0 0 i 0 d > 0 0 0 > 0 a>MO H

cs

d £ •H *H

(d £


ca

'i

H H

H H tOHH© iOH^iOOOCOOd i0Hl lt> *CO u ^«O i i i m 7 h 1tO eO fcO tO J>^tx> H H

ass

a

H 02 tO ^

a ^ H H

»

t05DJ>COO>OHOJtO

rH f4 f“41*4

e

H

H © >

©

© § O W

02

to

a

tO tO £*•

H

H

H

104

-

I I O

I

to

o

to

cv

60 CO

cm

1

■g e -*

r~J

O 3

cl

X

*rt

a

S

6=i

a

to

O

GO

05

o rl

I

3

-

105

-

m.

I

(i) oil &l fa

00

Home Level %

+

CM H 3

H

CM d

O) co t *

CM CM £> feO 4* 1 + ♦ 4*

U5

CM

05

to

$

d

00

+-

d 7

C M C +M

CM

ti>

tD H $* 1

(*{ I

d

d

10

a

to

t> « *

«

1

a

y? 2

00

r4 ci

GO a J: d

Ch

«M

CO

SP *H

11 &•§ o* i

H

r

t

CO M C

cm

$

0

0

r

l

H

H

0> 5 CO i t C

rH i o d r 3 * , t l 03

2* r I e

i

H

n

n

£

a

O &

d

**• 105 *■

4» gw TI J «Ml « S3 i J§ 0 99 2 1 M

m

8 £m Ai m

*ri

O

if