Bayley DevelopmentMotorAbilities 1936

The Development of Motor Abilities during the First Three Years: A Study of Sixty-
One Infants Tested Repeatedly

Author(s): Nancy Bayley
Source: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 1936, Vol. 1, No.
1, The Development of Motor Abilities during the First Three Years (1936), pp. 1-26
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1165480
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1165480?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Society for Research in Child Development and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development
This content downloaded from

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Development of Motor Abilities
During the First Three Years
A STUDY OF SIXTY-ONE INFANTS

TESTED REPEATEDLY
NANCY BAYLEY
INSTITUTE OF CHILD WELFARE
University of California

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION............................. .... .............. 1

TEST ITEMS AND SUBJECTS................................... 2
PROCEDURE OF TESTING.................................. 2
RESULTS:
a. Reliability..................................... 4
b. Trends of growth in motor abilities............... 6
c. Consistency of the scores......................... 8
d. Classification of the test items................... 11

e. Comparison of motor scores with mental scores...... 11
f. Comparison of motor scores with parents' education. 12
g. Comparison with body build ........................ 12
h. Walking and prewalking progression................. 13
1. Sequence of growth ................................ 14
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................... 17

APPENDIX. THE CALIFORNIA INFANT SCALE OF MOTOR DEVELOPMENT 19
REFERENCES ................................ ........... 25

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
INTRODUCTION
The present study* is concerned primarily with the determination of

growth changes in motor abilities, through seriatim measurements of the
same individuals. Additional problems include; 1) the consistency of
motor abilities when re-measured at various intervals; 2) the inter-rela-
tionship of motor functions; 3) the relationship of motor and mental
abilities; and 4) the relationship of motor and physical traits.
Most tests of the mental development of infants include a large per-
centage of items which may be classed as tests of motor coordination.
Gesell, in his developmental schecdles, has grouped these motor coordina-
tions into a separate "motor" category. Kuhlmann includes in his mental
series the ability to sit and stand alone, as well as finer manual coordi-
nations (such as thumb opposition in grasping). The developmental items
listed by Heubner (16) and Schwab (29), and the Babytests of Hetzer and
Wolf (15) also include tests of motor development. Almost one third of
the items in the test series of Linfert and Hierholzer (21) are tests of
gross motor coordinations.
It apparently has been assumed that such tests are appropriate mea-
sures of the general "developmental level" and of the intelligence of in-
fants. The age of learning to walk (as well as the age of learning to
talk) has long been used as a criterion of infantile retardation or accel-
eration. McGraw (22) has recently guestioned this assumption, contending
that "sitting", "standing with help , "walking", etc., as stages in the
developmental series, are of little significance in infant development
scales until the processes through which they have been achieved are
understood.
In adults and in children of school age, motor skills have been

found to have very little relation to "Intelligence" as measured by ac-
cepted standard tests (7, 8, 14, 23, 27, 28, and 30). The burden of
proof, then, rests upon those who assume that such a relationship exists
in the period of infancy.
The writer has shown in a previous study of mental development of

infants (3, page 59) that even when a group of behavior items is specially
selected as a neasure of "mental" rather than of more characteristically
"motor" abilities there remains a relatively large motor (and sensory)
component in the "mental" items. This fact seemed to account, in part,
for the failure of early performance to predict later mental test scores.
It will be of value, then, to compare these early "mental" scores with
scores in tests of large muscle coordinations and postural control, in
order to determine their relationship to each other, and to discover if
prediction in motor abilities can be made with any more assurance than in
mental test abilities.
The literature on motor development in infants and pre-sc

dren has been recently summarized elsewhere (24), and it shoul
here to mention only some of the more complete scales which give
performance. Aside from the mental tests already noted, there
comparatively few test series of infant motor abilities. Cunnin
gives age norms of motor abilities based on tests of children 12 to 42
months of age. Gesell's motor items, beginning at one month, could be
used as a separate group of motor-development tests. Shirley (31) has re-
cently made a study of infant development in motor coordinations, by
seriatim observations of 24 infants, 16 of whom were observed for the
first two years of life. Her results show the sequence of the infants'
development, give tentative age norms, and indicate possible relationships
I wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions to this study of Dr. Lotta V.

Wolff, whose untimely death prevented her participation in the program of the
Growth Study after the data for the first two years had been collected, Dur-
ing this early period Dr. Wolff took an active part in the tests and observa-
tions. The test items of motor development used in the second and third years
were, for the most part, selected by her an an outgrowth of her contacts with
Russian laboratories, particularly with the studies of Oseretzky.

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
2
to body build.
Tests and developmental norms of motor abilities of pre-school

children beyond the stage of infancy are more numerous. Baldwin and
Stecher(l) give age norms on a number of individual motor tests.
Oseretzky (25, 26) has presented a developmental series in a form similar
to mental test series, beginning at four years. Tests by Gates and
Scott(9) and by Jenkins(17) include items for pre-school children. In
addition to these scales, many individual studies have been made of speci-
fic motor abilities, from early grasping, creeping, and walking, to tests
of tapping, reaction time, and drawing.
TEST ITE1E AND SUBJECTS
The test items for the California Infant Scale of Motor Development
have been selected and adapted from several of the infant mental and motor
scales cited above, especially those of Gesell and Oseretsky, and from
studies of single motor abilities such as those observed by Jones(18), and
the walking-board performances as described by Baldwin and Stecher(1).
The items included in this scale are given in Table 1, in order of diffi-
culty of the items for this group of infants.1 Twelve of these items
(mostly tests of eye-hand coordinations and prehension--cf. Table 1) have
also been included in the mental development scale. Whenever we have
correlated the two scales, we have used motor test scores from which these
twelve items have been eliminated.
The tests were given to a group of infants who originally numbered

sixty-one (31 males and 30 females). The number of infants measured at
any one month ranges from 44 to 61. The variations in the number tested
at each month are due to occasional absences and to withdrawal from the
study (when families moved out of town). By the time the children were
36 months old, 49 of them were still available for testing. The tests
were made repeatedly, at one-month intervals from birth through fifteen
months and at three-month intervals from 15 through 36 months of age. The
sample and the general testing situation have been described in some de-
tail in an earlier publication(3). As has been shown in the study of men-
tal development, the group represents a somewhat superior socio-economic
background; but the range of parental occupation, income, and education
is wide, and all classes are represented. In addition to the necessary
interest and cooperation of the parents, further selection limited the
group to hospital-born infants of white, English-speaking parentage.
PROCEDURE OF TESTING
The original selection of items was arranged on record forms ac-

cording to the age placement (in months) given in the studies from which
the items were taken. The method of administering and scoring the motor
test items was the same as for the mental items(3). Each child was tested
on each item until he had passed it for two successive visits, and the
first of two successive passes was used as the score from which the items
were placed on the absolute scale of difficulty. That is, if a child
passed a test item at month five, failed it at month six, and passed it
again at months seven and eight, he was credited with a pass at month
seven, for the norming of that item. In securing his own total point
scores in motor performance, however, he received credit for that item for
all ages at which he passed it, that is, at months five, seven, eight,
and following. For comparing the childrbn's total test performances, we
have used total point scores, giving one point to each item passed. In
order to compare scores of children at different levels we computed sigma
scores on the basis of the means and smoothed standard deviations of the
point scores for the group at each age tested.
The materials used, and the detailed directions for administration
of the individual test items are given in the appendix. The items have
been arranged so they may be used as a scale of motor development from
birth through two years of age. With this in mind, directions are given
1 This order of difficulty was determined by the Thurstone method of absolute

sealing. (34)

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
TABLE 1
MOTOR DEVELOPMENT TEST ITEMS LISTED IN ORDER OF DIFFICULTY
Cumu- Abso- Age also

Ctems Classification of Items
lative lute Place- Test Items ncluded anual Anti- bIT
Score Scale ment n Mental Coordi- Motion gravity half
Value Months Series- nations Behavior Grouping
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 .06 (0.2) Crawling movements X A
2 .13 0.5 Postural adjustment when held
to shoulder X X B
3 .14 0.5 Lifts head at shoulder X A
4 .29 0.6 Lateral head movements X X B
5 .34 0.7 Retains red ring X B
6 .75 1.7)Arm thrusts in play X X A

7 .78 (18) Leg thrusts in play X X B
8 .87 1.9 Head erect - vertical X A
9 1.10 2.6 Dorsal suspension - lefts
head X B
10 1.26 (2.9) Head erect and steady X A
11 1.50 (3.4 Turns from side to back X B
12 1.54 (3.5 Prone - elevates self by arms X A
13 1.55 (3.5 Sits with support X B
14 1.62 13.6 Hands predominantly open X B
15 1.64 3.6 Holds head steady X B
16 1.88 (4.1)Beginning thumb opposition X X A

17 2.14 (4.6 Sits with slight support X A
18 2.34 (5.0 Turns from back to side X A
19 2.42 (5.1 Partial thumb opposition X X A
20 2.54 (5.4 Effort to sit X B
21 2.55 (5.5) Head balanced X B

22 2.71 5.7 Simultaneous flexion and
thumb opposition X X B
23 2.77 (5.7)Sits alone momentarily X A
24 3.03 (62) Pulls to sitting position X A
25 3.04 6.2 Sits alone 30" or more X A
26 3.13 (6.4) Unilateral reaching X X B

27 3.26 6.7 Rotates wrist X X A
28 3.49 (7.0) Rolls from back to stomach X A
29 3.77 (7.6) Complete thumb opposition X X A
30 3.82 7.5 Sits alone, steadily X B
31 4.08 (7.8) Partial finger prehension X X B

32 4.50 (8.5) Sits alone with good co-
ordination X B
33 4.82 (9.2)Prewalking progression X B
34 4.83 9.3 Fine prehension with pellet X X B
35 4.94 9.4 Raises self to sitting
position X B
36 5.04 (9.6 Early stepping movements X B

37 5.59 10.5 Pulls to standing position X A
38 5.72 10.6 Stands up X A
39 5.89 10.9 Stepping movements X A
40 6.25 11.6) Walks with help X A
41 6.84 12.5 Sits down X B

42 6.87 12.5 Stands alone X A
43 7.19 13.00 Walks alone X B
44 7.84 14.0 Aufstehn I X B
45 9.46 16.5) Walks sideways X B
46 9.72 (16.9 Walks backward X A

47 11.33 19.9 Stands on right foot with help X A
48 11.33 19.9 Stands on left foot with help X B
49 11.51 1?0.3 Walks upstairs with help X A
50 11.58 20.5 Walks downstairs with help X B
51 12.37 (22.5) Tries to stand on walking

board X A
52 12.39 (22.5) Aufstehn II X A
53 12.93 (24.3 Walks upstairs alone;marKs time X B
54 13.06 24.5 Walks downstairs alone; marks
time X A
55 13.78 (27.6) Walks with one foot on walking
board X B
56 13.86 (28.0) Jumps off floor; both feet X A

57 14.11 (29.2 Stands on left foot alone X A
58 14.19 (29.3 Stands on right foot alone X B
59 14.33 (30.1 Walks on tiptoe X A
60 14.53 (31.0 Stands on walking boerd with
both feet X B
61 14.59 (31.3) Walks on line;general direction X B

"62 14.72 321) Jumps from chair X B
63 14.81 (32.7) Aufstehn III X B
64 14.84 32.8 Attempts step, while on walking
board X A
65 14.87 (33.2) Walks backward three meters X A
66 15.31 (35.5) Walks upstairs alternating
forward foot X A
67 15.43 36.2 Walks tiptoe three meters X B
68 15.59 37.1i Jumps from height of 30 cm. X B
69 15.67 37.3 Distance jump - 10 to 35 cm. X B
70 15.71 38.0 Walking board - alternates
part way X B
71 15.81 (38.5) Keeps feet on line, three

meters X A
72 15.96 (39.7) Distance jump - 36 to 60 cm. X A
73 16.27 (41.5) Jump over rope less than
20 cm. high X A
74 17.24 (48.4) Distance jump - 60 to 85 cm. X B
75 17.33 ( 49.3 Hops on right foot less than
2 meters X A
76 17.53 (60.0) Walk
forward foot x A

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
4
for scoring total performance.

RESULTS
a) Reliability
In order to determine the reliability of the motor test series, the
items were divided into halves (A and B) which are as nearly as possible
equal, both in difficulty and in the nature and variety of the items in-
cluded in each half. For each month tested, the scores in these halves
gave correlations as shown in Table 2. Correcting the split-half coeffi-
cients by the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, we found coefficients of
reliability for the total test for each age. These total test reliabill-
ties range from .49 to .91 with a mean of .77. As we had previously found
for the mental test series, the tests are much less reliable during the
first four months than later. The mean of the corrected r's for months 5
through 36, inclusive, is .81.
TABLE 2
COEFFICIENTS OF RELIABILITY OF MOTOR TEST COMPARED WITH MENTAL TEST

(Split-half Method)
Sfor
r for total
Month No. of Sigma Sigma rAB r for extended mental
Cases A B total test test* test
1 53 .67 .71 .397 .568 .631 .632

2 58 .92 .73 .584 .738 .797 .509
3 61 .90 1.07 .325 .491 .680 .742
4 58 1.31 1.34 .411 .582 .745 .869
5 58 1.94 1.09 .535 .697 .835 .905
6 57 2.30 1.32 .727 .842 .924 .950
7 52 1.99 1.62 .646 .785 .894 .929
8 53 1.66 2.03 .654 .791 .883 .928
9 56 1.60 2.00 .563 .721 .814 .828
10 56 1.75 1.58 .694 .819 .872 .834
11 52 1.98 1.41 .842 .914 .927 .858
12 54 1.88 1.51 .795 .886 .895 .757
13 55 1.79 1.54 .689 .816 .861 .784
14 50 1.62 1.42 .684 .813 .867 .751
15 49 1.30 1.23 .771 .871 .934 .860
18 51 1.25 .88 .704 .826 .938 .925
21 53 1.12 1.14 .609 .757 .914 .825
24 48 1.51 1.08 .585 .738 .900 .798
27 51 1.62 1.46 .691 .817 .926 .878
30 47 2.04 2.00 .693 .819 .906 .892
33 44 2.32 2.46 .761 .864 .933 --
36 49 2.26 2.23 .668 .801 .898 .841
The split-half correlations are for

those found for the mental test items
two factors. 1) There are only about h
The mean of all the corrected split-half

for all ages, is .82.
Prophecy formula extended to predict r if the number of test items

creased to equal the number of items in the mental test scale. This
sion was made by using the ratio between the S.D.'s of the Motor and
point scores at each age as the number by which the motor tests sho
increased.

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
5
series as in the mental series, so that the motor test is presumably not
as complete a measure of ability as is the mental test. 2 It is possible
that the items in the motor series are less related to each other than are
the items of the mental series, with the result that the paired items are
less adequately matched. A further consideration of these two factors
may indicate their relative influence.
1) The Spearman-Brown prophecy formula was applied to the correla

tions in such a way as to predict the reliability if the number of tests
at each age level were equal to the number in the mental test series. To
do this, the length of the %ot r teet was (mathematically) increased
multiplying it by the ratios omotor oore at each age, thus making th
standard deviations of the total mental and motor point scores equal for
that age.3 This procedure is based on the assumption that if the stand-
ard deviations of the two series were equal the nuimber of scored items
for the two test series would be approximately equivalent. The resulting
corrected correlations of the motor series should be comparable to the
total test reliabilities of the mental tests. (Table 2). When thus cor-
rected, the correlations are slightly higher for the motor than for the
mental series after month 9, and slightly lower between months 3 ahd 9.
It seems probable, then, that the individual test items in the motor
series are on the average as reliable as the items in the mental series.
2) If the motor tests are made up very largely of measures which
are unrelated to each other, we should expect that the coefficients for
retests at very brief intervals would be higher than the split-half re-
liability coefficients. We do not have retests taken at short intervals,
but the comparison of test scores earned at successive test ages ap-
proaches this condition. During the first 15 months the interval be-
tween tests is one month, and from 15 through 36 months, the interval is
3 months. The correlations between consecutive tests are given in
Table 3, and range from .25 to .91, with a mean of .71. These correla-
tions are relatively low during
the first 3 months and for com- TABLE 3
parisons involving the 18 and
21 months tests. The r's for CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CONSECUTIVE TESTS
the two latter ages are excep-
tionally low, and result, at Months No.of r Months No. of r
least in part, from the addi- cases cases
tion, at these ages, of a
large number of new tests, al- 1 x 2 52 .57 12 x 13 53 .89
lowing for more discriminating 2 x 3 58 .53 13 x 14 50 .91
scores than were possible for 3x 4 58 .54 14 x 15 45 .86
the ages just preceding. In 4x 5 56 .71 15 x 18 48 .46
this case, the scores at suc- 5x 6 55 .75 18 x 21 51 .28
cessive ages are composed of 6x 7 49 .85 21 x 24 47 .26
only a few items that are id- 7x 8 47 .87 24 x 27 47 .61
entical to both, and so cannot 8x 9 50 .85 27 x 30 45 .71
be considered retest scores. 9 x 10 55 .84 30 x 33 41 .67
It is possible, also, that the 10 x 11 52 .70 33 x 36 43 .75
newly acquired abilities to 11 x 12 50 .91
walk and to talk so greatly
modify a child's environment
that there is a real change in the natiure of the motor adjustments which
the children make. If either of these factors is important the retest
r's at these ages cannot be considered as reliability coefficients.
When we compare the split-half reliability coefficients with thos
for consecutive tests, we find that during the first 15 imonths they are
very similar. After this a,e the consecutive test r's are definitely
lower. We may assume then that the split-half method is approximately
adequate a measure of reliability as the retest method in the treatment
of the present data. It is probable that neither of these methods yiel
as high coefficients as would be secured from retests after shorter in-
tervals.
The two available methods of checking the reliability
3 The formula is: rx -1* . The motor and mental series were simi
in the time required for testing individual items.

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
6
show that though the motor series is less reliable than the mental test
series, the difference is due mainly to the number of test items included
in the series. For most ages, the motor series may be considered (by
current standards for preschool tests) a fairly reliable measure of
maturity in the functions tested.
b) Trends of Growth in Motor Abilities
The means and standard deviations for the total point scores in
motor ability are given in Table 4, for the sexes separately, and for the
total group. There are no sex differences in the means, but there is a
tendency for the girls to be less variable in their scores, after 24
months, as indicated by the standard deviations. None of the differences,
however, is large enough to be significant.
TABLE 4
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF CUMULATIVE POINT SCORES
Both sexes Boys Girls
Month No.of Mean S.D. No.of Mean S.D. No.of Mean S.D.
cases cases cases
1 53 4.6 1.15 27 4.63 1.02 26 4.62 1.27

2 58 8.2 1.47 31 8.13 1.56
1.36 27 8.30
3 61 10.8 1.60 31 10.77 1.68
1.51 30 10.80
4 58 15.1 2.23 30 15.23 2.32
2.12 28 15.00
5 58 18.9 2.62 31 18.77 2.90
2.25 27 18.96
6 57 23.1 3.39 30 23.83 2.88
3.71 27 22.26
7 52 27.1 3.27 27 27.48 3.52
2.93 25 26.72
8 53 30.8 3.36 25 30.60 3.76
2.94 28 30.93
9 56 33.7 3.18 27 33.44 3.72
2.56 29 34.00
10 56 36.4 3.06 28 36.46 2.93
3.19 28 36.39
11 52 38.5 3.26 28 38.36 3.00
3.52 24 38.67
12 54 40.7 3.21 27 40.81 2.79 27 40.52 3.57
13 55 41.9 3.06 27 42.15 2.70 28 41.57 3.38
14 50 42.9 2.79 23 43.30 2.37 27 42.56 3.06
15 49 44.1 2.38 24 44.25 2.15 25 43.88 2.57
18 51 47.0 1.97 26 47.00 1.80 25 47.08 2.13
21 53 50.6 2.03 26 50.42 1.89 27 50.67 2.16
24 48 53.2 2.31 26 53.12 2.46 22 53.23 2.13
27 51 55.8 2.85 26 56.12 3.04 25 55.36 2.58
30 47 59.8 3.72 25 59.92 4.07 22 59.64 3.27
33 44 64.2 4.51 21 64.76 5.16 23 63.91 3.40
36 49 68.1 4.11 25 67.60 4.72 24 68.71 3.25
Between months 11 and 15, the means show

this is attributable not to a sudden slowing u
irregularity in the measuring instrument (the l
of new items at these ages). The curve of the
during this same interval, as would be expected from the reduction in
number of new items. It is possible, however, that the directional change
in the standard deviation curve is also due in part to a change in the
functions being measured, as was found to be true of the mental test
series; and that the directional change would occur even if there were
the same number of items at each level, on the scale of difficulty. If
this is so, the change occurs at a later age than in the mental test
items, and the selective factor which radically alters the nature of the
test items seems to occur between months 18 and 24. Further evidence is
necessary in order to determine whpther such a factor is operating.
The tests have been scaled by the absolute scaling method of Thur-
stone in the same manner as were the mental test itemsz (34,3). Since
both the motor and mental series have been scored on the same children,
throughout, the two curves of growth are directly comparable. (Figure 2).
The scaling is based on performances on the individual items, and not on total
point scores.

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
7
72
at ,, ,.
) 60
AGE IN MONTH
0 3 I I 15 18 21 4 7 30 33
0 3 6 9 12 IN8 2! Z4 27 30 33 36
AGE IN MONTHS
FIGURE 1
CURVE OF GROWTH IN MOTOR ABILITIES: CUMULATIVE POINT SCORES
15
14
13
1 -4
10
I II
iO _ _ __
s
LLJ' -i
V) M OTO PE T
3 _ 0
0 3 6 9 12 5 16 ZI 24 27 30 3. 36
AGE IN MONTHS
FIGURE 2
ARSOLUTE-SCALE GROWTH CURVES FOR MENTAL AND FOR MOTOR
ABILITY IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
8
The curve of motor development shows a very rapid rise during the
first 21 months. This rise is much more rapid than that for the mental
test items through month 21, and then an abrupt decrease in rate leaves
the motor abilities advancing more slowly than the mental test abilities
after 21 months. It appears that the gross motor coordinations related
to gaining control of the body grow more rapidly during the first two
years than do the more intellectual abilities. During the third year,
the situation is reversed, and the rate of growth in the mental test
series is greater.
The question may be raised whether other selections of test items,

applied to a different sample of infants, might not yield curves with
growth trends very different from the present ones. An inspection of the
data sheets which give the percentage passing each item at each age re-
veals that most of the motor items are spread over a smaller age range
than are the mental items, with comparatively rapid percentage increments
from one age to the next. An instance is the age of first walking alone;
this test was passed by 12 per cent of the children at 11 months and
80 per cent at 15 months; in comparison, the mental test item "says tw
words" was passed by 22 per cent at 11 months and 7 per cent at 15 months.
Since Thurstone's method of scaling is based on the increment, between
successive ages, in the percentages passing test items, it follows that
the curve of growth in this selection of motor abilities rises more ab-
ruptly than does the curve of the mental series. Although it might be
possible to select items which would show a different trend, the test
itemas actually employed in both the motor and the mental series have bee
chosen to cover a comprehensive range of the abilities which may be con-
sidered characteristic of these fields. It seems likely, in view of the
wide range of performance tested, that another equally comprehensive
series of tests, given to an adequate sample, would result in curves of
grovwth which are very similar to those presented in Figure 2.
When the absolute standard deviations are plotted against absolute

mean test performance, and the curve is smoothed (Figure 3), a straight-
line increase in the standard deviations is found through 15 months, and
after 18 months a sharp decline continues through 27 months, after which
there is an increase. Since the method of absolute scaling should mini-
mize the effect of a changing number of test items on the standard de-
viations, this drop in the standard deviation curve seems to indicate a
real change in the nature of the items tested (or in the testing situa-
tion) after month 18, resulting in more homogeneous performances of the
children during the ensuing year It is true that beginning at about
month 21, many of the tests require that the child understand and carry
out directions, and be willing to act on suggestions made by the exam-
iner. Since sucn cooperation is unnecessary in the tests at younger ages,
it seems possible that the performances scored at 21 months more closely
resemble those of the mental test series than heretofore, and are less
exclusively measures of motor abilities than are the tests Zt' younger
ages. On the other hand, we may have here, as we have found at an earlier
age in the mental tests, a general change in the nature of the abilities
manifested, as development makes possible more complex behavior. Motor
abilities or skills may acquire very different components at two years,
in comparison with the motor abilities of the first year, with resulting
changes in the trends of growth. The present study offers a descriptive
account of motor growth in terms of a wide sampling of functions. A more
analytic treatment is possible only through the use of more cases and a
more intensive sampling of motor performances.
c) Consistency of the Scores

Assuming that the total motor development scale has a fair amount
of reliability, though somewhat less than the mental scale with which it
has been compared, we may investigate some of the characteristics .of the
motor abilities measured. The first question is that of predictability,
or consistency of scores. Are we able to predict later motor performance
from motor performance during the first year of life? And how will the
prediction of motor scores compare with the degree of prediction found
within the field of the mental scores?
Very few attempts have been made to predict later motor skills from
characteristics manifested in infancy. Gesell (10) has contended that a
child's general developmental progress can be predicted from early infant
test scores which include motor coordinations. The only other study
which has considered the prognostic value of infant scores in motor

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
9
1)
Lj
V)
U <
-j
0w
J<,"
LUZ
oo
O C
F-
NoI a o o o o o o o ooo o<

0 I00 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 00

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
10
abilities is that of Shirley (31). She is convinced that "motor skill

corresponds to a talent", the chief components of which seem to be "a
neuromuscular tendency toward good gross motor coordination", and an
interest in motor pursuits (p.181). She reports that these coordinations
and interests remained consistent in the babies she studied for the two
year period, and she feels confident they will so continue. However, a
child's scores in prewalking progression were found to give no better
prediction of the age at which he would be able to walk than could be
determined from the median age of first walking for the entire group. In
addition to this, Shirley admits: "As a rule precocity or slowness in
motor development cannot be detected by skills that are developed earlier
than the 30th week". (p. 106) It is only between stages of motor deve-
lopment which are separated by small age intervals that she obtained high
correlations between the different motor skills.
TABLE 5
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AVERAGE SIGMA SCORES
Average Sigma Score in Months
4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 27 33

and 6 and 9 and 12 and 15 and 24 and 30 and 36
1, 2, and 3 .34 .08 .18 .05 .38 .27 .24

"A" 4, 5, and 6 .70 .49 .38 .60 .43 .36
'p 7, 8, and 9 .65 .50 .38 .34 .47
10, 11, and 12 .81 .42 .50 .56
, 13, 14, and 15 .35 .42 .35
* 18, 21, and 24 .43 .37
S g 27, and 30 .73
In our Infant Growth Study the investigation of the predictability
of mental growth (3) showed little correspondence between scores made
during the first year and those made a year or two later. The coeffi-
cients of correlation of motor scores (Table 5) also show failure of pre-
diction. In order to make the scores for all ages comparable, we com-
puted sigma scores for each child at each age described in the appendix,
on page 24. To obtain increased reliability in the measure of motor per-
formance, the mean of the scores for three consecutive tests was used for
comparison with other age levels. As is shown in Table 5, the average
score for months one, two and three is correlated first with the average
of the scores for months 4, 5, and 6; then with the average for months
7, 8, and 9; and so on through the first two years. After this age, only
two ages are combined, month 27 with 30, and month 33 with 36. The cor-
relations in Table 5 are low, with the exception possibly of the r's for
adjacent age groups between months 4 and 18. With these few exceptions,
the retest correlations tend to be low even over short time intervals.
This is particularly true of the tests for the first three months where
the reliability is low in comparison with the later ages. Increase of
the age interval reduces the correlations, although this reduction does
not follow the consistent trend shown in the case of the mental tests.
After the first three months predictability shows little increase with
age, even when comparisons are made between the ages where the testing
instrument is most discriminating and reliable.
Such lack of consistency in scores evidently means; 1) that en-

vironmental influences have profound effects on motor ability, even over
very short periods of time; or 2) that there is little community of func-
tion among the motor performances measured at different age levels; or
3) that rates of growth for individuals vary greatly. Since the environ-
ments of these babies are comparatively stable, the dissimilarity of the
scores at even consecutive age levels (for example, for months 7, 8, and
9 with 10, 11, and 12 the r is .65) can hardly be attributed to environ-
mental changes. These low r's between 6onsecutive age levels also make
it difficult to accept as plausible a theory that low consistency is the
result of varying rates of growth among individuals; if this were true,
very rapid fluctuations in rates of growth would be necessary.
To investigate the second possibility, we may discover, by classi-
fying the test items, whether they tend to change in nature with growth,
or whether certain categories are continuous over the three-year period.

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
11
d) Classification of the Test Items
The test items seemed to be logically divisible into three kinds of

behavior, 1) manual coordinations, 2) antigravity responses, and 3) gross
bodily motion. Such a division, as may be seen in Table 1 is very un-
even both as to the number of items in each class and their distribution
in difficulty. Since there are only ten items in class one, and since
most of these have been included in the mental test scale, they have been
eliminated from the correlations with the mental scale, and have not been
used for the comparison with the other class groups. Of the two other
classes, there were found to be enough items in each to supply adequately
differentiating scores at two ages, months 6 and 27.
For these ages, correlations are given in Table 6 between the two
types of performance, and between each one separately and the mental test
scores.
TABLE 6
CORRELATIONS OF SCORES ON MOTION AND ANTIGRAVITY ITEMS

WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH MENTAL SCORES
Motion Items Antigravity Items
Month 6 Month 27 Month 6 Month 27
n r n r n r n r
Mental scores 57 .17 50 .30 57 .73 50 .18

Motion items 57 .31 50 .53
Both motion and antigravity items show a low correlation with mental
scores except at month 6 when antigravity and mental scores correlate
.73. There seems to be some evidence that the antigravity behavior
scored in the early abilities to sit erect is positively related to the
"mental" achievements at that age, perhaps because this new position
stimulates the perceptual and manipulatory functions which are scored in
the mental tests. The correlation between motion and antigravity items
is somewhat higher at month 27 than at month 6. -This increase might be
expected, since in the more complex motor skills both classes of behavior
are usually involved, even though one of them predominates, in a given
item. These relatively low intercorrelations for the different types of
motor items are paralleled by low consistency correlations; motion items
at 6 months correlate .09 with motion items at 27 months. Antigravity
items at 6 and 27 months show a somewhat closer correlation .41. It is
probable that each class of items, instead of representing a general
kind of motor ability, is in itself made up of specific abilities.
TABLE 7
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SCORES ON MOTOR

ITEMS '(ANTIGRAVITY PLUS MOTION)
AND SCORES ON MENTAL ITEMS
Month r Ionth r
1 .49 12 .54
2 .27 13 .47
3 .52 14 .62
4 .48 15 .45
5 .55 18 .34
6 .60 21 .22
7 .61 24 .14
8 .44 27 .27
9 .60 30 .18
10 .46 36 .51
11 .64
e) Comparison of Motor Scores with Mental Scores

Table 7 gives the coefficients of correlation between the mental
test scores and the motor test scores (antigravity plus motion) for each
age. The correlations during the first 15 months are of the order of
.50. There is evidently some relationship between the performances in
the two series through month 18, though the correlations are, after month
3, lower than the self-correlations of either the mental or the motor

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
12
series. If these correlations were not lower, there would be little

justification in separating the mental and motor performances into two
scales at these ages. During the first 3 or 4 months, where the mental
and motor items usually correlate as highly with each other as they do
with themselves, there is probably no justification for the division.
After month 15 the correlations between mental and motor scores drop, and
the tendency is for very low relationships between them.
f) Comparison of Motor Scores with Parents' Education
When, in an earlier study (3), a mid-parent education score was

correlated with the mental test scores of these children, interesting
age changes in correlation were found, with a positive relationship oc-
curring only after 21 months. Table 8 gives the correlations between
motor scores and mid-parent education score. These r's are not signi-
ficantly different from zero, and they vary about zero with no evidence
of directional trends in correlation. Their mean is +.07.
TABLE 8
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MID-PARENT EDUCATION AND SCORE ON MOTOR ITEMS

(Antigravity Plus Motion)
Month r Month r
1 +.01 12 +.05
2 +.26 13 +.04
3 +.15 14 +.06
4 -.09 15 +.13
5 +.07 18 +.10
6 -.03 21 +.29
7 -.12 24 +.11
8 -.03 27 -.02
9 +.08 30 +.08
10 -.02 33 +.21
11 +.06 36 +.14
g) Comparison with Bo
There is a prevalent belief, based on casual observation, that
heavy children learn to walk late, and that slender children are more
agile in running and jumping. The children's motor scores have been
correlated with two indices of build, weight divided by length (W/L2),
and stem length divided by length (SL/L). The first is a measure of the
relative stockiness of a child, and a high index means that he is heavy
for his length. The second measures the relative length of his stem
(body, neck and head) to his total length; long-stemmed children have
high indices (4). These two indices are not related to each other in
this group of children (they correlate, on the average, .27). The corre-
lations between body build and motor test scores are given in Table 9.
TABLE 9
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MOTOR TEST SCORES AND BODY-BUILD INDICES
Month
Index 3 5 6 9 12 18 24 30 36
W/L2 +.17: +.08 +.44 -.18 -.45 -.25 +.09 -.04 -.27
SL/L .... -.04 .... .... -.40 -.16 -.39 .... +.08
The W/L2 correlations vary considerably. It is po

items at month 6 really give an advantage to the s
month 12 the tests favor the slender children, although there is no ob-
vious reason why this should be so. The SL/L index is related very
little to motor test scores, though there is a slight tendency for higher
test scores to be made by the children with relatively short stem-lengths
at most ages.
The two body build indices for month 3(5 were correlated with the
Anthropometric measures were not made at month 27.

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
13
motion and antigravity scores for month 27, separately. Motion correlates
with W/L2 -.19, and with SL/L -.26. Antigravity scores correlate with
W/L -.06 and with SL/L -.23. At 6 months the W/L2 index correlates
with motion scores .20 and with antigravity scores .33. Neither class of
tests gains any advantage over the other in its relation to body build.
The scatter diagrams of the W/L2 correlations with motor scores

gave, at several ages, a slightly curvilinear appearance, with the ex-
tremes of body build at both ends of the index range having low test
scores. To measure the extent of this the mean index for months 6
through 36 inclusive, 1.75, was taken as an optimum index and all indices
were arranged according to the amount of deviation from this index.
These deviations were correlated with the motor scores at months 6 and 9.
At month 6 the r is -.33 and at month 9 it is -.12. The correlations
were not computed for the other ages, but the scatter diagrams indicate
that most of the r's, if computed, would be slightly negative.
There is some tendency, then, for extremely thin or extremely
chubby children to make poorer than average scores. Except for the ex-
tremes, relative weight for length is probably of no importance in deter-
mining motor abilities.
h) Walking and Prewalking Progression

Walking and some form of prewalking progression, but especially
the former, have been used more often than any other form of motor behav-
ior as a measure of maturity. These are outstanding achievements in an
infant's development, and open up new fields of exploration for him,
greatly enlarging his environment.
We have used the term prewalking progression to indicate all forms

of forward progress, as crawling, creeping and hitching, without here at-
tempting to differentiate between them. The mean age at which this group
first showed some form of prewalking progression is 9.73 months, (median,
9.2 months) with a standard deviation of 1.82 months. The children first
walked alone at a mean age of 13.67 months (median, 13.0 months), with a
standard deviation of 1.95 months. The correlation between the two forms
of locomotion is .55. There is no statistically reliable sex difference
in this group for either form of locomotion. The mean ag6 of forward
progress for the boys is 9.43 months, and for the girls, 10.0 months.
The mean age of walking alone is for the boys, 13.54 months, for the
girls, 13.81 months. In a recent study by Smith et al. (33), the mean
walking age reported for 1,449 cases is 12.8 months. Although this is
almost a month earlier than the mean age for the Growth Study infants,
the walking ages of the latter were determined by observation at or near
the birth date of the child; that is, if a child was credited with walk-
ing at 14 months and not at 13 months, the age at which he actually fir
walked was somewhere between these two months. For comparison with
Smith's data, then, our own mean walking age should be approximately half
a month earlier or 13.2 months; this age is very similar to the mean of
the larger group. The children studied by Shirley (31) had a median
walking age of 64 weeks, or between 14 and 15 months. This is a month
later than for our group.
TABLE 10
CORRELATIONS OF AGE OF WALKING AND PREWALKING PROGRESSION WITH

MOTOR AND MENTAL TEST SCORES
Age of First
Age of First Prewalking
Walking Progression
Mean Motor Score at No. of No. of
Months cases r cases r
4, 5, and 6 50 .47 50 .53

10, 11, and 12 51 .88 51 .67
18, 21, and 24 50 .50 47 .36
33 and 36 46 - .63 44 .47
Mean Mental Score at Months
4, 5, and 6 54 .38 56 .32
10, 11, and 12 55 .61
57 .42
18, 21, and 24 54 .46 54 .20
27, 30, and 36 53 .40 53 .16

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
14
The ages of first walking alone and of first prewalking progression

have been correlated with the mental sigma scores and the motor signa
scores, for four age levels. These correlations are given in Table 10.
Relationships are positive throughout. They are highest near the age
when creeping and walking first occurred. It must be noted, however,
that since walking and prewalking progression are scored items in the
motor test series the _r's with this series near the ages at which they
fall are, of course, spuriously high. Walking correlates higher than
prewalking with both mental and motor scores, and both walking and pre-
walking correlate higher with motor scores at all ages than they do with
mental scores. The age of first walking alone still correlates during
the third year .40 with mental scores and .63 with motor test scores.
These correlations are as high as were found when the total mental or
motor test scores at one year were correlated with their scores for the
third year. They are much higher than the r of .28 obtained by Shirley
for 17 cases between age of walking and Minnesota preschool test score
at 18 months (p. 134). Shirley concludes from her data that there is
little relation between motor and intellectual abilities--but that in
young infants the latter is dependent for its functioning on the ability
to sit, grasp, creep, etc.
Although the accuracy of prediction between scores which correlate
.63 is very low, and one would hesitate to carry such prediction far, we
may say that on the basis of our results, the age of first walking is as
closely related to three-year-old motor, or even mental ability, as is
the whole battery of tests given at one year. We cannot, of course, tell
whether this relationship will persist into later years. The early test
scores are of even less value in predicting the age at which a child will
walk, as is seen by the r of .47 between the age of first walking and the
motor test scores at 4, 5, and 6 months.
The children in this group talked (said two words), on the average,
at 12.9 months (2), with a standard deviation of 3.7 months. This is
about three-fourths of a month earlier than they walked, and the standard
deviation of talking age is almost twice as great as of walking age. The
age of walking correlates with age of talking .39, indicating a positive
relationship between two single developmental items, even though they
appear to be very unlike.
The SL/L index of body build is correlated .02 with the age of pre-
walking progression at month 5, and .35 at month 12. It is correlated
.10 with age of walking atmonth 5, .38 at month 12, and .64 at month 18.
At the age when the children are starting to walk, those with relatively
long legs and short bodies tend to be able to walk younger, and the same
is true, to a lesser extent, of prewalking progression. This is in accord
with Shirley's results, as she also found a tendency for relatively long-
legged babies to walk earlier than short-legged ones. However, since the
stem-stature relationship does not remain consistent during growth (4),
there is no relation between age of walking and SL/L index during the
first 6 months.
The relationships between the W/L2 index and progression are n

significantly different from zero. This index correlates with age
walking progression at month 5, -.15, and at month 12, .13. It cor
with age of walking at month 5, -.18, at month 12, .29, and at mo
.24. There is, perhaps, a slight tendency for the children who are rela-
tively heavy at one year to walk later than the slender ones, but the re-
lationship is surprisingly low.
1) Sequence of Growth
Shirley (31, 32) has maintained that the development of motor abili-
ties follows an invariable fundamental sequence (or nearly so) for all
children, and that these abilities fall, naturally, into five divisions,
"or "orders". These orders are; I. Passive postural control; II. Postu-
ral control of entire trunk and undirected activity; III. Active efforts
at locomotion; IV. Locomction by creeping; and V. Postural control and
coordination for walking.
To test this hypothesis of the invariable sequence of motor develop-

ment on our data, each test item was compared with neighboring items which
had higher difficulty scores, in order to discover how many children re-
versed the usual sequence of passing the easier item earlier than the more
difficult item. When, in a previous study (3), this was done for a sec-
tion of the mental test series, in which more than seven hundred item

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
15
comparisons were made, there was no clear evidence for any sequences ex-
cept between items which were "sufficiently far apart on the difficulty
scale to constitute manifestations of a different level of ability"
Since it would be a tremendous task to compare all the motor items with
each other for reversals of sequence, we selected for comparison a group
of items which are similar to those used by Shirley in her study of the
sequential order of growth.
These selected items are not exactly the same as Shirley's, nor
have they all been scored on exactly the same basis as those studied by
Shirley; but only those items have been included which are similar to
Shirley's and their difficulty placements are, for the most part, pract-
ically identical with hers. Norms for 12 of the items are shown, in com-
parison with Shirley's, in Figure 4. Our attempts to group the items in
our own scale into Shirley's orders were not at all successful. The
children's performances on these items do not naturally group themselves
into levels of ability; reversals in the order of their appearance in
individual children are frequent among pairs of items which are similar
in difficulty. This is true throughout the entire range, and regardless
of demarcations between "orders". The impressive fact is not that of
inviolable sequence in specific performances, but rather the fact that in
development all functions are carried forward. Individual children may
have reversals in specific sequences, but no performance varies far from
the average difficulty placement.
This homogeneity of performance of the group at any given age is

evidenced in two ways; 1) A comparison of SD curves with the curve of
the iean point scores (Figure 1) shows that during the first year, there
is very little overlapping between the scores made at successive ages;
the standard deviation score at one age rarely equals or overlaps the
mean of the month above or below it; 2) Since the absolute scale curve
is made up from performances on the individual test items rather than on
point scores, the absolute standard deviations are measures of variabil-
ity on individual items rather than on a composite score of developmental
level. The absolute standard deviation curve (Figure 3) shows that the
variability in age of first successes on any one item is small (though
the standard deviations tend to increase with age).
The developmental sequence does not deend, it seems, on a. rerla

order of appearance of specific abiitiest , but rather on raodn increments
in the entire level oj ability. Gesell has called attention to this
point by observing simultaneously pairs of infants two months apart in
age. In this way he illustrates that the perfonnances of the older child
are in every way advanced over those of the younger. This tendency was
manifested in the children of the Infant Growth Study, in both the mental
and the motor test series.
The correlation of .39 between age of walking and age of talking

is another instance of the tendency for all behavior to conform to a
general maturational trend in early life. Since the r between the motor
and mental test scores is approximately .50 at the ages when the children
are beginning to walk and talk, and since there seems to be no a priori
reason for a relationship between such widely different functioEs as
walking and talking, the two much occur near together in age because
they are both products of a general stage of maturity in motor and mental
functions which is reached by the child about the beginning of the second
year.
If this rapid course of development is to be explained by matura-

tion in terms of neurological, anatomical, and physiological growth and
function, it must be considered as only a general condition which allows
for variation in the acquision of specific abilities. Within the general
level of difficulty (and with the exception of some abilities which must
of logical necessity appear in an invariable sequence), the order in
which these abilities occur in a given child will probably depend, for
that particular child, on opportunities for practice, chance, interest,
and amount of activity. The sequence of growth is invariable only in a
general way, and in regard to a general level of maturity. There is also
evidence that the importance of this 'general level" diminishes as age
increases and the rate of development becomes slower. The standard de-
viations of scores, and the variation of performance on individual test
items increase and the correlations between different types of perform-
ance decrease, as the children grow older.

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
16
>-9-
-o
o -
V 1
Cf)
Z NE
oo
u, a
<Z C)
L U V
-, <- -0 z z
V- 0
z >- /- - -_L0
J . d t- o 3 o
o
r
-CII--
*
O 0
L
a
<o - _ 0 u
q 0 o zo - oozz
L L a. c LJ a C! J LLJ t 0 OOr
rS, -__
O zz ,o zz ooz r -j
. o
V,,,
< -j -o<<
y_" _

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
17
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A review of the results presented in the foregoing pages shows a

considerable similarity in the course of motor and mental development
with, however, a few points of difference.
1. In both the motor and the mental test-batteries, increments of

growth are more rapid in the early months, decelerating later. The abso-
lute scale curve of the motor items shows more rapid growth through the
first 21 months than the mental. and after this age, a much slower growth.
2. The reliability of the motor scale is less satisfactory than

the mental, particularly between months 12 and 15. This is largely, if
not entirely, due to the smaller number of items in the motor series.
3. Correlations computed between the motor test scores made at

different ages show that although the r's between tests at adjacent ages
are usually high, there is a low order-of relationship between scores in
tests given 6 months or more apart.
4. The motor items were classified into the categories of manual

coordinations, motion, and antigravity responses. Scores for motion and
antigravity are not consistent in their correlation with one another at
different ages, nor are the scores in either category at an early month
predictive of the scores in the same category at a later one.
5. A definite relationship was found between motor coordinations
and mental abilities during the first 15 months of life (r approximately
.50). After this age the tests diverge in their nature, with both
groups of tests probably changing to include behavior patterns more simi-
lar to adult "mental" and "motor abilities.
6. Because of the complexity and overlapping of the functions in-

volved, it is difficult, (particularly with infants) to fix precisely the
line of demarcation between mental and motor abilities. As only total
functions or behaviors can be observed, actual experimental analysis into
separately scored components is not possible. Our data, therefore, can-
not be used to determine conclusively the degrees of functional separation
which exists between these unisolated reaction-processes at successive
levels of development. But the foregolng statistical analysis does sug-
gest that as maturation proceeds, there occurs a gradual increase in the
functional independence of motor and intellectual abilities.
7. The mean correlation between motor scores and midparent educa-

tion is +.07, with no age trends in evidence. Parental level of intelli-
gence does not appear to exert any influence on these young children's
motor abilities.
8. The relationships of motor ability to body build

small. Extremely stocky or extremely thin children are mor
capped in their motor scores. Relatively long-legged children tend to
have a slight advantage in motor scores. In most children, however,
factors other than body build appear to be of far more importance in
determining gross motor skill.
9. The age of first prewalking progression and the age of first

walking alone are (especially the latter) positively correlated with both
mental and motor scores. They correlate highest with scores made near
the ages of creeping and walking; and they correlate higher with motor
than with mental scores.
10. There appears at first glance to be a regular sequence in t

order in which maturation in motor abilities occurs within an indi
This sequence, however, resembles the mental development sequence in
it is due to a general rapid growth in ability, with any one child
viating only slightly fron his own average level bn the difficulty
The appearance of an invariable sequence is also enhanced by the an
deviation from the mean performaance of the group at each age durin
early months. With increase in age and deceleration of the rate of
uration, the deviations from the average performiance increase and th
sequence of development becomes less orderly.
11. Several of the results indicate that the items included in
motor scale are more "specific" and independent of each other than

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
18
included in the mental scale, particularly after the first year. One of
these indications is the low relationship between scores obtained at
tests more than one month apart, combined with the fact that the corre-
lations are of similar magnitude for different intervals between retests.
Attempts to classify the items into different categories of behavior
(motion and antigravity) did not yield, within the classifications, any
greater consistency of scores than for the total test. The split-half
reliabilities, on the other hand, are high enough to point to interre-
lationships among the items at a given age level.
12. Motor abilities in infants seem to be more closely related to

each other, than are motor abilities in adults (as evidenced by the cor-
relations between groups of motor test items). In interpreting these
correlations, however, the following points deserve to be considered.
1) Scores made by the infants at successive ages are based on their
achievement in performances which often involve very similar muscle
groups. For example, in an earlier test there may be scores on beginning
thumb opposition, and in later tests scores on complete thumb opposition
or skill in picking up a pellet; or in an early test the child may be
scored on creeping, and later on walking. In such closely related per-
formances higher r's are to be expected. 2) The similarity of a child's
scores at the same age level may be a function of the tendency for all
infant performance to be comparatively homogeneous--the tendency for a
child to be retarded, average, or accelerated in all of his performances
at any given age, during the first year or so of life. 3) Since it is
impossible to separate completely the various components of an infant's
behavior, the individual test items may include a wider range of func-
tions than is found in tests of motor skills in adults, thus making for
duplication and overlapping of the factors scored in the different per-
formances measured.
There remains, however, the possibility that the motor functions

measured during the first three years are actually less discreet and
independent than are the motor skills measured at later ages. If this
is true, we may find that a gradual increase in the functional indepen-
dence of motor skills will continue for some time after the age of three
years.

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
19
APPENDIX
THE CALIFORNIA INFANT SCALE OF MOTOR DEVELOPIYNT

Materials for Testing
Few of the motor test items, especially during the first year, re-
quire special test materials. Most of the early tests involved the use
of a regulation height white enameled table and a Kiddie-Koop crib, which
had sides by which the children could pull themselves to sitting. Gen-
eral supplies included sheets, pads, a pillow, and a good germicide
which to wash toys and equipment. The creeping path consisted of a
strip of muslin 4 meters long and 1.20 meters wide, which was spread on
the floor and fastened at the ends with thumb tacks.
A flight of two stairs, with a platform forming a third stair was

copied from Gesell (10, 11). The stairs had a lift of 16.5 cm., were
28 cm. deep, and were made to fit against the long side of a platform
49.5 cm. high, 84 cm. wide and 122 cm. long. A toy on wheels, which
bobs or makes some accessory movement when pulled by the attached string,
was used for stimulation in the walking tests. A walking board, 2.5
meters long, and 6 cm. wide, with the top surface 10 cm. from the floor,
was made according to the specifications given by Baldwin and Stecher (1).
A small chair whose seat is 26 cm. from the floor, was used for the early
jumping test. A platform for jumping from a height was composed of two
steps, with roughly triangular sides or end pieces, that extended 20 cm.
above the top step. The top step was 30 cm. from the floor. A strong
string 1 meter long, attached by a thumb tack at one end to the wall,
was used for testing the jump over a height. Materials used in both the
motor and the mental tests were the Gesell red ring (a wooden embroidery
hoop 11 cm. in diameter); red, one-inch cubes; and sugar pellets (8 cm.
in diameter).
Directions for Administering Test Items
1. (0.2 mo.) Crawling movements. While the child is in the prone

position, note whether he makes alternating crawling movements with his
legs. Credit such movements.
2. (0.5 mo.) Postural adjustment when held to shoulder.* Pick th

child up with the hands around, his body uer the ams, fingers exte
upward along the back of his neck to support his head. Hold him against
you with his head at your shoulder in an upright position. Credit if he
can be felt to make a postural adjustment to the changed position.
3. (0.5 mo.) Lifts head at shoulder. Test as in 2. Credit if
child lefts his head free from the shoulder intermittently.
4. (0.6 mo.) Lateral head movements.* Place the child in the
prone position, and note whether he frees his face by turning his head to
the side or lifting it free of the surface. Credit if he does either.
5. (0.7 mo.) Retains red ring. Place the red ring in the child's
hand. Credit if he retains definite hold.
6. (1.7 mo.) Arm thrusts in play.* When the child is lying in

dorsal position, unrestricted by clothing and in an apparently con
mood, credit if he makes vertical arm thrusts in random play.
7. (1.8 mo.) Leg thrusts in play.* Test as in 6. Credit if he
kicks his legs in play.
6 This is sold under the trade name of Toidy Steps by Juvenile Wood Products,
Inc., Fort Wayne, Indiana.
This and the following starred items are included also in the California First
Year Mental Scale. For a description of the sources of items in the motor
scale, see page 2 of this monograph and page 5 of reference (2).

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
20
8. (1.9 mo.) Head erect - vertical. Pick up child as in 2. Credit

if he holds his head erect for a short time (three or more seconds) when
support is removed from neck.
9. (2.6 mo.) Dorsal suspension - lifts head. While lowering the

child to the crib, and while he is suspended in the dorsal position, re-
move the support of your hand from under his head. Credit if he lifts
his head.
10. (2.9 mo.) Head erect and steady. Test as in 2. Credit if

child holds his head erect and steady.
11. (3.4 mo.) Turns from side to back. When the child is lying in
the crib, unrestricted by clothing, roll him onto his side. Credit if
under this situation, or any similar one during the examination period,
he turns from his side to his back.
12. (3.5 mo.) Prone - elevates self by arms. Place chi

prone position. Credit if he elevates himself by his anrs, freeing his
head and shoulders from the table surface by the support of his arms or
hands, or elbows.
13. (3.5 mo.) Sits with support. Support the child in a sitting
position with pillows. Credit if he sits with a resistant body posture
while thus supported.
14. (3.6 mo.) Hands predominantly open. Credit if, during the ex
amination period, the iands are predominantly open when not grasping an
object.
15. (3.6 mo.) Holds'head steady. Holding child at shoulder, with-

out support to head, carry him about the room, or sway back and forth
gently. Credit if he holds his head erect and steady during this pro-
cess.
16. (4.1 mo.) Beginning thumb opposition.* Pla

in each hand. Credit if there is any evidence of the use of the thumb in
opposition to the fingers in grasping the cube.
17. (4.6 mo.) Sits with slight support. Place the child in a sit-
ting position on the table with his legs straightened at an angle of 50
degrees. If he does not sit alone, prop him with a pillow at his back.
Credit if he sits with slight prop.
18. (5.0 mo.) Turns from back to side. Allow child to lie on his
back on a flat surface, free of any restrictions. Credit if, while in
the dorsal position, he turns himself onto his side.
19. (5.1 mo.) Partial thumb opposition.* Credit if child opposes

the thumb to the fingers in a partial, but not complete manner, using the
palm of the hand, as well as thumb and fingers in picking up the cube,
which has been placed on the table before him in easy reach.
20. (5.4 mo.) Effort to sit. Credit if child lifts head and
shoulders in an effort to sit, when he is lying in the dorsal position.
If this does not occur in the regular routine of the examination, effort
should be stimulated by an interesting object (rattle) held at the foot
of the crib in easy sight, or by the mother standing at the foot of the
crib.
21. (5.5 mo.) Head balanced. While holding the child in you
tilt him so that his head may drop forward, to the right, left and back-
ward. Credit if he keeps his head balanced, and in the axis of his body,
or assumes compensatory head postures.
22. (5.7 mo.) Simultaneous flexion and thumb opposition.* Test

as in 19. Credit if the child picks up the cube with simultaneous flex-
ion of the fingers and partial opposition of the thumb.
23. (5.7 mo.) Sits alone momentarily. Test as in 17. Credit if he
sits momentarily without support.

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
21
24. (6.2 mo.) Pulls tQ sitting position. Stand at the foot of the
crib and lean over the child while he is in the dorsal position. Give
him your thumbs to grasp, and allow him, with this support, to pull him-
self to the sitting position, by gradually raising the hands as the child
pulls. Care should be taken not to do the pulling for the child. Credit
if the child pulls himself to the sitting position.
25. (6.2 mo.) Sits alone 30 seconds r more. Test as in 17.

Credit if the child sits alone 30 seconds or more.
26. (6.4 mo.) Unilateral reaching.* Credit if the child tends to

reach and manipulate with one hand more often than bimanually.
27. (6.7 mo.) Rotates wrist.* Credit if, in manipulating toys, the
child rotates his wrist freely.
28. (7.0 mo.) Rolls from back to stomach. Test as in 18. A toy
may be placed, as an incentive, to one side and out of reach of the
child. Credit if, from the dorsal position, he rolls onto his stomach.
29. (7.1 mo.) Complete thumb opposition.* Credit if the child
picks up the cube with thumb and fingers completely opposed, and without
the use of the palm.
30. (7.5 mo.) Sits alone, steadily. Test as in 17. Credit if

child maintains the sitting position steadily, and with back fairly
straight.
31. (7.8 mo.) Partial finger prehension.* Place a sugar pellet

(-eight rmi. in diameter) on the table, on its convex surface, in easy
reach. Credit if the child picks up the pellets with partial finger
prehension, that is, with several fingers opposed to the thumb, and not
scooping into the palm with the fingers.
32. (8.5 mo.) Sits alone with good coordination. Test as in 17.
Credit if child sits alone steadily while manipulating toys, turning,
etc.
33. (9.2 mo.) Prewalking progression. Place child in the prone

position on a flat surface, with a toy in front of him but out of reach.
Credit if he makes any forward progress in this position whether on ab-
domen, on hands and knees, on hands and feet, or in sitting position.
(The last should, of course, be tested while the child is sitting, and
would occur only after the ability to sit is accomplished.)
34. (9.3 mo.) Fine prehension with pellet." Test as in 31. Credit
if child picks up the pellet precisely, with thumb and forefinger.
35. (9.4 mo.) Raises self to sitting position. Credit if child
while lying in the crib, pulls himself to a sitting position with help
of the sides of the crib.
36. (9.6 mo.) Ear stepping movements. Hold the child in an up-
right position, with his feet on the floor or table surface, supporting
him under the arms. Credit if he makes stepping movements which propel
him forward, though without coordinated support of his own body.
37. (10.5 mo.) Pulls to standgin position. Test as in 24. Credit
if he pulls himself, by the support of your thumbs, to a standing posi-
tion.
38. (10.6 mo.) Stands up by furniture. Credit if, when on floo

the child pulls himself to a standing position with the help of a ch
railing of pen, or other convenient object. If necessary, an attractive
toy, out of reach on the chair, should be used as an incentive.
39. (10.9 mo.) Steppin movements. Stand the child on the floor,
holding his hands for support. Credit if he attempts to walk by making
stepping movements, but leans heavily for support.
40. (11.6 mo.) Walks with help. Test as in 39. Credit if he takes
coordinated walking steps, and walks with only slight support.
41. (12.5 mo.) Sits down. Credit if the child lowers himself from

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
22
a standing to a sitting position.
42. (12.5 mo.) Stands alone. Place the child in a standing posi-
tion, out of reach of any supporting object, and, when he is well bal-
anced on his feet, remove the support of your hands. Credit if he main-
tains the standing position for a few seconds.
43. (13.0 mg.) Walks alone. Test as in 42. Credit if he take

two or three steps without support.
44. (14.0 mo.) Aufstehn I. Place the child on the floor in the
dorsal position. Credit if, by rolling onto his stomach, he stands up
without support other than the floor.
45. (16.5 mo.) Walks sideways. Using a toy-on-wheels that will

bob and dip when pulled along the floor give the child the attached
string (first demonstrating how it goes , and encourage him to pull it.
Credit, if, while pulling the toy (or at any other time during the test)
he takes several steps sideways.
46. (16.9 mo.) Walk backward. Test as in 45. Credit if he takes

several steps backard.
47. (19.9 mo ) Stands on right foot with help. While holding one
of the child's hands, endeavor to persuade him to lift his left foot,
to show you his shoe, or to touch with it an object held just off the
floor. Credit if he stands on his right foot with slight support.
48. (19.9 mo.) Stands on left foot with help. Test and credit as
in 47, except that child stands on-left foot.
49. (20.3 mo.) Walks upstairs with help. Put a toy on the plat-
form at the top of a flight of three steps, and encourage child to go up
after it. Credit if he walks up the steps, holding on to the wall for
support.
50. (20.5 mo.) Walk downstairs with help. Test as in 49, putting
the toy down on the lower level and encourage him to come down. Credit
if he walks downstairs holding to wall for support.
51. (22.5 mo.) Tries to stand on walki board. Walk on the walk-
ing board, and encourage the child to do the same. Credit if he tries
to stand on it.
52. (22.5 mo.) Aufstehn LI. Test as in 44. Credit if c

up by first turning to his side.
53. (24.3 mo.) Walk upstairs alone; marks tm. Test as in 49.
Credit if he walks upstairs without support from his hands, standing
with both feet on each step before stepping up to the next.
54. (24.5 mo.) Walks downstairs alone; marks time. Test as in 50.
Credit if he walks downstairs without support of the hands, standing on
each step with both feet before stepping down to the next.
55. (27.6 mo.) Walks with one foot on walkig board. Test as in
51. Credit if he walks on it, one foot on, one off.
56. (28.0 mo.) Jumps off floor; both feet. Place a piece of
string on the floor, and demonstrate jumping over it with both feet to-
gether. Encourage child to do the same. Credit if he succeeds in
jumping off the floor with both feet together.
57. (29.2 mo.) Stands on lef f.e alone. Test as in 47 and 48,
but without giving any support to the hand. Credit if he stands on the
left foot alone momentarily.
58. (29.3 mo.) Stands Q r1aht foot alone. These as in 48. Cred-
it if he stands on his right foot alone momentarily.
59. (30.1 mo.) Walks on tiptoe. Demonstrate walking on tiptoe,
and encourage the child to do the same. Credit if he succeeds in walking
a few steps without his heels touching the floor.

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
23
60. (31.0 mo.) Stands on wa' board with both feet. Test as in
51. Credit if he succeeds in stdnding on the board with both feet for a
few seconds.
61. (31.3 mo.) Walks m3 line; general direction. Draw a straig

line 3 meters long (10 feet) with chak, and demonstrate to the ch
walking on it the entire distance, always stepping on the line. Ask the
child to do the same, Credit if he succeeds in walking close to the
line (usually stepping on it with one foot, or astride it) for the en-
tire length.
62. (32.1 mo.) Jumps from chair. Ask the child to jump off a
chair 26 cm. high. Demonstrate if necessary. Credit If he jumps with
both feet together.
63. (32.7 mo.) Aufstehn III. Test as in 44. Credit if he stands

up by pulling himself forward, without turning to either side.
64. (32.8 mo.) Attempts step while on walking board. Test as in

51. Credit if he attempts to take a step while he is standing on the
board with both feet.
65. (33.0 mo.) Walks backward three meters. Demonstrate w

backward on the three-meter chalkline, and encourage the child to do the
same. Credit if he walks backward the entire distance. (It is not
necessary to keep the feet on the line.)
66. (35.5 mo.) Walks upstairs, alternating forward foot. Test as

in 49. Credit if he walks upstairs, stepping to each successive step
with alternating feet, and without balancing with both feet on a step.
67. (36.2 mo.) Walks tiptoe three meters. Demonstrate walking an
the chalkline on tiptoe. Credit if the child walks tiptoe three meters
(not necessarily on the line.)
68. (37.1 mo.) Jumps from height of 30 M. Using the two-step
platform which is 30 cm. (approximately one foot) from the floor, demon-
strate jumping from it with both feet together, and encourage the child
to do the same. Credit if he succeeds in jumping from this height with
both feet together.
69. (37.3 mo.) Distance vup - 10 to 35 m. Test as in 68, but

encouraging the child to jump as far as possible. Measure the distance
from the base of the platform to the point where his nearest heel
touched the floor. Give three trials. Credit the greatest distance
jumped.
70. (38.0 mo.) Walking board - alternates p wvy. Test as in

51. Credit if he takes two or more alternating steps on the board be-
fore stepping off. Alternating steps are left foot in front of right,
right in front of left, and so on.
71. (38.5 mo.) Keeps feet on line, three meters. Test as in 61.
Credit if he walks the entire length of the line without stepping off.
72. (39.7 mo.) Distance - 36 to 60 0L. Test as in 68 and 70.
Credit if he jumps at least 36 cm.
73. (41.5 mo.) JumD over rope, less tha 20 gm. hith. Fasten one
end of a heavy cord about one meter long, to the wall at a height of
20 cm. from the floor. Hold the other end loosely so that the center
part of the string is 5 cm. from the floor, and encourage child to jump
over the string, jumping with both feet together. Demonstrate if neces-
sary. If he succeeds in jumping over the string at 5 cm., raise the
string by about two centimeter intervals, until a height is reached
which he cannot clear in three trials. Credit if he clears the string
at 5 cm. or more.
74. (48.4 mo.) Distance nD - 6Q to 85 cm. Test as in 68 and 70.

Credit if he jumps at least 60 cm.
75. (49.3 mo.) Hopping on right foot 2 or 3 hops. Draw a straight

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
24
chalkline 3 meters long and ask the child to hop along it on one foot,
demonstrating the procedure. Credit if he hops at least 2 or 3 hops
without putting down his left foot.
76. (50.0 mo.) Walks downstairs - alternating forward foot. Cre-

dit if child walks down the stairs without any support from his-hands,
and stepping forward with each foot alternately without standing with
both feet on one step.
Directions for Scoring the Tests
Using as a basal score the number of the successful test items be-
low which there are no failures, add to this score one point for each
item passed above it. This point score may be converted into a sigma
score, using the means and standard deviations in Table 11, by the for-
mula;
sigma score - Child's score - Mean
Standard Deviation
The mean and standard deviation for the age nearest to the child's
chronological age, as given in Table 11 should be used. A sigma score
of zero means that the child's performance is average for his age; a
plus sigma score means that he is above average; a minus score means
that he is below average.
If it has been necessary to omit one or more of the test items,

the point score may be computed according to the Thurstone method (35)
by counting the number of failures, starting with the easiest item
failed, and the number of passes, starting with the most difficult item
passed, (not counting the omitted items), and thus finding the point at
which the number of passes is equal to the number of failures. The item
number at this point is the point score to be assigned, and to be used
in comDuting the sigma score.
TABLE 11
SMOOTHED MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF

CUMULAI'IVE POINT SCORES ON TOTAL MOTOR SERIES TESTS
Month Mean S.D. Month Mean S.D.
1.0 4.62 .95 14.0 42.90 2.74

6.25 1.15 15.0 44.06 2.58
1.5
2.0 8.21 1.33 16.0 45.25 2.40
2.5 9.85 1.57 17.0 46.35 2.20
3.0 10.79 1.78 18.0 47.04 2.04
3.5 13.35 2.02 19.0 48.25 1.97
4.0 15.12 2.25 20.0 49.20 1.96
4.5 17.00 2.47 21.0 50.55 1.99
5.0 18.86 2.69 22.0 51.22 2.09
5.5 20.75 2.92 23.0 52.15 2.21
6.0 23.09 3.12 24.0 53.17 2.36
6.5 25.05 3.25 25.0 54.50 2.53
7.0 27.12 3.32 26.0 55.60 2.70
7.5 28.53 3.36 27.0 55.75 2.79
8.0 30.77 3.37 28.0 58.00 3.05
8.5 31.80 3.40 29.0 59.10 3.25
9.0 33.73 3.37 30.0 59.79 3.48
9.5 34.80 3.35 31.0 61.70 3.68
10.0 36.43 3.29 32.0 62.80 3.89
11.0 38.50 3.18 33.0 64.23 4.12
12.0 40.67 3.10 34.0 65.50 4.30
13.0 41.85 2.88 35.0 66.70
36.0 68. 11
SMeans and standard deviations for ages not given in Table 4

are interpolated from the smoothed curve.

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
25
REFERENCES
(1) Baldwin, B. T., and Stecher, L. I. Psychology of the preschool child.

New York: Appleton, 1924.
(2) Bayley, N. The California first year mental scale. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press, 1933. Pp. 24.
(3) M. ental growth during the first three years: A develop-

mental study of sixty-one children by repeated tests. Genet.
Psychol. Monog., 1933, 14, 1-92.
(4) Bayley, N., and Davis, F. C. Growth changes in bodily size and pro-
portions during the first three years: A developmental study of
sixty-one children by repeated measurements. Biometrika, 1935, 27.
(5) Burnside, L. H. Coordination in the locomotion of infants. Genet.
Psychol. Monog., 1927, 2, 283-372.
(6) Cunningham, B. V. An experiment in measuring gross motor development

of infants and young children. J. Educ. Psychol., 1927, 18,
458-464.
(7) Farmer, E. A group factor in sensory motor tests. Brit. J

1927, 17, 32'7-334.
(8) Garfiel, E. The measurement of motor ability. Arch. Psy
9, No. 62, Pp. 46.
(9) Gates, A. I., and Scott, A. W. Characteristics and relations of

motor speed and dexterity among young children. J. Genet. Psychol.,
1931, 39, 423-453.
(10) rGesell. A. Infancy and human growth. New York: Macmillan, 1928,
Pp. xvii + 418.
(11) . The mental growth of the pre-school child. New York:

Macmillan, 1925, Pp. x + 447.
(12) Goodenough, F. L. The reliability and validity of the Wallin peg

boards. Psychol. Clin. 1927, 16, 199-200.
(13) Goodenough, F. L., Foster, J. C. and Van Wagenen, M. J. Minnesota

preschool scale. (Manual Form A.) Minneapolis-Philadelphia: Educ.
Test Bureau, Inc., 1932.
(14) Hertzberg, 0. E. The relationship of motor ability to the intelli-

gence of kindergarten children. J. Educ. Psychol., 1929, 20,
507-519.
(15) Hetzer,
62-104.
H. and Wolf, K. Babytests. Zsch. f. Psychol., 1928, 10
(16) Heubner, 0. Uber Zeitfolgen in der psychischen Entwicklung d

Sauglings und des jungen Kindes. Ergeb. d. inn. Med. u. Kinde
1918, 16, 1-31.
(17) Jenkins, L. M. A comparative

of five, six and seven years o
1930, No. 414, Pp. 54.
(18) Jones, M. C. The development of early behavior patterns in young

children. J. Genet. Psychol., 1926, 33, 537-585.
(19) Kemal, C. Contribution a 1'etude des tests de developpement
moteur d'Ozeretzky. Arch. de. psychol., 1928, 31, 93-99.
(20) Kuhlmann, F. A handbook of mental tests. Baltimore, Md.: Warwic
and York, 1922. Pp. 244.
(21) Linfert, H., and Hierholzer, H. I. A scale for measuring the mental
development of infants during the first year of life. Stud.
Psychol. and Psychiat. Catholic Unlv. Amer., 1928, 1, No. 4, Pp. 33

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00
26
(22) McGraw, M. B. From reflex to muscular control in the assumption of

an erect posture and ambulation of the human foot. Child Develop-
ment, 1932, 3, 291-297.
(23) Muscio, B. Motor activity with special reference to vocational guid-

ance. Brit. J. Psychol, 1922, 13, 157-184.
(24) National Society for the Study of Education. Twenty-eighth Yearbook,

Part II, Chapter 2. Bloomington, Ill.: Public School Publishing
Co., 1929. Pp. 465-493.
(25) Oseretzky, N. J. Eine metrische Stufenleiter zur Untersuchung der

motorischen Begabung bei Kindern. Zsch. f. Kinderrorschung,
1924-25, 30, 300-314.
(26) . Psychomotorik, methoden zur Untersuchung der

Motorik. Beihefte z. Zsch. f. Angw. Psychol. 1931, 57, Pp. 158.
(27) Paterson, D. G., et al. Minnesota mechanical ability tests. Minne-
apolis: Univ. of Minn. Press, 1930, Pp xii + 586.
(28) Perrin, F. A. C. An experimental study of motor ability. J. Exp

Psychol., 1921, 4, 24-56.
(29) Schwab, G. Pr ffung des psychischen Zustandes und Entwicklungsganges
von Kindern bis zum drei Lebenshahr. Jahrb. f. Kinderhk., 1925,
107, 86-98.
(30) Seashore, R. H. Individual differences in motor skills. J. Gen.

Psychol., 1930, 3, 38-66.
(31) Shirley, N. M. The first two years. Vol. I, Minneapolis: Univ.

Minn. Press, 1931, Pp. xv + 227.
(32) . The sequential method for the study of maturing be-

havior patterns. Psychol. Rev., 1931, 38, 507-528.
(33) Smith, M. E., Lecker, G., Dunlap, J. W. and Cureton, E. E. The ef-
fects of race, sex, and environment on the age at which children
walk. J. Genet. Psychol., 1930, 38, 489-498.
(34) Thurstone, L. L. A method of scaling psychological and educational
tests. J. Educ. Psychol., 1925, 16, 433-451.
(35) . The scoring of individual performance. J. Educ.
Psychol., 1926, 17, 446-457.

51.6.62.24 on Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:39:19 +00:00

Bayley DevelopmentMotorAbilities 1936

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bayley DevelopmentMotorAbilities 1936

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Development of Motor Abilities during the First Three Years: A Study of Sixty-

One Infants Tested Repeatedly

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1165480

This content downloaded from

A STUDY OF SIXTY-ONE INFANTS

This content downloaded from

INTRODUCTION............................. .... .............. 1

c. Consistency of the scores......................... 8

d. Classification of the test items................... 11

f. Comparison of motor scores with parents' education. 12

g. Comparison with body build ........................ 12

h. Walking and prewalking progression................. 13

1. Sequence of growth ................................ 14

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................... 17

REFERENCES ................................ ........... 25

This content downloaded from

The present study* is concerned primarily with the determination of

In adults and in children of school age, motor skills have been

The writer has shown in a previous study of mental development of

The literature on motor development in infants and pre-sc

I wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions to this study of Dr. Lotta V.

This content downloaded from

Tests and developmental norms of motor abilities of pre-school

The tests were given to a group of infants who originally numbered

The original selection of items was arranged on record forms ac-

1 This order of difficulty was determined by the Thurstone method of absolute

This content downloaded from

MOTOR DEVELOPMENT TEST ITEMS LISTED IN ORDER OF DIFFICULTY

Cumu- Abso- Age also

6 .75 1.7)Arm thrusts in play X X A

16 1.88 (4.1)Beginning thumb opposition X X A

21 2.55 (5.5) Head balanced X B

26 3.13 (6.4) Unilateral reaching X X B

31 4.08 (7.8) Partial finger prehension X X B

36 5.04 (9.6 Early stepping movements X B

41 6.84 12.5 Sits down X B

46 9.72 (16.9 Walks backward X A

51 12.37 (22.5) Tries to stand on walking

56 13.86 (28.0) Jumps off floor; both feet X A

61 14.59 (31.3) Walks on line;general direction X B

71 15.81 (38.5) Keeps feet on line, three

This content downloaded from

for scoring total performance.

COEFFICIENTS OF RELIABILITY OF MOTOR TEST COMPARED WITH MENTAL TEST

1 53 .67 .71 .397 .568 .631 .632

The split-half correlations are for

The mean of all the corrected split-half

Prophecy formula extended to predict r if the number of test items

This content downloaded from

1) The Spearman-Brown prophecy formula was applied to the correla

The two available methods of checking the reliability

This content downloaded from

b) Trends of Growth in Motor Abilities

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF CUMULATIVE POINT SCORES

Both sexes Boys Girls

1 53 4.6 1.15 27 4.63 1.02 26 4.62 1.27

Between months 11 and 15, the means show

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

The question may be raised whether other selections of test items,

When the absolute standard deviations are plotted against absolute

c) Consistency of the Scores

This content downloaded from