Nni i,Jr C,:JrnmorciF.il Us~.

I
f ., r E
t ,1·1 · -=•I P1..1~r)i-
.. ,··, :r: ,, t I c· r'
~..,;,,.c_ , ( . A , ) 1U
1 •J£::.f-·
- -✓
I
on y

Seguin Form Board Test

SFB T

Edfted By
Banashree Dek a
&
Vriti Kalra

•
,•.
,(P. R~~A~ r~x~~o
.
I

10 A, Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 www.prasadpsycho .corri

part in any form ..

rights reserved . May not be reprod uced in whole or
Copyri ght© 2010 by Prasad P,'fcho Corpo ration . All ,
or l: y. any
. . . . Corporation .
means withou t written perm1ss1on of Pra sad Psycho
 Not for "'
For Edu~ ~;m erc ial Use
wC 1on21 Purpose only

(
TABLE OF CONTENTS

............... ..
Hi storica l Sketch .... ... .... ... .. .. ...... ....... .. ...................... .. ... ....................
Descriptive and

.. .... 3
.... ... .... ... ..... ............... ........... .. ............ ..... .................... .........................
Prelin1inary Sn1dic s ...

....... .. . 7
ed and Defective Children ........... .............................. .........................
Application to Retard

........ . 14
...... .. .......... ............. .. ..... ... ......................... ....................
Indian ~orms ........ ........ ... ...... .. ... ....

................. ... 16
.. ....... .... ..... ......................... ....... ....... .... .. ................. ....................
.A..ppendix...... .... .....

o O O o O o O O o o o o o ♦ o O O O o o o o o O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
•
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
O 0 19
o I ♦ o o O o o , o O I
• o o o o o o o o o O .

Co nclusion • o • • • o O • o O o • • • o • o • o • o o
o • • • • • o o o • • o
o o • o O o o o o • • • • > • + o

I Rdi :ren ccs ...... . ...... .......... . ......... ............ ....... ... ··············· ······················ ·························
············ 19

I
!
1
...
:
~

...
• ~
I
•
 fr

I
l
;· No t for Corn
For Ed ucati.orne rc ial Use
1~ 1 p
,a urp ose on ly
AL SKETCH
DESCRIPTIVE AND HISTORIC
logists continue to regard
n boa rd has bee n use d for several years, and cl~~a~ psycho
The fon a short
bes t gen era l tests. It app eals to the child s mterest, affording him/her
it as one of their r from the
wh ich calls for his /he r bes t effort, and it helps to free himfhe
and fascinating task n. At the
nsc iou sne ss wh ich ofte n inte rfer e seriously in a mental examinatio
fear and self-co ity ("g" factor)
the test giv es the exa min er a goo d general view of the child's mental
same time
clearly the nature of defects.
and it usually indicates more or less

08LG
0DC>
f11ro[J
I rd - the form s are designated by numbers as follows
: 1. Semi-circle. 2.
Fig. 1- The For m Boa 8. Flattened oval. 9.
I Triangle. 3. Cross. 4. Elongated hex
Star . 10. Lozenge.
agon. 5. Oblong. 6. Circle. 7. Square.

I The ten geometrical figures, as nea

cut through an oak boa rd 18 x 12 x
rly uniform in size as their variety
1.5 inch
of form will allow, are
es. The board is finished in their nat
ural color and
give it an attractive
! the blocks are painted black The who
appearance , an imp ortant feat ure
may be called the standard form boa
in a
le is carefully finished in order to
men tal testing device. This description applies to
rd, the type now in most general use.
what

i
I.,
History of the For m Board
i e con trived for training purposes. Itard in his efforts
to train the
The first form boa rds wer
are upon which were
d Boy of Ave yro n used as one of his devices a board two feet squ
Wil a black square.
paper-a red circle, a blue triangle, and
pasted three pieces of brightly colored these by the boy.
of card boa rd of the sam e form s and colors were to be matched with
Pieces
colors were also used.
Other boards with various forms and
person to
nch phy sician, base d his wor k on developing senses. He was the first
Seguin, a Fre ed or abnormal but
cient children were not always deceas
point out that brains of mentally defi
j
I

r
I
)
 c\a\ use
· _comrner . se on\~
ts.lo\. \O\ r • ona\ rui? 0..~
r ()( cr- ducat1
~er~ ofte'.1 s.imply aITested in development. Seguin constructed a number of f01m boards.
Copies of some of them are still used at the Seguin School. One consists of an inch board
about one foot square into the surface of which are cut four circular recesses a half inch deep
and varying between an inch and three inches in diameter. Corresponding to these are four
circular blocks o_ne inch thick. Board and blocks are soft wood and are not stained or p;inted.
Another Seguin board is of'hard wood, is considerably larger than the kind just described and
has a dozen variously shaped symmetrical fonns. In a third kind the blocks are of light
colored wood on one side and of dark colored wood on the other. The only form boards that
Seguin himself used was six recesses in each are arrang~d in a line. Boards and blocks are all
of the same wood and color. Seguin conceived of a series of form boards graded as to
difficulty and he had such a series planned and partly constructed.

Dr. Henry H. Goddard increased the board to its present size, substituted the star and the
cross, an·anged the fom1 s more compactly, reduced them to such sizes and proportions that no
block could be set into a recess not its own, and dispensed with the handles.

Methods of Giving the Test

Dr. Clara H. Town regards fo1m perception as the primary feature of the test and so uses the
1 number of errors as the index of a child's form board ability. The errors would refer to an
l attempt to fit a block into a recess not its own. She takes a record of the number of errors
made in each trial until the trial in which all of the blocks are replaced without error, or until
\
she is convinced that the child cannot replace them. In addition she notes the rapidity of the
work and certain other features, but her procedure is planned to give greatest prominence to
errors.

Goddard considers the amount of time required by the child for replacing the blocks of prime
importance. He gives three trials, and takes the time of the shortest of the three as the child's
fonn board index. He also takes a record of the handling of the blocks and attaches some
importance to the number of errors.

Professor Lightner Witmer is most interested in the child's first attempts at the task. His
procedure varies for different children, but he usually places the board before the child with
no explanation except a mere statement as, "Let us see whether you can do this", or "Put the
blocks in". Then he watches closely to catch the child's first reactions and to see how he
attacks this new kind of problem. Successive trials are usually given and the method varies
the procedure depending on the way that the child reacts and the particular features of his
mentality on which the examiner desires more light. The child takes usual interest in the task,
he is often allowed to continue it while details quite apart from the general purpose of the test
are studied. For instance after the blocks are in place the examiner may say in a low tone,
"Now take them out", thus getting at the child's word-hearing ability. The record of the test as
kept by Witmer usually consists of observations dictated while the test is being given.

2
; -·
i

I /
!'lot fo r Cornme rci81Us
e
For Ed uc ational Purpos
n only
.
are dis tin gu ish ed because they emphasiz e th ree dtfferent fi
These three me thods
· · to a new task. In each . eature s of the
an d rea ctt on som e attention is .
fonn board tes t; errors , ttme, are no t entirely dist' t given to the
the others , so they O th
features emphasized in me · er methods are
ee .
modifications of these thr

PRELIMINARY STUDIES
Clinic of the
ar's observation of the test in the Psychological
ye
Sylvester ( 19 14) , after a four hundred children and severa
l dozen adults
it wa s applied on '
University of Pennsylvania me ntioned in the preceding section. The
ns of the three methods
using various modificatio ions.
lded the following conclus
preliminary studies have yie

d Blocks
1. Position of Child, Board an
the board, and the
lus ion s ha s to do wi th the position of the child,
The first of these conc ing arrangement was worke
d out. It was used
of a tria l. Th e fol low
blocks at the beginnin g e fonn board lies
die s and ha s pro ve d to be entirely satisfactory. Th
throughout the later stu edge next to the star recess
) even with the
its low er ed ge (it is the
horizontally m a ·table , nd s. The table must be low e~
ough so that he can
to wh ich the ch ild sta
edge of the table next ildren readily adapt
bo ard and loo k do wn upon the center of it. Ch e of
lean well over the
ab le ran ge, so an ad jus tab le table is not necessary. On
n a reason
themselves to height withi suf fic e. Mo st children under nine years
of age are
rga rte n tab le
ordinary height and a kinde chi ld has to look across the board ins
tead of
table is too hig h, the
requiring the latter. If the to see the fo rm s- an important po
int that is often
wo uld be un abl e
down upon it and then he bo ard may be too high for the chi
ld. The blocks
am ine rs is tha t the
neglected by many ex on the side opposite
thr ee pil es on the tab le, next to the 'edge of the board ion that
should be placed in st its ow n rec ess. If the child is in a posit
the pil e ne are
the child, no block being in the bo ard , he can easily reach the blocks
piled in
cen ter of
enables him to look down up
on the , and in that
the rig ht oft he bo ard as is often done is of no advantage
that way. Placing them at
the lef t han d. Pla cin g som e at each end of the board is
ked up wi th
position they cannot be pic ies of handling them.
it offers the mo st po ssi bil ities for varying the difficult
still worse for
used
2. Kind of Form Board to be
ment of the
err ed to the siz e of the bo ard and the order of arrange
The second conclusion ref blocks of the standard form
board are too large
hav e sug ges ted tha t the ard was
forms upon it. Some tw o-t hir ds siz ed model of the standard bo
t thi s, a
for small children . To tes yea r old children, 28 five year old
s, 18 four year
wa s tried wi th 15 six two
constructed. This board
chi ld had two trials wi th the standard form board and
Each
olds, and 8 three year olds. ing the m in the order, standard-small-stand
ard-small
of eac h age tak
~- with the small one, half e order. The time required for
placing the blocks
taking the m in the rev ers a slight
and the other half e for the two boards. The small board has
ly the sam is
was found to be practical ch the ext rem e corner recesses more easily, but this
en can rea small blocks into
advantage in that small childr co- ord ina tion required for fitting the
set by the finer
perhaps more than off

3
 ~'ot ~ r Com mercial Use ·
r nr
•
r. due--- ' ·
1... c.. uon a I p urpose only

place. The sma ll ·t· • · fi Jk Th · ·

and . . s at was very difficul t for the clumsy fingered little o , e mve!;hgat,"
h others_ who observed the work agreed that the regular sized blocks w~re gra'>pe<l and
andled with more certainty than the smalJ ones It was not thought worthwh1le to try a larger
board for it· was evident that small children would
· · reaching
have diffi culty m · Jtc,
· comer
recesses. The question of re-arranging the forms on the board and of substituting other form s
was also taken up. A board on which forms could be set in any order ail<l turned at any angJe
was planned, but after experimenting with cardboard models it was decided that such a study
th
would invol ve more than the present investigation should undertake; a n <l furt_her tha1 e
studY of these details would probably contribute little to the efficiency of the device.

3. Number of Trials to be Given

After these fi rs t preliminaries had been completed, attention was given to a featu~e - of
Goddard's method which seemed to caIJ for testing before being adopted, namely, th e giv mg
of three trials.

At the beginning it was necessary to set age limits for the children to be tested. Records had
been kept of the 400 children and a number of others of children from 3-7 years of age were
now added. The results showed that an occasional 4 year old child could not place all of the
blocks unless given assistance other than urging. So, 5 years was set as the minimum age for
the establishment of the standards. 14 years was set as the maximum age because the form
board is certainly of little value for testing individuals who have the ability of that age or of a
year or two younger. The question of the number of trials was taken up by testing 200
children, 20 of each age from 5-14 inclusive. Each child was given five trials at placing the
blocks and the time of each trial was recorded. The results arranged in two year groups are
given in tables 1, 2 and 3.

Table 1 - Average time in seconds for each of five trials. The data is from the records
of 20 children of each age from 5-14

Age
Trial Average
5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14
I 45 29 22 18 15 25.8
.n 34 24 18 16 14 21.1
III 31 23 17 15 13 19.6
IV 30 21 18 14 13 19.2
V 30, 22 17 13 12 18.9

4
 --
Not for Commer cial Use
For Edu cati ona l Pur pose only

data of Table 1
Tab le 2 - Stan dar d deviations for the

Age
Trial 11-12 13-14 Average
5-6 7-8 9-10
I 13.8 5.5 5.1 4.7 2.6 6.3
I 1.0 5.2 3.4 2.8 3.0 5.1
II
3.5 3.2 2.5 2.3 4.2
III 9.5
3.2 2.5 2.1 3.9
IV 7.8 3.8
3.1 3.3 2.4 2.2 3.7
V 7.6

second
their shortest record on the first trial,
Tab le 3 - Num ber of individuals mak ing
trial, etc. for the five trials

Age Total
Tria l 9-10 11-12 13-14
5-6 7-8
1 2 6
I 1 0 2
9 8 6 40
II 8 9
10 12 59
III 11 12 14
19 12 68
IV 13 11 13
20 18 88
V 14 17 19

essive
ease in the length of time records of succ
According to Table 1 there is a general decr the third
nds for the first trial to I 9.6 seconds for
trials, the average falling from 25.8 seco ease for
regularly for the first three trials. The decr
trial. Each age group shows the decrease and 18.9
ed, the time averages being 19.2 seconds
the fourth and the fifth trials is not so mark ability
groups the decrease is not regular. Vari
seconds respectively, and in some of the ages of
s a decrease with successive trials, the aver
(Standard deviations, Tab le 2) also show in
3.7 seconds. Here also the decrease is greatest
the five in order being 6.3, 5.1, 4.2, 3.9, and fifth.
regular decreases except in the fourth and
the first three trials and the age groups show being
rtant factor, mos t of the shortest records
Table 3 indicates that practice is a very impo othe r. This
number on the fifth trial than on any
made after the second tria 1, and a larger eases for
in the light of the small average time decr
evidence has less weight when considered age
noted in Table I, for with such small aver
the fourth and the fifth trials as has been were shor test by
t number of cases the last trials
decreases, it must have been that in a grea most
indicate that in general the first trial is the
~ only a second or two. These three tables ble,
ble. Like-wise the fifth trial is the most relia
irregular in every way and so is the least relia much
than those preceding it. The third trial is so
and of the five trials each is more reliable trials is
nd that the necessity of giving at least three
more consistent than the first and the seco smal l and
third, fourth, and fifth are comparatively
obvious. But the differences between the nce.
a second or two in indices is of little conseque
as will be shown further on, a difference of

5
 ~-lot tor Co mm erc ial Us e
Fo r [rJ uc ati on al Pu rpose only
a test like this more than
s for brevity and convenience in
Jt ,is eviden t: then tha t the demand fourth or a fifth trial.
sma ll gain in acc ura cy tha t would be made by giving a
ol·faet the ified.
trials for the standard method is just
The refo re the ado ption of three

ree Piles
4. Position of the Blocks in the Th
n in the Pen nsylvan ia
er pre lim ina ry stud y was the testing of 93 totally blind childre
Anoth clearly in the work of the
features of the test stand out mo re
ins titution for the Bli nd. Certain observed was
tho se wh o see , wh ich is mo re rapid, and less lab ore d On e feature
blin d tha n in ked up by two hands
en two dif fcu lt blo cks or two that are often interchanged are pic
tha t wh ma kin g the best record of
fuse the child and to prevent his
at the sam e tim e, it is likely to con by the blind and
abl e. The star and the cross are the most often interchanged
which he is cap atio n led to the rule
e and the e lon gat ed hex ago n by seeing children. This obs erv
the loz eng ted hexagon
blo cks for chi ldre n who hav e vision the lozenge and the elo nga
that in pili ng the bei ng picked up
pla ced in the sam e lay er in the piles. This usually prevents the ir
mu st not be if the star is picked up early
erved especially in the blind that
sim ulta neo usly. It was also obs thereby and has
and refu ses to slip into plac e the child is often confused
in the trial this, the mo st difficult
ry trou ble wit h the oth er bloc kc,. It was therefore decided that
unnece ssa in the trial it
pl ace , sho uld nev er be left on the top of a pile. If pic ked up late
block to fit into
many other blocks.
cannot di sturb the handling of so

Vision in the Test

5. Relative Importance of Touch and
to the relative
e in test ing the blin d chi ldre n was to get further evidence as
The main purpos . In spite of the fact tha t
nce of the visu al and the tact ual senses in the form boa rd test
importa the blocks, it is the opinion
ion of the recesses while placing
the child get s no tactile impress wh o see. Careful
rrun ers tha t tou ch is dep end ed on considerably by children
of some exa wit h no effort to get a
atio n how eve r, has sho wn tha t they usually pick up the blocks
observ ant age wa s tak en of the
tests with the smaller boa rd no adv
tactile imp ression of them. In the ospective rep orts of
ile imp ress ion s wh ich the sma ller blocks mu st have given. Intr
clearer tact re is little dependence on
of psy cho log y wh o wer e given the test indicate that the
stud ents dfo lde d adults
dfo lde d chi ldre n are una ble to place the blocks at all, and blin
touch. Som e blin first trial.
diff icu lty, req uiri ng on an ave rage about three minutes for the
have gre at
 Not fo r Com mercial Use
For Educational Purpose only

Table 4 - Results from the Form Board Tests of totall bl' .

Y md children

Number of Average Average Average

time in Number of
Individuals Age
seconds errors
Blind from birth 31 13 69 4.3
-
Vision lost before
32 15 53 3.8
the age of three
Vision lost between the
22 14 37 1.4
ages of three and ten

Table 4 shows the records made by the blind. At the beginning of the test the child explored
the board with his hands, examining every recess and handling its corresponding block. He
was then given three trials, each of which was timed and a record was taken of the number of
e1rnrs. The data given in the table are from the shortest of the three time records and the
number of errors made in that trial. It might be expected that those who have been blind from
birth would be the most successful in the test because of have been dependent on the tactile
sense rather than adapting themselves to it after the form and position had been learned
visually, but the results do not fulfill this expectation. Those who had been blind from birth
required the longest time for placing the blocks, an average of 69 seconds, while those who
had retained their vision until after 3 years of age required on an average only 37 seconds.
The average number of errors made by the two groups was 4.3 and 1.4 respectively,
indicative of being difficult for those with congenital blindness, as compared to those with
visual experience. The small age differences could not have provided the factor since the
three groups differed in no other way. The conclusion must be that they retained their visual
imagery and were assisted by it in the interpretation of their tactile impressions. The fact that
those who lack visual imagery find the form board test difficult indicates that vision is much
more important than the tactile sense in the test.

APPLICATION TO RETARDED AND DEFECTIVE CHILDREN

The first important study following the preliminary work was the testing of the children in the
special backward classes of the Philadelphia Public Schools. At that time there were 45 of
these classes with a total enrol~ent of about 780. Of this number some were foreign born
children placed there until they could get a start in English, some were there for disciplinary
reasons, and some because of deafness, poor vision, or other physical defects. These three
groups were not included and a few other children were absent from school when the tests
were made, so the total number tested was 616. The ages of 11 of these were not obtainable
so their records were not included, leaving 605 students. Goddard's method was used
modified as to the piling of the blocks and in other ways to accord with the conclusions'

7
 Not for Commercial Use .,
For Ed uca tional Purpo se onl y

·1
on as many features
drawn i_n l'1c Prd iminary studies. In addition the child was to be graded
that s~e could give
as possi _ble. The teacher's estimate of the child and any other infonnation
es; firSl, to
concemmg him were also to be used. The work was undertaken with three purpos
torily graded;
detern,inc which features of a child's work at the fonn board can be satisfac th
in connection wi
seco nd , to find which of the obtainable facts concerning him are of value
n of various ~es
tbe teS t; and third, to differentiate the characteristic ways in which childre th rd
out but the ~
work at t11e test. The first two of these purposes were successfully carried 1
and the data so ~-
was not, the 605 children proving to be such a reterogeneous group 111
additional value
coordinate as to defy all attempts at classification. The work had an
of normal children.
serving as a preparation for ilie more careful quantitative studies
experience and the
Improved ways of seeming proper testing conditions were developed with
procedure of the test itself was adjusted and smoothed.

Plan and Procedure

during the explanation

At ilie beginning, ilie test was explained to the child quite fully, and
it had been decided
ilie examin er put all of ilie blocks into place and removed them once. As
should be given every
to make the time element ilie main feature it was thought that the child
trial from the signals,
chance to make his/her best possible record. The child started each
by an assistant in the
"Ready - Go." The records of the handling of the blocks were taken
fonn shown below.

First Trial Second Trial Third trial

686 939 9
9 725867 6
3 2 5
10110510 81508 383
8548 515 1
141 3 4
54 606 7
4 0 828
2 I 020
7 4 2
5
61 seconds 77 seconds 49seconds

bl . .
This specimen record shows that the child began by pickin 6, trymg It at recess 8,
and then placing it in its proper recess. (See page 3 for formg n: · o~k
were placed correctly. Block 10 was tried at recess 1 the benng .) Next blocks 9 and 3
'
then at recess 5, and finally it was fitted into 1-1s own recess n llilSUccessfully at its own rece ss,
T
wo errors were made wi·th bl ock
.
8 and one with block I. Block 5 was tried t ·
. a recess 4 and 1 'd .
and 5 were placed m. order. Thus the handl'mg of every bl at aside and then bl k 4 2 7
k• ' oc s
tioot of each colwnn 1s recorded th tim . oc Ill the first tri I · ' ' '
e e of the trial in second s. a Is shown . A~ the

8
 . ,, ; . ,
:rt;:

' No t for Co mm erc ial Us §

Fo r Ed uc ati on al Purpose
on .!y

ordinatiobn, ·apparent mentality '

ab11Tty at planning
var iou s fea tur es not ed we re: child's co- ·
The the tea che r· the child' sag e
followmg were tamed from .
O
use of the han ds. Th e
. . t·1ve or'
ahe ad ' and
l cla ss, wh ether she regard . ed him as mentally dee1ec

~
ng in the spe cia
reasons for his bei at hand-work.
his gen era l sch ool pro gre ss, ~nd her est 1~ ate of his ability
as merely retarded, er features such as interest
the inv est iga tor und ertook to estnnate certam oth
At the beg inn ing it becam:
by one they were dropped as
attention, alertness, and
evident that they cou
some 200 chi ldr en
ld
had
lea
not
bee
rni
be
n
ng
est
tes
abi
im
ted ,
lity
ate
nam
d
,
in
but
suc
one
h a way as to hav e a bearing on
ely poise was added. Th e res
the test. After
t of the children were '
I

graded on this.

Age and Sex Considerations

time
n ma de at arranging the data, it became evident that the
After various attempts had bee refore the best basis for arrangem
ent.
ent variabilit y and are the
records have the most consist Table 5 is more or less forced
but it is the least
ve the 18 sec ond record s in
The grouping abo
tried.
objectionable of any that were
605 backward class ch ild ren
Table 5 - The data from the
Sex
/ I
Dis trib utio n by age s _. j
.!!:
-,- -- -.- -- -,- -- r- -- -.-
I
-~ '0g i-- -.- -r -- -,, -- .-- ,-- I
17
Tim e in 'e::, :a'> 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
seconds z ....
~
0
10.8 4 2
2 11. 7 7 8
Unf inis hed 6 3 2 2
3 3 9 .7 7 14
50-101 15 3 1 1
1 IO 2 2 10.5 15 9
40-49 21 2 2
it 24 1 3 4 5 5 I
2 1 10.8 22 11
30-39 6 8 4 3
14
l 1 5 2 10.7 27
i• 26- 29 33 6 1 2 2
4 8 5 11 27 19
41 I 5 4 1 11.8
23-25 9 6 6
1 5 8 11.7 49 11
21-22 46 7 5 6 2
8 8 10 12 10
60 2 3 11.9 51
19-20 13 22 8 6
3 5 35 14
18 61 7 4 1 12.3
I 12 12 9
49 2 12.3 61 7
17 11 16 7 7 3
3 13 8 52 8
16 68 17 14 4 7 1 13.3
3 6 8
15 60 6 I 13 .4 54 8
13 9 16 9
7
14 62 3 1 13.3 28 3
2 7 4 13
13 31 2 13,7 15
I 5 7
12 15 1 13.8 10
I 1 7
11 IO 14.0 3
3
IO 3
37 63 95 111 91 98 47 27 j 3 1 I 467 l 138
TO TA L 605 7 26

9
 I f

,•,r,,rm,ff;l~I Use
,. fl'• I r
r' 1Jrr ose only
,, I 1
,,
•
t
. l . I
'·111,111 1
,,,. "~' ~ '
ft 1m1 Ihe 605 backward cla
.
ss children

i i 1
Ii 1/
~

I ;
I t
j

, 1
I ,: ~

I ,,

I 36
I
,. I 17
I
15
I
9
9
~ 9
I
I // ! 11 9 7
I

{~ '• 5 5
/

l i2 s
-- ,-
- . . :, ~ -L-~15~-+- 1 3 r- -+
'./
'
I ~1, 7 6
,. ,_I_
, ;,,,
q; 5
' /

-~
/ ( -- -·-
j -~
12
1 ~4 -+ -_
12 10
;1 2 ;_ _ -+ -~ 1 -+
-- -- -t - 5
-:..
~

·- - -~ ~
-~ -_
6 3
20 13
8 4
13 14
60 12 3
13 4
10 3
3 3
3
52

their
h tim e rec ord gro up , their distribution by ages, md
· 111 11 1's in
,I 11\1 II..\ 1I
eac some correlation
1 11 1
lt'i
1
il ulc; d. Ev en the se sub-nonnal children showed
I \11 1111 1il ge ages there
blocks. In the column of avera
I 1•11 · I 11
1 111
equ ircd for pla cin g the
d .1t1 11 ' 11' " 11 11I,1 lltiW h IO second group, but
1
11 " '
d
c. m the 40 -49 secon group to t e
/'i e ol' age ffo
not by the oldest• but by the
. ' 1, , 11
I I ' II II 1 11 1111 11 1111 ord s we re ma de
lhe sho rte st rec
II I! ill .:Iil dilI1,' I I 111 I w, d illa l
.
data '
that age. After arrangmg the
•
11
I

rtc
l'l ho · st rec 01d s focus tow ard
II'- II 1 • II ' ' 1' 1 i ·I•.1111 , '11111 c h age 1s as follows:
i1 ji,1 l:11
I !' I : 11 11' 1I 111 . ,
I 'i
ti

10
 Not for Commercial Use
r Cl f Educational Purpose only

Table 5 (contd.) -The data from the 605 backward class children

Unfinished 6 1
50-101 15 7 36
40-49 21 12 2 17
30-39 24 10 5 15
26-29 33 4 9 9 9
23-25 41 5 11 9 7
21-22 46 7 12 8 5
19-20 60 9 15 13 6
18 61 12 12 10 5
17 49 14 12 1 5
16 68 20 13 6 3
15 60 13 14 8 4
14 62 25 2 12 3
13 31 21 3 13 4
12 15 14 10 3
11 10 10 3 3
10 3 3 3
TOTAL 605 158 133 57 52
F
The number of individuals in each time record group, their distribution by ages, aid their
average ages were calculated Even these sub-normal children showed some correlation
between age and the time required for placing the blocks. In the column of average ages there
appeared a gradual increase of age from the 40-49 second group to the 10 second group, but
the distribution showed that the shortest records were made not by the oldest but by the
fourteen year old group. The shortest records focus toward that age. After arranging the data,
the average time record for each age is as follows:

10
 tJo t for Cornrnorr;\~\ l l'!c
f or Educrational Purw)·.c r.-r,t1

Age Average Time

7 22.6
8 23 .7
9 20.9
10 19.4
11 19.1
12 17.5
13 16.6
14 15.0
15 16.8
16 16.5
17 16.6

The fact that the fourteen year old group made shorter records on an average than the older
ones is as the bright children drop out of school after the age of fourteen, which is the limit of
compulsory education.

Sex distribution is of little importance. For reasons not of interest here, a relatively smaIJ
number of girls are placed in the special backward classes. It is a matter of observation
confirmed by these results that the girls of these classes, as a group, are more backward than
the boys. However, if equal numbers of boys and girls were selected from the special
backward classes they would be approximately of the same grade of mentality and their form
board records would be more nearly equal. Later fonn board tests of normal children revealed
no sex differences.

Important Features Other Than Time and Errors

The data in Table 5 (contd.) suggest that the number of children of each time record group
who used two hands successfully and simultaneously in placing the blocks, compared with
normal children, was relatively small. Another feature observed is that several of the older
children who used but one hand at a time, changed from one to the other in successive trials
'
apparently succeeding with one as well as with the other. Normal children rarely change
hands.

The muscular co-ordination of 133 was graded as very poor. In-coordination is not so
noticeable in children whose mentality is such that they attempt no quick or accurate
movements, so these results do not mean that a11 but 133 of these 605 had good coordination.

Poise, as here used, means the ability to work at one's maximum speed WI'thout Iosmg ·
. control
and getting confused. When a child in his efforts to place the blocks quick! h ·
. Y, umes and gets
fl ustered so that he makes numerous and mexcusable errors or hesitate · •
. . . . s ma senu-dazed way
he does so because he 1s lacking m this quality which we have chos t ll . '
en o ca poise. Take for

11
 . .... merci al use \
i- ,1ot to r v 0 n:' purpo se on Y
;: ·:Jr Edu cat,on a1 .

instanc e one
. · of thes e 6ac k ward cases, an e1even ye ar old boy whose record for the. three, trials
m or~er were 36, 52, and 62 seconds , and the number of errors 4, 5, and 11._
His efforts at
hurrying caused him to make e1TOrs and to lose time. When given a fourth tnal
and told to
work slowly he placed the blocks in 21 seconds and made no errors. Some defecti
ves show a
lack of poise as soon as they begin to work rapidly. Urging by the examiner is
likely to throw
them into confusion. Later studies
of normal children showed that al th0ugh they are
sometimes momentarily hindered by over hurrying, they do not go into utter
confusion.
Practically all of them make better records when urged by the examiner during th
e work. In
other words, the child who is lacking in poise is very likely not to be of normal
mentality. As
previously stated, no records were kept of this factor until the children in
several of the
classes had been tested. Of those who were marked on poise, 57 were graded
as seriously
lacking in the quality. Many of these 57 were of the excitable defective type; others
could not
be called defectives but they were mentally retarded because of nervous trouble
. Many of
them made numerous attempts to fit blocks into wrong recesses, the average
of the 57 being
7.3 en-ors each. Poise is a detail which the examiner can observe to advantage.
It is important
not only in extreme cases, but in many who momentarily fose control or show
a tendency to
do so. There is often some instability that calls for further study.

By planning ahead is meant that before the signal "Go", the child glances at the
blocks on the
top of the piles, then at their recesses and is thus ready at the signal to shoot them
into place
wit4out hesitation. Most normal adults and many children do this, but younge
r children do
not. Only 52 of these backward class children did so. An individual is credited
with planning
ahead if he does it on one or more trials.

The Records of Errors

The last column in Table 5 (contd.) shows the average number of errors
made by each
individual in all 3 trials. For the extremely long time records the average numbe
r of errors is
36 for the shortest records the average is 3, and between these extremes there
' is a somewhat
irregul ar correlation between the length of time record and the number of errors. These
605
backward children averaged more than 6 errors each, whereas normal childre
n average less
than three. Evidently a large number of en-ors indicate low mentality. A stateme
nt of the
number of times that each possible kind of error was made is given in Table 6.

12
 Not for Commercial Use
~ -, r Edu"ational Purpose only
Table6 • . · - '"'
- D1stnbution of the kind
of errors made by the 605 haCkward cIass child ren
,.____

Blocks ~

Recesses
1 2 3 4 Total
~

5 6 7 8 9 10
1 4 6
- 3 62 81 3 4 63 I 15 242
2 20 2 24 75 216
32 19 9 14 12 9
3 7 16 4 3 62 42 184
9 18 16 7
4 38 3 9 4 102 6 31 4 99 299
3
5 23 4 2 45 4 5 17 58 4 162
6 9 5 8 6 12 55 67 31 193
7 21 17 68 4 97 377
23 15 65 67
8 III 1 35 409
4 5 61 159 24 9
9 7 20 195
2 19 110 4 10 16 3 4
8 2 643
10 41 60 15 305 116 8 27 61
96 420 2920
Total 276 136 203 537 577 153 151 371 1

6
The upper line, for instance, indicates 4 futile attempts to fit block 1 into its own ~e~ess, _
th thi
attempts to fit it into recess 2, 3 at recess 3, 62 at recess 4, etc. and a total of 242 errors wi s
block. Since each of the 605 children had three trials, a total of 1815 errors with each block were
th
possible. Table 6, horizontally represent the ten recesses of the form board and vertically ey
represent the ten blocks. The numbers in the upper horizontal line show the number of futile
attempts at putting block I into each of the ten recesses. The other horizontal lines give
corresponding data for the other blocks. According to this table, by far the most frequent error
was that of attempting to put block 10 into recess 4. The only possible errors not made were 5-9
and 6-9 and futile attempts to fit block 6, 7, and 8 into their own recesse~iur., ·

~-
Table 7 - Twelve most frequent kinds of errors of the 605 backward clafs·children arranged-
according to the time records

I Errors
I
Time in I I
Seconds ~
I
...
00
I
1/)

00
I
00
l,C
I
00
1·
t--
0
's:t
I
...'1' 0'I
I 9 t--I II)
I
~
I
0 ~ 0'I \C 0 0'I

30 to 101 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 4
20 to 29 11 4 7 3 3 4 2. 2 4 3 5 6
15 to 19 15 4 6 2 3 5 2- 2 3 1 5 3
10 to 14 16 5 7 2 1 5 3 2 3 2 4 2

The data is in per cent, of the total nwnber of errors made b e .

groups. Thus, the 4 in the upper left space means th t f th y ach of the four tune record
by the group, whose time records were 30 second a o e total nwnber of mistakes made
s or more, 4 per cent' was the 0-4 error.

13
 ·cial use
Not fo r con:-;rne 1 pur pos e only
For Edu cat1on a1
One important conclusion can be d
. rawn b . the data in the form of table 7 i.e.,
acco rdm g to four time record groups - y arrangmg
- those longer than 29 seconds, the 20-
reco rds, the 15- I 9 second records, and 29 sec~nd
those shorter than 15 seconds. This is a cond
of the grou ping that is used in Tab le 5. ensat10n
The data are given in percentages of the
of erro rs mad e by each group. It is show total nwn b~r
n that with normal children of all ages the
by far the mos t freq uent and that the 0-4 error is
occurrence of the more common ones does
sign ifica ntly with age. In Table 7 the not vary
same is true of the two groups who se time
aver age belo w 2 0 seco nds and to a less records
degr ee of the 20-29 seco nd grou p, but in the longeSt
r~co rd s grou p there is little tend ency to
make one kind of error mor e frequently than
Sme e n~arly all of the long est records were another.
made by children of quite low mentality,
conc lusio n to be draw n is that if a child the one
makes the 0-4 error and the other com mon
~eq uen tly than othe rs he is to be cred ones mor e
ited for doing so. In other words, he is
high er men talit y than a simi lar child who prob ably of
se errors are more evenly distributed. This
pecu liar in that it varies with the degree feature is
espe ciall y imp orta nt. of mentality but not with the age and it
is therefore

IND IAN NO RM S

The Seg uin form boar d test was administ

ered by J. Bharat Raj on a total num ber
subj ects (705 mal es and 347 females), of 1052
between 5 to 15 years of age. Similarly,
used a sam ple of 1125 subjects (749 male S.K . Goel
s and 376 females), between the age rang
15 years. The resu lts are give n in Table 8 and e of 3 to
9.

Tab le 8 - Num ber of subjects for various

age groups

Age J. Bharat Raj S. K. Goel

Groups N M F N M F
3 - - - 50 32 18
4 - - - 50 28 22
5 32 17 15 50 28 22
6 54 31 23 50 30 25
7 71 41 30 60 40 20
8 99 62 37 100 65 35
9 110 74 36 100 70 30
10 143 92 51 125 80 45
11 116 76 40 110 72 38
12 171 120 51 . 150 111 39
13 123 95 28 125 89 36
]4 91 69 22 100 71 29
15 42 28 14 50 33 17

14
 Not for Commerc~al Use
For Educatio nal Purpose on!y
APPENDIX

Children under Five Years of Age

A group of thirty-five, four year old children were given the fonn b d
method being used except that the child was handed each block and oar test the re 1
in ' gu ar
· · fi • . case he spent
considerable time trymg to t 1t mto a wrong recess he was told to try another All
·
four year olds can place the blocks if given that much help. The shortest time record nonnal
was
seconds, the longest 91 seconds, and the average 46 seconds. Three of the thirty-five made 20no
errors, one made 42, and the average number made was 11. Seventeen made their best record
on the second trial and eighteen on their third. Because they were handed the blocks and were
not allowed to spend too much time trying a wrong recess, the effects of fatigue are not so
noticeable in the time records, but the majority showed waning of interest and fatigue on the
last trial.

Nine children between three and three and a half years of age were tested in the same way
except that they were given but two trials. Their shortest time record was 49 seconds, the
longest 113 seconds, and the average 69 seconds. The number of errors varied between 12
and 24, the average·being 16. Six of the nine did better on the second trial than on the first.

Seven children between the ages of two years three months and two years six months, with
considerable help gave time records ranging from 52 seconds to 148 seconds and an average
of 92 seconds. Their errors ranged between 4 and 25 for the two trials, with an average of 17.
Four did much better on the first trial than on the second. All of these children perceived the
relation of block form to recess form for at least the circle and the square. They commonly
confused the cross with the star, the oval with the semi-circle and the circle, and the triangle,
the lozenge, and the elongated hexagon with each other. If they happened to get the lozenge
crosswise over its recess, they usually would not tum it without help. They often searched in
the piles for a block for some particular recess or picked up the circle in preference to others.
Some were tired of the test after a trial or two but two cried because they were not allowed to
continue.

The test was tried on several children between one and a half and two years of age. The form
board was laid on the floor. With much help one child placed six blocks and others placed
two or three. Some showed unmistakably that they perceived the ·circle form and certain of
the other more simple ones. The majority piled the blocks one upon another instead of
attempting to fit them into recesses. At the Philadelphia Infants' Home, a form board was left
in one of the rooms where a dozen of these little kids spent most of the day, and their nurse
attempted for a week to teach them to put the blocks into place. Some made a little progress
~ but all continued to pile them and not one learned to complete the test.

16
 Not for Commerc~a1 Us~
Fo r Educational Purpo ~e onl1

Table 9 - Norms for Seguin .Form Board Test

\
J. Bharat Raj S.K. Goel R. B Cattell
Mental Age Total Test
Shortest Time Total Time Shortest Time SbJ,rteft Time
Time Time
3 - - 58.0 2~0.0 50.0 2 16
4 - - 48.0 165.0 46.0 161
5 36. I 128.0 36.0 129.0 35.0 123
6 26.8 96.5 27.2 105.8 27.0 W5
7✓ 25.1 86.7 25 .0 88.0 23.0 90
'
8',. 20.0 72.7 2J.0 74.0 20.0 77
9 18.0 66.0 18.9 67.0 18.5 68
IO 17.3 60.2 17.4 60.9 16.5 61
11 I 6.1 55.8 16.2 56.0 15.0 55
12 15.5 52.7 15.7 52.8 14.0 49
13 14.5 48.6 14.5 48.8 13.0 43
14 14.3 47.4 14.2 47.2 12.5 39
15 13.7 46.5 13.8 46.6 12.0 36

It can be seen from Table 9 that the time under total time (in three trials) and the shortest time
is consistently decreasing under the successive age groups, as should be expected. Also, the
difference in time of successive age groups is minimum in upper age levels as compared to
lower age levels.

A close comparison of Indian and Wes tern norms of Seguin form board highlights the
similarities in performance of the Indian and Western children with respect to their scores,
rather than differences. Apparently the western children seem to be favored slightly on the
speed factor, owing to better training facilities in their country. However, the difference is not
very prominent and swprisingly nowhere do we observe a difference beyond 2 seconds in any
age group. This would in fact substantiate the argument that Seguin Form Board Test can be
used with equal facility to gauge the mental development of Indian children also. It is
therefore a culture free test.
 .,. ., rrc•
,,..-r.rn !;;; ~1 ·J~ !';l
('~ 'Jt f Qr , :., ,,.
f . 4
r-. rYn 1,,
\,_.1-.,.1...,

Fo r Ed•Jcation~::'. ;:>c~p :1e -,r

•;
i ve'!> arc ,:1t ~n 'll"m - _ ~"°:ic:- -
confusion. So me of the se defect .m r~Q ; f:u: n rfux ,:1f-t1 ~
'-'nd l:'1-r,J1"d. 'fh . -r~ --yyfr..,_Jtt -~
being abnorma lly inert u · ,>l,,!J
• -
JJ.f:'j "'llu1:C ~ •..._, . 1orm ~...©'!a ~ ~ N ~ - ~- •· ..:ci;;:;::
• --
• .
. 1...:,;
"", UJC'
.. . . , . • - : - -= -~ __ .a:z, Tt,r:r:::.
. lination ,,r 1J,,_ . 'M r.- - rx;:' ~ •~· - t ..e
manner, lac·kmg eith er the inc
h,, :Y.

::U,)} . U J to > 1.::n ~ -'Y Yill!

~ 1

ord · . h _ • . :.·
bettc,"T rec
mo st of the se ma ke som ewhat _ A r:o:rr.cl dri.hl E. ~,::
11 r
~ "Ji:1iJ W"gea -
.
W-
·
~_ efy
- . . - · · ·
, t 4-1. . e t1me Has seJf-c.omroJ and t)(: b.!: ·n - e t5 fj('.J !e:-,n_ig at-;, 1it:: tt'i:::c rn- :t~ 2.
b ut a
. I.. ,. .
we sam , ..,, • rn::r
-, ,.,,.,........,~ ~ ~ ue"Y
_ - - •
~-"' . . - __ .:'
mte res t of chi ldre n. tx.1-1 ,;;:, ~ ~ ~flt" fo~
str ong er. app ,eal to the , .1uJ uu; JJkU Zfau ff
- , ,.. :-- y.. . _ ,
~
; -,A -. . :!'- me - ,~_.__
1t is fuc refo re a goo d t,c'1)1 of afti, "1.'i unL. z-0~ .: e. ~ ct.s.:u g; "e::
boa rd tes t. , "
s ga-:,·e iht- -~
ur of the 5e'".'en:!'j'-s v: &riX1J·.·e
• .
Tw ~ty -fo
m w we d m it, :ahhougb ~
he is cap abl e.
atte~t~on of wh~ch wis hed lhe
of i!fuffi:.
g as the exa min er
und1v1ded atte nti on as Jon mion through or..e mz J bm
ny erron,. Founeen ga•.-e goo d a:tte
wo rke d slo wly and ma de ma rees of
bef ore bei ng told to stop. T'mrty -one sbcr,;; ed "'·ari.ou; deg
wa nde red from the task a tim e, and crl -~ zlm osr
e atte ndi ng to the tes t but for a fev,' sec ond s at
flig hti nes s , som bad w be ~
g a tria l. Som e of the se retu rne d to it of th.cir cr;,n accord, oth ers
completin rn to i.L Sev en rould nm be
inreres:red in ilir:
ree of the m refu sed to retu
by the exa min er. Th of ma ny ,;;;ho lOSe
de no effo rt to pla. ce blo cks . Fatigue is a factor in the case
tes t at all, and ma
inte res t.
is ext lem d y inte res ting.
ona l rea ctio n of def ecti ves t.o the form board test w e_re
Th e em oti n. .se,..,~
ten of the se sev ent y-s ix reacted like nor ma l chi ldre
Aff ect ive ly, onJ y fou nd gre at eDJ O) ~e rrt m
tes t aro usi ng JittJ e or n.o ~te res t in them._ Thirty~three th.e m
apa the tic, the wh ile at wo rk and ma ny 0 1
som e talk ing and cha tter ing
it, wo rki ng ent hus iast ica lly, ced snc .ces sful ly. It wa s pro bab
ly rhe
res sin g ext rem e joy wh en a blo ck or blo cks wer e pl.a tri ~p h
exp fee ling of
ce of wo rk tha t som e of the m had ev_e r don e, hen ce the ir the
mo st dif ficu lt pie of cou rse rea-ct m
suc cee din g. Som e of the mo re exc itab le one s wo uld
- ,..;_ A_ f d
· f. tion in . gav e van ous AWu :> o cun ous
an
d
an sat1s ac er SIXte.en
test inv olv ing acti vity. The oth blo cks we re pla ced he
sam e wa y to an Y star ted weJJ .but bef ore hal f of the
act ion s On e boy pt
. ons 1st
mc
.
• en1 re ·
aw ay refu smg even to loo. k bac kw ard . Sev era l oth ers we
hys teri caJ Jy and ran
beg an toweep · but forced to leave 1t bec
ause of em bar ras sm ent and
attr act ed to the test
and wa1·1~r1 ~

exc item ent .

be obs erv ed in form boa rd test
s of def ect ive s. For
e but a glim pse of wh at can
The se not es giv n mig ht be
gro up the sev ent y-s ix cases on the bas is of atte ntio
ins tan ce the atte mp t to
ple x. It wo uld cov er not
lud e an ana lys is of eac h indi vidual's vol itio nal com
ext end ed to inc inte nsi ty of bjs
atte ntio n, but also bjs init iati ve, his sel f con trol , and the
onl y his pow er of pictuce of eac h cas e. Ho w
mu ch
A full rep ort wo uld incl ude the pai ntin g of a clinical tes ts and
eff ort wh ich oth er
ble dep end s on tbe ind ivid ual case and on the ext ent to fro m
of this is pro fita sug ges tive of wh at ma y be wo
rke d out
are em plo yed . The se not es are
me ans of analysi s dar ds mu st be the bas is upo n
form boa rd test , and the y em pha size the fact that nor ma l stan
the
· , · to the ,orm r board test is to be inte rpr ete d.
which each de fcect1ve s reaction

18
 No t fo r Commercial Use
For Edu ca tional Purpose onl y
Adulcs

Adu lts pln1.-c the bh 1cks u lillle more quick ly than do fomteen year olds. Most of their records
thll be.1 twc1.!t1 9 and 12 seconds. An occm,ional 8 second record is made, and three individuals
out l)f n·1nr1.\ t hnn a h1111drod mude records of 7 seconds in one of their first three trials.
Prncfo.:ully nil adults plan ah0nd. The most successful handling of the blocks is a rhythmic
altcrnnting l)f thl: two hands. one hand fitting a block while the other is picking one from the
piles. When lllh.' aUcmpts tu fit two blocks into their recesses simultaneously time is lost,
prnbably because or the altempt to divide the attention.

Cltildrcn of I ,ow Mcntalit) 1

Thorc is no kind or rcurtion to th~ form board test that is strictly typical of any one grade or
duss of defoctives. This is partly due to the fact that each of our standard classifications has
its own basis. such as indust1·ial capacity, linguistic ability and educability. Accordingly
children mny rank quit~ dilforently under different classification systems, and the form board
test could not be expected to label individuals directly for their place in a mental scale unless
such scale had form bo.u·d ability as its basis. For diagnostic purposes it is therefore necessary
first to compare the individual's form board reaction with the reaction of normal children, and
then after he has thus been approximately placed, to study his reaction in comparison with
tlmt of other ddectives. Hence, the importance of normal standards.

All kinds of mental defectives who can do anything with the form board were included
among the 605 backward class childrert But since that study was made before the standards
for normal children were established, it is worthwhile to supplement it with the following
notes on tests of defectives made after the work on normal children had been completed.

Seventy•six intcll<.!ctually challenged individuals ranging in age from nine to seventeen were
given the form board test, some in the Psychological Clinic of the University of Pennsylvania,
some in tl1e Pt:nnsylvania Training School for Feeble Minded Children at Elwyn, and some in
small private schools. As to the time records, the records of errors, and the records of other
items that are included in the standards given in the last section of this monograph, these later
observations of defectives seem wherever possible to corroborate the conclusions drawn
there. They show nothing that disagrees with those conclusions. Of the seventy• six
defectives, forty-two succeeded in putting the blocks into place three times, fourteen placed
them once but not three times, and twenty failed to place all of them even once. Of those who
placed them one or more times, thirty-three required more than 30 seconds for the shortest
trial. There were several times as many errors as would have been made by nonnal children,
~~ and there was only an irregular tendency to favor the ~4 error. Very few attempted to use
both hands at the same time and but nine did so successfully. None planned ahead. A large
number were lnl.:king in poise; some being confused by their own efforts as well as by the
urging and assistance offered by the exan1iner. In some cases the confusion was only
temporary, poise being regained and the work proceeding successfully for a time, but in
others even atler a promising beginning, control was lost and the efforts ended in utter

17
, CONCLUSION

Seguin Fo rm Bo ard Te st can

_ Binet Test, R.B . Ca tte ll's
the chi ld' s mental developm
be sup ple me nte d by oth er
Culture Fa ir Intelligence Te
ent.
com pre hen siv e tests such as
st etc. to yie ld a complete
Stanford
pic ture of

RE FE RE NC ES

Cattell, R. B. ( 1971 ). Abilit

ies : Th eir structure growth
and action. Bo sto n: Ho ug hto
n Mifflin.
Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, A.
K. S. (1957). Culture Fai r
Institute of Personality and Int ell ige nce Te st (CF IT) , Ma
Ability Te stin g (IP AT). Illi nu al,
nois.
Chattopaddhyaya, P. K., &
Bhattacharya, A. K.(1980).
wit h mentally retarded chi IQ on tw o test: A correlati
ldren. Ch ild Psychiatry, Qu onal study
art erl y,1 3,7 8-8 0.
De vi, S., Ma thu r, M. N . L.,
& Da yal S. (1980). Incide
Guidanceclinic. Ind ian Jou nce of Me nta l Re tar dat ion
rnal of Mental Retardation in a chi ld
, 13, 43-47.
Doll, E. A. (1953). Th e me
asu rem ent of social compet
Social Ma tur ity Sc ale . Mi nne ence -A me asu re for the Vi
apo lis : Educational Te stin nel and
g Bureau.
Goel, S. K., & Se n, A. K.
(1984). Mental retardation
Psychological Co rpo rat ion and learning. Ag ra: Na tio nal
.

Itard, J. (1806). Th e De s Pre

mi ers De vel opm ent s du Jeune Sa uv age de
L' Av eyr on , p.4 1.
Jehan, Q., & An sar i, Z. (19
81). A study of certain psy
retarded children. Ind ian Jou chological cha rac ter isti cs
rna l of Clinical Psycholog of me nta lly
y, 8, 47- 81.
Ku pp usw am y, S. K. (1968) i'
. A sur vey of me nta l retard
mi ddl e sch ool s of My sor e ation am on g chi ldr en enr oll
city. Ind ian Jou rna l of Me ed in
nta l Re tar dat ion , 1, 12-91.
Raj, J.B . (1971). A.I .I.S .H f
no rm s on Seg uin Fo rm Bo
of All Ind ia Institute of Sp ard Te st wi th Ind ian chi ldr
en. Journal
eec h and He ari ng, 2, 34-91.
t
l
Raven, J.C . (1956). Co lor ?·
ed Pro gre ssi ve Ma tric es:
Sets-Manual. Lo nd on : Le wi
s
Seguin, E. (1907). Idiocy:
Its tre atm ent by the ph ysi
Publication, Te ach er' s Co olo gic al me tho ds. NY : Bu
lle ge, Co lum bia Un ive rsi ty. rea u of

Sp ear ma n, C. (1927). Th e
abi liti es of ma n. NY : Mac-M
illan.
Sylvester, R. H. (1914). Th
e form bo ard test. Doctoral
thesis, Un ive rsi ty of Pennsy
lvania .

19

fl \