THE PEG FORMBOARDS. By J. E. Wallace Wallin, Ph.D., Psycho-Educational Clinic and Special Schools, St. Louis, Mo. V In the examination of young children in better babies contests and in baby clinics, of children and adults of low mentality, and of subjects with motor defects affecting the upper limbs, we have been greatly handicapped because of the lack of appropriate formboards. The power of language expression has been so limited in a considerable proportion of these subjects, that the examination perforce had to be restricted largely to motor tests?doing tasks?and the observation of the subject's instinctive and spontaneous behavior. The formboard tests have, in our experience, proved the most interesting and valuable form of motor test, albeit the results are not always reliable, particularly for younger children. Very few of the available formboard tests, however, were of any value for our purpose, because they were beyond the subject's range of ability. Even the Seguin formboard,1 which we have come to feel is the most valuable single formboard extant for grading the intelligence of individuals of various degrees of capacity by means of motor adjustments to a new situation, is too difficult for a large number of young and low grade subjects. It was because of this fact that we were led to devise a very simple graded series of formboards which we hoped would be applicable to normal children varying in age from a year or a year and a half to four or five years. Originally the series consisted of only three boards, but practical experience showed that the step between boards A and C, Fig. 1, was too large. It appeared to be larger than the step between C and D. There were many subjects who placed the round pegs in the holes in A without the slightest hesitation or difficulty who were unable to complete C because of placing a round peg in a square hole (the triangular pegs can barely be inserted into the square holes), while the motor coordination of others was so poor that they had great difficulty in inserting the square pegs in the square holes. We accordingly added a board, now marked B, which contained only square pegs and square holes, analogous to board A, which contained 1 J. E. Wallace Wallin. Psycho-Motor Norma for Practical Diagnosis. A Study of the Seguin Formboard, based on the Records of 4072 Normal and Abnormal Boys and Girls, with Yearly and Half-Yearly Norms. Psychological Review Publications, No. 94, 1916, If. (40)
THE PEG FORM BOARDS. 41 only round pegs. The series as now constituted contains, therefore, the following four boards: A, six round holes and six round pegs. B, six square holes and six square pegs. C, three round pegs and three square pegs, arranged alternately. D, two each round, square and triangular pegs, arranged alternately. The exact arrangement of the pegs is shown in fig. 1. The boards are 35.5 cm. long, 7.5 cm. wide, and 2.3 cm. thick. The pegs, which are 6.4 cm. long, are placed 4.5 cm. apart. The holes are 2 cm. deep. The round holes are 1 cm. in diameter, the sides of the square_holes are [also ill ## i ^?mat rnmm 1 cm., while each side of the triangular cavities measures 1.2 cm.1 The pegs should fit loosely into the holes. Only thoroughly seasoned wood should be used, but if at any time, through atmospheric changes, the pegs fit too tightly they should be sandpapered down to the point where they can be inserted without difficulty. It was our aim to make the pegs so large that they could be easily grasped and handled by hands incapable of delicate coordination. Experience has shown 1 The above measurements vary somewhat in the manufacturer's set which I have. The boards are made by the C. H. Stoelting Co., 3037-3047 Carroll Ave., Chicago, to whom acknowledgment is made for the loan of the cut (Fig. 1).
42 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. that this aim has been successfully realized with the size of the pegs now employed, although we have tested a number of subjects, who, because of their extremely crude power of coordination, would have been more successful with larger pegs. These subjects had great difficulty in properly grasping and inserting the pegs. In giving the test the subject is seated close to the table on a height sufficient to enable him readily to see the holes in the board and to handle the pegs. The board is placed lengthwise in front of the subject, about a foot from the edge of the table nearest the subject. The pegs are removed in full view of the subject and placed in a pile on the table near the middle of the peg board on the side next to the subject (i. e. between the board and the subject). The subject is permitted to see the experimenter remove the pegs, but is given no further aid. He is urged to do his very best in all of the trials. When the subject does not appear to comprehend the instructions the experimenter indicates what is meant by beckoning movements of the hand as he repeats the injunction "put them back" or "faster, faster". Our practice has been to give three trials with each board, recording a successful placement by a plus sign (), a wrong placement by a minus sign (?), a persistent attempt to place a peg in a wrong hole (e. g. a square peg in a round hole) by an exclamation mark, and the removal of a peg from a hole in which it has been correctly inserted by the word "out". The time has been taken in fifths of a second by a stop watch. It is very infrequent that any difficulty is experienced in getting older subjects to attempt to perform the test, but it is frequently very difficult to get infants of a year or a year and a half to do the test properly, because of the tendency to play with the pegs, to insert them in the mouth, to keep on inserting and removing the same peg from the same hole, to take out a peg and place it in another hole, to throw the pegs on the table or floor, etc. We have made sufficient use of the peg formboards during a period of two years to assure ourselves of their practical utility in the examination of young normal and of young or old low grade subjects. But a good deal of work still remains to be done, in order to render the test maximally serviceable. This work the writer cannot attempt to undertake, because all his time is taken up with the study of mentally abnormal children and with the administration of classes for their training. It is very desirable that some one with the necessary leisure and inclination should undertake the further work that is needed on young normal children, especially the work of determining the best method of procedure and of establishing reliable norms. In order to stimulate such an investigation, we
THE PEG FORMBOARDS. 43 here make available our preliminary data, based on the examination of 101 consecutive young children selected from so-called normal groups, and ranging from 9 months to 8 years and 2 months of age.1 Of these children 72 were examined in the Mission Free School, attended by children of disrupted families; 83 in the Jewish Day Nursery, attended by children of mothers who are at work away from the home; 124 in the Episcopal Orphanage; 75 in the Bethesda Home for boarding, orphaned or illegitimate children; 156 in the Kingdom House, a day nursery; 517 in a better babies contest conducted in the Jewish Educational Alliance; and one (No. 100) was privately examined. All were St. Louis children. The conditions of testing at the contest were not always ideal as it had to be done behind a screen and distracting noises sometimes occurred in other sections of the room. The younger children frequently had to be held by their mothers, and much urging was sometimes needed to get them to respond properly. It is to be assumed that some of the institutional children were below normal in native capacity, while some of the children examined in the babies' contest were superior to the average. Our examiners did not record detailed observations on the mental or physical condition of each of the children examined. Brief comments, however, were made on some of them. Cases 17, 25, 39, 82, and 88 were said to be of more than average intelligence, or so impressed the examiners. Nos. 1, 2, 4, 22, and 27 were reported to be poorly nourished or undeveloped, No. 22 was partly deaf and 27 was a speech defective with a congenitally deaf mother. No. 33 was recorded as an epileptic, and Nos. 5 and 7 were said to have a feeble- minded brother. No. 80 was backward in his school work, and is said to have a feebleminded mother. No. 11 was reported as "very apathetic," and No. 21 as "very slow". Of the 12 who were unable to do the tests, six were girls of the ages 9 months, 11 months (2), 18 months, and 26 months (2); and six were boys of the ages 10 months, 11 months (2), 13 months, 14 months, and 32 months. Two girls, twins, 26 months old, were very bashful, nad could not be induced to try the tests. The 32 months old boy who talks a 1 In testing these children we were greatly aided by Mrs. Watkins, Miss K. Guy, Miss Elsa M. Butler, Miss Hilda Benn and Miss Neta Davis. 1 Namely cases 1 to 7, inclusive. ' Nos. 8 to 15. 4 Nos. 16 to 27. 1 Nos. 29, 30, 33, and 34, and three others who were unable to do any of the tests.? Nos. 35 to 50. 7 Nos. 51 to 91, inclusive, and eight others unable to perform the tests. The above numbers will identify the data in the table of individual results, which we are unable to print here, but which we shall be pleased to lend to investigators who may want to embody our individual records in their own results.
44 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. little but does not walk, would only hold the pegs. Some of these children would not attempt to do the tests, while others were unable to discriminate the shapes.1 Age Sex Order of Presentation Time Trial 3-5 4-1 5-0 6-0 6-2 6-7 7-7 7-9 5-4 5-7 6-0 7-0 7-6 8-0 8-2 G. G. G. G. G. G. G. A, C, D D, A, C A, C, D C, A, D A, D, C A, C, D D, A, C C, D, A D, C, A D, A, C A. C, D D, C, A D, C, A D, C, A D, A, C 14. 14.6 10.4 6.6 6.6 9.2 6.4 10. 11.6 8. 9.2 7.2 8. 4.2 6.6 17.2 10.8 12.2 11.8 8.6 8.4 10.4 10.8 14. 11.2 11.2 10. 10. 8.6 6.6 38. 9.2 20. 10. 9. 9.2 8.4 13. 16.6 10.4 12.4 9.8 14.4 12.2 14.4 & & & We have classified the subjects into half-year groups. The designations 1-1 to 1-6, and 1-7 to 2-0 indicate, respectively, 1 year 1 month to 1 year 6 months, and 1 year 7 months to 2 years and no month, and similarly for the other designations. We have not determined, however, at what point the steps between the groups might be made smaller, or at what point the steps ought to be made larger. This problem invites experimental investigation in future. Forty-five of the subjects were tested before the fourth board had been added to the series. All except 3 of the failures were tested with the three-board set. It would be possible to follow a six-fold order in giving the three-board set, namely: A, C, D; A, D, C; C, D, A; C, A, D; D, C, A; D, A, C. Actually these boards were given in five different ways to these groups of subjects: A, C, D; C, A, D; C, D, A: A, D, C; and D, C, A. The four board set may be given in 24 different ways. It was given in the five following ways to these subjects: A, B, C, D; B, C, D, A; C, D, A, B; D, A, B, C; and C, D, B, A. 1 Since this article was written we have secured the records of 15 additional children ranging in ages from 3-5 to 8-2, 9 of these being in a day nursery connected with a " neighborhood house settlement," while 6 were children of friends of the examiner. Unfortunately the examiner sent us only the fastest scores out of three trials, and we are unable to secure the records for the other two trials. The records of these cases are as follows:
THE PEG FORMBOARDS. 45 Results. The Influence of Repetition on the Speed of Replacing the Pegs.? Table 1 shows the number of instances in which the subjects gained, lost or made equal scores in the second trial compared with the first and in the third trial compared with the second, based on the time required to replace the pegs.1 The comparisons are always made between individual scores and not between averages. It has, of course, been impossible to make comparisons in cases in which the subject did not or would not make a second or third trial, and in cases in which all the trials were failures. There were a total of 71 of these in the different trials. It is impossible to determine from the data we have tabulated whether a given failure should be recorded as better or worse than another failure, or equal to it. This could only be determined by a qualitative analysis of each trial, which cannot be done from our tabulated data, which include only the time allowed for each trial (in a few instances our assistants failed to record the time on failures). But the time allowed in each trial was not uniform. In a few instances the examiners did not allow enough time. The figures are separately tabulated for each order of presentation of the boards, making it possible to determine how the effects of repetition vary with the order in which the boards have been given. There are 158 instances in which the scores in the second trial are better than in the first, 86 in which they are poorer and 3 in which they are equal. In the third trial there are 152 scores which show improvement, 85 which show losses and 8 which show neither loss nor gain. (Owing to the fewness of the subjects we have not computed the average amount of the difference in units of time.) Converting these figures into percentages, we have, for the second trial: 64 per cent (), 34.8 per cent (?) and 1.2 per cent ( ); and for the third trial, 62 = per cent (), 34.6 per cent (?) and 3.2 per cent ( = ). The gains made in the third trial are almost as frequent as the gains made in the second trial. In previous work with the Seguin formboard on a much larger number of subjects, we similarly found considerable improvement from two repetitions, based on the average amount of improvement rather than on the number of instances of improvement.2 In that investigation we found that subnormal and dull children gained relatively more than normal and bright children, the lower grades of the subnormal gained relatively more than the higher grades, the younger 1 We have complete records of the numbers of right and wrong moves made to replace the blocks, but these data are not considered in this article. J Psycho-Motor Norms for Practical Diagnosis, as above, p. 73f. Sylvester's results show the same fact for the Seguin formboard: The Formboard. Psychological Monographs, No. 65, 1913.
46 THE PSYCHOLOGICNL CLINIC. children gained relatively more than the older children, while the improvement made from the first repetition was "relatively much greater than the improvement made from the second repetition." It is evident that the factor of practice or repetition is of vital consequence in the establishment of norms or standards, and in the comparison of an individual's performance with such norms. Table 1.?The Influence of Repetition. Second Trial Compared with First Third Trial Compared with Second Order of Presentation A B C D A B C D - = - - A A, C, D 13 i 7 C, A, D A, D, C D, C, A? D, A, C. A, B, C,D. C, D, A, B, C, A, D. C, D, B, A. Total 49 27 1 1 134 113 34 23 24 39 24 37 19 The figures indicate the number of subjects who gained (), lost (?) or made the same scores (=) in the second trial compared with the first and the third compared with the second. Cases 52 and 77 were given only one trial. There are 71 instances in which no comparison could be made, because of the fact that the subjects failed to do the boards in the corresponding trial. Improvement with Increasing Maturity.?In order to determine whether the efficiency measured by these formboards correlates with increasing chronological age we have first computed the percentage of instances in which the scores show improvement with each increasing half-age, and secondly we have computed the average time of performance for each board in each half-age, irrespective of the order of presentation. In the first method we have compared the average scores (based on the time of performance) in each age classification with the next higher age designation, and have enumerated the number of gains and losses between the different intervals. The comparisons made in the different age classifications have always been between the
THE PEG FORMBOARDS. 47 scores in the same trial with the same board and the same order of presenting the boards. To illustrate: taking the order A, B, C, and D, we have compared the score in the first trial of the A board in age 1-7 to 2-0 with the score in the first trial in age 2-1 to 2-6; the score in the first trial in age 2-1 to 2-6 with the score in the first trial in age 2-7 to 3-0, and so on through the different age classifications. In the same way the scores in the second trial with board A have been compared with the scores in the second trial in each ascending age classification, and similarly for the scores in the third trial. The same comparisons were made for boards B, C, and D. The same comparisons were then made for each board in all the other "orders of presentation." The detailed figures are given in table 2 for each order of presentation and each trial with each board. The comparisons we have been able to make are not wholly satisfactory for the following reasons: first, there are instances in which no averages are available in the different classifications. (We have averaged the results for the two sexes.) We have therefore sometimes been obliged to compare a single score with an average or an average with a single score. Secondly, all the age classificatons between our highest and lowest ages are not available for all the orders in which the boards were presented. Wherever such gaps exist we have made the comparison with the next higher available age. We shall confine our analysis to the gross results. The following figures show the total number and the corresponding per cents of gains and losses, for each board, basing the results on the combined figures for all three trials: A B C D Number. 43? 41 28 56 51 50 45 Per cent. 38.0 59.4 40.5 52.3 47.3 52.6 47.3 = gains.?= losses. The gains are more numerous than the losses with all the boards. Curiously they are most marked with the two simplest boards, A and Combining the figures for all four of the boards and all three trials, we find a total of 216 gains (i. e. comparisons showing improvement), 167 losses, and one instance in which the scores were 1 One equal.
48 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. equal. In other words, an improvement occurred in 56.2 per cent, a loss in 43.4 per cent, and equal scores in.2 per cent of the com- parisons. That the percentage of gains was not greater is probably due, first, to the fewness of the subjects, which gives undue prominence to accidental variations. Secondly, to the inclusion of dull children, to which we have already alluded (p. 43). Some of the pupils reported as dull or physically weak did, as a matter of fact, make very poor records, and others not so reported undoubtedly were backward. Three of our 7 five-year-olds failed in some of the trials, or on some of the boards, while five of our 13 four-year-olds failed in one or more trials. Thirdly, to the fact that the half-year steps may be too small. In order better to determine whether the half-year steps were too fine we have averaged in table 3 the time required to perform each board by all the subjects in each age designation. The averages are based only on the best record of the three trials, irrespective of the order in which the boards were presented, and only on positive scores and not negative scores (i. e. the records of individuals who failed on all three trials have not been considered). We shall confine our comparison to the figures for the two sexes. A shows gains in 8 of the successive ages and losses in six (the score in each age being compared with the score in the next higher age); board B, gains in 5 ages and losses in 3; board C, gains in 6 ages, losses in 6 and an equal score in 2 ages; and board D, gains in 9 ages, and losses in 4 ages. Had we had a larger number of subjects it is possible that the losses would have been considerably reduced. Our general impression is that the steps are not too fine. The optimal size of the steps, however, can only be determined by a more extensive investigation. So far as our results go this test can be profitably used with normal children from a year and a half or two years to about five or six years, and with mental defectives of approximately a similar range of mental ages. The extent of the improvement between our lowest and highest groups is very considerable with some of the boards. The difference in the time of the performance between the lowest and the highest age group amounts to 73.5 sec. for board A, 13.9 sec. for board B, 24.5 sec. for board C, and 47.2 sec. for board D. Our results thus far seem to indicate, however, that older mental defectives can perform the tests at a lower mental age than young children.
Table 2.?Improvement with Increasing Mattjritt as Determined by the Instances of Gain or Loss with Each Increasing Half-Year. A B C D Order of Presentation 3 - - - - - - A A,C,D... C.A.D... A. D, C... D.C.A... D.A.B, C. A. B, C, D. C, D.A, B, C, D, A. Total... 15 9 The figures show the number of instances in which there were gains () or losses (?) with each higher half-year. 1 The scores were equal in one instance. Table 3.?Improvement with Increasing Maturity, as Determined by the Average Time of Performance, Based on the Fastest Scores Only. A B C D Age Boys Girls Both Boys Girls Both Boys Girls Both Boys Girls Both No. S. No. S. No S. No. S. No. S. No. S. No. S. No. S. No. S. No. S. No. S. No. S. 1-1 to 1-6 3 82. 3 82. 1-7to2-0 5 27.3 3 37.2 8 31.0 1 37.3 1 21.0 2 29.1 2 34.5 2 34.5 1 95 0 1 27.0 2 61.0 2-1 to2-6 8 32.1 3 20.9 11 29.1 4 63.8 2 29.6 6 52.7 4 42.3 1 52.0 5 44.2 5 55.1 1 34.3 6 51.6 2-6to3-0 13 17.5 9 17.2 22 17.4 5 26.6 5 19.2 10 22.9 11 28.4 8 29.8 19 29.0 10 41.2 7 29.8 17 36.5 3-1 to3-6 7 18.5 4 12.5 11 16.3 4 13.6 2 13.6 6 13.6 7 18 4 4 15.5 11 17.4 7 23.5 4 21.7 11 21.9 3-7to4-0 5 10.5 5 14.9 10 12.7 3 10.1 4 30.5 7 21.8 5 19.4 3 14.7 8 17.7 5 19.4 4 25.7 9 22.2 4-1 to 4-6 7 13.4 2 11.1 9 12.9 4 16.0 2 9.2 6 13.8 5 18.3 2 15.6 8 17.7 5 17.5 2 18.2 7 17.7 4-7to5-0 3 13.6 5 15.5 8 14.8 2 16.2 3 22.2 5 19.8 3 26.2 4 19.3 7 22.3 3 32.0 5 25.5 8 28.0 5-1 to5-6 1 12.0 3 16.2 4 15.2 1 11.0 2 22.2 3 18.5 1 21.0 3 34.0 4 30.7 1 31.0 2 26.3 3 27.8 5-7to6-0 3 10.2 3 9.2 6 9.7 2 15.2 2 15.2 3 29 2 3 10.8 6 18.4 3 25.0 2 11.4 5 19.6 6-1 to 6-6 1 6.6 1 9.1 2 7.8 1 8.6 1 11.6 2 10.1 1 9.0 1 19.4 2 14.2 6-7 to 7-0 1 9.2 1 7.2 2 8.2 1 8.4 1 10.0 2 9.2 1 9.2 1 9.8 2 9.5 7-1 to7-6 2 9.0 2 9.0 2 10.0 2 10.0 2 13.9 2 13.9 7-7 to 8-0 2 8.2 1 4.2 3 6.8 2 10.6 1 8.6 3 9.9 2 10.7 1 12.2 3 11.2 8-1 to8-6 1 10.4 1 6.6 2 8.5 1 13.4 1 6.6 2 10.0 1 13.2 1 14.4 2 13.8
50 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. Table 4.?Comparison of Difficulty of the Different s. B harder than A C harder than A C harder than B D harder than C D harder than B Order of Presentation 1 2 3 1 2 3 b A, C, D... 14 C, A, D... 4 A, D, C... 1 1 D, C,A... 1 1 D, A, B, C. 6 1 10 1 A, C. D. 7 14 li 14 1 C, D.A. 3 7 15 162 B,C, D, A. li 7 11 12 C,D,B, A. 1 1 1 Total... 17 127 10170 6 172 The figures show the number of instances in which the designated board is easier (?) or harder () than the board with which it is compared. Relative Difficulty of the Different s.?in table 4 we have given for each order of presentation the total number of instances in each trial in which the individual scores for board B were better (?) or poorer () than the individual scores for board A, the individual scores in the first trial of board B being compared with the scores in the first trial with A, and similarly for the second and third trials. Similar comparisons have been made between boards C and A, C and B, D and C, and D and In other words, the comparisons between the different boards are always between the scores in the corresponding trials, and between the individual scores and not the averages. The comparisons cannot be made in the trials in which the scores are failures for both of the boards compared. Combining the figures for all the trials, irrespective of the order of presentation, we have the following results: B harder than A C harder than B D harder than C C harder than A D harder than B Number 51 83 2 10 123 64 110 4 26 213 4 138 Per cent 38.8 59.7 1.4 7.5 92.4 35.9 61.8 2.2 10.7 87.6 1.6 6.1 93.8 1 Equal scores in one instance. * Equal scores in two instances.
THE PEG FORMBOARDS. 51 It is apparent that the boards constitute a graded series and increase in the order of difficulty as provisionally arranged. The board with the square holes is more difficult to do than the board with the round holes, the board with the square and round holes is more difficult than either the board with the round holes alone or the board with the square holes alone, and the board with the suqare, circular, and triangular holes is more difficult than the board containing only the circular and square holes. The largest difference between adjacent boards is between the board with the square and circular holes and the board with only the square holes. C was harder than board B in 92.4 per cent, while board B was harder than board A in only 59.7 per cent, and board D harder than board C in only 61.8 per cent of the cases. Apparently the step between C and B is larger than the step between A and B, due, no doubt, to the necessity of discriminating whether the peg belongs in a round or a square hole. This discrimination was not required in A or B, where the problem was simply one of inserting the pegs. C was harder than board A in 87.6 per cent and board D harder than board B in 93.8 per cent of the cases, the ratio of difference being about the same in these two comparisons. It seems inconsistent to find that board C is harder than board B in a larger proportion of cases than board C is harder than board A, in view of the fact that board B is harder than board A. The inconsistency may be due to the influence of the time order?the order in which C was given relatively to A and B in the two comparisons?which is discussed below, and to the fact that less comparisons could be made between C and B, as board B was not included in the first set of boards used. Obviously the smaller the number of subjects the greater the influence of individual differences. Some subjects reacted quite erratically or inconsistently. Thus No. 11 showed the following passes () and failures (?) for the boards given in the order indicated: C?, D, A and B?. Using the fastest trial as the standard, No. 46 did better on C than on A, and No. 9 did better on C than on It is to be presumed that the order of presentation will affect the relative difficulty of the different boards. If board A is given before board B it is quite possible that the familiarity and practice gained with board A may make it easier to replace the blocks in board That this actually happened may be seen from the following illustrations. With the order D, A, B, C, B was done more rapidly than A in 16 instances and more slowly in only 13, while with the order B, C, D, A, B was done more slowly than A 25 times and faster than A only 6 times (equal in one comparison).
52 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. With the order D, A, B, C, D was done more slowly than C in 18 instances and more rapidly in only 8 instances?the latter instances may, perhaps, be accounted for by the phenomenon of initial spurt. However, with the order B, C, D, A, D was done more slowly than C in 18 instances and more rapidly in only 6 instances. In spite of individual discrepancies the evidence is sufficient to show that the child's performance in a given board will depend more or less upon the serial order in which the given board was presented, and that norms for the different boards, therefore, may only apply when the boards have been given in a particular time order. Whenever we are dealing with a number of tests constituting a series we must expect the results for each test to be modified by the time element, and the factors of familiarity, improvement from practice, loss from fatigue, and the initial and final spurt. It is possible that the disturbing effects of these factors may be counterbalanced if, when we attempt to establish norms, we take care to present the boards in all possible orders, as indicated on p. 44, and average the results for each board from all orders of presentation. This would give us a "generalized" average. But it need not also follow that for the purpose of making clinical examinations,?i. e. examining subjects with a view to individual diagnosis?it is best to constantly present the boards in a different order to different subjects, in order to gauge all the results by the generalized averages just mentioned. This mode of procedure would probably prove cumbersome in practice, in view of the fact that the boards in the four board set may be presented in 24 different ways. We are inclined at present to feel that it will be advisable to present the boards invariably in the order of difficulty, A, B, C, D, and base the norms on data secured from this order of presentation. There would be difficulties even with this simplified method of procedure, because it would seem necessary, in order to use the norms, to always begin with the easiest board or boards in the examination of any individual and give three trials with each board (following the usual practice of giving three trials), even though it were perfectly evident that the simplest board was entirely too easy. For the busy consulting examiner this would sometimes entail loss of valuable time. This loss could be reduced somewhat by giving only one trial on the boards which clearly proved to be too easy for the subject, but this again, would afford less practice before the more difficult board or boards were attempted, which might prejudice the subject's performance with the harder boards. We must here content ourselves with pointing out the service-
THE PEG FORMBOARDS. 53 ability of this series of peg boards as a simple motor or psycho-motor test. The series would seem to make a valuable supplement to the scale of performance tests by Pintner and Patterson,1 which does not extend sufficiently far downward. The further refinement in the use of the boards presents a problem for experimental solution in future. 'Pintner, Rudolf, and Patterson, Donald. A Scale of Performance Tests, 1917. It is evident that the time order is an important factor to be considered in this series of tests. It however, not to have been evaluated by the authors. appears,