Seguin Form Board Test

SFBT

PRASAD PSYCHO
COR PORA TION
www.prasadpsycho.com
 Gwalior Mansik
Psychology Lab Arogyashala

Seguin Form Board Test

SFBT

Edited By
Banashree Deka
&
Vriti Kalra

(PRASAD PSYCHO
COR P 0RAT|ON
10 A, Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpu, New Delhi-110092 www.prasadpsycho.com

Copyright© 2010 by Prasad Psycho Corporation. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in whole or part in any form or by any
means without written permission of Prasad Psycho Corporation.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Descriptive and Historical Sketch.**********°°**°************************ *******°******* **********°**********°**'

1

Preliminary Studies..
******°**********°***°**************** *** ************* *********°**********°********* 3

Application to Retarded and Defective Children... *****°****°********°** ***°********°*****°**' *** '

Indian Norms.... **********************°***** ***********.************** **************************** ** 14

Appendix...*********°**°°°°**°*°°****°°*°****°°***°°°°*°°°***°°****°**°**°**°°************** ***************°******* 16

Conclusion... *****************°**°*.*******************************°***********°***********°°**°*** °*********** ** 19

References...*******°*°***********°**°°*°°*°°°**°°*****°e****°°***********°*°*****°****°**°***°°****°******************°**** 19
DESCRIPTIVE AND HISTORICAL SKETCH

The form board has been used for several

years, and clinical psychologists continue to regard
it as one of
their best general tests. It appeals to the child's interest, affording him/hera short
and fascinating task which calls for his/her best
effort, and it helps to free him/her from the
fear and self-consciousness which often interfere
seriously in a mental examination. At the
same time the test gives the examiner a
good general view of the child's mentality ("g" factor)
and it usually indicates more or less
clearly the nature of defects.

|2A 1 |
6
4

10
8

Fig. 1- The Form Board- the forms are designated by numbers as follows: 1. Semi-circle. 2.
Triangle. 3. Cross 4. Elongatedhexagon. 5. Oblong. 6. Circle. 7. Square. 8. Flattened oval.19
Star. 10. Lozenge.

The ten geometrical figures, as nearly uniform in size as their variety of form will allow, are
cut through an oak board 18 x 12x 1.5 inches. The board is finished in their natural color and
the blocks are painted black The whole is carefully finished in order to give it an attractive
appearance, an important feature in a mental testing device. This description applies to what
may be called the standard form board, the type now in most general use.

History of the Form Board

The first form boards were contrived for training puposes. Itard in his efforts to train the
Wild Boy of Aveyron used as one of his devices a board two fet square upon which were
pasted three pieces of brightly colored paper-a red circle, a blue triangle, and a black square.
Pieces of card board of the same forms and colors were to be matched with these by the boy.
Other boards with various forms and colors were also used.

Seguin, a French physician, based his work on developing senses. He was the first person to
point out that brains of mentally deficient children were not always deceased or abnormal but
were often simply arrested in development. Seguin constructed a number of form 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
one inch thick. Board and blocks are soft wood and are not stained or
painted
Another Seguin board is of hard wood, is considerably larger than the kind just described and
has a dozen variously shaped symmetrical forms. 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 arranged in a line. Boards and blocks are all
ofthe 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, arranged the forms 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 form perception as the primary feature of the test and so uses the
umber of errors as the index of a child's form board ability. The errors would refer to an
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
form 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
These three methods are distinguished because they emphasize three different features of the
form board test; errors, time, and reaction to a new task. In each some attention is given to the
features emphasized in the others, so they are not entirely distinct. Other methods are
modifications of these threc.

PRELIMINARY STUDIES

Sylvester (1914), after a year's observation of the test in the Psychological Clinic of the
University of Pennsylvania it was applied on four hundred children and several dozen adults,
using various modifications of the three methods mentioned in the preceding section. The
preliminary studies have yielded the following conclusions.

1. Position of Child, Board and Blocks

The first of these conclusions has to do with the position of the child, the board, and the
blocks at the beginning of a trial. The following arrangement was worked out. It was used
throughout the later studies and has proved to be entirely satisfactory. The form board lies
horizontally m a table, its lower edge (it is the edge next to the star recess) even with the
edge of the table next to which the child stands. The table must be low enough so that he can
lean well over the board and look down upon the center of it. Children readily adapt
themselves to height within a reasonable range, so an adjustable table is not necessary. One of
ordinary height and a kindergarten table suffice. Most children under nine years of age are
requiring the latter. If the table is too high, the child has to look across the board instead of
down upon it and then he would be unable to see the forms-an important point that is often
neglected by many examiners is that the board may be too high for the child. The blocks
should be placed in three piles on the table, next to the edge of the board on the side opposite
the child, no block being in the pile nearest its own recess. If the child is in a position that
enables him to look down upon the center of the board, he can easily reach the blocks piled in
that way. Placing them at the right of the board as is often done is of no advantage, and in that
position they cannot be picked up with the left hand. Placing some at each end of the board is
still worse for it offers the most possibilities for varying the difficulties of handling them.

2. Kind of Form Board to be used

The second conclusion referred to the size of the board and the order of arrangement of the
forms upon it. Some have suggested that the blocks of the standard form board are too large
for small children. To test this, a two-thirds sized model of the standard board was
constructed. This board was tried with 15 six year old children, 28 five year olds, 18 four year
olds, and 8 three year olds. Each child had two trials with the standard form board and two
with the small one, half of each age taking them in the order, standard-small-standard-small
and the other half taking them in the reverse order. The time required for placing the blocks
was found to be practically the same for the two boards. The small board has a slight
advantage in that small children can reach the extreme corner recesses more easily, but this is
perhaps more than offset by the finer co-ordination required for fitting the small blocks into

3
place. The small star was very difficult for the clumsy fingered little folk. The investigator
and others who observed the work agreed that the regular sized blocks were grasped and
handled with more certainty than the small ones. It was not thought worthwhile to try a larger
board for it was evident that small children would have difficulty in reaching its cormer
recesses. The question of re-arranging the forms on the board and of substituting other forms
was also taken up. A board on which forms could be set in any order and tumed at any angle
was planned, but after experimenting with cardboard models it was decided that such a study
would involve more than the present investigation should undertake; and further that the
study of these details would probably contribute litle to the efficiency of the device.

3. Number of Trials to be Given

After these first preliminaries had been completed, attention was given to a feature of
Goddard's method which seemed to call for testing before being adopted, namely, the giving
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

Trial
Age
5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 Average
45 29 22 18 15 25.8
II 34 24 18 16 14 21.1
II 31 23 17 15 19.6
IV 3021 18 14 13 19.2
V
30 22 17 13 12 18.

4
 1
Table 2- Standard deviations for the data of Table

Age Average
Trial 13-14
5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12
13.8 5.5 5.1 4.7 2.6 6.3
II 11.0 5.2 3.4 2.8 3.0 5.I
III 9.5 3.5 3.2 2.5 2.3 4.2
IV 7.8 3.8 3.2 2.5 2.1 3.9
2.2 3.
V 7.6 3.1 3.3 2.4

Table3- Number of individuals making their shortest record on the first trial, second
trial, etc. for the five trials

Age Total
Trial
5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14
0 2 6

II 8 9 9 40

III 14 10 12 59
IV 13 1 13 19 12 68
V 14 17 19 20 18 88

According to Table 1 there is a general decrease in the length of time records of successive
trials, the average falling from 25.8 seconds for the first trial to 19.6 seconds for the third
trial. Each age group shows the decrease regularly for the first three trials. The decrease for
the fourth and the fifth trials is not so marked, the time averages being 19.2 seconds and 18.9
seconds respectively, and in some of the groups the decrease is not regular. Variability
(Standard deviations, Table 2) also shows a decrease with successive trials, the averages of
the five in order being 6.3, 5.1, 4.2, 3.9, and 3.7 seconds. Here also the decrease is greatest in
the first three trials and the age groups show regular decreases except in the fourth and fifth.
Table 3 indicates that practice is a very important factor, most of the shortest records being
made after the second trial, and a larger number on the fifth trial than on any other. This
evidence has less weight when considered in the light of the small average time decreases for
the fourth and the fifth trials as has been noted in Table 1, for with such small average
decreases, it must have been that in a great number of cases the last trials were shortest by
only a second or two. These three tables indicate that in general the first trial is the most
irregular in every way and so is the least reliable. Like-wise the fifth trial is the most reliable,
and of the five trials each is more reliable than those preceding it. The third trial is so much
more consistent than the first and the second that the necessity of giving at least three trials is
obvious. But the differences between the third, fourth, and fifth are comparatively small and
as will be shown further on, a difference of a second or two in indices is of little consequence.

GwaliorMansikArogyasiiaia
PsycihdiUyi-
Tt is evident then that the demands for brevity and convenience in a test like this more than
fourth or a fifth trial.
offset the small gain in accuracy that would be made by giving a

Therefore the adoption of three trials for the standard method is justified.

4. Position of the Blocks in the Three Piles

Another preliminary study was the testing of 93 totally blind children in the Pennsylvania
Institution for the Blind. Certain features of the test stand out more clearly in the work of the
blind than in those who see, which is more rapid, and less labored One feature observed was
that when two diffeult blocks or two that are often interchanged are picked up by two hands
at the same time, it is likely to confuse the child and to prevent his making the best record of
which he is capable. The star and the cross are the most often interchanged by the bind and
the lozenge and the elongated hexagon by seeing children. This observation led to the rule
that in piling the blocks for children who have vision the lozenge and the elongated hexagon
must not be placed in the same layer in the piles. This usually prevents their being picked up
simultaneously. It was also observed especially in the blind that if the star is picked up early
n the trial and refuses to slip into place the child is often confused ereby and has
unnecessary trouble with the other blocks. It was therefore decided that this, the most difficult
block to fit into place, should never be left on the top of a pile. If picked up late in the trial it
cannot disturb the handling of so many other blocks.

5. Relative Importance of Touch and Vision in the Test

The main purpose in testing the blind children was to get further evidence as to the relative
importance of the visual and the tactual senses in the form board test. In spite of the fact that
the child gets no tactile impression of the recesses while placing the blocks, it is the
opinion
of some examiners that touch is depended on considerably by children who see. Careful
observation however, has shown that they usually pick up the blocks with no effort to get a
tactile impression of them. In the tests with the smaller board no advantage was taken of the
clearer tactile impressions which the smaller blocks must have given. Introspective reports of
students of psychology who were given the test indicate that there is little dependence on
touch. Some blindfolded children are unable to place the blocks at all, and blindfolded adults
have great difficulty, requiring on an average about three minutes for the first trial.

6
 Psychology Ldu
A r o g y a s h a l a

Mansik

ior
Table 4- Results from the Form Board Tests of totally blind

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, cach of which was timed and a record was taken of the number of
errors. 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 learmed
visually, but the results do not fulfil 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 retaned 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 diferences 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 enrollment of about 780. Of this number some were foreign bom
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

1
 on as many features
drawn in the In addition the child was to be graded
preliminary studies. could give
as possible. The teacher's estimate of the child and any
other information that she
to
undertaken with three purposes; first,
concerning him were also to be used. The work was
determine which features of a child's work at the form board can be satisfactorily graded
with
him are of value in connection
second, to find which of the obtainable facts concerning
the test; and third, to differentiate the characteristic ways in
which children of various types
carried out but the third
work at the test. The first two of these purposes were successfully
and the data so in-
was not, the 605 children proving to be such a leterogeneous group

coordinate as to defy all attempts at classification. The work

had an additional value in
studies of normal children.
serving as a preparation for the more careful quantitative
with experience and the
Improved ways of securing proper testing conditions were developed
procedure of the test itself was adjusted and smoothed.

Plan and Procedure

At the beginning, the test was explained to the child quite fully, and during the explanation
had been decided
the examiner put all of the blocks into place and removed them once. As it
to make the time element the main feature it was thought that the child should be given every
chance to make his/her best possible record. The child started each trial from the signals,

"Ready Go." The records of the handling of the blocks were taken by an assistant in the
form shown below.

First Trial Second Trial Third trial

686 939
725867
2
10110510 81508 383
8548 515
141
606
828
020
2

61 seconds 77 seconds 49 seconds

This specimen record shows that the child began by picking up block 6, trying it at recess 8,
and then placing it in its proper recess. (See page 3 for fom numbering.) Next blocks 9 and 3
were placed correctly. Block 10 was tried at recess 1, then unsuccessfully at its own recess,
then at recess 5, and finally it was fitted into its own recess. Two errors were made with block
8 and one with block 1. Block 5 was tried at recess 4 and laid aside, and then blocks 4, 2, 7,
and 5 were placed in order. Thus the handling of every block in the first trial is shown. At the
foot of each column is recorded the time of the trial in seconds.

8
The various features noted were: child's
co-ordination, apparent mentality, ability at plannug
ahead, and use of the hands. The following were obtained from the teacher: the child's age,
reasons for his being in the special class, whether she regarded him as mentally defective or
as merely retarded, his general school progress, and her estimate of his ability at hand-work.
At the beginning the investigator undertook to estimate certain other features such as interest,
attention, alertness, and learning ability, but one by one they were dropped as it became
evident that they could not be estimated in such a way as to have a bearing on the test. After
some 200 children had been tested, namely poise was added. The rest of the children were
graded on this.

Age and Sex Considerations

After various attempts had been made at arranging the data, it became evident that the time
records have the most consistent variability and are therefore the best basis for arrangement.
The grouping above the 18 second records in Table 5 is more or less forced but it is the least
objectionable of any that were tried

Table 5- The data from the 605 backward class children

Distribution by ages Sex

Time in
seconds 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Unfinished 6 2 1 1| 10.8 4 2
50-101 3 11.7 7 8
40-49 9.7 14
2 1 10
10.5 I5
30-39 24 3 5
4 10.8 22
26-29 33
1526 8 1l
23-25 483| 6 2 10.7 27 14
21-22 46 9 111.8 27 19
19-20 60
8810 12 11.7
| 11.9
49
18 61 1 3 5 13 22 51 0

17 49 2 1| 12 12 9 7 4 12.3 35 14
68 3 13 11 16 7 7 3 12.3 61 7

15 60 14
13.3 52
13.4
14 62 16
S4
13 31 2 7 13 13.3 28 3

12 15 7 2 13.7 15
11 0 7 13.8 10
14.0
TOTAL| 6057 26 37 63 95 111|91|98 47 27 3 467 138

9
 class children
Table 5 (contd.) -
The data from the 605 backward

Unfinished 6
50-101 36
40-49 21 12 17
30-3 10 15
26-29 33
23-25 41
21-22 46 12
19-20 60 9 15 13
18 61 12 12 10
17 49 14 12
16 68 20 13
15 60 14 4

62
13 31 21 13 4
12 15 10
11 10 10 3
10 3
TOTAL 605 158 133 57 52

The number of individuals in each time record group, their distribution by ages, ad 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
 Age Average Time
22.6
23.7
20.9
19.4
19
12 17.5
13 16.6
14 15.0
15 16.8
16 16.5
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 small
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 form 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
the blocks, compared with
who used two hands successfully and simultaneously in placing
observed is that several of the older
normal children, was relatively small. Another feature
one to the other in successive trials,
children who used but one hand at a time, changed from
Normal children rarely change
apparently succeeding with one as well as with the other.
hands.

as very poor. In-coordination is not so

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

to work at one's maximum speed without losing control

Poise, as here used, means the ability hurries and gets
and getting confused. When a child in his efforts to place the blocks quickly,
inexcusable errors or hesitates in a semidazed way,
flustered so that he makes numerous and
in this quality which we have chosen to call poise. Take for
he does so because he is lacking GwaliorMansikArogyäsiaid
P s y C i i u

11
 whose record for the three trials
Instance one of these backward cases, an eleven year old boy
in order were 36, 52, and 62 seconds, and the number of errors 4,
5, and 11. His efforts at
a fourth trial and told to
humying caused him to make errors and to lose time. When given
Some defectives show a
work slowly he placed the blocks in 21 seconds and made no errors.
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 although they are
into utter confusion.
Sometimes momentarily hindered by over hurrying, they do not go
examiner during the work. In
Practically all of them make better records when urged by the normal mentality. As
other words, the child who is lacking in poise is very likely not to be of
several of the
previously stated no records were kept of this factor until the children in
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 errors 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 lose 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
without hesitation. Most normal adults and many children do this, but younger 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 number of errors is
36, for the shortest records the average is 3, and between these extremes there is a somewhat
irregular correlation between the length of time record and the number of errors. These 605
backward children averaged more than 6 errors each, whereas normal children average less
than three. Evidently a large number of errors indicate low mentality. A statement of the
number of times that each possible kind of error was made is
given
in Table 6.

12
 Table 6- Distribution of the kind of errors made by the 605 backward class children

Blocks Recessess
2 3 4 5 8 8 9 10 Total
4 81 3 4 63T15 242
2 2 24 32 19 9 14 12 9 75 216
16 4 3 9 18 16 7 62 42 184
38 102 3 6 4 99 299
23 45 4 17 58 162
6 12 55 67 31 193
17 23 15 65 67T 68497 377
3 61 159|24 35 409
1 9 |110 41016 | 3 4 T 7 20 195
10 41 60| 15 305 116|8 27|61 8 643
Total 276 136203 537| 577 153 151 371 96| 420 2920

The upper line, for instance, indicates 4 futile attempts to fit block1 into its ownm recess, 6
attempts to fit it into recess 2, 3 at recess 3, 62 at recess 4, etc. and a total of 242 erors with this
block. Since each ofthe 605 children had three trials, a total of 1815 errors with each block were
possible. Table 6, horizontally represent the ten recesses of the form board and vertically they
represent the ten blocks. The numbers in the upper horizontal line show the number of futile
attempts at putting block 1 into each of the ten recesses. The other horizontal lines give
coresponding 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 recesses.

Table 7-Twelve most frequent kinds oferrors of the 605 backward class children arranged
according to the time records

Errors
Time in
Seconds

30 to 101 4 134 2 22 2 3 3 22 4
2 0 20 to 29 147 334|
15 to 19 1 5 4 6 2 | 52 273T
10to 14 16S 2T33 232 2
The data is in per cent, of the total number of erOrs made by each of the four time record
groups. Thus, the 4 in the upper let space means that of the total number of mistakes made
by the group, whose time records were 30 seconds or more, 4 per cent, was the 0-4 error.

13
One important conclusion can be drawn by aranging the data in the form of table 7 ie.
according to four time record groups- those longer than 29 seconds, the 20- 29 second
records, the 15-19 second records, and those shorter than 15 seconds. This is a condensation
of the grouping that is used in Table 5. The data are given in percentages of the total number
ot errors made by each group. It is shown that with normal children of all ages the 0-4 error is
by far the most frequent and that the occurrence of the more common ones does not vary
Significantly with age. In Table 7 the same is true of the two groups whose time records
average below 20 seconds and to a less degree of the 20-29 second group, but in the longest
records group there is little tendency to make one kind of error more frequently than another
Since nearly all of the longest records were made by children of quite low mentality, the one
conclusion to be drawn is that if a child makes the 04 error and the other common ones more
frequently than others he is to be credited for doing so. In other words, he is probably of
higher mentality than a similar child whose errors are more evenly distributed. This feature is
peculiar in that it varies with the degree of mentality but not with the age and it is therefore
especially important.

INDIAN NORMS

The Seguin form board test was administered by J. Bharat Raj on a total number of 1052
subjects (705 males and 347 females), between 5 to 15 years of age. Similarly, S.K. Goel
used a sample of 1125 subjects (749 males and 376 females), between the age range of 3 to
15 years. The results are given in Table 8 and 9.

Table8- Number of subjects for various age groups

Age J. Bharat Raj S. K. Goel

Groups M F
3 50 18
4 50 28 22
32 50 22
54 50 30 25
71 41 30 60 40 20
99 62 37 100 65 35
110 74 36 100 70 30
10 143 92 3T 125 80 45
116 76 40 110 72 38
12 171 120 51 150 111 39
13 123 95 28 125 89 36
14 91 69 22 100 71
15 42 28 14 50 33

14
 Psychology Lab Arogyashala
Gwalior Mansik

Table 9- Norms for Seguin Form Board Test

J. Bharat Raj S.K. Goel R.BCattel

Mental Age Total Test
Shortest Time Total Time Shortest Time Shortest Time
Time Time
58.0 220.0 50.0 216
4 48.0 165.0 46.0 161
36.1 128.0 36.0 129.0 35.0 123
26.8 96.5 27.2 105.8 27.0 105
25.1 86.7 25.0 88.0 23.0 90
20.0 72.7 21.0 74.0 20.0 77
9 18.0 66.0 18.9 67.0 18.5 68
10 17.3 60.2
17.4 60.9 16.5 61
11 16.1 55.8 16.2 56.0 15.0 55
2 15.5 52.7 15.7 52.8 14.0 49
3 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 Western 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 surprisingly 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.

15
APPENDIX

Children under Five Years of Age

A group of thirty-five, four year old children were given the fom board test, the regular
method being used except that the child was handed each block and in case he spent
considerable time trying to fit it into a wrong recess he was told to try another. All normal
four year olds can place the blocks if given that much help. The shortest time record was 20
seconds, the longest 91 seconds, and the average 46 seconds. Three of the thirty-five made no
erors, 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 turn 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
Adults

Adults place the blocks a little more

quickly than do fourteen year olds. Most of their records
fall betwecn 9 and 12 seconds. An occasional 8 second record is
made, and three individuals
out of more than a hundred made records of 7
seconds in one of their first three trials.
Practically all adults plan ahead. The most successful handling of the blocks is a
rhythmic
alternating of the two hands, one hand fitting a block while the other is picking one from the
piles. When one attempts to fit two blocks into their recesses simultaneously time is lost,
probably because of the attempt to divide the attention.

Children of Low Mentality

There is no kind of reaction to the form board test that is strictly typical of any one grade or
class of defectives. This is partly due to the fact that each of our standard classifications has
its own basis, such as industrial capacity,
linguistic ability and educability. Accordingly
children may rank quite differently 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 board 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
that of other defectives. 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 children. But since that study was made before the standards
for nomal 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 intellectualy 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 the Pennsylvania 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 normal children,
and there was only an irregular tendency to favor the 04 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 lacking in poise; some being confused by their own efforts as well as by the
urging and assistance offered by the examiner. In some cases the confusion was only
temporary, poise being regained and the work proceeding successfuly for a time, but in
others even after a promising beginning, control was lost and the efforts ended in utter

17
confusion. Some of these defectives are at an opposite extreme from those who lack poise,
at the form board in a listless, indifferent
being abnormally inert and stolid. They work
manner, either the inclination or the ability to start quickly
lacking and to work rapidly. The
most of these make somewhat better records when urged strenuously. A normal
child is alert
that makes a
but at the same time has self-control and poise. There is no testing device
than does the form
stronger appeal to the interest of children, both normal and defective,
it the best
board test. It is herefore a goodtest of attention. Practically every child gives
attention of which he is capable. Twenty-four of the seventy-six defectives gave the test
undivided attention as long as the examiner wished them to work at it, although some of them
worked slowly and made many errors. Fourteen gave good attention through one trial but
wandered from the task before being told to stop. Thirty-one showed various degrees of

few seconds at time, and dhers almost

flightiness, some attending to the test but for a a

reminded
completing a trial. Some of these returned to it of their own accord, others had to be
in the
by the examiner. Three of them refused to return to it. Seven could not be interested
test at all, and made no effort to place blocks. Fatigue is a factor in the case of many who lose
interest.

The emotional reaction of defectives to the form board test is extremely interesting
Affectively, only ten of these seventy-six reacted like normal children. Seventeen were
apathetic, the test arousing little or no interest in them. Thirty-three found great enjoyment in
it, working enthusiastically, some talking and chattering while at work and many of them
expressing extreme joy when a block or blocks were placed successfully. It was probably the
most difficult piece of work that some of them had ever done, hence their feeling of triumph
and satisfaction in succeeding. Some of the more excitable ones would of course react in the
same way to any test involving activity. The other sixten gave various kinds of curious and
inconsistent reactions. One boy started well but before half of the blocks were placed he
began to weep hysterically and ran away refusing even to look backward. Several others wept
and wailed, attracted to the test but forced to leave it because of embarrassment and
excitement.

These notes give but a glimpse of what can be observed in form board tests of defectives. For
instance the attempt to group the seventy-six cases on the basis of attention might be
extended to include an analysis of each individual's volitional complex. It would cover not
only his power of attention, but also his initiative, his self control, and the intensity of his
effort. A full report would include the painting ofa clinical picture of each case. How much
of this is profitable depends on the individual case and on the extent to which other tests and
means of analysis are employed. These notes are suggestive of what may be worked out from
the form board test, and they emphasize the fact that normal standards must be the basis upon
which each defective's reaction to the form board test is to be interpreted.

18
CONCLUSION

Seguin Form Board Test can be supplemented by other comprehensive tests such as Stanford
- Binet Test, R.B. Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test etc. to yield a complete picture of
the child's mental development.

REFERENCES

Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure growth and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, A. K. S. (1957). Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT), Manual,
Institute of Personality and Ability Testing (IPAT). Ilinois.

Chattopaddhyaya, P. K., & Bhattacharya, A. K.(1980). 1Q on two test: A corelational study

with mentally retarded children. Child Psychiatry, Quarterly,13,78-80.

Devi, S., Mathur, M. N. L., & Dayal S. (1980). Incidence of Mental Retardation in a child
Guidanceclinic. Indian Journal of Mental Retardation, 13, 43-47.

Doll, E. A. (1953). The measurement of social competence - A measure for the Vineland

Social Maturity Scale. Minneapolis: Educational Testing Bureau.

Goel, S. K., & Sen, A. K. (1984). Mental retardation and learning. Agra: National
Psychological Corporation.
Itard, J. (1806). The Des Premiers Developments du Jeune Sauvage de L' Aveyron, p.41.

Jehan, Q, & Ansari, Z. (1981). A study of certain psychological characteristics of mentally

retarded children. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 8, 47-81.

Kuppuswamy, S. K. (1968). A survey of mental retardation among children enrolled in

middle schools of Mysore city. Indian Journal of Mental Retardation, 1, 12-91.

Raj, J. B. (1971). A.II.S.H norms on Seguin Form Board Test with Indian children. Journal

ofAll India Institute of Speech and Hearing, 2, 34-91.

Raven, J. C. (1956). Colored Progressive Matrices: Sets-Manual. London: Lewis

Seguin, E. (1907). Idiocy: Its treatment by the physiological methods. NY: Bureau of
Publication, Teacher's College, Columbia University.

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. NY: Mac-Millan.

Sylvester, R. H. (1914). The form board test. Doctoral thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

19
The complete kit of Seguin Form Board Test [16-0038-KT]
contains:

1 Manual - 16-0038-M

1 Wooden apparatus - 16-0038-AP

50 Response Sheets A - 16-0038A-RS

50 Response Sheets B - 16-0038B-RS

PRASAD PSYCHO
COR PORATIO N

10 A, Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092

Phone: +91-11-43203333 Fax: +91-11-43203344

info@prasadpsycho.com
Website: www.prasadpsycho.com