/jr

CHAPTER : 2

THE CONCEPT OF INTELLIGENCE

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Concept of biologists

2.3 Doctrines of intelligence

2.3.1 Monarchic doctrine

2.3.2 Oligarchic doctrine

2.3.3 Anarchic doctrine

2.4 The Principles of noegenesis

2.5 Definitions of intelligence

2.5.1 Biological

2.5.2 Educational

2.5.3 Faculty

2.5.4 Empirical

2.6 Attributes of Intelligence

2.6.1 Level

2.6.2 Range

2.6.3 Area

2.6.4 Speed

2.7 Three Kinds of Intelligence

2.7.1 Abstract

2.7.2 Concrete

2.7.3 Social
 u

2.8 Comprehensive definitions of Intelligence

2.8.1 Wechsler's definition

2.8.2 Stoddard's definition

2.9 Nature and nurture

2.10 Analysis of human ability

2.10.1 The multiple factor theory

2.10.2 The two factor theory

2.10.3 Holzinger's bi-factor theory '

2.10.4 Group factor theory

2.10.5 Sanpling theory

2.10.6 Consensus of varitfus theories

2.11 Types of models

2.11.1 Hierachical models

2.11.2 Evaluation of hierarchical models

2.11.3 Morphological model

2.12 The present Experiment

-x-x-x-x-
 17

2.1 INTRODUCTION :

While we are in the contest of history it is well to

consider in an organized manner, the threads of thinking

concerning the natute of intelligence. According to Cyril

Burt, intelligence goes back to intelligencia, a term intro­

duced by Cicfiro. Spearman reported that the monarchic view

of unitary thing called intelligence was popular far back

as the fifteenth century.

The concise Oxford Dictionary informs us that the term

intelligence means 'intellect1 and understanding. Intelligence

is generally guessed from the way a person appears to under­

stand a factor or a group of facts, and the manner in which

he responds to those facts.

The term intelligence- is used even by a layman in every­

day talks. He is not at all worried about its meaning in

technical terms. The definition of intelligence has so far

defeated the intelligence of psychologists. They have been

trying to give a clear definition of intelligence but all do

not meet on common ground. Almost every writer on the

subject has put forward his own definition of intelligence

and some, in the fullness of time, have even offered more

 than one and have not been constrained by consideration of

compatibility.

The physical scientists are always busy in experimenting

with new things. Every moment brings new idea for them. Every

new invention in science becomes helpful in refining and

redefining the knowledge of things. Same is the case with the

psychologists. For hundred years or rather more, they have

t
been trying to understand the structure of their own intelli-

gence0 The existence of individual differences amongst the

people have led them to develope instruments for measuring

intelligence. As stated by Freeman:

A Scientific approach to measurement

requires that the aspect or aspects of

mental life, proposed to be measured by the

instrument being designed should be stated

1
by the test maker.

This is surely a challenge to the practical psychologists.

The test maker should always make it clear what his instrument

will measure. For that, first of all, he should be clear about

2
its concept. Rex knight remarks that for the practical purpose

of measuring intelligence, it may well be that full knowledge

of its nature is not necessary. He believes Terman to be right

 11

who says that'1to demand that one# who would measure Intelli­

gence, should first present a conplete definition of it, is

2
qyite unreasonable*

More than eighty percent of the people in the world,

believe in praying God, in one form or the other. No body has

been successful in describing him exactly and specifically.

Each religious faith describes God in its own way. The images
t
of God are even carved out without ever seeing him. People

say that God is like the carved images in the temple. He is

just like what we describe him to be. With such confused ideas

people pray him and try to understand him from times immemorial.

Exactly in the same manner without any clear idea of intelli­

gence, psychologists have started constructing the tests to

measure intelligence. As they are baffied in the task of

defining intelligence they have also started saying that

intelligence is what the intelligence tests measure.

They say that though we cannot give a concise definition

of intelligence, the results of different intelligence tests

agree with each other to a considerable amount and hence, no

such attenpt, however modest, on the part of the test maker

is necessary. Such a view is supported by Freeman, who remarks

that "though psychologists started with different definitions,

 they emerge wit:' tests having considerable similarity."

However, the same author favours a theoretical study of

the concept of intelligence in the following words :

" First, the student should be familiar

with the thinking of psychologists in

this field, as a background for his

better understanding of the tests them-

selves. Second, it is through the

i
interaction of the theoretical and

applied that improvement and advance

will be made. Third, it is possible

that one or more of these theories will

have increasing influence, in the future

upon test construction, testing practice

3
and test interpretation.

Guided by these reasons, the researcher has thought to

discuss a few ideas about intelligence. It is not claimed

to be an original contribution but only a modest attempt to

discuss the nature of intelligence.

2.2 Concept of Biologists :

Herbert Spencer's definition of intelligence which he

used in Biology was perhaps the first attempt to exmplain the

 2-1

c o n c e p t o f i n t e l l i g e n c e in m odern p s y c h o lo g y . S p en cer d e fin e s

i n t e l l i g e n c e as " th e m e n ta l a d ju s tm e n t o f i n t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s to

e x te r n a l r e la tio n s " (S p e n c e r a s c i t e d b y D e s a i/ K . G . , P . l 7 ) .

A fte r w a r d s th e p s y c h o l o g i s t s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d b e tw e e n man and

an im al w ith t h e h e lp o f t h i s te r m . The fo r m e r m o d if ie d h i s

a c t i o n i n t h e l i g h t o f h i s p a s t e x p e r ie n c e w h i l e t h e l a t t e r

a r e endowed w ith o n ly i n s t i n c t s . t

M cD o u g a ll, how ever c o n t r a d i c t s t h i s v ie w and d e f in e s

'a n i n t e l l i g e n t a c t i o n a s o n e w hich seem s t o show t h a t th e

c r e a t u r e h a s p r o f i t e d by p r i o r e x p e r ie n c e o f s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s / ,

t h a t i t somehow b r in g s to b e a r a p r e v io u s e x p e r ie n c e i n th e

g u id a n c e o f i t s p r e se n t a c tio n . I n s tin c t i s th e n a t iv e o r

in b o r n c a p a c i t y f o r p u r p o s iv e a c t i o n : in te llig e n c e is th e

c a p a c i t y t o im p rove upon n a t i v e te n d e n c y in th e l i g h t o f p a s t
. 4
e x p e r ie n c e .

2.3 D o c t r in e s o f I n t e l l i g e n c e s

B e fo r e t h e s c i e n t i f i c s t u d y o f u n d e r s ta n d in g i n t e l l i g e n c e

sta r te d / i.e. b e fo r e th e ad ven t o f c o r r e la t io n s , t h r e e fu n d a ­

m e n ta l d o c t r in e s w ere p u t fo rw a rd . . T h e se d o c t r i n e s h a v e l e d

u s to th e c u r r e n t t h e o r i e s and h e n c e w ould a lm o s t b e in d is p e n ­

s a b l e f o r t h e i r r i g h t c o m p r e h e n sio n .
 Spearman i n Human A b i l i t y (l95l) p u ts t h e s e t h r e e

doctrines.

2.3.1 Monarchic Doctrine of Intelligence i

Earliest in the field came the ancient

conception of a power that could be taken to

provide the human mind with "universal" abstract

ideas, and so to constitute the one source of

genuine knowledge, such a power was termed in

Greek the 'nous'; accordingly, its actual exerise

was "noesis". In Latin these words were rendered

as intellectus and intelligentis. In English it

came as intellect and intelligence.

According to this view a single power or ability

controls all the capacities of man. There are

nothing like different abilities according to this

doctrine. "But if this be so and the notion of

intelligence does embrace a wide, shifting and

even selfcontradictory range, then all attempts

5
to measure it, would appear to become illusory"
 z3

The p s y c h o l o g i s t s p r e p a r e t e s t s t o m ea su re

a b ilitie s th rou gh t h e i r m a n i f e s t a t i o n s . In

p r a c t i c e th e f u n c t i o n o f i n t e l l i g e n c e i s d iv i­

s i b l e in to s e v e r a l u n it s p a r t ly u n c o r r e la te d .

H ius t h i s d o c t r in e i s i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o th e

t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e o f c u r r e n t m e n ta l t e s t s .

2 .3 .2 O l i g a r c h i c D o c t r in e o f F a c u l t i e s and T ypes :
i
In t h i s s e c o n d fu n d a m en ta l d o c t r i n e o f human

a b i l i t y , s i n g l e s o v e r e ig n f a c u l t y i s r e p la c e d

by a s m a ll number o f d i f f e r e n t o n e s . The o u t ­

s t a n d in g f a c u l t i e s a r e J u d g em en t, P e r c e p t io n ,

Memory, i n v e n t i o n , A t t e n t i o n , L an gu age and

M ovem ent. I h e s e f a c u l t i e s a r e q u i t e in d e p e n d e n t

o f each o th e r , and t h e r e f o r e , each n e e d s a s p a r a t e

m easu rem en t o f i t s ow n. Spearman s a y s ,

" A ll su ch f a c u l t i e s h a v e had a
str a n g e f a t e ." 6

T h e se f a c u l t i e s a r e h i ^ i l y c r i t i c i s e d and e v en

r id ic u le d . H e r b e r t had c o n t r a d i c t e d s a y i n g , ,

" S tr e n g th o f memory i s u s u a l l y
l i m i t e d i n e v e r y man t o p a r t i ­
c u la r k in d s o f o b j e c t s . . . . . . .
2.3.3 A n a r c h ic D o c t r in e o f I n d e p e n d e n t E le m en ts l

A c c o r d in g t o t h i s d o c t r i n e , th e r e e x is t s a

number o f p r i m i t i v e m e n ta l a b i l i t i e s h ig h ly

p a r tic u la r is e d and in d e p e n d e n t o f o n e a n o t h e r .

A c c o r d in g t o T h o r n d ik e ,

"The m e n ta l s c i e n c e s h o u ld a t o n c e
r id t h e m s e lv e s o f th e c o n c e p t io n
o f t h e mind a s a s o r t o f m a c h in e ,
d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f w hich s e n s e , 6
p e r c e iv e , d i s c r i m i n a t e , im a g in e ,
rem em ber, c o n c e i v e , a s s o c ia te ,
r e a s o n a b o u t, d e s ir e , ch o o se,
form h a b i t s , a tte n d t o . . . . T h ere
a r e ^ o n lv th e p a r t i c u l a r c o n n e c t io n
b e tw e en p a r t i c u l a r m e n ta l e v e n t s
8
and o t h e r s ."

S i r G od frey T hom son's S a m p lin g T heory i s th e

m o st d e v e lo p e d m a th e m a tic a l form o f t h i s n o n - f o c a l

v ie w . The m e n ta l t e s t s depend on t h e good team

work o f a grou p o f m e n ta l a b i l i t i e s a c tin g to ­

g e t h e r as o n e u n i t . I n te llig e n c e is th o u g h t

to b e c o n s t i t u t e d o f t h e s e a b i l i t i e s and by

a v e r a g in g o r summing up th e s c o r e s o b t a in e d i n

them , th e g e n e r a l l e v e l o f th e o r g a n i s a t i o n o r
 i n t e l l i g e n c e can b e known. " It is s c a r c e ly

w o r k a b le a t a l l w it h o u t some a u x i l l i a r y hypo­

t h e s i s o f a v e r a g in g o r o f s a m p lin g w h ich a r e

, , _ ^ . „9 M on arch ic and O l i g a r c h i c
hard to a c c e p t.

v ie w s f a l l s h o r t o f p r o v id in g f u n c t i o n a l u n i t y .

T h is a n a r c h ic v ie w i s th e l i t t l e b e tte r ca se

h a v in g to p r o v e f u n c t i o n a l in d e p e n d e n c e w hich

is e q u iv a l e n t to d i s u n i t y .

Spearman o b j e c t s s a y in g t h a t no g e n u in e

a v e r a g i n g o r s a m p lin g o f a n y b o d y 's a b i l i t i e s

i s m ade, can b e made o r ev en has r e a l l y b e e n

.. . , 10
a tt e m p te d .

A ll th e a b o v e d o c t r in e s h a v e f a i l e d a s th e y

h a v e o m it t e d t o d e te r m in e r a n g e s o f f u n c t i o n a l

u n ity . By su c h r a n g e we mean th e s p h e r e w it h in

w h ic h th e a b i l i t y a t i s s u e te n d s to v a r y c o n c u ­

r r e n t l y from o n e p e r s o n to a n o t h e r . By d is c a r d in g

a l l t h e s e v ie w s f o r t h e r e a s o n s j u s t d i s e a s e d

Spearm an fo u n d a s o l u t i o n a s he s a y s # b y p u t t i n g

fo r w a r d a new e c l e c t i c th e o r y w h ich in c lu d e s
 s o m e th in g o f a l l o f th em . Spearman h a s a l s o

fo r m u la te d th e p r i n c i p l e s o f n o e g e n e s is t o form

th e b a s i s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s .

2 .4 The P r i n c i p l e s o f N o e g e n e s is :

Spearman c h a lle n g e d common s e n s e and common te r m in o lo g y

to com p ete w ith h i s t h e o r i e s . Tb u n d e r sta n d S p ea rm a n 's th e o r y

o f i n t e l l i g e n c e and i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s we m u st f i r s t ex a m in e

h is t h r e e fam ous 'n o e g e n e t ic * P r i n c i p l e s o f C o g n it io n a s p r o p o ­

unded i n h i s N a tu r e o f I n t e l l i g e n c e and P r i n c i p l e s o f C o g n it io n .

I n t e l l i g e n c e b e in g p r im a r ily a c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n b e s i d e s a n y t h in g

e ls e , c o g n i t i o n a t t r a c t e d S p earm an 's a t t e n t i o n ana h e e v o lv e d

th e se p r in c ip le s . S in c e th e y d e a l w ith i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o c e s s e s ,

th e y a r e d e s c r ib e d as ' n o e t i c ' b u t b e c a u s e th e y a r e a l s o c o n c e r n e d

w ith th e g e n e r a t io n o f new it e m s o f e x p e r ie n c e from t h o s e w h ich

a r e a lr e a d y g i v e n , th e y a r e c a l l e d n o e g e n e t ic p r i n c i p l e s . T h ese

p r in c ip le s can b e s p e l t o u t a s f o l l o w s :

1. A p p r e h e n s io n s io n o f e x p e r ie n c e -'A n y
l i v e d e x p e r ie n c e te n d s t o e v o k e imme­
d i a t e l y a kn ow ing o f i t s c h a ra cters
and e x p e r i e n c e r . '
2. E d u c a tio n o f R e la t io n s - 't h e m e n t a lly
p r e s e n t i n g o f any two o r m ore c h a r a c t e r s
 21

( s im p le o r com p lex) te n d s to e v o k e
im m e d ia te ly a k n o w in g o f r e l a t i o n s
b e tw e e n them . '
3. E d u c a tio n o f c o r r e l a t e s - ' t h e
p r e s e n t i n g o f any c h a r a c t e r t o g e t h e r
w ith any r e l a t i o n te n d s to e v o k e
im m e d ia te ly a k n o w in g o f th e c o r r e ­
l a t i v e c h a r a c t e r . ' 11

The v a lu e o f a t e s t o f i n t e l l i g e n c e d ep en d s on how f a r

it is a b le t o c a l l i n t o p la y t h e s e n o e g e n e t ic p r i n c i p l e s . No

d o u b t many o t h e r p r o c e s s e s su ch a s memory/ p e r c e p t io n ,im a g e r y

e tc . a r e i n v o l v e d in th e t e s t s . The c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s form

th e c o r e p a r t o f th e t e s t s and h e n c e t h e s e t h r e e P r i n c i p l e s o f

N o e g e n e s is h a v e b een an u n iq u e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e t h e o r y o f

in te llig e n c e t e s t s . In a d d it io n t o h i s s t a t e m e n t t h a t th e word

'in te llig e n c e * c o v e r s t h e t h r e e n o e g e n e t ic p r i n c i p l e s i n t h e i r

m a n ife s ta tio n s , Spearman o f t e n i m p lie s t h a t t h e t h r e e p r i n c i p l e s

in a l l t h e ir m a n ife s ta tio n s c o v er 'in te llig e n c e '. Tb u n d e r s ta n d

t h i s w e l l , we m u st c o n s id e r h i s u s e o f 'g ' i.e. h i s two f a c t o r

th e o r y w h ich w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d l a t e r in t h i s c h a p t e r .

2 .5 D e fin itio n s o f I n t e llig e n c e :

P s y c h o l o g i s t s h a v e b e e n g e n e r o u s to a f a u l t w ith t h e i r

d e fin itio n s o f in t e llig e n c e . A lm o st e v e r y w r it e r o n th e s u b j e c t

h a s f o r w a r d e d h i s own d e f i n i t i o n a nd som e, i n t h e f u l l n e s s o f

tim e, have even o f f e r e d more th an o n e and h a v e n o t alw ay s b e en

c o n s t r a i n e d by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f c o m p a t i b i l i t y . I t i s w ell to

i n s i s t upon t h e f a c t t h a t t h e m e a n i n g o f g e n e r a l i n t e l l i g e n c e

h a s h a d a g r a d u a l g r o w t h and t h a t we d i d n o t s t a r t w i t h a c l e a r

d e f i n i t i o n o f g e n e r a l i n t e l l i g e n c e s e t up b y some p s y c h o l o g i s t s .

We may s a y r a t h e r t h a t t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t b o r r o w e d f r o m e v e r y d a y

life a vague term im p ly in g a l l r o u n d a b i l i t y and know ledge, a nd

in th e p ro c e ss o f tr y in g to m easure t h i s t r a i t h e h a s b e e n a nd

still is a t t e m p t i n g t o d e f i n e i t m o r e s h a r p l y a n d endow i t w i t h

a s tric te r scien tific connotation.

A wide v a r i e t y o f d e f i n i t i o n s , e x p r e s s i n g d i v e r s e views

on t h e n a t u r e o f i n t e l l i g e n c e , have been g iv e n by p s y c h o l o g i s t s .

G eneral i n t e r e s t in such d e f i n i t i o n s has been a ro u sed s in c e th e

fa mo us s y m p o si u m , o r g a n i s e d by th e J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o ­

lo g ists to t a k e p a r t i n a symposium. They w e r e a s k e d t o w r i t e

b rief answers to th e f o llo w in g two q u e s t i o n s :

1. What I c o n c e i v e " i n t e l l i g e n c e " to be, and by

w h a t m e an s i t c a n b e s t b e m e a s u r e d b y g r o u p t e s t s ?

2. What a r e t h e c r u c i a l "next steps" in re se a rc h ?

 Numerous v o i c e s w ere h e a r d in r e s p o n s e to t h e s e q u e s t io n s

The o u tco m es w ere f a r from th e a g r e e m e n t. As Spearman p u ts i t ,

" i n t e l l i g e n c e becam e a m ere v o c a l so u n d , a word w ith s o many

12
m ean in gs and f i n a l l y i t had n o n e ."

F . N . Freem an c l a s s i f i e s th e r e s p o n s e s o f th e p s y c h o l o g i s t s

as o r g a n i c , i . e . t h o s e which e m p h a sis e i t s d e p e n d e n c e upon sym bol

and c u l t u r a l c o n c e p t s , and b e h a v i o r i s t i c i . e . th osfe w h ich d e f i n e

13
it i n term s o f p e r fo r m a n c e on a g iv e n t e s t .

F .S .F r ee m a n c l a s s i f i e s them in th e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e g r o u p ss

(1) One grou p p l a c e s th e em p h a sis upon a d ju s tm e n t

o r a d a p t a t io n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o h i s t o t a l
e n v ir o n m e n t.
(2) S eco n d ty p e o f d e f i n i t i o n s s t a t e t h a t i n t e l l i ­
gence i s th e a b i l i t y to l e a r n .
(3) O th er s h a v e d e f in e d i n t e l l i g e n c e as t h e a b i l i t y
t o c a r r y on a b s t r a c t t h i n k i n g . 14

H ow ever, even when h e d o e s i t , h e h o ld s t h a t th e c a t e g o r i e s

a r e n o t and c a n n o t b e m u tu a lly e x c l u s i v e .

R udolph P in t n e r grou p s t h e s e r e s p o n s e s o f t h e p s y c h o lo ­

g is ts as ( l ) B io lo g ic a l (2) E d u c a tio n a l (3) F a c u l t y and

15
(4) E m p ir ic a l
 3°

2 .5 .1 B io lo g ic a l *

In t h is ty p e o f d e f i n i t i o n s t h e em p h a sis i s

upon t h e a d j u s t m e n t o r a d a p t a t i o n o f t h e o r g a n is m

to i t s e n v ir o n m e n t o r t o c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f i t s

e n v ir o n m e n t . The more i n t e l l i g e n t o r g a n is m can

a d j u s t t o a g r e a t e r number o f e n v ir o n m e n t a l

changes. H ig h e r o r g a n is m has g o t g r e a t e r a d a p t a -
t
b ility and g r e a t e r i n t e l l i g e n c e .

Stern : " I n te llig e n c e i s a g e n e ra l c a p a c ity

o f an i n d i v i d u a l c o n s c i o u s l y t o a d j u s t h i s

t h i n k i n g t o new r e q u i r e m e n t s . It is general

m e n ta l a d a p t a b i l i t y t o new p r o b le m s and c o n d i ­

tio n s of l i f e . "

W e lls : " I n t e l l i g e n c e means p r e c i s e l y t h e p r o p e r t y

o f s o r e c o m b in in g o u r b e h a v i o u r - p a t t e r n s as to

a c t b e t t e r in n o v e l s i t u a t i o n s . "

P eterson s " I n t e l l i g e n c e seem s t o b e a b i o l o g i c a l

m echanism by w hich t h e e f f e c t s o f a c o m p l e x i t y o f

s t i m u l i a r e b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r and g i v e n a som ewhat

u n i f i e d e f f e c t in b e h a v io u r ."
 3>l

Woodworth :"To be Intelligent# a test subject has to see

the point of the problem now set to him, and to adapt

what he has learned to this novel situation."

Edward i "Capacity for variability or versatility of

response."

From all the above definitions it is clear that they

conceive of general intelligence as including behaviour

that leads to better and better adaptation, not only in

man but even in animal kingdom.

2.5.2 Educational *

This kind of definitions put stress on learning

ability.

Buckingham * "Intelligence is the ability to learn."

Colvin s "An individual possesses intelligence in so far

as he has learned, or can learn, to adjust himself to

his environment,,"

Honmon s "Intelligence is the capacity for knowledge

and the knowledge possessed."

The knowledge possessed is not ordinarily included

in intelligence by most v/writers. The individual is

intelligent, who learns quickly and easily. Who finds

learning difficult is lacking in intelligence. The

biological point of view and this educational point go

 3 2_

parallel and has no contradiction as all learning may

be regarded as adjustment or adaptation to various

situations*

2.5.3 Faculty *

Here intelligence is described in terms of faculty

or capacity. It is not functional but structural i$

nature.

Binet t "Intelligence is judgement or common sense."

Terman s "An individual is intelligent in proportion as

he is able to carry on abstract thinking."

Woodrow * "Intelligence is an acquiring capacity. It is

capacity to acquire capacity."

Haggerty s "It is a practical concept connoting a group

of complex mental processes traditionally defined in

systematic psychologies as sensation, perception, associa­

tion. memory, imagination, discrimination, judgement and

reasoning... For the most part I would exclude from the

concept, emotions/ instincts, will# activities and so

called character traits."

2.5.4 Empirical *

In this type of definitions, the enphasis is on the

practical results of intelligence* It may be called

behatfiouristLc as they pay attention to the behaviour

value of Intelligent response.

Thorndike * "We may then define intellect in general as

the power of good responses from the point of view of

truth or fact."

Ballard t "The relative general efficiency of minds

t

measured under similar conditions of knowledge, interest

and habituation."

Pointer * "Intelligence is merely an evaluation of the

efficiency of a reaction or a group of reactions under

specific circumstances."

There are other definitions of Intelligence which

can hardly be classified under any of the above cate­

gories.

Thurstone i “Intelligence is the capacity to live a trial -

and-erxor existence with alternatives that are as yet

only incomplete conduct."

Freeman * “Psychologically, degrees of intelligence seem

to depend on the facility with which the subject matter

of experience can be organised into new patterns. This

arrrangement of thought material is what characterizes

particularly the higher mental processes."

Binet : "Intelligence involves (l) the tendency to take

and maintain a definite direction (2) the capacity to

make adaptations for the purpose of attaining a desired

end and (3) the power of self criticism."

These definitions extend from 1914 to 1940 and with

repeated appearance of the same points. The biological

and the educational points of view are not very different*

The faculty point of view lays stress on different abili­

ties used in making the adaptations and adjustments and

learnings while the empirical point of view calls our

attention to the result of the responses of the organism.

All attempts to define intelligence as a single

entity have thus far failed. As we can see front the above

discussion, different psychologists give different

definitions and hence diversity of opinion makes it

impossible to give a single definition of intelligence

and say that this is what psychologists think intelligence

is. We can say that the prevailing impression is not one

of contradiction but of vagueness. It is true that there

 are d if f e r e n c e s i n emphasis# b u t on th e w hole i t would

n o t seem v e ry d i f f i c u l t to r e c o n c ile th e s e v a r io u s

fo r m u la tio n s.

2 #6 A ttr ib u te s o f I n t e l l i g e n c e :

I n t e l l i g e n c e has c e r ta in p r o p e r tie s and we c a l l them

' a t t r i b u t e s ' . I n t e l l i g e n c e i s m a n ife sted in d i f f e r e n t

s i t u a t i o n s and s o th e s e a t t r ib u t e s can b e d iv id e d in t o

d i f f e r e n t t y p e s . A ttr ib u te s a r e d is tin g u is h e d in t o fou r

kinds by U iorndik e as - (a) L ev el (b) Range (c^ Area'

(d) Speed.

2 .6 .1 L evel i

T his r e f e r s to th e degree o f d i f f i c u l t y o f ta s k th a t

can be s o lv e d . I f we arrange d i f f e r e n t ta s k s accord in g

to t h e i r l e v e l s o f d i f f i c u l t y # th e h ig h e s t s t e p o f t h i s

la d d er shows th e l e v e l or a l t i t u d e o f i n t e l l i g e n c e .

Enumeration# d e s c r ip tio n and in t e r p r e t a t io n a r e some o f

th e im p ortan t a sp e c ts o f a l t i t u d e s o r l e v e l s which are

a sp e c ts o f i n t e l l e c t which can n ever measure i t a lo n e .

2.6.2 Range :

I t r e f e r s to th e number o f ta sk s a t any g iv e n degree

o f d i f f i c u l t y t h a t we can s o l v e . We cannot measure

a l t it u d e w ith o u t range o r w id th .
2.6*3 Areas*

Area may be thought of as the total number of situa­

tions at each level to which the individual is able to

respond. It is very highly correlated with altitude* Ibis

is not considered important as one cannot hope to measure

by means of tests the total area of any one's intelligence.

Obis will only help us in understanding the concept of

intelligence*

2.6.4 Speed *

This is the rapidity with which we can respond to

situations. It has positive correlation with altitude.

The intelligence ratings based on any test is necess­

arily a mixture of all the attributes as practically they

cannot be separated. Some attributes are given more

importance and other less in different tests. Sometimes

speed is given more importance while sometimes the range

and level. Thorndike's CAVD emphasises altitude and pays

practically no attention to speed.

2.7 Three Kinds of Intelligence *

Intelligence is thought to be constituted of diffe­

rent kinds and hence psychologists are of the opinion

 3>7

that they should be distinguished. Ohorndike has sugges­

ted a three-fold division into (a) Abstract (b) Concrete

and (3) Social.

2.7.1 Abstract *

This is the ability to respond to symbols of various

sorts# such as words# numbers letters and the like. We

can consider verbal tests as tests of abstract intelli-

gence. A t the highest levels# abstract Intelligence is

seen in the reactions of the student and philosopher

dealing with the relations of things symbolized in words

or numbers or mathematical formulae.

2.7.2 Concrete 1

Here w e test the ability to respond to things them­

selves. It is the ability to comprehend actual concrete

situations and react adequately to them. This kind of

intelligence is best measured b y means of performance

tests.

2.7*3 Social :

It is also called ability to understand and deal

with persons. It does not include the feelings o r emo­

tions aroused in us b y other people# but me r e l y o u r abili­

ty to understand others and to react in such a way

towards than that the ends desired should be attained.

This is merely a convenient scheme of classification

of intelligence. It can b e divided as verbal and non-

-verbal intelligence or in some other way. Abstract

intelligence is measured by most of our present day

group-verbal tests. Concrete intelligence is measured

by performance tests and to some extent b y tests involv-

ing pictures rather than words. A3 Freeman observes# even

tests that present the subject with things rather than

with ideqs and symbols are not devoid of demands upon

ability to conceptualize and m ake abstractions although

testees need not necessarily state these in the f o r m of

16
language and number.

Comprehensive Definitions of Intelligence *

Psychologists have so far failed to give a compact

definition of intelligence. Hence they h a v e started to

describe it in a comprehensive w a y rather than define it

in a compact form. These attempts have resulted in

reducing the differences but not in removing them

completely. Such comprehensive definitions are given by

Wechsler, Stoddard# Boynton and Thorndike. Those b y the

 3>1

first two are discussed at length in the following

paragraphs.

2.8.1 Wechsler's Definition :

wechsler writes in the preface to the fourth edition

of his work, published in 1958, that his views on the

nature of intelligence have not changed radically but

that he has become increasingly convinced that intelli-

4
gence is most usefully interpreted as an aspect of the
17
total personality.

He defines it as “the aggregate or global capacity

of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationa­

lly and to deal effectively with his environment«“ This

cannot be compared with those already presented. It will

be easily noticed that this definition enconpassed the

other three. Learning ability is not mentioned? it is

surely implied. Ihe words aggregate and global indicate

that an individual's intelligence is revealed by his

behaviour as a whole. Ihe word purposefully singifies

that intelligence involves behaviour towards a goal

which may be more or less immediate. The inclusion

of the phrases, “to act purposefully" and “to deal

effectivdy" specifies that 'drive* or "incentive"

alter into intelligent behaviour. Wechsler d e a rly

emphasizes these aspects by supporting Alexander's

findings# which induded a reference to such non-intdle-

18
ctive aspects" The indusion of "drive"# "incentive"

and the like as aspects of intelligence is of doubtful

validity. Their indusion would confuse the issue# the

ft
testing instrument# and the results obtained. Nevertheless#

a single testing device that attenpts to combine the mea­

surement of intellectual with nonintellectual tra its

without providing for differentiation between the two

19
wouid not succeed adequately in either respect". Freeman

further d a r if ie s his point by adding that we should not

ignore "drive"# "incentive"# "interest" etc. in assessing

20
the individual's intelligence.

Wechsler too seemi to have been quite consdous about

this. In the preface to the 1958 edition of his works#

he writes *

I look upon in tellig en ce....as a resultant

of interacting ab ilities - non-intdl ective
induded. The problem confronting psycholo­
gists today is how these ab ilities internet
to give the resultant effect we call i n t e l l i ­
gence. At this writing i t seems d e a r that
 f a c t o r i a l a n a ly s is a lo n e i s n o t th e answ er.
P robably a new s t a t i s t i c in v o lv in g f i e l d
th eory and n o n -lin e a r d i f f e r e n t i a l e q u a tio n s
w i l l be r e q u ir e d . In th e meantime, I rem ain a
21
reform ed b u t unchastened sp eaxm an tie.

The p r e s e n t in v e s t i g a t o r a g r e e s w ith W echaler in a l l

o th e r m atters e x c e p t i n in c lu d in g n o n - i n t e l l e c t i v e

f a c t o r s in i n t e l l i g e n c e . Freeman h a s r i g h t l y s a id th a t

th e r e are o th e r t e s t s l i k e th o s e o f p e r s o n a lit y fo r

m easuring th e s e n o n - i n t e l l e c t i v e t r a i t s . The w r it e r i s

a ls o o f th e o p in io n th a t t h e ir in c lu s io n would Cfcnfuse

d ie i s s u e , th e t e s t in g in stru m en t and th e r e s u l t s o b ta in e d .

These n o n - i n t e l l e c t i v e f a c t o r s are e s s e n t i a l to m o tiv a te

th e c h ild r e n to p u t t h e ir b e sto H ence, th e t e s t m a ter ia l

should be i n t e r e s t i n g and th e a d m in is tr a tio n p roced u re o f

th e t e s t sh o u ld be planned and sta n d a r d iz e d . But sh e

does n o t th in k th a t n o n - i n t e l l e c t i v e t r a i t s can p o s s ib ly

be measured# as a sp e c ts o f i n t e l l i g e n c e w ith th e h e lp of

a u su al i n t e l l i g e n c e s c a l e .

2.8.2 Stoddard*s D e f in it io n *

Stoddard d e fin e s i n t e l l i g e n c e as fo llo w s s

" I n t e llig e n c e i s th e a b i l i t y to undertake

a c t i v i t i e s th a t a re c h a r a c te r iz e d by
(1) d i f f i c u l t y (2) c o n p le x ity (3) a b s t r a c t -
 ness (4) economy (5) adaptiveness to a
goal (6) so c ia l value and (7) the emergence
o£ o rig in a ls# and to maintain such a c t i v i t ie s
under con d ition s that demand a concentration
o f energy and a r e sista n c e to emotional
x
fo r c e s •".22

I t can be noted th a t th is d e fin itio n does not only

include the asp ects mentioned in W echsler's d e fin itio n

but a lso adds to it * Stoddard undertakes to d iscu ss each

of the a ttrib u tes* Degree or le v e l o f d if f ic u lt y i s

implied in a l l d e fin itio n s but h is contrib ution i s in

in s is t in g on d istin g u ish in g between true d ifferen ces in

in degree o f d if f ic u lt y and d ifferen ces th a t only seem to

exist# as between two or more t e e t items* D if f ic u lt y

means the a b ilit y to perform high le v e l in t e lle c t u a l tasks

l ik e higher mathematics* I t does not mean a b i l i t y to

define unusual words0 TO him i t i s a fun ction of the

percent passing# a function of 'p o p u la tio n '. Stoddard

remarks that " it would be a strange world i f seven -year-

23
olds were more able than seventeen-year-olds'*.

Coming to complexity# Stoddard c la r if i e s that

complexity r e fe r s to the breadth or area o f in t e llig e n c e .

According to this attribute of intelligence, the individual

who is able to deal successfully with several kinds of

tasks# at a given level of difficulty# is more intelli­

gent. This does not mean the addition of different types

of tasks# Complexity refers to the ability to hold toge­

ther many considerations in a unitary effort# such as

manifests itself in any high level skill# or in complex

24
research. Commenting on the relation between complexity

and difficulty# Stoddard remarks that they are related in

the sense that high accomplishment is pyramidal in stru-

25
cture.

The third attribute abstractness is of utmost impor­

tance to the minds of psychologists. It is essential

for all high level mental operations. Hence# for Stoddard,

26
it "lies at the heart of intelligence as defined."

All the above three characteristics, have to do with

mental organisation and can no doubt be qualified to some

extent by existing psychometric techniques.

Stoddard finds economy a better word than speed#for

it means moving towards a goal or performing a task

without irrelevances. Acceptance of "economy1

* as an

attribute of intelligence means that tests would inpose

time limits that should diffeentiate among individuals

in respect to their rates of performance of tasks and

solutions of problems at given levels of difficulty#

27
and degrees of complexity. Sherman says# "Speed becomes

an important elements in adult behaviour although it is

28
not unimportant in children." The present researcher

has given due importance to this attribute. The maximum

time limit is fixed for each item and also time bonuses

are given for quicker children.

A d a p tiv en ess i s 1he d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g q u a lit y o f

intelligent person. This attribute means that intelligent

action is directed towards a goal or purpose. The more

comprehensive goal will require more intelligent action.

"The inclusion of 'Social value' as an attribute of

29
intelligence is of doubtful validity". It is mearly

ethical or moral or matter of subjective evaluation.

"Concentration of energy and resistance to emotional

forces" are non-intellective aspects and subject to the

same objection as Wechsler's "drive" and "incentive".

"The emergence of originals" refers to the ability

to create something new. The persons with this attribute

are at the superior end of the distribution of intelli­

gence. Th e current tests of intelligence h ave little

opportunity to measure this attribute,, Stoddard beli­

eves that at present the tests of intelligence do not

satisfactorily discern and rate an individual's intelle­

ctual originality.

Nature and Nurture t

If one wishes to iirprove the human race o n e must

know which is the influential factor, nature or nurture,

on the child's development. Maturation is largely deter­

mined by heredity and learning is largely determined by

one's environment. The problem is an academic one. If

abilities and other traits of persons differ because of

heredity, then to improve the race w e should carefully

select the parents of he generations to come. If persona­

lities are made what they are under environmental press­

ures then we can ignore the atock from which the next

generations came and devote our efforts towards improving

the milieu within which children develop and improving

the means of educating them.

Ihere is no direct knowledge regarding the inheri­

tance of human mental traits. Direct Investigation of

this problem is difficult or rather impossible. Whether

the ability described above is innate or acquired, or

both, and if both to what extent, is a problem of con­

siderable dispute among psychologists. The American

psychologists give more importance to training, nurture

and environment whereas the British psychologists being

more conservative in traditions, frequently tend to err

C.

in favour of nature or heredity,

Ihe mental endowment being very complex, it is very

difficult to view it clearly. Environment includes pre­

natal as well as post-natal influence. Hence it is very

complex. However, investigations are carried on and

consequently many important results have been obtained.

Burt wri tes i

In my view the confusion that still

befog® this bewildering controversy has
arisen largely because both the believers
in mental inheritance and sceptics still
cling to a theory of heredity that is
hopelessly out of date. Most of the psycho­
logists who have supported a hereditarian
theory have adopted the old Darwinian notion
which st?>posed that heredity meant ‘the
30
principle that like begets like* .
 Such notions are not applicable in current democra­

tic societies; they are neither tenable in v i e w of

further biological researches. The Watsonion school

no longer believes in inherited capacity. They say that

31
'•All have equal chances at b i r t h ” . All are created

equal not in political view# but in all mental capacities.

The dunces and geniuses are not born but made# according

to this extreme environmentalists*

Some psychologists believe that development of a

child depends upon his hereditary characters. One cannot

turn out to b e a scientific# if he is born with poor

mental endowment. Mursell also believes in such limit

set by heredity. According to him# the p o i n t is not to

adjudicate a partisan competition between h e r edity and

environment but to discover wha t influences are prepotent,

32
ho w much change they can produce and why.

The psychologists who do not so exaggerate the

dispute become practical and concentrate their attention

on measured intelligence. Hie fact that mental traits

and abilities are within certain limits constant also

suggests that heredity as the connection between the

inheritance of mental traits and their constancy# is

not certain. Cobb's argument is that continuation in

school and school performance are closely related with

intelligence as revealed by tests. Limits no doubt there

are# but the idea of a hard-and-fast ceiling is a great

over simplification.

Burt on the contrary deduces with confidence an over

all figure for the relative influences of nature and

nature. According to him "child's genetic constitution

accounts for approximately 77 per cent of the individual

variation rather less if the tests are merely group tests

33
of a purely verbal type"

Bhatia while discussing the nature of intelligence

quotes Kohs' viewpoint about nature and nurture. Kohs

believes that the person's synthetic or analytical

ability depends upon his heredity character. In his own

words "It seems evident that if one is born with good

mental endowment his brain will 'synthesize' to a degree

and in a manner impossible to one whose mental endowment

34
is poor".

Guilford says# "On the whole# it appears that diffe­

rences in intelligence are determined by differences in

 g2~M

environment. Although there are evidences that here­

dity influences many other traits of personality to

a greater extent these traits are dependent upon social

factors, significant changes in personality can be

35
brought about in spite of heredity."

"Spearman developed the hypothesis that g is a

function of heredity, whereas the factor represents

*

the acquisition of specific learning and experience.“36

Prom the above discussion it is evident that there

is no settlement between nature and nurture controversies

going on and yet both the test maker and user has to keep

in mind the view points of both the sides while constru­

cting the tests and interpreting the test results.

Intelligence exists in the environment and it should be

measured in its natural settings.

2.10 Analysis of Human Ability s

Hie discussion so far done# is purely meant to

understand the human ability in its functional character^

that is, how it operates. It is also necessary to study

the structural pattern of it. Different psychologists

h a v e s t u d i e d i t i n t h e i r own w ays and h a v e c o n c lu d e d and

p u t f o r t h t h e i r v ie w s i n th e form o f t h e o r i e s . T h is i s

ju s t lik e th e b l i n d p e o p le t r y i n g t o u n d e r s ta n d t h e s h a p e

o f an e l e p h a n t . They to u c h e d t h e d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f th e

e l e p h a n t ' s bod y and d e s c r ib e d th e e le p h a n t i n t h e i r own

w a y s. The p s y c h o l o g i s t s h a v e b een t a l k i n g a b o u t i n t e l l i ­

g e n c e in t h e sam e way and d e s c r i b i n g i t a s th e y f i n d i t

t

to be .

They h a v e made th e a n a l y s i s i n an e f f o r t t o d e te r m in e

its u n d e r ly in g f a c t o r s . T h is a n a l y s i s i s c a r r ie d o u t to

know t h e e le m e n t s , o r com p on en ts o f i n t e l l i g e n c e # n o t o n l y

f o r b e t t e r t h e o r i t i c a l u n d e r s ta n d in g o f t h i s com p lex

p r o c e s s b u t a l s o t o l e a r n w hat m ig h t b e t h e i m p l i c a t i o n

f o r t h e d e s ig n and c o n s t r u c t i o n o f m e n ta l t e s t s . The

p r o c e d u r e a d o p te d c a n . i n g e n e r a l , b e d e s c r ib e d a s an

e x t e n s i o n o f th e c o r r e l a t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e s . The l a r g e

number o f s e p a r a t e t e s t s , m ore o r l e s s d i v e r s e in

c h a r a c t e r , a r e g iv e n t o an a d e q u a te sam ple. o f th e

p o p u la tio n . The r e s u l t s are in te r c o r r e la te d ? th e

 c o e f f i c i e n t s o f c o r r e la tio n # th u s o b t a in e d a r e s u b j e c t e d

to v a r io u s s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n an e f f o r t t o d i s c o v e r

th e e x t e n t o f common g ro u n d b e tw e en them and t h e i r d e g r e e

o f in d e p e n d e n c e .

T h e se s t a t i s t i c a l m eth od s a r e known a s f a c t o r a n a l y s t

The r e s u l t s o b t a in e d w i l l depend upon t h e d a ta f e d f o r

c a l c u l a t i o n s and t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f e x p e r t s * T h e se

d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s h ow ev er n e e d n o t i n v a l i d a t e th e u s e o f

w e l l s t a n d a r d iz e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s . An a tt e m p t w i l l

b e made t o t h in k o v e r d i f f e r e n t t h e o r i e s J?ut f o r t h b y

d if fe r e n t p s y c h o lo g is ts .

2 . 1 0 . 1 The Mul t i p l e -F a c t o r Theo r y :

In t h is th e o r y a s t h e name i n d i c a t e s i n t e l l i g e n c e

i s s a i d t o b e c o n s t i t u t e d o f a m u lt it u d e o f s e p a r a t e

f a c t o r s o r e le m e n ts # e a c h o n e b e in g a m in u te e le m e n t

o f a b ility . T h is t h e o r y was p ro p o u n d ed b y T h o rn d ik e

and i s c a l l e d r e p r e s e n t in g e x t r e m it y in th e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

o f m e n ta l s t r u c t u r e . The p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n b e tw e e n

p e r fo r m a n c e on two m e n ta l t a s k s i s a s c r i b e d t o common
 sr2-

elements involved in the acts. Hence, in Thorndike's

view, the concept of general intelligence is not tenable.

But Thorndike himself admits that in constructing a mental

test his "atomistic" theory is of less practical signi­

ficance than the concept that many of the specifics operate

together in any situation demanding intelligence. This

is illustrated by his scale, known as CAVD tesfc. Thorndike

does not claim that four sets of items encompass the entire

range of abstract intelligence, it represents only certain

parts.

2.10.2 The Two-Factor Theory :

At the same time that Binet and Simon were working

in France on the first practical mental test, a psycholo­

gist in England, Charles Spearman, was working from a

different stand point, Spearman hypothized a general

factor of intelligence, which he called the *ge' factor.

The 'g' factor was thought of at that time as being a

kind of "mental energy". Unlike Binet, Spearman undertook

extensive investigations to determine whether or not there

is only one common factor of intelligence.

 5*5

I t was i n 1904 t h a t Spearm an p u b lis h e d

h i s c o r r e l a t i o n s b e tw e en s e n s o r y t e s t s
and e s t i m a t e s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e w h ich
show ed t h a t J ' a l l b r a n c h e s o f i n t e l l ­
e c t u a l a c t i v i t y h a v e i n common o n e fu n ­
d am en tal f u n c t io n (o r grou p o f f u n c t i o n s )
w h erea s tiie r e m a in in g o r s p e c i f i c e le m e n ts
o f t h e a c t i v i t y seem i n e v e r y c a s e t o b e
37
w h o lly d i f f e r e n t from t h a t i n a l l o t h e r s . '

Spearm an was o n e o f th e f i r s t t o a t t a c k 4t h e f a c t o r

p r o b le m . He o b s e r v e d t h a t t e s t s o f a b i l i t i e s te n d to

have p o s it iv e in t e r c o r r e la t io n s . T h e se c o r r e l a t i o n s

when a r r a n g e d p r o p e r ly sh ow ed a h i e r a r c h i c a l o r d e r

and t h a t was s o , b e c a u s e e a c h t e s t c o n t a in e d o n l y o n e

general fa c to r ' g ' common t o a l l and o n e s p e c i f i c f a c t o r .

Id tin d e r s ta n d t h i s t h e f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e t i c a l

i l l u s t r a t i o n o f i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s b e tw e e n f o u r t e s t s

can b e t a k e n .

2 .1 MATRIX OP INTER-CORRELATIONS OF POUR TESTS

T e s ts 1 2 3 4

1 -
r i2 r !3 r i4
2 -
U

r 23
**
CM

r 21

3 -
r 31 r 32 r 34
4 -
r 41 r 42 r 43
 Spearm an fo u n d t h a t f o r colum n s 1 and 2 we c a n

h a v e th e e q u a t io n r 31 r 41 o r r 3 1 *“42 _ r ^ 2r4 1 .

S i m i l a r l y o t h e r e q u a t io n s a l s o can b e o b t a i n e d .

A n o th er way o f e x p r e s s in g t h i s e q u a t io n i s * r r -

r 32r 41 = 0 .

T h is i s known as S p ea rm a n 's fam ous te tr a d "

e q u a t io n . D iv e r g e n c e o f t h i s d i f f e r e n c e from zeofo*

w it h in t h e l i m i t s o f s a m p lin g e r r o r a r e t o l e r a t e d .

Spearman and o t h e r s fo u n d a c o n s id e r a b le number o f

a b ility t e s t s w hose c o r r e l a t i o n s s a t i s f i e d p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y

c r ite r io n . T h ese c o r r e l a t i o n s c o u ld b e a c c o u n te d f o r

by a s i n g l e f a c t o r . I t was c a l l e d 'g ' th e g en era l

in te lle c tu a l fa c to r . S p ea rm a n 's t w o - f a c t o r th e o r y

p o s t u l a t e d t h a t e v e r y t e s t w h ich s a t i s f i e s th e c r i t e r i o n

o f p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y c o n t a in s two f a c t o r s , 'g ' and ' s ' .

H is ' g ' f a c t o r i s g e n e r a l f a c t o r common t o a l l i n t e l l e ­

c tu a l t e s t s . B ie ' s ' f a c t o r i s s p e c i f i c to each t e s t

and r e p r e s e n t s t h a t p o r t i o n o f r e l i a b l e v a r i a n c e o f a

t e s t w h ic h d oes n o t c o r r e l a t e w ith o t h e r t e s t s .
 38
2.2 TABULAR REPRESENTATION OF SPEARMAN'S TWO-FACTOR THEORY

T est F a c to rs
g S
1 2
s
3
s ,
4 S5

1 .7 .714 .49

2 .5 .8 6 6 .25

3 .3 .954 .09
&
4 .8 .6 0 0 •64

5 .4 .917 .16

6 .5 .8 6 6 .25

The sam e c o r r e l a t i o n is re p re s e n te d d ia g ra m s tic a lly in

t h e f o l l o w i n g w ay *

F ig u re 1 * S c h e m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f S p e a r m a n 's tw o -

39
fa c to r th e o ry f o r s ix te s ts
 Ifrie num bers in t h e p o r t i o n s o f th e o v a l s n o t in c lu d e d

i n t h e c i r c l e a r e th e l o a d i n g s o f t e s t s o n t h e i r s p e c i f i c

fa c to r s# w h i l e th e num bers i n th e p o r t i o n s o f t h e o v a l s

o u t s i d e t h e c i r c l e a r e th e lo a d i n g s o f t e s t s on t h e i r *g '

fa c to r . Each o f t h e s e lo a d i n g s in c i r c l e i f s q u a r e d

g i v e s t h e p r o p o r t io n o f th e v a r ia n c e on t h e g e n e r a l

fa c to r . The t o t a l v a r ia n c e ca n b e r e p r e s e n t e d tb y th e

f o l l o w i n g e q u a t io n :

gj + Sj = 1.00

Where g s t a n d s f o r lo a d i n g on g e n e r a l f a c t o r o f

t e s t named J ; and S s t a n d s f o r s p e c i f i c f a c t o r l o a d i n g .

The o v e r la p p in g v a r ia n c e s f o r o n e common f a c t o r i n

t h r e e t e s t s can b e p i c t u r e d a s f o l l o w s *

F ig u r e 2 * H ie O v e r la p p in g V a r ia n c e s f o r o n e common

f a c t o r in th r e e t e s t s .

The t h r e e t e s t s o v e r la p i n o n l y o n e area# th e

c r o s s - h a t c h e d s e c t i o n w h ich i s l a b e l l e d 'g'. Each t e s t

then has a portion of its area which is specific. It

does not overlap with the other tests outside the 'g*

area. Psychologists are working on the assumption that

all forms of mental activity have something in common.

The tests to measure the diverse activities as defining

words# solving arithmetical problems etc. are regarded

as being measures to a greater or lesser degree of general

intelligence. It was believed that an individual's level

of general intelligence would emerge. Therefore# psycho­

logists were justified in adding up the test items corre­

ctly passed in the several types of activities and deri­

ving a single total score to represent an individual's

general intelligence level. "The two-factor theory

provides a logical basis also# for devising satisfactory

40
tests of g?

The Practical Implications of the Two-Factor Theory :

Tests which are based on this theory will be saturated

with the general factor# so that the testee's level and

quality of 'g' will be measured and effects of specific

character will be cancelled out. For this# a careful

selection of items, significantly correlated with each

other, should bjs done. Such a test will yield an index

that reflects the calibre of a particular mentality

working as a whole.

And further, as Wechsler puts it, "Spearman's

demonstration of the ecistence of at least one pervasive

factor in all performances requiring intellectual ability

41
remains one of the great diversities of psychology."

Criticism against the Two-Factor Theory *

Some of Spearman's statistical techniques were

strongly criticised by Thomson and he argued that the

two-factor theory was a possible, but not a necessary

42
inference from the statistical results.

The two-factor theory, as we have seen is based

on the tetrad equation where tetrad difference is

thought to be zero and sometimes allowance is made for

sampling errors, though some of them still show an

appreciable magnitude.

While discussing the statistical background of

the two-factor theory Fruchter writes :

 51

"S p e arm a n 's te c h n iq u e i s now l a r g e l y o f

h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r e s t , b u t i t s h o u ld b e
added t h a t Spearman h a s had a s t r o n g
i n f lu e n c e on B r i t i s h f a c t o r a n a l y s t s ,
and th e y and t h e i r f o llo w e r s u s u a l l y
lo o k f i r s t f o r a g e n e r a l f a c t o r in
any t a b l e o f i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . 4 3

P r u c h t e r seems to be one o f th e o p p o n e n ts o f S pearm an.

Hie c h a rg e a g a i n s t Spearm an i s t h a t h e and h i s p ro p o n e n ts

w ere alw ays keen to f i n d o u t 'g ' f a c t o r and n e v e r a n a ly s e d

th e r e s u l t s o b j e c t i v e l y . The t e t r a d r e s u l t s w ere n o t alw ay s

fo u n d to be e q u al to z e ro and th e d i f f e r e n c e though b ig

enough was c o n s id e re d due to sa m p lin g e r r o r . T h is was

q u i t e im p ro p e r and a b su rd as w e ll. Many c a s e s w ere fo u n d

o u t by f a c t o r i s t s in w hich no 1g* f a c t o r was fo u n d to be

common to a l l t e s t s . Some groups w ere fo u n d h a v in g common

f a c t o r lo a d in g s and h e n c e as a r e s u l t th e g ro u p f a c t o r

th e o ry was p ro p o se d . The d is p u te b etw een th e S p e a rm a n ite s

and th e g ro u p f a c t o r i s t s c o n tin u e d f o r a p r e t t y lo n g

p e rio d .

Spearm an s a y s , "We w ant to s e e w hat o p p o s itio n th e

th e o r y h a s e n c o u n te re d , C e r ta in l y th e c r i t i c i s m s have
 b e e n e x t e n s i v e and e m p h a t i c . . . . F o r i n r e p l y th e p r o p o ­

n e n t s o f t h e th e o r y d id n o t r e q u ir e t h a t g ro u p f a c t o r s

44
s h o u ld b e a b s e n t a l t o g e t h e r . "

We can s e e th e co m p ro m isin g a t t i t u d e o f Spearman

in t h e a b o v e s t a t e m e n t s . The S p e a r m a n ite s a r e fo u n d ,

com ing som ew hat n e a r e r t o gro u p f a c t o r i s t s . L a te r on

b e rem arks# "The o p p o n e n ts o f t h e t h e o r y a p p e a r t o

t
45
h a v e c h a n g e d t h e i r g r o u n d ."

K e lle y c o n c lu d e s t h a t " a l l o f h i s d a ta # a s w e l l as#

t h e d a ta o f many o t h e r w o rk ers# p o i n t t o a m u l t i p l e -

f a c t o r h y p o t h e s i s r a t h e r th a n to a s i n g l e - f a c t o r h y p o -

46
t h e s is ."

2 • 1 0 . 3 H ol 2 in q e r * s B i - f a c t o r T h eo ry J

More r e c e n t l y Spearman and h i s a d h e r e n ts h a v e

r e a l i z e d t h a t t h o s e t e s t s w h ic h do n o t s a t i s f y th e

c r i t e r i o n o f p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y and w h ic h Spearm an h a s

term ed " d is t u r b e r s " may b e r e t a i n e d i n t h e c o r r e l a t i o n

m a tr ix i f i t is r e c o g n iz e d t h a t some o f t h e t e s t s may

h a v e a f a c t o r in common# i n a d d it io n t o th e g e n e r a l

f a c t o r t h a t i s n o t common t o a l l o f t h e t e s t s . T h ese
 £/

f a c t o r s , common to gro u p s o f t e s t s , a r e term ed as group

fa c to rs . H o lz tn g e r 's b i - f a c t o r m ethod, w hich i s a

v a r i a t i o n o f S p e a rm a n 's t w o - f a c to r m ethod, o b ta in s a

g e n e r a l and one o r m ore g ro u p f a c t o r s . The b i - f a c t o r

th e o ry may b e r e p r e s e n te d s c h e m a ti c a l ly , as i n F ig u r e 3<

47
b i - f a c t o r th e o r y .

T ab le 2 .3 g iv e s th e same in f o r m a tio n i n t a b u l a r

fo rm .

2 .3 : TABULAR REPRESENTATION OF HOLZINGER'S B I-

48
FACTOR THEORY

Tes t F a c to r s
g Cl C2 S S S s 4. Sc S^ h2
5 6
OJ
H*

1 ro
1

1
1
1
1

1
l
i

1 •6 .3 .742 .4 5

2 .4 .4 .825 .3 2

3 .7 .714 .49

4 .5 •6 .625 .61

5 .6 .7 .387 .8 5

6 .3 .8 .520 .73
 I 2 -

2 .1 0 .4 G ro u p -F a c to r Theory *

The s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s g a in e d much m ore im p o rta n c e

and f a c t o r i s t s c a r r i e d on th e l a b o r io u s work o f f a c t o r

a n a ly s in g th e t e s t r e s u l t s . I t was fo u n d by th e p sy c h o ­

l o g i s t s l i k e T h u rsto n e t h a t eac h and e v e ry t e s t had n o t

n e c e s s a r i l y a common f a c t o r ' g ' . I t was fo u n d by him

t h a t some f a c t o r s w ere common to two o r m ore t e s t s . So

he propounded h i s group f a c t o r th e o r y . "The a n a l y s i s and

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f I h u r s to n e and o t h e r s l e d them to th e

c o n c lu s io n t h a t c e r t a i n m e n ta l o p e r a t i o n s h a v e i n common

a p rim a ry f a c t o r t h a t g iv e s them p s y c h o lo g ic a l and f u n c t ­

io n a l u n i t y and t h a t d i f f e r e n t i a t e s them from o t h e r

m en tal o p e r a t i o n s . I h e s e m e n ta l o p e r a t io n s th e n
49
c o n s t i t u t e a group"

T h u r s to n e 's work r e s u l t e d in th e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f

a s e t o f m easu res c a l l e d t e s t s o f p rim a ry m e n ta l a b i l i t i e s .

Each t e s t h a s i t s own p rim a ry f a c t o r , g iv in g th e group

a f u n c t i o n a l u n i ty and c o h e s iv e n e s s . Each o f th e s e

f a c t o r s i s s a i d to be r e l a t i v e l y in d e p e n d e n t o f th e

o th e rs . He a d m in is te re d a l a r g e v a r i e t y o f t e s t m a t e r i a l
 to c o ll e g e stu d e n ts and to h ig h sc h o o l stu d e n ts and

c a r r ie d on f a c t o r a n a l y s is . As a r e s u l t h e found o u t

s i x prim ary f a c t o r s emerging c le a r l y enough fo r i d e n t i ­

f i c a t i o n and u se in t e s t d e sig n and c o n s t r u c t io n . Though

prim ary m ental a b i l i t i e s were o r i g i n a l l y s a id to be f u n c t­

i o n a l l y in d ep en d en t# a c t u a lly i t was found th a t th ey a re

p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y in t e r c o r r e la t e d . This means

c
th a t prim ary m ental a b i l i t i e s are n o t s u f f i c e n t f a c t o r s

a t work in th e m ental a c t i v i t i e s r eq u ired by t e s t s .

Thurstone# th erefo re# conclu ded th a t in a d d itio n to th e

prim ary a b i l i t i e s # th e r e i s a secon d ord er g e n e r a l f a c t o r .

Thurstones a ls o s t a t e d in t h e ir e a r l i e r t e s t manual

th a t " If fu r th e r s t u d ie s o f th e prim ary m ental a b i l i t i e s

sh o u ld r e v e a l t h i s g en era l f a c t o r i t may s u s t a in Spearm an's

i n t e l l e c t i v e fa c to r " 50.

The above co n ju c tu r e i s fu r th e r su pp orted by an

attem p t to r e p r e se n t in a ta b u la r form# th e th e o r ie s o f

men t a l a b i1 i t i es 51
TABLE 2 . 4 : TABULAR REPRESENTATION OF THEORIES OF MENTAL
ABILITY

(A) THE TWO-FACTOR PATTERN

T est G e n e ra l F a c to r S p e c ific F a c to r

1 X

2 X s
2
3 X
S3t
4 X
S4
5 X
S5
6 X
S6

(B ) THE GROUP-FACTOR p a t t e r n

G r o u p F a c t o r s
T est
A B C D

1 X

2 X X X

3 X X

4 X X X X

5 X X X X
 (c) FACTOR THEORIES COMBINED

T est G eneral Group_______ F a c t o r s S p e c ific

F a c to r A B c F a c to r

1 X X
S!
2 X X
S2
3 X X

CO
w
4 X X s4
t
5 X X
S5
6 X X
S6

From t h e a b o v e t a b l e s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t

fa c to r s in d if f e r e n t th e o r ie s i s v is u a lis e d q u ite e a s i l y .

In t h e t w o - f a c t o r t h e o r y t h e g e n e r a l f a c t o r i s fo u n d i n

a ll th e t e s t s w h ile t h e r e i s a s p e c i f i c f a c t o r f o r e a ch

t e s t . T h e se s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s a r e d e s ig n a t e d a s

e tc . In th e g r o u p -fa c to r th e o r y th e r e a re d if f e r e n t

grou p t e s t s w h ich h a v e a common f a c t o r . When b o th t h e s e

t h e o r i e s a r e com bined t h e r e a r e a g e n e r a l f a c t o r # group

f a c t o r s and s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s .
 u

2 .1 0 .5 Sampling 'Theory s

This theory was propounded by G. H. Thomson who

was a lso the c r i t ic i s e r o f the tw o-factor theory.

According to h is views c o e f f ic ie n t o f c o rrela tio n i s

determined by the number o f common independent fa cto r s

u t iliz e d by the t e s t s . He says# "Each t e s t c a ll s upon a

•Sample o f bonds* which the mind can form and that some
t
of th ese bonds are common to two t e s t s and cause th e ir
52
co rrela tio n " . By th is he t r ie s to explain the zero

tetrad , in d icated by Spearman.

A ll th ese th eo ries require th at a s c a le measuring

general mental a b ilit y should pool a v a r ie ty of te s ts

that d if f e r in content and mental p r o c e sse s. In the two-

fa cto r theory su b tests are required to have high correla­

tion with each oth er. While in the sampling theory the

su b tests are required to have a low c o rr ela tio n with

each other but high c o rr ela tio n s with the c r ite r io n of

v a lid it y .

The Sampling theory, as thornson has em phatically

sta te d , i s not a riv a l o f the theory o f two fa c to r s . He

believes each activity to be a sample of many factors

and calls his theory to be atomistic. Thomson goes to

the extent of saying that the two theories become iden­

tical if perfect hierarchical order among correlation

coefficients is a fact. Sampling theory does not deny

general ability# though Thomson differs in the descrip­

tion of it by saying that the general abilities possessed

%
53
by different individuals would not be identical in nature.

Thomson believes that the appearance of a general

factor and specific factors is a chance. He also thinks

that zero tetrad is no reality but only a tendency. He

further adds that the hierarchical order is also the

most probable one expected on sampling theory0

Thomson concludes the controversy by reference to

the fact pointed out by Machie that simultaneous belief

in "jtjonds" and "specifics" is absurd psychologically

and hence# we must either give up the factors of the

two-factor theory or the bonds of the sampling theory

as realities. We cannot keep both as realities though

54
we may employ either mathematically.
2 .1 0 .6 con sen su s o f th e V arious T h eo r ie s J

As has been a lre a d y d iscu ssed # Spearman and

Thurstone have a r r iv e d a t a gen era l f a c t o r as w e ll as

th e group f a c t o r s and th e s p e c i f i c s . The p o in t o f d i s ­

p u te i s o n ly th e m a tter o f emphasis and in t e r p r e t a t io n .

The Spearman Two-Factor Theory now

r e c o g n iz e s th a t some group f a c t o r s sh o u ld be
p o s ite d to e x p la in t e s t fin d in g s ; b u t emphasis
i s upon th e 'g ' f a c t o r . Perhaps th e Spearman
th e o ry may now be renamed ' The G eneral F a c to r -
Group F actor Theory1 # and th e o th e r m ight be
renamed ' The Group F acto r-G en era l F a cto r T h eo ry '.
The narrowing o f d if f e r e n c e s betw een th e two
th e o r ie s r e p r e se n ts s i g n i f i c a n t s c i e n t i f i c
p ro g ress.

Vernon i s a ls o o f th e same o p in io n w h ile con clu d ­

in g th e d is c u s s io n on -the th e o r ie s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e ; he

remarks# "The d is c u s s io n c o n s is te d o f ( l ) g e n e ra l f a c t o r

(2) an u n lim ite d number o f narrow s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s and

56
(3) v e r y few broad group g a c to r s" . From th is# one can

s e e th a t h e a ls o b e l ie v e s in th e p r e se n c e o f g en era l

fa c to r # s p e c i f i c f a c to r s and group f a c t o r s .

A n a s ta s i's view s about t h i s are as fo llo w s t

The f i e l d o f t r a i t o r g a n is a tio n remained

a c o n tr e o f c o n tro v e rsy during th e dacades
o f th e tw e n tie s and t h i r t i e s . G radually#
 £1

how ever, a d e f i n i t e rapproachment was

apparent in th e r e fo r m u la tio n o f th e
o r ig in a l t h e o r ie s . A dherents o f th e
tw o -fa c to r th eory came to r e c o g n iz e th e
f a c t th a t narrower group f a c t o r s were
r e p e a te d ly i d e n t i f i e d and m u ltip le f a c t o -
r i s t s extend ed t h e ir m ethodology and
t h e o r e t ic a l fo rm u la tio n s to actait a gen era l
f a c t o r under c e r ta in c o n d itio n s . T od ay,th e
m ajor d iffe r e n c e s between th e v a r io u s
t h e o r ie s o f t r a i t o r g a n is a tio n appear to
be a m atter o f em p h asis. I t i s now g e n e r a lly
agreed th a t b eh aviou r can be d e sc r ib e d in
57
term s o f g e n e r a l, group and s p e c i f i c £ a c to r s .

2oil Types o f Models

U p til now an attem pt was b ein g made to d is c u s s th e

d if f e r e n t view p o in ts p u t f o r t h by d i f f e r e n t p sy c h o lo ­

g i s t s a t d i f f e r e n t tim e s. Any s e r io u s in v e s t i g a t o r , in

b a s ic s c ie n c e o r in te c h n o lo g y , fin d s a good frame o f

r e fe r e n c e v e r y h e l p f u l. The one which i s c l o s e to a

S c i e n t i f i c theory i s m ost u s e f u l to th e in v e s t ig a t o r o f

some p a r t ic u la r domain such as i n t e l l i g e n c e .

A good frame o f r e fe r e n c e fo r an i n v e s t i g a t o r ’ s

resp o n ses has th ree im portant s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , th a t i s , i t

sh ou ld be s y s te m a tic , com prehensive and i t sh ou ld be

e m p ir ic a lly b a sed . From th e words ' i t sho Id be s y s t e m a t ic ',

we can understand n a tu ra l phenomena b e ca u se th e r e are

r e g u l a r i t i e s in n a tu re and hence p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f

p r in c ip le s and s c i e n t i f i c law s which p r o v id e a s h o r t­

hand typ e o f apprehending in fo r m a tio n .

To a c h ie v e fu r th e r s im p lif ic a t io n # model b u ild in g

becomes p o s s i b l e . Model b u ild in g i s th eo ry c o n s tr u c tio n .

I t i s ob served th a t in th e ad u lts# th e th in k in g in term s

t
o f a b s tr a c t dim ensions becomes more o r l e s s n a tu r a l.

These a re dim ension al m odels which are m ost w id e ly

a p p lie d in m athem atics and th e p h y s ic a l s c i e n c e s . “I n -

h e ld e r and P ia g e t p o in t o u t t h a t th e r e i s growth o f con­

c e p tio n s o f what ■they c a l l ' s e r i a t i o n ' . By ' s e r i a t i o n 1

th ey mean th e arrangement o f item s o f in fo r m a tio n in

l i n e e r order# each item r e la t e d to n e x t in l i n e in th e

same manner# i . e . la r g e r than# harder th an , or more

58
b e a u t if u l than*1.

The secon d typ e o f model i s h ie r a r c h ic a l m odels

in which th e re i s a p a r a l l e l developm ent in th e r e c o g ­

n i t i o n o f c la s s e s and o f c l a s s e s w ith in c l a s s e s . T his

typ e o f models are common in b io lo g y and in p sy ch o lo g y

to some e x t e n t . I t w i l l be se e n th a t t h i s ty p e o f model
 It

has been strongly advocated for an encompassing theory

of intellectual abilities* To this mathematically set

principles also apply very radily.

The third type of model is named as morphological

by Stronomer Zwicky. Basically this classification is a

cross classification of phenomena in interesting catego­

ries rather than in categories within categories* The well

%

known example of this type is the chemist's periodic table

in which the chemical elements are arranged in rows and

columns# each row and each column representing a different

category* It is also known as 'logical matrix'• The use

of this type of model in psychology is advocated by

Guilford. A fourth type of model is known as operational

type of model useful to conceive events in terms of

interconnected series of transmission of information.

In the present section# two types of models# hierar­

chical model as well as morphological model will be

discussed in detailo

2.11.1 Hierarchical Models of Factors s

What has been desbribed above as hierarchical model

comprises two different types and these are known as

(l) Vernon model (2) Burt model.

 7 2-

Vernon Model i This i s d ia g r a r a a tic a lly p r e se n te d by

59
Vernon h im se lf as shown below in F i g . 4 .
3

Wajoh V-«4. ;w.

Hivy»ir Li*

mrn n n r i
S t eu t ' c
t 1©Vi

F ig u re 4 i A diagram o f P . E„ Vernon’ s h ie r a r c h ic a l
co n cep tio n o f Human A b i l i t i e s

The B r it is h p s y c h o lo g is t s have alw ays t r i e d to

prove th e im portance o f 'g* f a c t o r . During such t r i a l s #

in e ig h t a n a ly ses# 'g* was found to c o v er more than tw ic e

as much v a r ia n c e as a l l group f a c t o r s com bined. The

ta b le s o f r e s u l t s showed th e c h a r a c t e r is t ic o f m ental

str u c tu r e # namely h ie r a r c h y . Under ' g* a r e two major

fa c to r s # ( l ) V s ed# f o r v e r b a l-n u m e r ic a l-e d u c a tio n a l

and (2) k*m# p r a c t ic a l- m e c h a n ic a l- s p a t ia l- p h y s ic a l. That

i s a f t e r th e removal o f ‘g ’ # t e s t s tend to f a l l in t o two

main g ro u p s. The v e r b a l-n u m e r ic a l-e d u c a tio n a l on one hand

 7 i

and th e p r a c tic a l- m e c h a n ic a l- s p a t ia l e -p h y s ic a l on th e

o th e r hand. Ih e former# V:ed su b d iv id e s in t o v e rb a l

and num erical# w h ile th e l a t t e r # kxm s u b d iv id e s th r ee

ways# in t o sp a ce a b ilit y # manual a b i l i t y and m echanical

in form ation # o n ly i f th e a n a ly s is i s s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i­

l e d . Beyond th e s e are s p e c i f i c fa c to r s # each o f v e r y

narrow sco p e and c o n sid er ed by Vernon to be o f a g r e a t

im portance. Many o f what Burt r e c o g n iz e s as sm all group

f a c t o r s b elo n g to t h i s c a te g o r y .

Burt Model x T his model as p r e se n te d by G u ilfo r d i s

60
shown below in F ig . 5.
 yl)

B u r t's CQnceptionr.of an id e a li z e d

h ie r a r c h ic a l model*.

Burt model c o n s is t s o f an id e a l h ie r a r c h y w ith

s u c c e s s iv e d ic h o to m ies, each s u b d iv is io n o f a h ig h er

f a c to r to g iv e two im m ed iately lo w e r . The v a r io u s l e v e l s

o f b if u r c a t io n he i d e n t i f i e d as ' r e l a t i o n s ' a t th e h ig h e s t

le v e l, 'a s s o c ia t io n ' a t th e second l e v e l , 'P e r c e p tio n ' a t

th e t h ir d and 'S e n s a tio n ' a t th e fo u r th . Many s u b c a te -

%

g o r ie s c o n ta in more than two f a c t o r s ana hence Burt had

to dep art from s t r i c t d is c h o to m iz a tio n . A t a s s o c ia t io n

l e v e l , fo r example, h e r ec o g n iz e d a d i v i s i o n in to memory

w ith a g en era l r e t e n t iv e n e s s , underwhich a re group f a c t o r s

o f v i s u a l , a u d ito r y , k i n e s t h e t i c , and v e r b a l memory

f a c t o r s , and p r o d u c tiv e a s s o c i a t i o n , w ith a g en era l

f a c t o r o f in v e n t iv e n e s s , under which are group fa c to r s

o f flu e n c y and o r i g i n a l i t y . These exam ples w i l l g iv e

th e g e n e r a l p ic tu r e o f B u r t's h ie r a r c h ic a l m odel.

2 .1 1 .2 E v a lu a tio n J2L H ie r a r c h ic a l Models s

We have se en th e e v id e n c e a g a in s t th e id e a o f a 'g '

f a c t o r , which i s a key c o n c ep t o f th e h ie r a r c h ic a l

m odels of Burt and Vernon. I t can s t i l l be argued th a t

 75
- ^

it is the fact that where 'g* is demanded and found, it

is not an invariant variable but changes almost with

every battery of tests that is analysed. This is parti­

cularly true when the first centroid factor is taken to

be 1g'. If we change the battery, the location of the

centroid will change even when the axis is rotated from

this dimension to locate 'g'. It is difficult to see how

its location can be invariant from one analysis to anot­

her.

2.11.3 Morphological Model *

In this type of model there is a cross classifi­

cation of phenomena iH different categories. These

categories have no connection with each other except

that they belong to the same phenomena. The structure-

of-intellect model is the good example of this type of

models.

The Strueture-of-Intellect Model (SOI) : Guilford gives

his consideration of propounding his new model, the

structure-of-intellect model which can be seen in his

own words
 Several facts based upon experiences
in factor analysis of intellectual tests
in the United States had cast doubt upon
the applicability of a hierarchical structure.
Almost no one reported finding a 'g' factors?
in fact the tendency has been for each factor
to be limited to small number of tests in any
analysis.

The Second consideration he gave was as follows t

t
Hie absence of a 'g' factor and the
apparent comparable generality of all the
factors do not give support to a hierarchical
conception of their intercorrelationships.6 ^

Hiese considerations were very important according

to him. He thought that many factors have obviously

parallel properties. While giving exanple, he sa $s,

"If one collects a half-dozen verbal factors in one

set and an appropriate collection of a half dozen non­

verbal factors in another, it is clear that the factors

in the two sets can be paired off in a meaningful manner.

Ihe psychological operation is the same in each pair.only

61
the content of the test itan is different.

Overview of the Model » Hie model is a three way classi­

fication of intellectual abilities designed to encompass

and organize intellectual aptitude factors. Hie three

dimensions of the model represent the operation, content

and product of a given kind of intellectual act* Each

factor hypothesized or accounted for by the model is

uniquely located and defined by specifying a category on

each of the three dimensions* Ihe three categories that

specify each factor are coded in terms of triagram symbol

specifying the operation# content and product respectively

«

for the factor. For exanple, reading clock-wise CFU stands

for Cognition of a Figural Units.

Conplete characterization of an intellectual ability

is achieved in terms of the possible subclass differen­

tiation on each of the three major dimensions. 'Opera­

tions' is differentiated in five ways : Memory, Cognition,

Evaluation, Divergent production, and Convergent produ­

ction. 'Contents' is differentiated by four subclassess

Figural, Symbolic, Semantic and Behavioural* 'Products'

is differentiated by six subcategories s Units, Classes,

Relations, Systems, Transformation and Implications*

 0P&RftTI6N:
PHObUCT

Figure 6 : The structure of intellect model, with

three parameters

The cube as shown in Fig. 6 is sinply a visual aid

to conceptualizing the three way classification and is

convenient for depicting the intellectual abilities as

delineated by multivariate analysis of measured perfor­

mance. The structure of intellect irrplies nothing beyond

this conceptualization. Neither should any implication

be drawn from the fact that there is a conventional order

used in naming the various abilities

 C a t e g o r ie s i n th e S t r u c t u r e o f I n t e l l e c t t I t I s a lr e a d y

d is c u s s e d i n t h e o v e r v ie w o f th e m odel t h a t t h e r e a r e

th r e e d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r ie s in th e s t r u c t u r e o f i n t e l l e c t .

c o n t e n t C a te g o r y i T h ere i s n o t h in g t o t i e t h e

th r e e s e t s t o g e t h e r e x c e p t t h e f a c t t h a t th e y a r e r e c o g ­

n iz e d a s a l l b e in g i n t h e g e n e r a l c a t e g o r y o f i n t e l l e c t u a l

a b ilitie s # nor i s t h e r e a more g e n e r q l f a c t o r t h a t w o u ld

tie t o g e t h e r th e members o f a s e t o f f a c t o r s . T h ree

d i s t i n c t p a r a l l e l c o n t e n t c a t e g o r i e s w e re r e c o g n iz e d and

c a l l e d b y t h e term s f i g u r a l s y m b o lic and s e m a n t ic . The

k in d o f c o n t e n t c a l l e d b y th e term b e h a v io u r a l was add ed

t o ta k e c a r e o f t h e k in d o f in f o r m a t io n i n v o l v e d in

c o g n i t i o n and i n o t h e r o p e r a t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to t h e

b e h a v io u r o f o t h e r p e o p l . e

O p e r a tio n C a te g o r y s The i n t e l l e c t u a l f a c t o r s w ere

c la s s ifie d a c c o r d in g t o th e s u p p o se d k in d o f o p e r a t io n s

i n v o l v e d . T h ere w ere r e c o g n iz e d p e r c e p t u a l f a c t o r s #

memory f a c t o r s and r e a s o n in g f a c t o r s . New i n v e s t i g a t i o n s

in 1950 p e r t a i n e d t o c r e a t i v e t h in k in g a b i l i t i e s # p la n n in g

a b i l i t i _es# p r o b le m s o l v i n g a b i l i t i e s and ju d g e m e n t o r

e v a l u a t i o n a b i l i t i e s . I n a d d i t i o n t o memory and e v a lu a t io n #

o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s w ere a d d e d 0 Thus tw o o p e r a t io n c a t e g o r i e s #
d iv e r g e n t p r o d u c t io n and c o n v e r g e n t p r o d u c t io n w ere a d o p te d

and c o g n i t i o n was th e f i f t h c a t e g o r y a c c e p t e d in o p e r a t io n

c a te g o r y .

P r o d u c t C a te g o r y : The t h i r d way o f lo o k i n g a t

a b ilitie s and c l a s s i f y i n g them came to v ie w s l o w l y . I t came

a b o u t b e c a u s e o f th e n e e d f o r ta k in g i n t o a c c o u n t th e

p a r a lle ls t h a t a p p ea r e d across b oth th e c o n t e n t and o p e r a t io n

c a te g o r ie s . T hat i s , if we ta k e a s e t o f f a c t o r s h a v in g in

common o n e o f th e c o n t e n t p r o p e r t i e s , s a y s e m a n t ic , and

a l s o o n e o f th e o p e r a t io n c a t e g o r i e s , s a y c o g n i t i o n , we h a v e

a s e t o f s e m a n tic c o g n i t i o n a b i l i t i e s , n o t j u s t o n e .

T h ere i s a b i o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n b e h in d t h e o r d e r

o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s a lo n g each d im e n s io n . As t h e r e i s r e la ­

t i o n o f sy m b ols b e tw e e n f i g u r a l and s e m a n t ic , s y m b o lic

c a t e g o r y i s p la c e d b e tw e e n them . Sym bols a r e b a s i c a l l y

f i g u r a l b u t ta k e on s y m b o lic f u n c t i o n s . As f o r o p e r a t i o n s ,

c o g n i t i o n i s b a s i c t o a l l o t h e r k in d s : h e n c e i t a p p e a r s

fir s t. I f no c o g n i t i o n , no memory: i f no memory, no

p r o d u c t io n . F o r th e tilin g s produced come l a r g e l y from

memory s t o r a g e . I f n e i t h e r c o g n it i o n nor production, th en

no e v a l u a t i o n . U n it s a r e r e g a r d e d a s b a s i c h e n c e th e y
 a p p ea r a t th e t o p . The u n iq u e c h a r a c t e r o f tr a n s f o r m a t io n

w ou ld b e a r e a s o n f o r p u t t i n g them l a s t # s in c e i t in v o lv e s

o n e ite m o f in f o r m a t io n becom ing s o m e th in g e l s e .

The c o n c e p t io n o f th e s t r u c t u r e o f i n t e l l e c t

m odel as a fram e o f r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i ­

t i e s h as s e r v e d th e h e u r i s t i c f u n c t i o n o f g e n e r a t in g hyp o­

t h e s i s r e g a r d in g new f a c t o r s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . A d d it io n a l

f a c t o r s w ere fo u n d in th e l i t e r a t u r e and w ere r e a d i l y g iv e n

l o g i c a l p l a c e s w it h in th e m o d e l. The p o s i t i o n o f any f a c t o r

in th e m odel# i s d e te r m in e d b y i t s u n iq u e p r o p e r t i e s # i t s

o p e r a tio n , i t s c o n te n t # and i t s p r o d u ct.

The p o s i t i o n o f th e f a c t o r s in SOI m odel becom es

a g u id e l i n e in t h e c o n s t r u c t io n o f t e s t s . Thus i t has

s e r v e d w e ll i t s p u r p o se o f g u id in g r e s e a r c h . I t s concep­

tio n ca n add c o n s i d e r a b l e new m eaning and s i g n i f i c a n c e to

o l d and new p s y c h o l o g i c a l f i n d i n g s b y o t h e r m e th o d s.

R e la t io n to o t h e r T h e o r ie s * The SOI m odel h as

som e f e a t u r e s common w it h o t h e r t h e o r i e s and m o d e ls .

S p earm an 's "fu ndam en ts" a r e SOI u n it s # h is r e la tio n s are

a l s o SOI r e l a t i o n s . S p ea rm a n 's c o n c e p t o f " e d u c a tio n o f

r e la tio n s " i s e q u iv a l e n t to th e c o g n i t i o n o f r e l a t i o n s .

Spearman th o u g h t tWo m ajor o p e r a t io n s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f

 *g * : h o w e v e r , t h e SOI m o d el p r e s e n t s f o u r d i s t i n c t a b i l i ­

tie s f o r e d u cin g o r c o g n iz in g r e l a t i o n s , one f o r each k in d o f

c o n te n t, fig u ra l, s y m b o lic , s e m a n tic and b e h a v i o u r a l . S p ear­

man r e c o g n i z e d r e l a t i o n s a l o n g t h e l i n e o f d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f

in f o r m a tio n even i n c lu d in g “p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n " w h ic h i s

r a t h e r c l e a r l y e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e SOI c o n c e p t o f b e h a v i o u r a l

re la tio n s.

S p e a r m a n 's c o n c e p t i o n o f " e d u c a t i o n o f c o r r e l a t e s " b e l o n g

in t h e SOI c a t e g o r y o f c o n v e r g e n t p r o d u c t i o n .

The t y p i c a l f o r t h e r e l a t i o n s c a te g o ry w ith th e c o n v e r­

g e n t p ro d u c tio n o p e ra tio n f i t s e x a c t l y S p e a r m a n 's p a r a d i g n

f o r e d u c a tio n o f c o r r e l a t e s . T h e s e c o m p a r i s o n s sh o w t h e

n a r r o w n e s s o f S p e a r m a n 's p s y c h o l d g i c a l c o n c e p tio n o f 'g'. If

e d u c a tio n of r e l a t i o n s and c o r r e l a t e s ta k e n to g e th e r a r e

a c c e p t e d a s the sin e -q u a -n o n o f ' g ' . th e n 'g ' em braces o n ly

B of 120 i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s re p r e s e n te d in t h e SOI m o d e l .

V e r n o n 's f i r s t m a j o r b i f u r c a t i o n , b e t w e e n v s e d a n d k:m

m a jo r g roup f a c t o r s , i s i n a way p a r a l l e l to th e d i s t i n c t i o n

b e tw ee n s e m a n tic and f i g u r a l c a t e g o r i e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n . H is

k:m f a c t o r i s much b r o a d e r t h a n t h e SOI f i g u r a l c a t e g o r y .

 H is f u r t h e r b i f u r c a t i o n u n d e r v : e d b e tw ee n v e r b a l and n u m e ri­

cal is p a ra lle l t o t h e SOI d i s t i n c t i o n b e tw e e n s e m a n t i c a n d

sy m b o lic in fo rm a tio n . T h e r e i s no p r o v i s i o n f o r b e h a v i o u r a l

i n f o r m a t i o n in h i s s t r u c t u r e and h e h a s n o t h i n g t o s u g g e s t

a b o u t o p e r a tio n s o r p ro d u c ts# except in c id e n ta lly in h is

f u r t h e r breakdow ns.

B u r t 's f i r s t m a jo r b if u r c a tio n i s s o much l i k e V e r n o n 's

t h a t much t h e sam e p a r a l l e l a p p l i e s b e t w e e n t h i s p a r t o f h i s

h i e r a r c h y a n d SOI c a t e g o r i e s . Many o f t h e sam e f a c t o r s are

i d e n t i f i a b l e b u t t h e i r a rra n g e m e n ts i n h i s sy ste m h a v e l i t t l e

i n common w i t h i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f f a c t o r s i n te rm s o f

p l a c e m e n t i n t h e SOI m o d e l.

2 .1 2 The P r e s e n t work :

The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h c o n c e r n s w i t h t h e a d a p t a t i o n o f

PPTI t o t h e adn'Ct p o p u l a t i o n c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e p u p i l s o f

g r a d e s XI# X II a n d t h e c o l l e g i a t e l e v e l s o f F . Y . # S . Y . , T. Y

a n d P . G . I and P . G . I I . The a d a p t a t i o n i n c l u d e s t h e s t a n d a r d i ­

z a t i o n o f PPTI t o a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n # H e n c e t h e f o u r e l e m e n t s

of s ta n d a rd iz a tio n in c lu d e s

- S ta n d a rd iz a tio n of c o n te n t

- S ta n d a rd iz a tio n of a d m in is tra tio n

 - S t a n d a r d iz a t io n o f S c o r in g

- S t a n d a r d iz a t io n o f i n t e r p r e t i n g th e raw s c o r e s i n t o

s ta n d a r d s c o r e s .

As h as b een d e s c r ib e d e a r l i e r in c h a p t e r o n e t h a t PPTI

o f L e e la b e n P a t e l b e lo n g s to th e c l a s s i c a l th e o r y o f I n t e l l i ­

gen ce, th e p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t o r had no r e a s o n to d e v i a t e from

her a n g le . H ence L e e la b e n F a t e l ' s v ie w r e g a r d in g h e ? ' c o n s t ­

r u c t' and a c c o r d in g to h e r c o n stru ct s h e fram ed t h e c o n t e n t o f

th e t e s t . T h e r e fo r e i t i s p e r t i n e n t f o r th e p r e s e n t i n v e s t i ­

g a t o r t o g i v e h er v ie w s YTs^cu'ding th e t e s t , w h ich g iv e n

s u c c i n c t l y in th e t h e s u b s e q u e n t p a r a g r a p h s .

In th e f o r e g o in g d i s c u s s i o n th e r e s e a r c h e r h a s t r i e d t o

g i v e d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e g iv e n b y th e p s y c h o ­

l o g i s t s o f th e n i n t e e n t h and th e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y . A l l o f them

have t r ie d to e x p la in th e s t r u c t u r e o f i n t e l l i g e n c e in th e ir

own w a y s. The d e f i n i t i o n o f i n t e l l i g e n c e h a s so f a r d e f e a t e d

th e i n t e l l i g e n c e o f p s y c h l o g i s t s .

Any s c i e n t i f i c ap p roach to m easu rem en t r e q u ir e s t h a t " th e

a s p e c t t o b e m ea su red by th e in s tr u m e n t s h o u ld b e s t a t e d by

th e t e s t m ak er. "So th e t e s t maker s h o u ld make c l e a r w hat

w i l l b e m easu red b y th e in s t r u m e n t . Thus th e u n d e r s ta n d in g o f

th e c o n c e p t o f i n t e l l i g e n c e becom es n e c e s s a r y
 Different Doctrines of Intelligence were put forward in
n
the beg^ning to give some idea about the concept of intelli­

gence. Monarchic (doctrine is in contradiction to the theory

and practice of current mental tests. In the Oligarchic

Doctrine of Faculties and types the single faculty is replaced

by a small number of different ones. These are highly criti­

cised and even ridiculed. According to the Anarchic Doctrine

of Independent Elements there exists a number of primitive

mental abilities highly particularised and independent of one

another. The mental tests depend on the good team work of a

group of mental abilities acting together as one unit and

Intelligence is thought to be constituted of these abilities

hence this theory is of no more use.

Intelligence has certain properties which are known as

attributes. Intelligence is manifested in different situations

so these attributes are divided into different types. The

level or altitude of intelligence, Range, Area and Speed are

different altitudes. The intelligence ratings are based on

all these attributes. In the present tests they all are given

due consideration. Some are given more importance and other

less in different tests. In some tests speed is given more

 im p o r ta n c e w h ile in some r a n g e and l e v e l .

I n te llig e n c e is a ls o th o u g h t to b e c o n s t i t u t e d o f d i f f e r e n t

k in d s l i k e a b s t r a c t , c o n c r e t e and s o c i a l . T h ese t e s t s m a in ly

m e a su r e th e c o n c r e t e i n t e l l i g e n c e . As Freem an o b s e r v e s , "even

t e s t s w h ich p r e s e n t th e t h in g s r a t h e r th a n id e a s a r e n o t d e v o id

o f demands upon a b i l i t y to c o n c e p t u a l i z e and make a b s t r a c t i o n s " .

and to t h a t much, e x t e n t t h e s e t e s t s m e a su r e a b s t r a c t i n t e l l i ­

gence a ls o .

D i f f e r e n t t h e o r i e s h a v e b een p u t fo r w a r d a b o u t t h e s t r u c ­

tu re o f in t e l lig e n c e . A c c o r d in g to t h e M u l t i p l e f a c t o r t h e o r y

in te llig e n c e is s a i d to b e c o n s t i t u t e d o f a m u lt it u d e o f

sep a ra te fa c to r s . T h o r n d ik e h im s e lf a d m its t h a t in c o n s t r u c t ­

in g a m e n ta l t e s t h is " a t o m is t ic " th eo r y i s o f l e s s p r a c t ic a l

s ig n ific a n c e . The t w o - f a c t o r th e o r y was g iv e n by Spearm an as

a r e s u l t o f s tu d y o f c o r r e l a t i o n s b e tw e en s e n s o r y t e s t s and

e s t i m a t e s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . S p earm an 's t w o - f a c t o r t h e o r y form s

th e c o r e p a r t o f th e w h o le d i s c u s s i o n on th e s t r u c t u r e o f

in te llig e n c e . A c c o r d in g t o him 'g ' is th e c e n t r e o f e n e r g y

w hich c o n t r o l s th e a c t i v i t i e s o f human m in d . I f t h e v a r io u s

t d s t r e s u l t s a r e a n a ly s e d t h e t e s t s a r e fo u n d c o r r e l a t i n g w ith

each o t h e r . T h is i s due t o th e common m e n ta l f u n c t i o n s m ea s­

u r e d by t h e s e t e s t s . T h ere i s some common m e n ta l endowment

 w h ich i s fo u n d in m o st o f th e m e n ta l p e r fo r m a n c e s . T h is i s

• g ' a c c o r d in g to Spearm an and m ore o v e r t h e r e a r e s p e c i f i c

f a c t o r s w h ich a r e d i f f e r e n t i n d i f f e r e n t t e s t s . H is p r i n c i p l e s

o f N o e g e n e s is has a l s o h e lp e d th e t e s t m akers a l o t .

A p a r t from a l l th e c o n t r o v e r s i e s r a i s e d a g a i n s t t h e

Spearman t w o - f a c t o r t h e o r y , i t h a s n o doub th e k e y p o s i t i o n

am on gst a l l t h e t h e o r i e s . The t e s t s b a s e d an t h i s th eo r y w i l l

b e s a t u r a t e d w ith ' g ' . T h is th e o r y h a s g u id e d th e v a t e r n t e s t

m akers t o a g r e a t p r o p o r t io n .

The p r e s e n t t e s t s a r e d e s ig n e d on t h i s t h e o r y a s t h e

r e s e a r c h e r b e l i e v e s in t h i s t h e o r y . He h a s t r i e d t o a d a p t

p e r fo r m a n c e t e s t s o r i g n a l y d e v e lo p e d by L e e la b e n P a t e l w h ich

a r e r i c h in ' g ' f a c t o r . I t i s a w e ll known f a c t t h a t t h e p e r ­

fo r m a n ce t e s t s a r e h a v in g lo w ' g ' f a c t o r l o a d i n g s . T h e re a r e

som e t e s t s l i k e K oh s' B lo c k D e sig n t e s t w hich a r e w e ll-k n o w n

fo r th e ir 'g* s a t u r a t i o n and h e n c e su c h t e s t s w ere s e l e c t e d .

The r e s u l t s o f th e f a c t o r a n a l y s i s to b e d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l

in C h a p ter 5 s ta n d t e s t im o n y to th e f a c t t h a t t h e p r e s e n t

b a t t e r y show s f a i r l y h ig h 'g 1 s a tu r a tio n

 CHAPTER REFERENCES

1. F. S. Freeman, Theory and Practice of Psychological Testing

Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.# 17, Park

Street, Calcutta-16, 1963, P. 4

2. Rex, Knight, Intelligence and Intelligence Tests.

Methuen & Co. Ltd.# London, W.C.2,1953#P.5.

3. P. S. Freeman, Op. Cit.# P. 68.

4. W. Me Dougall, The Energies of Men. Methun & Co. Ltd.#

36 Essex Street, London W.C.# 1950# P. 78

5. C. Spearman, Human Ability. Mac Millan Co. Ltd.# London#

1951# P. 3

6. Ibi d •# P • 4

7. Ibid.# P. 4

8. R. L. Thorndike#Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology

and Education, John Willey and 'sons# Inc.,

New York, 1961.

9. C. Spearman# Op. Cit., P. 5

10. K. G. Desai# Ihe construction and Standardization of a

Battery of Group Tests of Intelligence in

Gujarati. Bharat Prakashan, Pankore Naka,

Ahmedabad, 1954, P. 23.

11. A. W. Heim, The Appraisal of Intelligence.Methuen & Co.

Ltd.# 36 Essex Street# Strand, London W.C 2,

1954, P. 13
 12. J . P . G u ilfo rd , T he N a tu r e o f Human I n t e l l i g e n c e . Me G raw -

H i l l Book C om pany, New Y o rk , 1 9 6 7 , P . 1 2 .

1 3 . F . N. F re e m a n , M e n ta l T e s t s . T he R i v e r s i d e P r e s s C a m b rid g e

M a s s a c h u s e tts , 1939, P . 150.

1 4 . F . S . F re e m a n , T h e o ry a n d P r a c t i c e o f P s y c h o l o g i c a l T e s t i n g

O x fo rd & IBH P u b l i s h i n g C o . ,

15. J . L . M u rs e ll, P s y c h o l o g i c a l T e s t i n g L o n g m an s, G re e n & C o .,

New Y o rk , 1 9 5 0 , P . 7 8 .

1 6 . F . S . F re e m a n , O p. C i t . , P . 70 4

1 7 . D. W e c h s le r , M e a s u re m e n t a n d A p p r a i s a l o f A d u l t

I n t e l l i g e n c e . The W illia m s o f W ilk in g s C o .,

B a ltim o re , 1958, P . 7.

1 8 . D. W e c h s le r , M anual* W e c h s le r I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r

C h i l d r e n . The P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n ,

304 E a s t 4 5 th S t r e e t , New Y o rk 1 7 , N .Y .,

1949, P . 14.

1 9 . F . S . F re e m a n , Op* Cxtz*# P • 1 5 2 .

I b i d . , P . 152.
o
CM

2 1 . D. W e c h s le r , O p. C i t . , P . 7

2 2 . G. D. S to d d a r d , T he M ean in g o f I n t e l l i g e n c e .

C o ., New Y o rk , 1 9 5 6 , P . 4 .

23. I b i d ., P. 5.

2 4 . J . L . M u rs e ll, O p. C i t . , P . 6 1 .

2 5 . G . D. S to d d a r d s ,O p . C i t . , P . 10

26. I b i d . , P . 15.

2 7 . F . S . F re e m a n , Op. C i t . , P . 153.
28. Sherman, Mendel, Intelligence and its Deviations. Ronald

Press Co., New York, 1949, P. 22.

29. F. S. Freeman, Op. Cit., P. 154.

30. Burt, Cyril, General Ability and Special Aptitudes.

Educational Research, Vol.l* No.2, Feb.,

1959, P. 7.

31. Burt, Cyril, The Evidences for the Concept of Intelli­

gence. The British Journal of Educational

Psychology, Vol. xxx, Part III, New., 1955,

P. 167.

32. J. L. Mursell, Op. Cit., P. 374 & 377.

33. M. c. Bhatt, Adaptation of Wechsler Intelligence Scale

for Children for Gujarati Population.

(An Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Gujarat

University, Ahmedabad). 1971, P. 23.

34. C. M. Bhatia, Performance Tests of Intelligence,

Geoffery & Cumburlege, Oxford University

Press, Amen House, London, E.c.4, 1955,

P.ll.

35. J. P. Guilford, General Psychology, D. Van Nostrand Company

Inc., 250, Fourth Avenue, New York,1947,

P.86.

36. Fruchter,Benjamin,Introduction to Factor Analysis. D. Van

No Strand Company, Inc. Princeton, New

Jersey, Toronto, New York, London, l954,P.8

3 7 . P .E .V e r n o n T h e s t r u c t u r e o f Human A b i l i t i e s * Jo h n

w i l e y &c S o n s , I n c . , New Y o rk , 1961,1*. 12.

38. F r u c h te r , B e n ja m in , O p. c i t , P .8 .

39. I b i d P .8 .

4 0 . P . E. V e rn o n , O p. C i t , P .1 3

441 D. W echs1 e r , O p. Ci t . P .9 .

4 2 . P . E. V e rn o n , Op. C i t , P .1 4

4 3 . F r u c h t e r , B en jam in # 0 p . C i t , P .8

4 4 . C. S p e a rm a n , O p. Ci t , P .1 6

4 5. I b i d , P .1 7

4 6 . P i n t n e r , R u d o lp h , I n t e l l i g e n c e T e s t i n g M e th o d s , & R e s u lts .

H e n ry H o l t an d co m p an y , I n c . , New Y o rk ,

1 9 4 9 , P .6 8 .

4 7 . F r u c h t e r , B e n ja m in ,O p . C i t , P .1 0

48. Ib id , P .1 0

4 9 . F . S . F ree m a n O p. C i t , P .1 6 4 .

51. I b id , P .1 7 3 .

5 2 . G. H. Thom son, T he F a c t o r i l A n a l y s i s o f Human A b i l i t y ,

U n i v e r s i t y o f London P r e s s L t d . , L ondon,

1951, P .4 5 .

5 3 . Brown & Thom son, The E s s e n t i a l s o f M e n ta l M e a s u re m e n t.

C o m b rid g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , C c m b rid g e ,

1 9 4 0 , P .1 8 9 , 1 9 4 -1 9 7 .

5 4 . G. H . T hom son, O p. C i t , P .5 3 .

5 5 . F . S . F re e m a n , O p. C i t , P .1 6 8 .
5 6 . P . E. V ernon# Op. C i t , P . 1 8 .

5 7 . Anne A n a s t a s i # D i f f e r e n t i a l P s y c h o l o q y . The M a c m i l l a n

C o.# New York# 1 9 5 8 , P . 1 2 5 .

58. J . P . G u ilfo rd # O p. C i t , P . 4 7 .

5 9 . P . E. V ernon# Op. C it# P . 2 2 .

60. J . P . G u ilfo rd # Op. C i t , P . 5 8 .

61. Ib id # P .6 0 .

6 2 . Ib id # P .6 1 .

63. Ib id P .6 3