no. i.] PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINING IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY. 43 



By inquiry- for the Surgeon General the chief of the Division of Psychology learned that, 

 prior to July 1, reports concerning psychological work had been received by The Adjutant 

 General, in response to special request mentioned above, from approximately 90 commanding 

 officers. The Adjutant General had referred these reports to the Committee on Organization, 

 which body had in turn placed responsibility for their analysis on Maj. L. P. Horsfall. Repre- 

 sentatives of the Division of Psychology subsequently explained to this officer that the majority 

 of the reports were unfair to the psychological service because few of the officers called upon to 

 make report had knowledge of this new kind of work. It was indeed shown to the satisfaction 

 of Maj. Horsfall that the reports in most instances described neuro-psychiatric work instead 

 of psychological examining; that in other instances they confused the work of the neuro- 

 psychiatrist with that of the psychologist; and that not more than one report in four dealt 

 strictly with psychological examining. 



As a result of this exhibition of the unreliability of the data presented in the reports, 

 Maj. Horsfall, and subsequently Col. J. W. Craig, to whom the matter was referred on transfer 

 of Maj. Horsfall to another division of the General Staff, concluded that the official reports 

 supplied no basis for decision concerning the desirability of additional psychological personnel. 

 They therefore investigated the work to their satisfaction in other ways. 



To correct the serious misconceptions and prejudices concerning psychological examining 

 which had been created by the steady influx of seemingly unfavorable official reports over 

 a period of several weeks, the following memorandum was prepared for the Chief of Staff by 



the Division of Psychology. 



September 12, 1918. 

 Memorandum for the Chief of Staff. 

 Relative to the reports on supposedly psychological service. 



1. In May, 1918, The Adjutant General directed the following letter to commanding officers of cantonments, 

 camps, and army posts: 



"From: The Adjutant General of the Army. 



Subject: Additional personnel for psychological duties. 



The Secretary of War directs that you submit at once to this office a report as to the benefits derived from the 

 work of psychological officers and as to the advisability of continuing such examinations, and whether such examina- 

 tions can be made by the regular medical personnel on duty under your command." 



2. During May, June, and July it is understood by this office that upward of 100 replies to this request were 

 received by the War Department. Inasmuch as these replies are supposed to be, with a few exceptions, unfavorable 

 to psychological work, and have led to the conclusion on the part of various officers of the General Staff that this work 

 has little, if any, value to the army and should be discontinued, it is deemed of prime importance that the following 

 facts be considered: 



3. At the time above request for report was sent to commanding officers, psychological service had been fully 

 organized in four cantonments. Psychologists had recently been assigned to about 20 additional cantonments and 

 camps, but they had not had opportunity completely to organize their work,much less to acquaint commanding 

 officers with it and to demonstrate its values. 



4. In this connection attention is invited to the fact that psychological service was originally introduced on a 

 purely trial basis. As a result of extensive trial in four cantonments and careful investigation and consideration of 

 value to the service by the War Plans Division of the General Staff, it was decided in January, 1918, to extend this 

 service to the entire army. February, March, and April were required for preparations essential to the extension 

 of work, such, for example, as the suitable training in military psychology of necessary officers and the manufacture 

 and distribution of examining materials and other supplies. In May, when the request for report was made of command- 

 ing officers, the service was just about to be organized for the entire army. 



5. No misleading or undesirable effects could have resulted from this premature and unfair investigation had it 

 not been that psychiatric work had been in progress in practically all cantonments, camps, and army posts for many 

 months. The following is what actually happened: Practically every commanding officer reported on what was 

 supposed to be psychological sendee. This was done often in ignorance of the fact that no psychological work had 

 been attempted in the station in question, and quite as frequently regardless of the fact that the work had been very 

 recently organized and could not be fairly judged. 



6. The majority of the reports received and supposed to deal with psychological work are, in fact, reports on the 

 nature and value of neuro-psychiatric work, which is entirely independent of and different from the sen-ice for which 

 the Division of Psychology, Surgeon General's Office, is responsible. Furthermore, in many of the camps and can- 

 tonments to which psychologists had recently been sent, the commanding officers have confused psychological and 

 psychiatric work in such wise that grave injustice is done to both as well as to the Army itself. 



7. Analysis of upward of 100 reports mentioned above indicates that the reports of line officers are at least 75 per 

 cent f avorable to psychological work in those stations where it had made sufficient progress toward complete organization 

 to justify any report. 



