CHAPTER 7. 



DATA OBTAINED THBOUGH MOKE EXTENSIVE CAMP TRIAL OF EXAMINATION BETA, AND 



KESULTDJfG MODIFICATIONS. 



Section 1. — Plan of procedure and reports from camps. 



The beta examination was available for camp use in April, 1918. The instructions were 

 that it be given (a) to all men eliminated from alpha because of relative illiteracy; (b) to all 

 men taking alpha and falling below weighted score of 100 (below C — ). Of those taking beta 

 all those falling below weighted score of 40 (below D) were to be recalled for individual exami- 

 nation. It was understood that an individual examination should always be given before 

 assigning an E grade to a man. It is important to remember this general setting for beta in 

 the whole scheme of the camp examining as a basis for the interpretation of results. As a 

 matter of fact few camps were able to follow the above instructions absolutely. In many the 

 pressure of examining illiterates, especially foreign illiterates, was so great that no recalls from 

 alpha were possible; in others only men falling below 50 in alpha (E cases) were recalled, while 

 in others conformity with the plan as laid down was possible. These variations in procedure 

 were responsible for numerous differences in results. 



Reports of results, with suggestions and criticisms regarding both procedure of giving 

 the tests and the basis of assigning grades for beta, began to appear shortly from 

 the various camps. These reports were practically unanimous in their expressions of 

 opinion regarding the serviceability of the method and the fact that it filled a big gap in the 

 scheme of examining. They suggested also numerous detailed points of procedure, many of 

 which were incorporated in the final edition of the Examiners' Guide. This guide (see Part I, 

 pp. 153 ff) presents the final instructions issued regarding procedure. It should be noted, how- 

 ever, that there remained far greater tendency toward deviation in procedure from camp to 

 camp with reference to beta than with reference to alpha. Adaptations which were reported 

 as meeting the particular camp conditions more effectively than did the prescribed method 

 were as a rule permitted. 



The main burden of the early reports was to the effect that the most difficult task was 

 "getting the idea across." A high percentage of zero scores in any given test was considered an 

 indication of failure to "get that test across." In general it was insisted that the method 

 of presentation, including especially the work of the orderly, was of prime importance. Such 

 statements as the following make this clear: "There is no doubt that beta is many times harder 

 to give than alpha and requires constant effort from everyone concerned. Nothing can be 

 more fatal to it than the alpha method of giving." 



Distributions of scores reported offered considerable difficulties of interpretation. Cer- 

 tain camps maintained, on the basis of these distributions, that men were being graded too 

 severely on beta, whereas others held that the reverse was true. Since beta was given only 

 to men who either had been eliminated from alpha because of illiteracy or had made a low 

 score in alpha, there were no standards as to what to expect of these groups. This was partic- 

 ularly true of distributions which showed great preponderance of low-grade cases. Obviously 

 a group selected for beta by the procedure as described could not be expected to measure 

 up to the general standard of the rest of the camp. Whether any given group was overseverely 

 rated was, therefore, largely a matter of personal opinion, based either on general impressions 

 of the group, or on the ratings in individual examination of those recalled from beta. The 

 former judgment would obviously be largely influenced by the personal equation and would 

 therefore be unconvincing; the latter, while based on facts, would point only in one direction. 



379 



