THE METHOD OF AGE GRADATION 61 



marks (40, II, p. 501, Table II). In Ms table of dis- 

 tribution (Table VII), too, there are no paradoxical 

 cases. As for the rest, the coefficients of contin- 

 gency are, according to my calculation, higher than 

 with Binet, but still, however, of only moderate mag- 

 nitude : 



TABLE VII 

 RELATION OF MENTAL AGE AND SCHOOL MARKS ( EGBERT AG> 



Mental Age- 



School Marks Retarded At Level Advanced Total 



Poor 29 17 46 



Satisfactory 26 79 21 126 



Good 13 31 44 



Total 55 109 52 216 



First Factor Second Factor Correspondence 



Poor marks Mental retardation 0.52 



Mental retardation Poor marks 0.40 



Good marks Mental advance 0.59 



Mental advance Good marks 0.47 



Here, again, it appears that inference from school 

 performance to mental ability is safer than from 

 mental ability to school performance, though here 

 the correspondence between intelligence and the 

 school performance is not so slight as with Binet, as 

 above cited. 



What, now, is the significance of this lack of com- 

 plete agreement between school efficiency and the 

 outcome of the tests of intelligence? 



In the first place one might say that this was an- 

 other proof of the defectiveness of the tests. That, 

 since pedagogical age and school marks are the con- 

 densed formulation or expression of the long-con- 

 tinued and many-sided efficiency of the child and 

 hence much more characteristic than the outcome of 



