4 A METHOD OF MEASURING THE DEVELOPMENT 



was the result of much observation and study of the develop- 

 ing child mind. During extended study many simple tests 

 Mrere tried, many were discarded, and those that finally sur- 

 vived did so only by virtue of their intrinsic value brought 

 out by actual trial. The result was a hierarchy of tests ar- 

 ranged in the order of their increasing difficulty, one group 

 adapted to children of one and two years, and other groups 

 to children of four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven 

 and twelve years. 



In 1904 an educational measure in Paris required the 

 selection of all the mentally defective children in the public 

 schools, such selection to be made by means of individual 

 examinations. There was at that time no definite method of 

 making such examination, and with the object of supplying 

 one, Binet and Simon determined to standardize their scale 

 of tests. In order to do this, selected groups of pedagogically 

 average public school children were examined — ten each of 

 the ages three to six, and fifteen each of the ages seven to 

 twelve, inclusive. The series of tests was finally arranged in age 

 groups according to the results of these examinations and 

 those previously conducted. 



The Scale was thus standardized. It remained to adapt 

 it to the diagnosis of feeble-minded conditions. This was 

 achieved by correlating it with the classification of the feeble- 

 minded then most generally accepted — the tripartite one into 

 idiots, imbeciles and morons. (The last term varies in differ- 

 ent countries ; moron is the accepted term in the United 

 States.) The idiots are those of least mentality, the imbeciles 

 those of next higher grade, and the morons those more closely 

 approximating the normal in type. There was, however, no 

 distinct line of demarkation between the mental condition of 

 the idiot and the imbecile, or between that of the imbecile 

 and the moron. The criteria most generally used were dif- 

 ferences in ability to dress, to eat, and to perform various 

 kinds of work. There, however, was no certainty that a case 



