224 
Miscellanea 
the true correlation, the highest relationship will be -36 for geography and drawing in girls; 
the highest in boys will be '28 for writing and drawing ; and the average value for the boys will 
be only -18 and for girls -22. These are distinctly small relationships, compared with what have 
been found for the interrelationship of other studies in previous investigations. This may arise 
possibly from capacity in drawing being a hereditary character having small association with 
other school measures of fitness. 
(iii) Measures of general ability head the list for both boys and girls. Drawing is more 
closely related to general intelligence than even the subjects like writing, geography and manual 
work, more closely associated with the effective use of the hand. 
(iv) In the case of both boys and girls the psycho-pedagogic characters have less relation to 
proficiency in drawing than the hand studies. For the girls all the correlations are the lowest 
on the list; efficiency in studies not obviously related to drawing like reading, grammar and 
arithmetic is far more important. The same result is screened in the boys by the comparatively 
high values of the attention and cleanliness correlations. Indeed nothing appears to be gained 
in drawing efficiency by a large capacity for industry or by energy. 
(v) There do appear some slight sexual differences. Attention and cleanliness in boys 
take the place of the geography and manual work of the girls, whoso arithmetic and composition 
are more vital than their handwriting. 
The following table gives the exact order of intensity of the correlation of the characters 
considered with drawing for the two sexes. While Ivanoff's paper thus brings out a number of 
points of considerable interest and is suggestive of further work, we venture to put forward one 
or two points for consideration. 
Table of contingency coefficients in order of magnitude : 
Order 
Boys 
Girls 
1 
Writing (-20) 
Geography (-26) 
General work (-19) 
^Intelligence (-23) 
3 
(Cleanliness (-16) 
(General work (•23) 
Jt 
(Attention ("16) 
(Manual work (-21) 
5 
Intelligence 
(Arithmetic (-21) 
6 
tGeography (-14) 
Composition (•19) 
7 
(Manual work ("M) 
History (•le) 
8 
(Composition (-13) 
(Writing (-14) 
9 
(Obedience (-13) 
(Language (-14) 
10 
History (-12) 
Energy (•IS) 
11 
Industry (-10) 
Temper (^12) 
12 
Arithmetic (-09) 
(Industry (•!!) 
IS 
(Energy (-08) 
(Attention (-11) 
U 
(Language ('OS) 
Cleanliness (•lO) 
15 
Temper (-06) 
Obedience (•OB) 
In the first place, in actual studies it would seem best to classify the children according to 
the decile position they take in their respective classes or standards. The ages also should be 
given, so that the correlations may be con-ected for any age influence. In the next place) 
characters like intelligence, attention, obedience, etc., should, where it is feasible, be divided into 
five rather than three sub-classes. This would permit of a 25-fold table and the contingency 
could thus be calculated with considerably closer approach to the true correlation. In making 
from the statistical side these suggestions for future observations, we do not wish to underrate 
the value or interest of Ivanofl''s data, but merely to press for additional information which will 
much strengthen the quantitative reasoning on such material. 
