Miscellanea 
in 
and thus we have: 
Maze I Maze II Maze III 
Number of cms. described per minute ... .51-20 57-95 52-48 
Number of bumps per ten changes of direction I-OIH 1-037 3-788 
Thus judged by time whether absolutely or relatively to its length Maze II was the easiest. 
Maze I the hardest. But against this must be set the fact that Maze I was taken first, and probably 
the pupils in this case proceeded with more caution. Absolutely and relatively to the number of 
changes of dii eetion Maze III was the hardest. Maze I does not seem to have been harder than 
Maze II, if we judge its mean number of bumps relative to the number of changes of direction. 
Our total numbers being few it seemed at first desirable in order to reduce the prol^able errors 
of our results to treat each trial as an independent event and thus reach a total of over 1.50 cases. 
This possibility is, however, excluded by the difference in difficulty of the mazes; pooling would 
have produced spurious correlation. We weie thus compelled to work out correlations for each 
maze, or to pool the total achievement of each pupil. We have sometimes adopted one and some- 
times the other method. 
To obtain a single general standard of efficiency in maze description we have taken as a com- 
bined measure the inverse product of the time taken and the number of bumps made. We shall 
speak of this as the "inverse product" simply. It receives some sort of justification, when we note 
that the factors are not highly correlated and further when we note that we desire a measure which 
shall ivcrease with efficiency. 
The fundamental problem we had in view is the following: To what extent are steadiness and 
rapidity of hand as exhibited in maze-tracing the residt of training? to what extent are they innate? 
Before proceeding to the discussion of this problem we may note the variability in period of 
time and in number of bumps for the three mazes. 
Maze I 
Maze II 
Maze III 
S.D. 
C. of V. 
S.D. 
C. of V. 
S.D. 
C. of V. 
Time in maze... 
No. of bumps... 
•479 + -031 
14-39 ±-92 
23-91±I-61 
69-59 ±6-22 
•340 ±-022 
10-29 ±-66 
28- 15 ±1-93 
06-85 ±5-86 
-410 ±026 
15-44 ±-98 
29-48 ±2-04 
48-54 ±3-75 
These results seem to indicate a conformity with the general law that the harder the test the 
greater is the scatter*, i.e. the weak fail more conspicuously and the able succeed more markedly. 
This is a law manifested in most stiff competitive examinations, or again in the difficulty of making 
marked distinctions in the case of easy papers. We are speaking here of the scatter or variability 
as measured absoJuteJy by the standard deviation. It is noteworthy that the rekdive variability 
(or the variability as percentage of the mean value) as measured by the coefficient of variation 
appears in the case of the bumps to be less in the case of the harder maze. We are thus driven to 
the conclusion that the emphasis of the difference between the ineffectual and effectual in a given 
task while increasing with the stiffness of the task does not increase proportionally to that stift'ness, 
but probably at some lesser rate. 
(3) The first problem to be answered is: How far is steadiness of hand an individual chai-acter- 
istic at all? Will the same individual do well in one maze and badly in another? The answer to 
this problem lies in the pupils' correlation in efficiency in performances in different mazes. Now 
whether the characteristic be acquired by training or be innate we should anticipate a change with 
age. Most innate characteristics grow stronger or weaker with age, and this must be taken into 
account. The following table gives the chief age correlations: 
* The high variabilities in the case of Maze I are we think due to the manner in which different 
individuals attempted a novel task. 
