You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
This is the second edition of a previously published description of a technique which, in the words of its originator, 'provides comparative studies' by which one can tell 'how people organize their ideas of themselves and of the world they live in'.
As applied to children between six and a half and twelve and a half years old, this technique consists in offering the subject drawing materials and inviting it to use them freely, while at the same time asking it a number of questions about a hypothetical individual of its own sex and age. Ideally the subject's responses are written down by a stenographer so as to allow the testing psychologist unimpeded opportunity to note the subject's behavior, but in practice it seems that the psychologist usually does his own recording.
One hundred and fifty boys and girls described as 'ordinary', in their seventh, tenth and thirteenth years, living in a middle-sized English country town, were tested. The answers they gave to each question were grouped according to the topic or the type of answer. The groups were graded according to the number of answers in each. 'The most common kind of response for a child's age and sex is marked A irrespective of the actual frequency with which such responses occur, which is shown by a number.'
Rules for scoring these responses are given 'to assess the degree to which a child describes in its story a hero who can be said to conform to the hero described by children of his own mental age or to the hero described by children of his own chronological age'.
All terms used are meticulously defined. The logic of the rules for scoring appears to be impeccable. The method seems to fulfil its goal which is to determine the extent to which each child tested resembles others in its group. It can also be used to show similarities and differences among various groups.
It is perhaps irrelevant to criticize this book for its failure to reach objectives it does not seek. It may, however, be observed that th