CHAPTER 1

THE METHODS OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

JOHN E. ANDERSON
University of A1innesota

In the history of any science there can be discerned two trends, one
consisting of the facts and generalizations, slowly but surely accumulated,
which in the course of time become welded into a substantial and integrated
field of knowledge, and the other of the methods and techniques by means
of which problems are attacked. A discussion of method resolves itself
ultimately into a discussion of the techniques available for the solution of
particular problems and of the criteria slowly evolved by a science for the
evaluation of its own techniques. Problems, techniques, and results cannot
be sharply differentiated. A problem, however stated, does not become a
scientific problem until a method of attack can be set up. Results, in their
turn, depend upon technique, and other problems put in their appearance
only as technique and results move forward.
As we look upon a science from the standpoint of its content, we are
impressed by the uneven manner in which both the various sciences, com-
pared one with another, and the various fields within a given science are
developing. With the appearance of a method or technique that holds
promise, one aspect of a science may spurt forward rapidly and engross
many workers, while another remains relatively inactive. Far from being
a well-ordered, uniformly growing body, a science is composed of many
parts which grow at different rates and reach maturity of method at dif-
ferent times. This seems to be particularly true of psychology, 'which faces
problems and interrelations of extraordinary complexity. Instead of ad-
vancing on one front with a single and highly efficient weapon, we seem
to be advancing on many fronts 'with a variety of weapons, But advance
in method is usually marked by progress from simple description to precise
formulation of relations and principles in quantitative terms.
The history of science shows that each field of human knowledge begins
with relatively simple techniques based on the common, everydav observa-
tion of phenomena, and proceeds, as a clearer conception of the nature of
scientific method is developed, to forge new weapons and techniques. A
technique which in one generation constitutes the best weapon available
for attacking a problem may in another generation become obsolete. At
the same moment in any science some problems are susceptible of attack
only by the simplest methods, while others can be attacked only by more
complex and involved methods. It little behooves us, then, to place a
method or technique in a mid-Victorian classification of right or wrong.
Rather should the critic demonstrate how, in attacking a particular prob-
lem, a better method could have been used.
[3]
4 HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

For a long period of time the child was almost completely neglected by
the experimental psychologists. Child psychology had no place in an ap-
proach that sharply limited psychology to the results of the application of
a particular method under limited conditions to trained adult observers.
Early developments in the study of the child occurred somewhat without
the pale of orthodox psychology. The child was accepted as an adequate
subject for psychological investigation only in recent times under the
influence of a broadening conception.
EVOLUTION OF METHOD IN CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

I f we turn to the early philosophical writings, we find occasional specu-

lations and observations on children. A classical example is to be found
in Plato (21), who recognizes the existence of individual differences,
builds up a theory of the state in which these differences are utilized, makes
suggestions regarding tests of fitness, and even proposes to modify training
by supervising nursery tales. With Rousseau (25) and Locke (14 )
generalizations of importance in their systems of thought are drawn from
conceptions of the nature of infancy and childhood.
In the nineteenth century, so notable for its advance in all fields of
science, a few individuals made observations upon children in a fairly
systematic fashion. The biographical method developed involved the day-
by-day recording of the events as they took place in the life of the child.
Often simple experiments and measurements are included. The number
of such biographies now available, both published and unpublished, is
considerable. Among the outstanding ones may be mentioned those of
Preyer (24), the Sterns (28, 29), Shinn (27), and the Scupins (26).
With the turning of the attention of G. Stanley Hall toward the child,
a new method, the questionnaire, put in its appearance. Starting with
Hall's (12) inquiry into the "Content of Children's Minds," there came
a deluge of questionnaires which resulted in the accumulation of a great
mass of material about children, particularly during the school ages. The
results were a substantial advance in our knowledge of children, the
training of a number of capable students of child behavior, and the setting
of the stage for the marked development which was to take place some
years later.
With the work of Gilbert (9), systematic tests of school children were
undertaken, and the movement later to result in the development of edu-
cational psychology, was under way. Binet (10) forged the new method
of intelligence testing following the turn of the century, after extensive re-
searches dating back to the nineties and even earlier. A tremendous ad-
vance was made in the study of children, and psychology speeded on its
way, working out the possibilities of the new method. To the Binet tests
modern students of child psychology owe a great debt. Following their
development there appeared a number of other techniques, such as rating
scales, and measures of achievement, which have made substantial con-
tributions.
 JOHN E. ANDERSON 5
Experimental child psychology can be dated in large measure from
the works of Thorndike ( 32) and Watson ( 34) . For both, a genetic
approach is essential. For both, the crucial observations for a systematic
approach are made upon children rather than upon adults. Further, Wat-
son's emphasis upon objectivity of method and his dismissal of introspection
made children quite as adequate subjects for psychological investigations
as adults.
A somewhat different line of development is followed by the case-history
method. For many years, even antedating the biographical studies of
children, there are to be found in the medical literature clinical notes or
descriptions of cases of defective, abnormal, unusual, or diseased children.
These clinical notes, with such supporting material as could be obtained,
are the forerunners of the social case history developed by the agencies
concerned with the practical handling of children. With the advent of
psychoanalysis, accounts of the development of the individual from early
childhood, as obtained through the process of free association or analysis in
the adult, make their appearance.

EVOLUTION OF METHOD IN HUMAN AND ANIMAL PSYCHOLOGY

In contrast with the development in child psychology, which started

with incidental observations and moved through a period of biographies
and systematic observations to the development of experiments, tests, and
rating devices, we find that in general psychology a jump was made directly
from speculation and incidental observation to experiments. The new
science of psychology borrowed its methods directly from the physical and
physiological sciences, and patterned its techniques as closely as possible
upon those sciences. The restriction of investigations to the laboratories
and the emphasis upon introspection left children, animals, and abnormal
individuals outside the field of psychology. An exception is found in Gal-
ton, who employed the questionnaire and made many observations which
could hardly be called experimental in the laboratory sense. Although
some work was done in testing adults in the early nineties by Cattell and
his associates, the test and rating techniques in the main came into adult
psychology from child psychology. The case history, which followed a
more or less independent line of development, reached its greatest im-
portance chiefly in those fields from which experimental psychology was
excluded by definition.
In the field of animal psychology, incidental observations were followed
by systematic observations, which were followed in turn by experiments.
Tests, questionnaires, and ratings lie outside the field of the animal psy-
chologist because of the nature of the material with which he works.
Methods analogous to the case history and the biography have been used
rarely and then only for such outstanding performers as Clever Hans and
occasional primates.
6 HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

THE INTROSPECTIVE AND THE BEHAVIORISTIC ApPROACHES

Perhaps the differences between the development of child and animal

psychology, on the one hand, and adult psychology, on the other, can
be explained by the fact that adult psychology took over its method from
sciences already well advanced on the road from incidental observation
to experiment, whereas child and animal psychology were under the neces-
sity of forging their weapons as they went along. In thei r zeal for experi-
mentation, the early psychologists found in introspection an approach which
much more readily permitted adaptation to laboratory conditions than did
the observation of behavior.
In the literature on child psychology there are few discussions concerned
with the difference between these two approaches, whereas in general p"y-
chology the controversy over their relative merit has at times assumed large
proportions.
In brief, this controversy arises out of the existence of two sou rces of
data, the first of which is found in the individual's own inner experience
and can be described only by the individual himself, and the second of
which is to be found in the observations which can be made on overt be-
havior. Both types of data can be elicited under experimental conditions.
Dismissing the problem raised by the existence of two kinds of data as not
arising in child psychology is too simple a solution. Koffka (13) has
recently attacked this problem at some length. He distinguishes between
"actual or real facts" which can be determined by any person, which are
susceptible of measurement and quantitative treatment, and which give
rise to "functional concepts," and "experiences," or ({phenomena" which
can be described only by a single person, which are qualitative in their
nature, and which give rise to descriptive concepts. On the basis of this
analysis he arrives at three methods, the first of which is called the "natural-
scientific method," which consists in observing the individual in situations
and recording only the behavior of the individual. The second is the
"psycho-physical method" in which both behavior and description or
introspection are used; and the third, or purely psychological, method
is that in which introspection alone is used. Koffka goes on to point out
that in child psychology, despite its apparent objectivity and use of the
"natural-scientific" method, it is necessary, in order to obtain a scientific
understanding of the objective behavior, to consider the psychological
aspects of infantile behavior and to be prepared to employ descriptive con-
cepts without the aid of any direct report of the child's experience. In
order to accomplish this end, a "psychological talent," which constitutes a
special form of the purely psychological method, is used.
"With the aid of this talent we must try to put ourselves in the
place of the child with the same tasks before us which the child is
expected to solve and with only those means at our disposal which
are available to the child. In this way we can endeavor to determine
the characteristic phenomena occurring under these conditions. As a
 JOHN E. ANDERSON 7

working hypothesis we may therefore assume that similar phenomena

are present in the mind of the child though we may then have to
verify this hypothesis indirectly by means of objective tests of
behavior" (13, p. 31).

An inference from the Koffka analysis is that, no matter how objective

our approach to the child, both the categories and the interpretations of
those categories come from adult psychology to child psychology rather than
the reverse. In recent years among students of child psychology emphasis
has been placed upon the opposite point of view. It is held that, by securing
the facts of child development impartially and objectively, adult psy-
chology will be reinterpreted and become more adequate. Although the
problem here involved must wait upon the further progress of the science,
many psychologists feel that up to the present time there has been so much
interpretation of the phenomena of child behavior in terms of adult life
that it may be more worth while, for a time at least, to approach child
psychology in and for itself, without any particular reference to adult
processes. But Dunlap (5), who clearly states the problem involved here,
has a different point of view. He says:
"Child psychology, for example, the study of the child mind, is to
a large extent an interpretation of the activities of the child in terms
of adult psychology and therein lies both the possibility and the danger
of child psychology." The danger in child psychology ..•. "results
from the great difference in the behavior of children as compared with
the human adults under the same circumstances although certain out-
standing details of the behavior may be the same in the two cases. The
danger therefrom is in inferring that the child's mental processes are
the same as those of a human adult under similar circumstances
through failure to note that the child's reactions are not really the
same as those of the human adult. The actual determination of the
behavior of children and animals is far more difficult than the deter-
mining of the behavior of adults. It has been assumed sometimes that
the child mind may be examined without reference to the adult mind
and therefore without the disadvantage of the source of errors in such
a compa rison. This assumption is an unfortunate mistake which
has merely served to cover up arbitrary assumptions as to the child's
mind. One might indeed study child behavior exclusively, but when
one discusses perception, thought. and emotional experience in chil-
dren, one is making inferences from the adult mind; so that the
only safety lies in being thoroughly cognizant of them as inferences.
To deny in such cases that one is making inferences is really to refuse
to examine one's inferences; a procedure which leads to serious
blunders in theory and in the interpretation of experiments" (5, p. 16).

NORMATIVE AND EXPERIMENTAL ApPROACHES

Whatever view is held upon the question whether child psychology

grows out of adult psychology, or the reverse, the fact remains that the
great body of investigations in the child field at the present time are be-
8 HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

havioristic in their approach. This mav in large part be traced to

another phase of the problem of method in child psychology. Here again
there are two tendencies, one closely identified with the experimental
psychologists ot the nineteenth century. and the other with the more
modern period.
The first, patterning again after physics and physiology, seeks to deter-
mine the general laws or fundamental principles underlying mental life
and rather naively assumes that such laws will be universally applicable
at all stages of human development. Undoubtedly some principles apply
equally well throughout the phylogenetic and ontogenetic series. Weber's
law, for instance, seems to apply to animals, children, and adults. Like-
wise, researches on animals, children, and adults alike have demonstrated
the existence of a principle of the distribution of effort which, while it
cannot be so precisely stated as is Weber's law, nevertheless seems to point
to an underlying law. Some principles, possibly to be classed as scientific
generalizations of a lower level, however, seem to apply to only limited
portions of the developmental series-witness the Brian and Goodenough
(3) study of color and form preferences in children and adults. Without
attempting to decry attempts to obtain genera] laws, nevertheless it may
be well to point out that the determination of the ranges or levels of
the developmental series in which principles or laws operate is quite
as important scientifically as is the determination of the principle itself
within a limited range of development. There is no warrant for assum-
ing that the college or graduate student is the sole representative of
humanity for scientific purposes.
The second tendency is concerned with the variability of humans and
human behavior and seeks to picture that variability in terms of norms,
individual differences, and groups of differences.
In a way, the first approach is related to the introspective point of view,
which has tacitly assumed that the protocol of a trained adult observer,
under ideal conditions, is interchangeable with that of another trained
adult observer. The normative approach bears some relation to the be-
havioristic point of view. But this identification should not be carried too
far. Obviously all science, whether introspective or objective, is concerned
with generalization; likewise, since trained observers are far from
identical, introspection beccmes concerned with differences as well as
likenesses.
Within the normative field the great body of researches which at the
present time make up child psychology is found. With a developing
organism, norms are an essential base upon which psychology must be
built. Without them, one is never sure whether the particular phenomena
studied are the result of development or the result of the introduction of
the artificial conditions so essential to experiment. This results in the
appearance of some types of control not found in the ordinary application
of experimental technique to problems. The tremendous possibilities of
the practical application of norms, once obtained, should not hide the
 JOHN E. ANDERSON 9
fact that the study of developmental psychology is more complex than
that of adult psychology, and that the normative approach, far from being
a pseudo-scientific psychology, is, in the very nature of the case, the basic
methodological structure upon which an experimental psychology of the
child must be constructed.
If psychology is concerned only with general laws determined upon
adul ts, the normative approach becomes of incidental interest; if psychology
has some relation to the whole life of the individual, the normative approach
becomes of great importance. Boring says:
"At anyone time a science is simply what its researches yield, and,
in the author's view, the researches can be nothing more than those
problems for which effective methods have been found. Those who
declare that a scientific psychology must undertake the solution of such
problems as emotion, thought, will, intelligence, and personality, and
that an experimental psychology which does not deal with these prob-
lems is not a complete psychology at all,-those persons lose sight of
the fact that the research in any science must arise out of available
methods" (2, p. 340).

While there should be no unwillingness to accept the principle of

defining a science in terms of its researches, one should not forget that one
of the outcomes of a narrow definition, insistently maintained, may be the
cutting-off of lines of inquiry that may result in the formulation of new
methoJs, and, consequently, the development of a new stream of researches
to modify the definition of the science. Certainly, if psychology as a
whole has suffered from the fact that it has not had the full-time services
of a genius, the field of child psychology has suffered from the fact that
it has had so little attention from the able men devoting their energies to
a rigidly defined experimental psychology.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOURCES OF MATERIAL AND TECHNIQUES

Before discussing the methods available for the scientific study of the
child, a distinction should be made between the raw material of child
psychology, the method with which this raw material is approached, and
the particular technique or subdivisions of method utilized. By raw
material we refer to the mental life and behavior of the child as it issues
in more or less permanent form susceptible of subsequent analysis and
treatment.
By method is meant a general mode of approach to the raw material,
and by technique a specific device for handling material, within the limits
of a general mode of approach or method. Thus we speak of the experi-
mental method as denoting the use of artificially controlled situations for
the establishment of a general principle, and within that method we speak
of the use of nonsense syllables in a study of memory as a technique: or
we talk of the test method for the establishment of norms or placing the
individual, and, within the test method, of an intelligence test as a tech-
10 HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

nique, or of a motor test as a technique. In the literature the term

method is very loosely used; sometimes it refers in the most general way
to a field of science, as the "psychological method"; sometimes in a nar-
rower sense, as used here, to refer to a general approach within a scientific
field, as the questionnaire method; sometimes to refer to categories which
are here called techniques; and sometimes to cut across more general classi-
fications, such as the cross-section method, which indicates a mode of
approach that may be used in either the test, the rating, or the experimental
method. No completely logical classification of method can be derived;
any classification is somewhat arbitrary and is empirically derived from
the history of the science. Actually, methods crisscross; for instance, in
an experimental set-up we may make use of measurements, tests, and
ratings; in a questionnaire, of test results, experimental results, memories,
and opinions.

SOURCES OF MATERIAL FOR CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

An inquiry as to the sources of material in the child's life which may

be made the basis for psychological treatment is pertinent. In the follow-
ing classification the chief sources of material are listed. All sources are
susceptible of some scientific treatment, even though they may be of
unequal value and require a variety of method.
We may distinguish:
1. Chronology of events as recorded. This includes such records as
birthday, age of entrance to school, age of passing from one grade to
another, etc.
2. Products of the child} left behind as permanent records. This in-
cludes such permanent products as drawings, letters written by the child,
compositions, etc. A variety of techniques can be used in their treatment.
3. The behavior of the child. This includes not only observations of
behavior as such, but also observations in test or experimental situations
devised to predict behavior in general or to establish basic principles or
laws. The scientific value of this source of material increases as adequate
scientific methods are developed for eliciting and recording behavior under
appropriate conditions.
4. Introspections or verbal reports of the child. These have been used
but little. Perhaps more attention should be paid to this source in order to
work out its possibilities.
5. Memories of the child, or of the adult, of his own child-life. These
are, of course, the property of each individual and vary as to completeness
and accuracy in relation to events. They are subject to many errors, both
systematic and unsystematic. Modern literature distinguishes two tech-
niques for tapping them, one the recording of conscious memories, and the
other getting at more deeply buried memories by a free-association process
in one of its variants.
6. Memories of the child's life as retained by those who have been
 JoHN E. ANDERSON 11

associated with him. Here is included a great mass of the effects left
behind by the child in the minds of other people, and more or less ade-
quately retained. These are subject to grave errors, particularly of
systematization and incompleteness, but nevertheless constitute a source
of material. As the distance in time between contact and reproduction
increases, the data become less and less valuable.
7. lIJeasures of heredity of the child or the environment, culture, or
background in which he develops. Strictly speaking, this source does not
furnish direct information on the child. It does, however, supply the data
with which the results of observations on the child can be compared.
Examples of the use of such accessory data are to be found in the studies
of heredity of which the Freeman et al, (Sa) and Burks (+a) investiga-
tions have attracted the most attention in recent years; the various com-
munity studies, in which such matters as the relation of delinquency to
city area (Shaw, 26a) or intelligence to rural or urban residence (Bald-
win, 1) are analyzed; or the many studies of the relation of linguistic
development to social level, of which those of Hetzer and Reindorf (12b)
and l\lcCarthy (15) are examples.
Stern (30), referring to Buhler's study of fairy tales, includes as a
source of material children's literature, meaning by this not the products of
the child but material prepared by adults for children. This is a minor
source, compared with those listed above, and one of somewhat doubtful
value unless the reactions of the children to such material are included.
Of these sources, the behavior of the child in situations where some
method of recording the behavior is developed and the records of the
behavior of the child left behind in his own products offer the major
sources for scientific study at the present time. The chronology of events
is of relatively little significance except as check material and to furnish
a basis for sampling. Introspections of children have been little used.
The memories of the child, or of the adult of his own child-life, have been
a source in the past, but are less used as more objective methods have
been developed for tapping behavior directly. The memories of the child's
life retained by others are rarely of scientific significance.

THE l\'lETHODS OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

We may now turn to a more detailed description of the methods of

child psychology. I have listed fourteen, arranging them roughly in order
from simple to complex, from little or no control to maximum control of
the factors involved. But the methods do not arrange themselves in a
linear series, nor are they mutually exclusive. The methods are:
1. Incidental observation
2. Biography
3. Systematic observation
4. Questionnaire
5. Psychoanalysis
 12 HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

6. Case history
7. Direct measurement and simple tests
8. Tests of complex functions
9. Ratings
10. Experiment
11. Experiment involving random control groups
12. Experiment involving paired control groups
13. Control by statistical devices
14. Factor analysis

I suspect that incidental observation, systematic observation, direct meas-

urement and simple tests, and experiment constitute a series. The biog-
raphy, questionnaire, and case history are difficult to locate in any series,
since they may cover a variety of devices. Psychoanalysis probably is more
closely related to the case history than to any other method. The two
methods involving control groups may perhaps be looked upon as tech-
niques under the experimental method rather than as distinct methods.
The methods of control by statistical devices and factor analysis are
methods of treating rather than of collecting data. Historically, there
is little or no relation to the development of a method and its position in
the classification. The method of systematic observation, which would
seem to be an early method, has recently developed in a striking manner.
Recently there have appeared a number of books in which consideration
is given to methods in child psychology. Symonds (30a) and Goodenough
and Anderson (11a) present a classification and discussion of various
methods. In Thomas and Thomas (31a) a treatment of various types of
approach to the child is presented. Some parts of Rice's (24a) presenta-
tion of methods in the social sciences are also of interest.
Incidental 0 bseruatton, If incidental observation is defined as the
observation of natural phenomena as they occur, without any attempt to
control the conditions under which the observation is made or without
any attempt to sample the behavior beyond that sampling which is inherent
in any individual's noting what happened, incidental observation becomes
the method out of which subsequent methods develop. Every human being
makes a number of observations of the behavior of children and of other
people and relates those observations in the form of anecdotes, interesting
events, and statements of fact. Further, many human beings speculate
about their incidental observations and erect upon them a point of view
with reference to human behavior. Such observations can hardly be called
scientific, whether made by a scientifically trained person or not, since the
essence of a scientific approach to a problem is the introduction of a system
of selection or control either of the situations put to the child or the
reactions which are to be recorded. This does not mean that incidental
observations may not be accurate, nor does it mean they are wholly to be
distrusted as a source of information. They can be looked upon as devices
by means of which we secure the raw material around which later, better
 JOHN E. ANDERSON 13

methods of observation and technique will be developed. In general,

incidental observations put problems rather than solve them.
Biography. On the borderline between incidental observation and sys-
tematic observation is to be found the biographical method, used in
extenso from Preyer's day on. Attempts are made to record behavior as
it occurs and to set down systematically all that occurs. But the sys-
tematization is accidental rather than logical, in that the records are
confined to a particular child or a few children. Further, because of the
limitations of time and energy, there is a selection, partially conscious and
partially unconscious, of what is to be recorded. Perhaps the best example
of this technique from the standpoint of completeness is the series of studies
on newborn infants by Weiss and his associates (22). But here the
method is both biographical and experimental. In the best of the modern
biographies there are to be found tests, experiments, and other techniques.
An excellent example of the use of experiments within a biographical
study is to be found in the paper by Valentine (33).
The method is subject to a grave sampling error, due in part to the
difficulty of intensively recording behavior on any but a few children, and
in part to the fact that the persons who keep such records are usually
parents who, being willing and able to keep a diary, are selected individuals
and have selected children. Its accuracy increases with the objectivity and
capacity of the observer, and its value lies in the recondite view of develop-
ment which it gives. The biographies as a whole furnish a mine of
suggestions for scientific problems; but offer solutions to few.
Systematic Observation. Systematic observation refers to the method
in which the observer selects beforehand, from the mass of events occurring
in the development of a child, a particular situation or series of situations
for observation and develops a technique whereby the responses of the
child are recorded systematically following a predetermined plan.
Emphasis, however, should be placed upon the fact that the behavior
which is recorded is that which occurs naturally. As soon as conditions
are artificially controlled or the stage is set in advance, we move over into
the experimental and test methods.
In the investigations of Piager (18-20), Buhler (4), and Thomas (31)
examples of the use of natural situations as a basis for systematic observa-
tions are to be found. In Goodenough and Anderson (11a) a discussion
of the methods of systematic observation is found.
Recently two rather promising techniques of systematic observation
have appeared. The first, the technique of situational analysis, is based
on the fact that behavior varies in accordance with changes in the situation
in which the behavior occurs. Thus the behavior of children at home
may be compared with that at school, free play periods may be compared
with set periods, social reactions may be observed when only one companion
is present and contrasted with those when three or four companions are
presenr. l\1any kinds of behavior difficult or impossible to produce under
laboratory conditions occur with fair frequency in life. In the large,
14 HA],>;DBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

psychology has neglected these. I t is but a step from the utilization of

situations which occur naturally to the setting-up of a relatively simple
situation, partially controlled and uniformly presented to a large number
of children. In the investigation by IHcCarthy (15) of the development
of language in young children, this technique was utilized. Here again
we are on the borderline between observational methods and those invol v-
ing some measure of control.
The technique of time sampling, as developed by Olson (16), Goodenough
(10), and other workers, is a technique which introduces no control in the
natural situations beyond that of recording events during a constant period
of time. Olson recorded the presence or absence of a particular type of
behavior, such as putting the thumb in the mouth during a five-minute
period. By taking a series of observations on the same day or successive
days, it is possible to secure for each child observed a score which shows
the frequency of the occurrence of the particular phenomena under observa-
tion during the total number of periods in which observation was made.
These scores lend themselves readily to statistical treatment, both for de-
termining reliability by correlating scores for odd and even series of
observations and for determining relations to other factors. The number
of observations necessary in order to secure stable results can be determined.
While the use of the method is still in its infancy, nevertheless it is clear
that it is more satisfactory for some types of behavior than for others and
that the length of the individual period and the number of observations
necessary to receive stable results vary with the type of behavior studied.
It is quite possible that in actual life an individual is presented with many
situations which are quite as constant as those set up in the laboratory
and from which predictions of a high degree of accuracy can be made.
Under the method of systematic observation may also be placed the
use of conduct samples as a measure of a more generalized trait. Thus in
the Hartshorne and 1\1 ay (12a) studies children were presented with
actual opportunities for deceiving or cheating and conclusions drawn with
reference to their honesty. In order to be effective, such situations must
be as natural as possible. If the behavior of the child is studied in and for
itself, the technique is a variant of systematic observation; if viewed as a
test, it is closely related to the tests of complex functions.
Questionnaire. In the questionnaire a method is found which does not
fit well into any particular classification, since a variety of techniques
which overlap our 'other classifications may be utilized. At the outset it
is necessary to distinguish between two types of questionnaire: (a) the
questionnaire which seeks to get the opinion of a group with reference to
particular situations, modes of behavior, or individuals, characteristics,
matters of policy, training, etc., and (b) that which seeks to get at the facts
which the person filling out the questionnaire is in a position to know on
the basis of di rect observation, available figures, tests, etc.
In child psychology and elsewhere there is much distrust of the question-
naire. This is in part due to the fact that confusion exists in the minds
 JOHN E. ANDERSON 15
of questionnaire makers and those who fill them out with reference to
matters of opinion and matters of fact. Thus, if a group of experts were
asked to give their opinion as to the value of moving pictures for young
children, an expression of opinion would be sought. It would have
value only in so far as the particular persons asked to contribute were
qualified to express an opinion, but neither the personal opinions nor the
group opinion should be considered as the equivalent of scientific data or
generalizations.
When, however, the questionnaire deals with facts collected from those
in a position to know, it may have much scientific value. .Thus a
questionnaire which enlists the cooperation of mothers in recording the
sleep of their children may be of value scientifically, whereas a collection
of opinions about sleep would be of little or no value. Such a question-
naire really sets up conditions which result in systematic observation.
The questionnaire method aims to secure from large numbers of indi-
viduals observations which could not be made by a single individual. Its
accuracy depends on the skill with which it is made out, that is, the
definiteness and specificity, and the practicality of the questions, the
capacity of the persons answering, the length of time that has elapsed
since the occurrence of the events to be recorded, and the number and
selection of persons to whom the blanks are sent and from whom replies
are received. It is subject to errors of memory, misunderstanding or
terms, and mental sets imposed by the questions. In general, although
the results may be suggestive, verification by other methods is necessary.
With the classification, "Questionnaires," Symonds (30n), who presents
a very complete analysis of the methods available for the study of per-
sonality and conduct, places adjustment questionnaires, such as the
psychoneurotic inventory in its various forms, measures of introversion-
extroversion and of ascendance and submission; attitude questionnaires,
such as measures of social attitudes, fair-mindedness tests, and the Thur-
stone attitude scales; and interest questionnaires, such as the Strong tests
for vocational interest, and other measuring devices for the permanence
of interests, or of specific types of interests. Some of these devices have
been used with children. Although many of these are questionnaire in
form, they depart sometimes from the questionnaire in purpose in that
they may be employed for the measurement of complex functions.
Psvchoanalysis, In recent years psychoanalysis. a therapeutic technique
developed for use with adults suffering from neuroses, has been extended
to children. Distinction must be made between the use of psychoanalysis
for therapeutic purposes, its use as a technique for securing knowledge of
the development of the child, and its use as explanatory of the whole course
of child and adult development. With its therapeutic use we are not
particularly concerned. In psychoanalysis, the analyst, after establishing
rapport with another (either child or adult), attempts to secure by a
process of free association, dream analysis, interview, or other device for
tapping underlying memories, information regarding the origin of mal-
16 HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

adjustments, complexes, conflicts, etc. By this process of free association

and discussion, the analyst seeks to reeducate the person treated so that
he may achieve a balance or integration of his instinctual drives and the
demands the world makes upon him. The primary purpose is therapeutic
rather than scientific. The child is approached from the standpoint of a
theory, already accepted by the analyst, as to the organization of mental
life.
If a record is kept of the process of interviewing, the material so ob-
tained can be utilized, along with similar records obtained on other in-
dividuals, as a source of information about human nature. The books and
articles on child analysis, such as, for example, those of Anna Freud (Sb)
and Klein (12e), contain records of child analysis, some cases being pre-
sented in great detail and others briefly. As one reads them, one is im-
pressed by the fact that the child is always approached from a particular
point of view, and that the material obtained from the child and the be-
havior described is consistent with the point of view. There is little
attempt to evaluate except in terms of accepted psychoanalytic theory, no
statistical or quantitative material, no statements or records of precisely
what the analyst said, or of what the child responded. Moreover, in the
published analyses of very young children there is evidence that much of
the content found in the analysis is directly or indirectly suggested to the
child. Young children are markedly suggestible. In the giving of mental
tests to young children special precautions have to be taken to guard
against suggestion. An example is found in those tests in which the po-
sition of the phrases is varied in order to counteract the child's tendency to
repeat final phrases of sentences.
Not only bias on the part of the analyst, but practices in the securing of
information which other techniques seek to avoid are operative. As one
reads case reports, one wonders how they would be interpreted if complete
talking-picture records could be obtained of every word that passes between
the child and the analyst. Further, no attempt whatever is made to
control the sampling of children subjected to analysis, nor is any precise
data collected over a span of years as to the success or failure of the
therapeutic treatment made available. One would like to see a control-
group technique applied.
From the standpoint of the general theory of child development pre-
sented by the psychoanalysts little can be said in the space here available.
Perhaps the soundest position to be taken is that of Symonds (30a) who
feels:
"Psychoanalysis as a diagnostic technique should be viewed with an
attitude of [aoorable skepticism, It cannot be scientifically validated
and can be severely criticised when studied in the light of the psy-
chology of testimony, judgment and inference. On the other hand,
its keen application of psychological mechanisms, coupled with a
dynamic theory of considerable vigor, gives it a somewhat impressive
plausibility. Psychoanalysis should be viewed as a promising hy-
 JOHN E. ANDERSON 17
pothesis. It offers a unique cha llenge to the psychologist of scientific
bent."

Case History. A third method is sometimes called the case-history

method, sometimes the clinical method, sometimes the personality study.
Each one of these terms refers to a variant of the method. By the term
case history, as now used, is meant the collection of such facts about a
particular child as can be obtained from official records, his own story, the
accounts of relatives, teachers, and others who have had contact with him,
and the results of any tests, examinations, or interviews with the child.
Case histories of this type, as collected by many agencies dealing with the
welfare of children, are of great value in the practical handling of cases.
Their value for scientific purposes is, however, somewhat open to question.
By the clinical method we refer ordinarily to the description of a patho-
logical or abnormal case. It usually consists of notes on the progress of
the particular abnormality and is sometimes supplemented by objective
data of various sorts. As the term personality study is used in the litera-
ture, it refers to two rather distinct modes of approach. One is illustrated
by the studies of Woolley (36, 37), who kept a record of the development
of a particular child who was somewhat unusual, in a manner similar to
that used in the case history, but who also had notes taken over a period
of time while the child was developing, as in the biographical method.
In general, it may be said that the methods here placed under the case
. history and including psychoanalysis are post facto methods in that the
particular case selected for study and notation is so selected because of
some outstanding peculiarity, social difficulty, or adjustment problem. In
the scientific use of such material a number of difficulties are encountered,
the first of which arises from the fact that, working back from any given
, result, one finds a bewildering complex of factors from which selection as
to relative importance is made almost entirely on the basis of one's back-
ground and experience. Sincere workers, going over the same history,
. come out with different analyses, no one of which can usually be completely
verified. We are all familiar with the welter of causes to which crime
is ascribed. But the underlying logical error goes deeper and is primarily
a matter of sampling.
I f we consider the relation of two discrete variables, such as, say, age of
father at birth of son and greatness of son, there are four possible com-
binations--old fathers and great sons, young fathers and great sons, old
fathers and mediocre sons, and young fathers and mediocre sons. A stu-
dent, noting that great men sometimes had old fathers, might draw the
concIusion that greatness was related to the age of the father at the time
of the son's birth. By going through biographical dictionaries, he
might select a large number of historical examples and build up an im-
pressive mass of evidence, which, however imposing, would be of little or
no scientific value. To know the true relation we must have more than
the frequency with which the two factors occur together; we must also
18 HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

have the frequencies which show how often either factor is present and the
other absent. In the same way, one can demonstrate that red hair is
related to executive ability and that mental abnormality is related to early
sex experiences. Mere concomitance, without further analysis, does not
justify one in assuming the existence of a relation where complex factors
are involved.
The value of the clinical or case-study method lies not so much in its
solution of scientific problems as in its putting of problems to be solved by
more adequate scientific methods. The method is subject to errors of
memory, of retrospective falsification, mental sets, and suggestion. These
are well illustrated in the accounts of the genesis of mental life written
from an adult background, without actual observation of children. Its
accuracy increases with the number of similar observations and conclusions
reported by different observers, providing no common factor producing bias
or set has been at work.
Direct Measurement and Simple Tests. Many measurements and tests
are made in which the investigator is primarily interested in the measures
themselves and not in their value as indicators of more complex functions.
The best examples are furnished by measurement of height and weight
in which a direct measurement is made with almost universal agreement
as to what height and weight mean. In the psychological field, direct
measurements of memory for nonsense syllables, of tapping, of the
speed of writing, of reaction-time, and of other acts may be made. In
direct measurement, questions of validity do not ordinarily arise, largely
because the investigator is dealing with those characteristics of the in-
dividual about which there is universal agreement and which, by virtue of
that agreement, can be clearly and distinctly separated from other aspects
of the functioning individual. When an individual's height is found to be
5 feet 1 inch or his reaction-time to a visual stimulus to be 190 sigma, there
can be little disagreement as to what is meant.
In direct measurement the question of reliability seldom arises. Because
of the lack of ambiguity and the clear separation of the function studied
from the remainder of the functions of the individual, adequate measuring
devices can be set up. When we come to the more complex functions of
the organism, however, one first has to separate out the particular function
to be measured from the mass of mental functions in which it is placed,
and then to demonstrate that the measuring instruments devised give
consistent results. "
Many of the tests of children fall under the heading of direct measure-
ment. For instance, a spelling or arithmetic test, as ordinarily admin-
istered and used for the purpose of determining the level of performance
of the children on a particular occasion, is a direct measurement. In the
intelligence test, on the other hand, we have an indirect measurement. It
is not obvious that any of the particular items measure intelligence, nor is
it obvious that the whole measures intelligence. By a process of validation
we demonstrate that that which is measured is a complex function which
 JOHN E. ANDERSON 19

has a certain internal consistency and which, by virtue of that internal

consistency, can be separated out from mental life and behavior as a whole.
The limitations of the use of direct measurement and simple tests can
hardly be discussed in the space here available, largely because each indi-
vidual device hat; to be discussed in and for itself. Such a variety of
devices are used that no general statements can be given concerning all.
Whipple (35a) summarizes the results of many such measurements
on children.
Because of the widespread use of direct measurements and simple tests
in the normative approach to the child, it may be well to discuss for a
moment two terms which in some texts are referred to as methods.
Reference is made to the cross-section and longitudinal methods or ap-
proaches.
Briefly, the distinction between them may be made in terms of whether
norms are secured by the study of different groups of subjects at different
stages of development (cross-section) or by the study of one and the same
group at different stages (longitudinal) . In the strict sense, every
longitudinal study is ultimately a cross-section study, since the longitudinal
picture is built up of successive cross-sections. Ideally, the cross-section
approach involves the use of a large number of cases, sampled from the
general population in the same way, at successive periods. The longi-
tudinal approach, because of limitations of money, time, energy, and space,
has usually been confined to a small number of cases, though increasingly
large numbers are being used. Where the groups are restricted in number,
the sampling errors inherent in the original selection run through all sub-
sequent observations, complicated by the fact that differential elimination
is almost certain to occur. Actually, however, the two approaches may be
used to check one another. Increments of height obtained from a large
number of different cases at different age levels can be checked by incre-
ments of height obtained on a limited number of the same cases carried
through successive age levels.
Tests 0/ Complex Functions. The term test as here used refers to de-
vices for measuring complex functions in which the relationship of the
device to the function measured is not obvious so that a process of valida-
tion becomes necessarv. Usually an attempt is made to cross-section be-
havior or aspects of behavior at various levels bv a series of items, no one
of which can be said specifically to measure the f~nction studied, but which,
taken as a whole, can be shown to measure the function. If a scientific
approach is to be made, it is necessary to break up the cornplexitv of mental
life and behavior and to analyze its major aspects. The practical problem
faced in making such an attempt is that of getting a foothold or a lever
by means of which an aspect can be separated out for study. In popular
language there are many terms descriptive of the components of mental
life which seem to have some meaning. For the scientist, however, the
popular meaning does not suffice. His task is to make it precise and
workable.
20 HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

The problem is best illustrated by instances from the field of the meas-
urement of intelligence. Binet used teachers' ratings as one of the criteria
against which he standardized his measurements, age progression as an-
other, and school progress as a third. Later workers developed another
criterion, that of internal consistency or coherence, the relationship of a
component part or item to the whole, on the theory that the results ob-
tained by a series of measures were nearer the complex function than any
particular individual measure. Through the application of these criteria it
was possible to select a considerable number of individual items or tasks
which superficially do not seem to bear any relationship to one another,
and to put them into a scale which gives consistent and interpretable re-
sults, and which can truly be said to measure a function, even though it
is impossible to define the function measured.
Validation is not the only technical problem involved. A test that today
puts an individual at the top of a group and tomorrow at the bottom
would be as bad as a ruler which today recorded the height of a table as
three feet and tomorrow recorded it as one foot. Test scores must show
high correlations with themselves if repeated at short intervals of time, if
they are to be of much value.
The problem of reliability is of great importance in those studies where
stress is laid upon the differences between individuals. Although detailed
discussion of the techniques involved lies outside the realm of this paper,
it is necessary to emphasize the point. No student who sets out to pre-
pare a measuring device for a complex function can afford to neglect the
problem of reliability. A very complete discussion of the technique of
standardizing and validating measures of complex functions is presented by
Hull (l2e).
It is quite possible that the technique of measuring emotion by the ex-
pressive method or physiological resultant should be placed under this
heading, although it is conventionally not so regarded. The emotion is,
however, a complex function. In the study of emotions questions similar
to those of validity and reliability arise, even though they cannot be so
precisely formulated as in the case of intellectual functions. Symonds
( 30a) presents a summary of these methods.
The value of the measurement or test method lies in the tool which is
fashioned in accordance with logical and statistical criteria. With it
numerous problems can be solved, despite the fact that sometimes it is felt
that in building a good tool we have so structuralized our methods as to
miss the more appealing problems of development. Further, the construc-
tion of such a tool increases the possibility of the application of other
methods to a wide range of problems previously inaccessible.
Ratings. Within recent years there has been marked development in
the rating methods. In the present state of our knowledge, and possibly
permanently, there are many complex phases of mental life and behavior
that do not lend themselves readily to direct measurement, and which can
be attacked only in a limited way by the use of the test method. For the
 JOHN E. ANDERSON 21

analysis of these, ratings or ranking methods are in common use. The

techniques involved are of two general types, of which the first is the
direct or indirect comparison of stimuli, situations, individuals, or responses
and the assignment of the separate items, individuals, etc., to a relative posi-
tion or rank-order position with reference to each other. Thus teachers
may rate a group of children with respect to honesty by placing the most
honest (according to definition) child in the first place in the rankings, the
least honest in the last place, and the others at appropriate places in between.
The second technique involves the categorization of a number of aspects of
the life or behavior of the individual, and the placing of the child in his
approximate position within each category by marking off his distance either
graphically or numerically from the bottom or top of the possession of the
particular characterization. Thus an item in such a rating scale might
contain five descriptions of honesty, varying from more to less, and the
rater be required to locate the particular child somewhere within the five
descriptions. The variants in the general form of rating scales both in the
devices used within items and in the method of integrating the items into
a single score are many. Self-rating scales are also in use. The technique
can also be applied to children's products such as drawings, writing, and the
like.
In the use of the rating scales a number of important questions arise.
Of these the first group arises out of the fact that, in the construction of
such a scale, assumptions are made with reference to the mental trait or
aspect under study, both with respect to its nature and its linearity. Often
the results obtained are the consequences of these assumptions. Starting
with different assumptions, different results may be obtained. Secondly,
there are marked differences in the raters' knowledge of individual children
and of their performances with respect to the different items on which
rating is sought. Thus a rater may know one child well and have only
a bare acquaintance with another; he may have seen one child many times
in a situation which called for the particular behavior in question, and
another child, equally well known, only a few times in such a situation.
Data collected by the rating-scale method lend themselves so readily to
quantification that frequently the mere manipulation of figures results,
without basic inquiry into the nature of the phenomena which are rated.
Experimental Method. With the experiment, we move on to the classi-
cal method of science, the method which in many ways can be looked upon
as the ultimate goal, from the standpoint of method, of any system of
investigation. The essence of the experiment is to be found in the fact
that conditions are controlled artificially in such a way that stimuli can
be presented and a reaction obtained without the necessity of awaiting the
OCcurrenceof events in the natural environment. Events are taken out of
their setting and placed before the child. In a relatively short period of
time a number and type of observations that could hardly be collected in
any other way are obtained.
The relationship between incidental observation and the more complex
22 HA!\DBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

methods of studying behavior, such as experiment, becomes clear as sources

of experiments are considered. Originally, observations of some sort are
made with respect to certain phenomena. On the basis of these observa-
tions a generalization or hypothesis is made. A special technique is then
set up by means of which the hypothesis is tested. The experiment is a
device which will either positively or negatively solve the problem put by
the hypothesis. The value of the hypothesis, which is really a statement
of a scientific problem, is directly dependent upon the possibility of its
being experimentally tested. As science advances, we move from observa-
tions as the source of hypotheses to earlier experiments. Frequently stu-
dents of behavior make the assumption that experiments can be carried on
without preliminary conceptualization on a basis of observation or earlier
experiments. No assumption could be farther from the fact. The value
of an experiment bears a fairly direct relationship to the amount of time
which is spent in its preliminary formulation.
Moreover, the ability to carryon research is largely an ability to formu-
late a problem, rather than the ability to carryon the routine of investi-
gation subsequent to formulation. In the experiment more is involved
than merely presenting the child with situations. Ideally, an experiment
involves the control of all the factors in the situation and in the reactors,
except the particular one which is under investigation. This control or
holding constant of all other factors results in the investigator's being able
clearly to connect a response or experience with the particular stimuli Or
situation which has been set up and enables him to isolate the significant
factors. Theoretically, in setting up an experiment, the investigator knows
the weight and effect of the factors he wishes to control. Otherwise he
cannot set up adequate controls. When the experimental set-up is com-
pleted, the results of the experiment are crucial in answering the partic-
ular question. We seek to determine the effect of a given amount of
practice on the acquisition of a motor skill and assume that practice extend"
over some time. Obviously, the time over which the practice extends,
if a growing organism is studied, is one in which growth or maturation
takes place, in addition to practice. I f the effects of growth or maturation
were known in advance so that whatever effect growth or maturation had
could be subtracted from the result obtained at the end of an interval of
time in which the organism had practiced, the problem would be well on
the way to solution. In many experiments in the physical sciences the
effects of particular factors are so well known in advance that the ultimate
set-up, no matter how long the process involved in reaching it, seems re-
markably simple and clean-cut.
In child psychology, on the other hand, the ideal of controlling all the
factors save the particular one under study, and of permitting that factor to
vary, is achieved but rarely, since it is almost impossible to know in ad-
vance the effects of various factors. In the instance cited, if human beings
could be held in status quo for a period of time, if their motivation and
the amount of previous incidental practice could be controlled, the effect
 JOHN E. A~DERSOS 23
of practice upon the particular act we were seeking to study could be ob-
tained. The direct experiment would be crucial and would answer once
and for all the question originally proposed. Since we have great difficulty
in setting up an ideal experiment in which all the factors except one are
controlled, we proceed practically by controlling all the factors of which
we have knowledge. Other devices such as control groups measured in
the same way as the experimental group are developed for eliminating
other factors.
One further characteristic of the experiment should be mentioned,
namely, the possibility of repetition and verification by other workers who
reproduce its conditions. Out of repetition and verification, correct
generalization is ultimately established. Unfortunately, psychological ex-
periments lend themselves much less readily to reproduction than do experi-
ments in other scientific fields. This is partly due to the length of
time involved even in simple psychological experiments and to the fact that
so few of our experiments are crucial in the sense in which those in the
natural sciences are.
Since the techniques of experiment vary with the fields and problems
which are attacked and involve many questions as to the use of specific
measuring devices, instruments, etc., little can be said about their limita-
tions. But it may be said that the value of an experiment increases with
the specificity of the problem proposed.
Experiment Involving Random Control Groups. :\lany problems are
attacked by the child psychologist in which it is impossible directly to con-
trol all the factors through an experimental set-up. In a developing
organism various phenomena take place as a result of maturation and
incidental stimulation rather than as a result of the introduction of an
experimental condition. To meet this difficulty the technique of the con-
trol group has been used. The procedure involves the division of a group
of children, either on the basis of preliminary measurements, tests, or
known data, into two groups of approximately equal size and constitution.
Thus the fourth grade of a school in a district of medium economic status
might be used as an experimental group, while another fourth grade in a
similar district might be used for control. One group is then subjected
to the experimental condition for a definite period, while nothing is done
with the other group. At the end of the period, both groups are retested.
The change in the control group is then subtracted from the change in
the experimental group, and the remainder considered the effect of the
experimentally introduced factor. Various means other than simple sub-
traction are also used in analyzing data furnished by such studies.
Frequently, additional measurements are made of both groups after the
lapse of a period of time in which no new condition has been introduced.
In this way a double check is obtained. since a comparison of the experi-
mental group with the control group is made at the end of the experi-
mental period and a further comparison of both groups is made after a
period of time in which the experimental condition is absent.
 24 HAXDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

In the early use of control groups, it was the practice to use a relatively
small control group and a large experimental group. In recent years con-
trol groups as large in size as the experimental groups and selected in an
identical manner have been used. In general, where random groups are
used for control, large numbers are necessary for both the experimental
and the control groups. It is also likely that the more complex the
phenomena studied the larger the groups must be.
Experiment Involving Paired Control Groups. Since the difficulty of se-
curing random samples of sufficient size under ordinary practical conditions
is great, another technique for setting up control groups is frequently used.
This consists in pairing the members of a group, individual by individual,
with respect to a number of factors, putting one member of each pair in
the control group and the other member in the experimental group. Thus,
for instance, in a study undertaken by Goodenough (11) on the influ-
ence of the nursery school upon changes in IQ, children were paired with
respect to sex, age, IQ, education of father, education of mother, socio-
economic status of the father, and the nativity of parents. In pairing, it
was necessary to have a group of over three hundred children from which
to draw in order to secure "matches" which met the requirements imposed
by the experimental group of twenty-eight children used in the study.
An interesting example of the use of the pairing technique is furnished by
the Gates and Taylor (6, 7) studies. Where pairing is resorted to in
order to secure a control group, the experimental study can be carried
out on a smaller number of cases than where random groups are used.
But a large population must be available in order to select the pairs. In
general, the greater the number of variables used as a basis for pairing, the
greater the population from which the controls must be selected. Rela-
tively slight differences in results are of greater significance where pairing
is used than where random groups are used.
A modification of the method of control through pairing is furnished
through the fact that nature occasionally does an excellent job of pairing
by producing identical twins. Gesell (8) has developed the method of co-
twin control, which consists in making a series of measurements and
observations on both members of a pair of identical twins, then subjecting
one member of the pair to an experimental situation (such as practice in
stair-climbing), while the other remains in a natural environment or is pre-
vented from exercising the particular activities in which the other is being
given practice. At the end of a definite period, measurements are made on
both the practiced twin and the control twin, and conclusions drawn.
Although the method so far has been applied only to single pairs, there is
nothing intrinsic, beyond the relative inaccessibility of identical twins in
large numbers, that prevents its being used on a larger scale.
Control by Statistical Devices. In the experiment an attempt is made to
control all the factors except the particular one undergoing analysis. The
necessity for experimenting arises from the fact that, because of the
number of variables involved, some procedure must be adopted to hold
 JOHN E. ANDERSON 25
certain variables constant. By the use of partial correlation, a statistical
rather than experimental technique, a somewhat similar result can be
secured. The technique is chiefly utilized in the analysis of relations where
an experimental set-up is impossible because of the nature of the material
to be gathered, or as a substitute for experiment. An illustration will make
the point clear. Suppose that the relations between three variables-
intelligence test scores, amount of time spent in studying, and scholastic
success-are being studied. After a number of observations or measure-
ments of children with respect to these three variables are secured we can
proceed by the use of partial correlation to hold constant the time spent in
study and determine the relationships between intelligence and scholastic
success. Or we can select two groups of children who differ in intelligence,
pair them with respect to time spent in study, and then measure the rela-
tionship between intelligence and scholastic success. Or, using the experi-
mental method, we may take a group of children who vary with respect
to intelligence and place them under conditions in which the amount of
time spent in studying is controlled by making it equal for each child, and
study the relation between intelligence and scholastic success. Although
we may recognize the fact that such factors as motivation or the energy
with which study is carried on are not controlled by controlling the time
spent in study, nevertheless a clearer picture of the relationship between
intelligence and scholastic success is obtained with the time of study
artificially held constant. Here are three techniques for attacking the same
problem, ranging from one involving complex statistical treatment to one
in which the statistical treatment necessary is relatively simple, since, by
deliberate control of one factor, much of the subsequent need for complex
analysis is eliminated. This brings us to a rather important point with
reference to method: In general, control of conditions in advance is to be
preferred to a mass of measurements accumulated on a large body of cases
without such control and then subjected to involved treatment. Although
statistics furnishes a most valuable tool for the handling of data, it never
becomes a very effective substitute for more precise methods of collecting
data. As methods of collecting data improve and as accurate knowledge
of the weight and significance of factors increases, the more will our ex-
periments possess the. characteristic of cruciality so typical of experiments
in other sciences.
Factor Analysis. Given a series of observations on various phases ot
mental functioning obtained under uniform conditions on a number of
subjects, it is possible to subject the resulting data to statistical analysis
and obtain information as to the presence or absence of the common factors
that are operative. It has been pointed out that in the development of
tests of complex functions an attempt is made to secure a lever or foothold
by means of which one aspect of functioning can be selected out for study,
and a scale developed for measuring it. In factor analysis, this procedure
is reversed, a large number of measurements are secured, subjected to sta-
tistical treatment by methods such as tetrad differences, and the presence
26 HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

of common factors and the extent of their discreteness determined. Spear-

man (27 a) has been chiefly responsible for this type of analysis. Kelley
(12d) presents an application of the method to children at various levels
of development.
CONCLUSION

Within the field of child psychology problems are being attacked in a

variety of ways by workers who are increasingly concerned with the tech-
nique and methodology of investigation rather than with immediate results.
The science seems to have passed through that first enthusiastic rush to-
ward children as subjects of investigation-that rush in which results at
any cost were sought-and has moved on to that more mature attitude
which is concerned with a critical examination of results in terms of method
and with deliberate attempts to devise new methods and techniques for
attacking the very complex phenomena before it. I t would be unfortunate
if too much preoccupation with a particular method or a preconception
of what child psychology should be rather than is were to cut off a mani-
fold approach. From today's studies, however inadequate they may be,
come the highly developed techniques of tomorrow. Science crawls be-
fore it walks, and walks before it runs. Methods and techniques do not
fall into classifications of right or wrong, of all or nothing. They are
the tools which man forges as he goes along. Scientific sin consists not
so much in the use of a particular method as in the failure to use a more
adequate method for the problem in hand when such a method is available.

REFERENCES
1. BALDWIN, B. T., FILLMORE, E. A., & HADLEY, L. Farm children. New York:
Appleton, 1930. Pp, 337.
la. BINET, A., & SIMON, T. Methodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau in-
tellectual des anormaux. Annit psychol., 1905, 11, 191-244.
2. BORING, E. G. A history of experimental psychology. New York: Century
192'. Pp. xvi+699.
3. Ba.IAN, C. R., at GooDENOUGH, F. L. The relative potency of color and form
perception at various ages. J. Exp~r. PsychQl.• 1929, 12, 191-213.
4. BUHLER, C., HETZER, H., at TUDOR-HART, B. Soziologische und psycholo-
gische Studien iiber das erste Lebensjahr, (Ou~ll. u, Stud. £. Jugmdk.,
No. S.) lena: Fischer, 1927. Pp, xii+2S0. (Abstract in Psychol. Bull.,
1928, 26, 113-114.)
4a. BURKS, B. S. The relative influence of nature and nurture upon mental de-
velopment: a comparative study of foster parent-foster child resemblance
and true parent-s-erue child resemblance. 27th Yrbk, Nat. Soc. Stud. Educ.,
1928, Pt. I, 219-316.
S. DUNLAP, K. Elements of scientific psychology. St. Louis: Mosby, 1922.
Pp. 368.
Sa. Fa.EEMAN, F. N., HOLZINGER, K. J., & MITCHELL, B. C. The influence of en-
vironment on the intelligence, school achievement, and conduct of foster
children. 27th Yrblt. Nat. Soc. Stud. Educ., 1928, Pt. I, 103-218.
Sb. FklUD, A. Einfiihrung in die Technik der Kinderanalyse. Leipzig, Vienna,
at Zurich: Int. psychoanal. Verlag, 1925. Pp. 291.
Introduction to the technique of child analysis. (Trans. by L. P. Clark.)
Ne",. r!I Mmt. Dis. Monog. Ser., 1928, No. 48. Pp. 62.
 JOHN E. ANDERSON 27
6. GATES,A. I., & TAYLOR,G. A. An experimental study of the nature of im-
provement resulting from practice in 'a mental function. J. Educ, Psychol.,
1925, 16, 583-592.
7. . An experimental study of the nature of improvement resulting
from practice in a motor function. J. Educ, Psychol., 1926, 11~226-236.
8. GESELL,A., & THOMPSON,H. Learning and growth in identical infant
twins: an experimental study by the method of co-twin control. Genet.
Psychol, M onog., 1929, 6, 1-124.
9. GILBERT,J. A. Researches on the mental and physical development of school
children. Stud. Yale Ps ycho], Lab., 1894, 2, 40-100.
10. GooDENOUGH, F. L. Measuring behavior traits by means of repeated short
samples. J. Ju», Res., 1928, 12, 230-235.
11. . A preliminary report on the effect of nursery school training up-
on the intelligence test scores of young children. 27th Yrbk. Nat. Soc. Stud.
Educ., 1928, Pt. I, 261-269.
lla. GoODENOUGH, F. L., & ANDERSON, J. E. Experimental child study. New
York: Century, 1931. Pp. 546.
12. HALL,G. S. The contents of children's minds. Ped. Sem., 1890, 1, 139-173.
12a. HARTSHONE, H., & MAY, M. A. Studies in the nature of character: I.
Studies in deceit. Book 1: General methods and results. Book 2: Statistical
methods and results. New York: Macmillan, 1928. Pp, xxi+414; ix+306.
12b. HETZER,H., & REINDORF, B. Sprachentwicklung und soziales Milieu. Zsch.
t- angerw. Psychol., 1928, 29, 449-462.
12c. HULL, C. L. Aptitude testing. Yonkers, N. Y.: World Book Co., 1928. Pp.
xiv+53S.
12d. KELLEY,T. L. Crossroads in the mind of man: a study of differentiable
mental abilities. Stanford University, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 1928.
Pp. vii+238.
12e. KLEIN,M. The psycho-analysis of children. (Trans. by A: Strachey.) New
York: Norton, 1932. Pp, 394.
13. KOFFKA,K. The growth of the mind: an introduction to child psychology.
(Trans. by R. M. Ogden.) New York: Harcourt, Brace; London: Kegan
Paul, 1924. Pp. xvi+383.
14. LoCKE,J. Essay on human understanding. London, 1690.
15. MCCARTHY,D. A. The language development of the preschool child.
(Instit. Child Welfare Monog. Ser., No.4.) Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.
Press, 1930. Pp. xiii + 174.
16. OLSON,W. C. The measurement of nervous habits in normal children.
(Instit. Child Welfare Monog. Ser., No.3.) Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.
Press, 1929. Pp. xii+97.
17. . • A method of observational measurement. Chap. 14 in Scientific
method in supervision. (2nd Yrbk. Nat. Coni. Supervisors f!I Directors
of lnstruction.v New York: Teach. e-n, Bur. Publ., 1929. Pp. 195-205.
18. PIAGET,J. Le langage et la pensee chez l'enfant. Neuchatel & Paris: Dela-
chaux & Niestle, 1923. Pp. 318.
The language and thought of the child. (Trans. by M. Warden.) New
York: Harcourt, Brace; London: Kegan Paul, 1926. Pp, xxiii+246.
19. . Le jugernent et Ie raisonnement chez l'enfant. Neuchatel & Paris:
Delachaux & Niestle, 1924. Pp. 341.
Judgment and reasoning in the child. (Trans. by M. Warden.) New
York: Harcourt, Brace; London: Kegan Paul, 1928. Pp. 257.
20. . La representation du monde chez l'enfant. Paris: Alcan, 1926.
Pp. xlii +424.
The child's conception of the world. (Trans. by J. and A. Tomlinson.)
New York: Harcourt, Brace; London: Kegaa Paul, 1929. Pp. ix+397.
21. PLATO. The republic,
22. PRATT,K. C., NELSON,A. K., & SUN, K. H. The behavior of the newborn
28 HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

infant. Ohio State Univ. Stud.: Contrib, Psychol., 1930, No. 10. Pp.
xiii+237.
23. PREYER,W. Die Seele des Kindes. Leipzig: Fernau, 1882. (5th ed., 1900.
Pp.462.)
The mind of the child. Pt. 1: The senses and the will. Pt. 2: The de-
velopment of the intellect. (Trans. by H. W. Brown.) New York: Apple.
ton, 1888, 1889. Pp. 346; 317.
24. . Die geistige Entwickelung in der ersten Kindheit. Stuttgart:
Union, 1893. Pp. 317.
Mental development in the child. (Trans. by H. W. Brown.) New York:
Appleton, 1893. Pp. 170.
24tl. RICE, S. A. Methods in social science. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1931.
Pp.822.
2S. ROUSSEAU, J. J. Emile: a treatise on education. (Trans. by W. H. Payne.)
(Int. Educ. Ser., Vol. 20.) New York: Appleton, 1893. Pp. 3SS.
26. SCUPIN,E., &- SCUPIN,G. Bubi's erste Kindaeit, Leipzig: Grieben, 1901.
Pp. 264.
26tl. SHAW,C. R., et al, Delinquency areas. A study of the geographic distribu-
tion of school truants, juvenile delinquents, and adult offenders in Chicago.
(Bena'll. Res. Monog.) Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1931. Pp. xxi+214.
21. SHINN,M. W. Biography of a baby. Boston: Houghton Miftlin, 1900. Pp. 241.
21tl. SPEARMAN, C. The abilities of man: their nature and measurement. New
York &- London: Macmillan, 1927. Pp, xxiii+415.
28. STERN,C., &- STERN,W. Die Kindersprache: eine psychologische und spraeh-
theoretische Untersuchung. (Monog. ii. d. seel, Ent'Wid. d. Kindel, .Vol.
1.) Leipzig: Barth, 1907. Pp. 394. (3rd ed., rev., 1922. Pp. xii+434.)
29. • Erinnerung, Aussage und Luge in der ersten Kindheit. (M onog.
e. d. sui. Ent'Wick. d. Kindel, Vol. 2.) Leipzig: Barth, 1909. Pp. x+I60.
30. STERN,W. Psychologie der fruhen Kindheit, bis zum sechsten Lebensjahre.
Leipzig: QuelIe &- Meyer, 1914. Pp, xii+312. (6th ed., rev., 1930. Pp.
xiv+S39.)
Psychology of early childhood; up to the sixth year of age. (Trans. from
the 3rd German ed. by A. Barwell.) New York: Holt; London: Allen,
1924. Pp. 557. (2nd ed., rev., 1930. Pp. 623.)
30a. SYMONDS, P. M. Diagnosing personality and conduct. New York: Century,
1931. Pp. 602.
31. THOMAS,D. S., e1 al, Some new techniques for studying social behavior.
(Child. Develop. Monog., No.1.) New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1929.
Pp.213.
31tl. THOMAS,W. r., &- THOMAS,D. S. The child in America. New York: Knopf,
1928. Pp. 928.
32. THORNDIJ[E,E. L. Educational psychology: Vol. 1. The original nature of
man. Vol. 2. The learning process. Vol. 3. Mental work and fatigue
and individual differences. New York: Teach CoIl., Bur. Publ., 1913, 1914.
Pp. xii+321; xi+42S; x+408.
33. VALENTINE,C. W. The innate bases of fear. J. Genet. Psychol., 1930, 1'1,
394-420.
34. WATSON,J. B. Behavior: an introduction to comparative psychology. New
York: Holt, 1914. 'Pp. xii+439.
35. . Psychology from the standpoint of a behaviorist. Philadelphia:
Lippincott, 1919. Pp. ix+429.
3Sa. WHIPPLE,G. M. Manual of mental and physical tests: Vol. 1. Simple pro-
cesses. Vol. 2. Complexes processes. Baltimore, Md.: Warwick & York, 1924.
Pp. 365; 336.
36. WOOLLEY,H. T. Agnes: a dominant personality in the making. Ped. Sem.,
1925, 32, 569-S98.
37. . Peter: the beginnings of a juvenile court problem. Ped, Sem ..
1926, IS, 9-29.