h i st o r i c a l p e r sp e c t i v e s
Jennifer L. Jolly, Ph.D.
The Research Legacy of
Leta S. Hollingworth
Leta Hollingworth began her academic career at
Teachers College in New York City as a professor
of educational psychology. Her original research
interests centered on the hypothesized variability
between men and women. During the early 1900s,
academic experts and the general public commonly
thought that women were less variable than men and
were greatly aflicted by their “functional periodic-
ity” (p. 87), making them less effective and reliable
employees (Hollingworth, 1990). In 1917, while
Hollingworth was teaching at Teachers College,
she encountered a boy who scored 187 IQ on the
Stanford-Binet (Klein, 2002). This event was a
crossroads for Hollingworth. Her research from this
point forward focused almost exclusively on gifted
students, their identification, and the development
of the best practices to serve their educational needs.
Before marrying and completing her Ph.D. degree,
Hollingworth had been a teacher in Nebraska, so
meshing the two worlds of education and psychol-
ogy were similar to her prior experiences. Although
Hollingworth virtually abandoned her early work
on women’s variability, she continued to champion
women’s reforms such as securing enfranchisement,
and, in later work, she recognized the unique chal-
lenges faced by gifted girls (Hollingworth, 1990;
Klein, 2002).
After Hollingworth’s premature death in 1939
at the age of 52 of stomach cancer, a special issue
of Teachers College Record was devoted to research
on gifted children and dedicated to Hollingworth’s
life work. Her research interests were summarized as
follows:
(a) promoting a wider understanding of the
importance of improving ways of discover-
ing and nurturing leadership, (b) appraising
Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com at UNSW Library on November 9, 2014
accomplishments in the discovery and educa-
tion of the gifted, (c) identifying the issues,
and (d) furthering next steps in research,
instruction, guidance, and other procedures
which will lead to sounder methods of finding
and making use of the abilities of the gifted.
(Bruner, 1941, p. 377)
Continually, she noted that her quest to dispel the
myths cultivated by authors such as Lombroso
and in popular culture motivated her research
(Hollingworth, 1926a). Hollingworth’s research
interests were broad—ranging from curricular issues
to the physical traits of gifted students.
Child E and the Profoundly Gifted
Hollingworth’s decisive meeting with a gifted
child, Child E (Edward Hardy), in 1917 while
demonstrating the Stanford-Binet to her students
at Teachers College, was her first serious encounter
with a child of exceptional ability. This child would
become the subject of a series of Hollingworth’s
articles and a case study included in Children
Above 180 IQ, detailing his development through
to adulthood. The initial article “Psychology of a
Prodigious Child,” reported that Child E at the
time of testing was 8 years old, with an IQ of 187,
which translated to a mental age of 15. Child E
also exemplified all three of Binet’s characteristics
regarding children of high levels of intelligence: “(a)
ability to take and maintain direction, (b) capacity
to make adaptations for the purpose of obtaining
a desired end, and (c) the power of auto-criticism”
(as cited in Hollingworth, 1917, p. 105). Child E
was the fourth child in his family, coming after the
deaths of his three older sisters. Both of his parents
gifted child today 57
The Research Legacy of Leta S. Hollingworth
In 1917, whileHollingworthwasteachingat Teachers
College,sheencounteredaboywhoscored187IQonthe
Stanford-Binet(Klein, 2002). Thiseventwasacrossroads
for Hollingworth.Herresearchfromthispoint forward
focusedalmostexclusivelyongifted students,their
identification, andthedevelopmentof thebestpractices
to servetheir educationalneeds.
were highly educated. His mother
obtained both a medical degree and
law degree. Under private tutelage,
Child E studied geometry, algebra,
Greek, French, Spanish, German, and
astronomy. Due to poor penman-
ship, Child E dictated his work to a
stenographer. He did not enjoy play-
ing and preferred the companionship
of books. His career aspirations were
to become a minister and mission-
ary (Hollingworth, 1917). In 1920,
Child E attended the Horace Mann
School, which had recently become
co-educational (Hollingworth, 1922;
Lagemann, 2000).
Hollingworth’s next article in gifted
education, which did not appear until
1922, was an update of Child E’s prog-
ress. The article’s “sole intention [was]
to record facts concerning the identi-
fication and development of a devia-
tion so extreme that the chances are
theoretically almost nil that it would
occur at all” (p. 210). Still relatively
new to the field of gifted education,
Hollingworth conferred with Lewis
Terman about Edward’s progress and
his score of 201 on the Army Alpha
test. In a correspondence to Terman,
Hollingworth writes,
Edward spent the afternoon
with me, and we had a delightful
time. So many minor incidents
happen, showing the quality of
his mind. For instance, I wanted
58 summer 2007 • vol 30, no 3
Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com at UNSW Library on November 9, 2014
to measure his weight in pounds,
but the scales stood so that the
side measuring kilograms only
was visible. I said, “We’ll have
to move the scale out, so I can
see the number of pounds.” At
once Edward said, “No, no you
can see the number of pounds it
is by looking at the kilograms.”
He took it for granted that I
could transmute kilograms into
pounds as instantly as he can! I
think that it is interesting that in
Test 2 on Alpha he performed
the mathematics involved in
the solution of the problems
entirely without using the side
of the page to figure on. (L. S.
Hollingworth, personal com-
munication to L. M. Terman
September 30, 1921)
Edward was now 13 years old. He
had completed his fourth semester at
Columbia University after leaving the
Horace Mann School. He continued
to score +11 P. E. (probable error) on
normed intelligence measures. His
career aspirations continued to be that
of a minister, to work overseas, and for
this purpose he sought to study anthro-
pology. Hollingworth concluded that
(a) Edward had not regressed toward
mediocrity with age, (b) his “gifts”
continued to grow and progress, and
(c) his score on mental tests remained
superior (Hollingworth, 1922).
In 1927, Hollingworth published
her last follow-up article on Child
E. By April of 1927, Edward had an
accomplished academic career. At the
age of 15, in 1923, he earned his B.A.
from Columbia and had been initi-
ated into Phi Beta Kappa at the age of
14. In 1924, he completed his mas-
ter’s degree, and at age 16, finished his
coursework toward his Ph.D. and was
working on his dissertation. Edward
still sought a career in the ministry, a
career he had determined for himself
at the age of 5, and was to enter the
seminary of his preference upon com-
pleting his dissertation (Hollingworth,
1927).
In 1942, 3 years after Hollingworth’s
death, Children Above 180 IQ was
published. She was in the midst of
organizing her data when she passed
away, and the completion of the book
lay in the hands of her husband, Harry
Hollingworth, a noted psychologist.
She had been collecting information
on the cases included in the book for
more than 20 years. Hollingworth ini-
tially mentioned several children who
had above-180 IQs, including Child
E, in Gifted Children: Their Nature and
Nurture (1926) and in several articles.
Children Above 180 IQ elaborated on
their development in case study form.
Some children were well into adult-
hood, and the book chronicled their
family backgrounds, educational his-
tories, mental and physical measure-
ments, and character and personality
traits. Hollingworth was purposeful
in seeking out this sample of eight
boys and four girls, as children with
above-180 IQs were not a common
occurrence.
An example of a case study from
this sample includes Child I who did
not come into Hollingworth’s sphere
until 1937, when she entered Speyer
School, P. S. 500. At age 7 years 7
months, Child I scored a 184 IQ on
the Stanford-Binet. Child I had been

brought to the attention of Teachers
College faculty at the age of 2 when
she was observed in the Institute of
Child Development and again at 3
or 4, when she was used in a dem-
onstration class in psychology. She
eventually was skipped to the second
grade at the age of 6. After her arrival
at Speyer School, Child I developed
into one of the most well-liked and
outstanding students. At the age of
8, she had achievement scores for
that of a 13-year-old. Her father was
one of the original children included
in Terman’s experimental sample in
Genetic Studies in Genius and was a
faculty member of an eastern college.
Child I’s mother was a college gradu-
ate and was, at the time of data col-
lection, a housewife. Child I’s father
received a faculty position at another
university and left the school in 1939
(Hollingworth, 1942).
Despite the purpose of case studies
to recognize the uniqueness of each
child, Hollingworth did draw sev-
eral conclusions regarding this often-
misunderstood group of children. All
children were located and studied in
New York City and their parents were
either of Jewish or Western European
heritage. No mental instability or
insanity was reported for any of the
family members. The majority of the
families reported moderate income
levels, with a few families in economic
distress due to an absentee father or
one not contributing income. Ten
of the 12 fathers were employed in
professions, and mothers held a vari-
ety of jobs including teacher, statisti-
cian, and scientist. Five mothers and
four fathers had college degrees. The
median age of fathers at the child’s
birth was 31 and for mothers 28.5.
Half the 12 children were only chil-
dren and 10 of the 12 were first born.
On average, the children walked and
talked at age 14 months, similar to
the averages of the normal popula-
The Research Legacy of Leta S. Hollingworth
tion. The median age for reading was
3 years old, which was even excep-
tional for gifted children in general.
Their overall health was reported as
good (Hollingworth, 1942).
Scholastic achievement and adjust-
ment to school followed similar routes
for these children. All were early read-
ers and presented unique challenges
in their formal education. Incidences
of grade promotion occurred, but in
most cases, the child’s educational
needs still were not satisfied. Usually
more than two grade promotions
were typically refused either by the
school or the parents due to the social
problems indicative of young children
socializing with older children regard-
less of mental age. Often, experimen-
tal classes for gifted children or early
entrance to college relieved some of the
educational tension (Hollingworth,
1942).
P.S. 165
In 1922 an opportunity arose for
Hollingworth, in conjunction with
other Teachers College faculty and
New York Public Schools, to open a
school expressly dedicated to serving
the needs of gifted students. P. S. 165
was not the first public school opened
in conjunction with Teachers College.
Dating back to 1887, Teachers
College had a long history of educat-
ing neighborhood children in labo-
ratory schools (Lagemann, 2000). P.
S. 165 was open from 1923–1925,
with a student body selected on the
basis of intelligence quotient, scholas-
tic achievement, geographical range,
good health, and parental approval
(Cobb, Hollingworth, Monahan,
Taylor, & Theobald, 1923). Much of
Hollingworth’s work would be based
on her findings and research conducted
on this particular group of students.
Much of the information presented in
Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com at UNSW Library on November 9, 2014
Hollingworth’s Gifted Children: Their
Nature and Nurture, recognized as the
first textbook on gifted children, was
based on data collected at P. S. 165.
Criticism similar to the kind lodged
at Terman’s sample of gifted students
also plagued Hollingworth. Primarily,
the overrepresentation of students
of Jewish descent failed to produce
a sample truly representative of the
population at large. Even after the
cessation of classes for gifted students
at P. S. 165, Hollingworth continued
to follow the students’ academic and
social progress. She maintained her
study of P. S. 165 students for nearly
15 years, curtailing her studies only
after the opening of P. S. 500. From
the outset, she intended to conduct
a longitudinal study of this group of
students beginning at 8 or 9 years
old and continuing throughout their
adulthood (Hollingworth, 1936).
Based on her work at P. S. 165,
Hollingworth published “Provisions
for Intellectually Superior Children”
in The Child: His Nature and Needs
(1924a), which outlined several gen-
eralities about gifted children. During
this period, research on gifted chil-
dren was initiated in part to dispel the
superstitions that surrounded them.
A common misperception of gifted
students was that they devolved over
time and became less superior, even
mediocre. Instead, above-average
students’ peer groups became more
select over time, creating an “illusion
of retrogression,” when in fact their
mental prowess had not diminished.
Other conclusions reached included:
(a) that an overwhelming majority
of gifted children lived in cities; (b)
their fathers were professionals, cleri-
cal, or business men; (c) only a small
number of gifted children came from
families of manual workers; (d) broth-
ers and sisters often resembled their
gifted siblings in intelligence; and (e)
and gifted families were often small in
gifted child today 59
The Research Legacy of Leta S. Hollingworth
numbers of children (Hollingworth,
1924a).
Due to the prevalent educational
practice of grade skipping for gifted
students, curricular offerings for
gifted students particularly interested
Hollingworth. Apart from accelera-
tion, she thought that an enriched
curriculum was particularly impor-
tant. Hollingworth also recognized
that variability existed even among
students of superior mental ability
and that special accommodations
should be made within the range of
IQs identified at P. S. 165. Thus, the
two classes at P. S. 165 were separated
according to IQ. One class of stu-
dents had an IQ with a range from
150–190, whereas the other class had
an IQ range from 135–150. The first
article from her work at P. S. 165,
appearing in 1924, discussed how the
study of biography varied between
the two classes. Observations revealed
that those students in the lower range
of IQ distinctly differed in the study
of biography according to range and
accuracy of information offered and
the varying levels of questioning dur-
ing group discussions (Hollingworth,
1924b).
As students from P. S. 165 reached
adolescence and early adulthood,
Hollingworth continued to follow
their academic progress and adjust-
ment. In 1933, she secured 55 former
students with their average age being
18 years, 6 months, to examine their
personalities using the Bernreuter
Inventory. The 36 boys and 19 girls
ranged in IQ from 135–190 with a
median IQ of 153. All but four in
this sample were of Jewish decent.
Results indicated that as adolescents
they were “much less neurotic, much
more self-suficient, and much less
submissive” when compared with
other college-aged students or adult
norms (Hollingworth & Rust, 1937,
p. 291). Hollingworth closed the
60 summer 2007 • vol 30, no 3
Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com at UNSW Library on November 9, 2014
article noting the limitations of self-
report inventories stating, “[I]n all use
of inventories it is not the actual con-
duct of the person that is elicited, but
only his self-estimate of his conduct.
It is merely self-estimated conduct of
the highly intelligent that is reported
here” (Hollingworth & Rust, 1937, p.
292).
Dispelling the Myths
Regression Toward Mediocrity
In 1925, Hollingworth studied the
variation between siblings of students
at P. S. 165. Nearly 50 years earlier,
Francis Galton had examined the
probable intelligence of siblings. He
proposed “fraternal regression,” not-
ing that on average siblings of excep-
tional males would only be two thirds
as bright as their siblings. The mean
IQ of students at P. S. 165 was 154.9.
By comparison, the mean IQ of sib-
lings was 129.2. Hollingworth con-
cluded,
On the whole it seems clear that
a pupil testing above 150 IQ has
a distinctly better chance to be
accomplished by siblings of very
high ability than does a pupil
testing from 135 to 150. Four
out of fifteen siblings test at or
above 140 IQ or above 150 IQ.
(Hollingworth & Cobb, 1925,
p. 4)
On average, siblings had skipped
three grades with just one sibling
skipping only one grade. At the time
of this study, Hollingworth revealed
her frustration with this topic because
research was slow due to the small size
of gifted families and lack of siblings
(Hollingworth, 1929). Several years
later, Hollingworth suggested that
parents of gifted children should be
encouraged to have additional children
in order to provide society with more
valuable resources (Hollingworth,
1929).
A persistent assumption circulat-
ing about gifted children was that
they grew intellectually toward medi-
ocrity as adults. In 1934, the children
from P. S. 165 had reached their 15th
birthdays, and they were re-examined
using the Army Alpha test. Fifty-six of
the students had been observed con-
tinuously for 10 years. At this time,
researchers did not know at what age
intelligence ceased increasing. Between
the ages of 15 and 19, a median gain
of 12 points + 5 points was recorded
for these students. Earlier, Terman
had found that the interval between
means decreased with age and became
smaller after the age of 14. Final results
revealed that no individual from P.
S. 165 regressed toward the mean as
physical development drew to an end.
Hollingworth felt these results offered
evidence that intelligence remained
constant over time (Hollingworth &
Kaunitz, 1934).
Physical Capability
and Appearance
A further examination of students
at P. S. 165 studied their tapping rate.
The two research questions regarding
tapping included whether young chil-
dren could keep pace with less gifted
but older children in tasks where
motor skills were of importance and
how these results should affect policies
of promotion. Problems with motor
skills particularly came into play
when examining the penmanship of
many 5-, 6-, and 7-year-olds with IQs
at or above 180 who had been accel-
erated into a peer group much older.
Hollingworth had noted in her first
article on Child E that a stenographer
was employed to help him with his
schoolwork due to his poor penman-

ship. Little research had been under-
taken in this area since 1905, with
the work of Bagley, Bolten, Biney,
and Smith. Their conclusions or cor-
relations between motor speed and
intellect had been inconclusive; some
found a positive correlation whereas
others found a negative one.
The tapping test that Hollingworth
proposed examined the maximal speed
of voluntary movement in bright chil-
dren compared with unselected chil-
dren, using tapping tests. Based on
norms established 25 years earlier by
Smedley, instrumentation included
a brass plate, stylus, and counter to
calculate the tapping rates. Fifty stu-
dents with IQs of 135 and above were
selected from P. S. 165 along with a
control group matched for sex, race,
and age with IQs slightly more than
100. Hollingworth concluded that (a)
those children classified as distinctly
superior mentally registered a greater
number of effectual contacts than did
the unselected, (b) bright children
exhibited superiority in both hands,
(c) no significant difference was dem-
onstrated between the experimen-
tal and control groups in terms of
unidexterity, and (d) only a slight cor-
relation existed between strength and
speed of hand (Hollingworth, 1926c).
Hollingworth realized the pedagogi-
cal implications motor skills had for
students who had been accelerated
more than 5 years beyond peers of
their same age. She proposed a com-
promise between intellectual needs
and motor ability. Special provisions
would need to be considered for those
children who had the mental acu-
men but not fully developed motor
skills to properly express themselves.
Other conclusions from this research
further dispelled the myth that gifted
students were physically weak. When
compared to same-age peers in terms
of tapping rates, gifted students gen-
The Research Legacy of Leta S. Hollingworth
erally performed better than the aver-
age sample (Hollingworth, 1926c).
Hollingworth, still intent on illus-
trating that gifted children were not
physically inferior, investigated the
neuro-muscular capacity of students
at P. S. 165. The abilities to broad
jump, do chin-ups, and the strength to
squeeze with the hand were measured.
The experimental group consisted of
students ranging in age from 108
months to 149 months, with a mean
135.2 months. IQs ranged from 135
to 190 with a mean of 152. A control Y
group was chosen from regular class
rolls in New York City with aver-
age scholastic performance. Gifted
students outperformed regular stu-
dents in both gripping and tapping.
However, they did not out surpass
College Planning for
regular students in the standing broad Gifted Students acts
jump and chin-ups. Hollingworth as a comprehensive
attributed their deficit in performance guide for gifted
students offering
to their being on average 7 pounds advice for writing
heavier than regular students. She felt application essays,
selecting and visiting
confident that these results illustrated
colleges, and acing
that gifted students were not infe- the college entrance
rior or weak in terms of physicality interview.
(Monahan & Hollingworth, 1927).
ISBN 1-59363-181-2
Earlier research with students at P. $18.95 US/$24.95 CAN
248 pages
S. 165 offered evidence that gifted chil-
dren were not physically weak, under- Early Entrance to
sized, or mentally unsound. Following College incorporates
this line of research, Hollingworth the views of experts on
sought to determine “[if ] intellectu-
early college entrance
(ECE), ECE program
ally gifted maintain as they grow the administrators, early
comparatively greater stature which entrants, and their
parents, and is aimed
has been proved to typify them in at helping families
childhood” (Hollingworth, 1930, p. navigate through the
345). Continuing to use her original complex decision-mak-
ing process regarding
sample of children from P. S. 165, early college entrance.
Hollingworth found that 47 were
ISBN 1-59363-199-5
available, 43 of whom were Jewish. $18.95 US/$24.95 CAN
She had taken their measurements 248 pages
yearly from 1923–1929. Whipple’s
(1910) Manual of Mental and Physical
To order, call
Tests provided the specifications from 800.998.2208
which to take the measurements. or visit our Web site at
Hollingworth found that, as a group, http://www.prufrock.com
gifted children measured 5% taller
gifted child today 61
Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com at UNSW Library on November 9, 2014
The Research Legacy of Leta S. Hollingworth
than unselected children and main-
tained this advantage over time when
compared with norms established by
Boas (1895) and Baldwin (1916; as
cited in Hollingworth, 1930).
Hollingworth continued to explore
issues regarding physical size and gifted
students. Would smaller individuals
show greater accomplishment when
compared to their larger peers (age
and brightness being held constant)?
In other words, would their under-
sized stature push them to achieve
more? This article, too, was based on
the sample from P. S. 165 between the
years of 1922–1925. Hollingworth
collected school records and made
observations of all students and was
able to cull information for this study
from archival data. She found that
there was no relation between size and
academic achievement. Hollingworth
concluded that small gifted children
did not see the need to “compen-
sate” for their size by achieving more
(Hollingworth & Gray, 1930).
Gifted children were most often
characterized in the general public as
“bespectacled, solemn, high-browed
and ‘sicklied o’er with the pale case
of thought’” (Hollingworth, 1935,
p. 268). Somehow the extent of one’s
intelligence correlated inversely with
someone’s beauty; thus a degree of high
intelligence (especially in females) did
not equate with beauty. Interestingly,
15 years earlier Hollingworth had
suggested that girls who were “attrac-
tive and pretty” tended to be selected
by teachers as gifted rather than girls
who were highly intelligent “but not
so blest with desirable ‘feminine qual-
ities’” (L. S. Hollingworth, personal
communication with L. M. Terman,
January 3, 1922). Hollingworth,
compelled by the lack of empirical
evidence existing to support or refute
such popular images, instituted a
study comparing the attractiveness of
face between those of high and ordi-
62 summer 2007 • vol 30, no 3
Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com at UNSW Library on November 9, 2014
nary intelligence. Forty photographs
of adolescents between IQ of 135–
190 and a comparison group with
IQs of 90–110 were judged according
to beauty of the face. The judges had
no prior interaction with those being
judged and consisted of 10 adults
between 25 and 35 years of age. They
also were not privy to the real purpose
of the study. They were given the fol-
lowing directions:
You will find here 40 photo-
graphs of adolescents, from the
population of New York City.
None is younger than 12 and
none is older than 25 years
of age. Please judge them for
good looks (physical attractive-
ness). The photographs are to
be placed in 5 piles of 8 each.
Look them all over. Then place
in the first pile the 8 who are
least attractive. In the second
pile place the 8 who are next to
the least attractive, and so forth,
till the 8 most attractive faces are
in the fifth pile. Then take each
pile of 8, and arrange the faces
therein in an order of attractive-
ness, from least to most. When
you have finished, Number 1
will be the least attractive, and
Number 40 will be the most
attractive face, all faces being
in an order of merit for beauty.
First place the boys. Then place
the girls. Ask question about
procedure, if you need to, but
there will be no consultation as
to the relative beauty of the faces
studied. (Hollingworth, 1935,
p. 277)
After judging was complete, the faces of
the highly intelligent were deemed to
be more beautiful/attractive than those
of ordinary intelligence with an inter-
rater reliability of .873 (Hollingworth,
1935).
Additional Avenues
of Research
In 1925, Hollingworth contributed
an article to American Speech examin-
ing the link between vocabulary and
intellect.
Young children who use “big
words” in a natural manner are
almost always of extremely supe-
rior intellectual endowment.
The vocabularies of the most
intelligent children who had
been reported in the literature
of child psychology were rich
and varied, and include many
original improvisations. (Hol-
lingworth, 1925, p. 156)
Several specific examples of children
displaying such vocabulary included
a young girl with an IQ of 200, who
at 16 months of age knew 229 words
and by age 5 had created 23 origi-
nal words. Another young girl, Betty
Ford, with an IQ of 188 at age 7 years,
11 months, possessed a vocabulary of
13,000 words despite a lack of formal
schooling. Hollingworth noted that
Terman had found that only adults
with superior intellect could define 75
or more words on the Stanford-Binet.
Hollingworth believed that “an indi-
vidual’s vocabulary is one of the most
significant symptoms of his inherent
power to learn how to accomplish
or how to obtain what he wants”
(Hollingworth, 1925, p. 158).
Questions also arose as to whether
giftedness transcended intelligence
into areas such as the arts and music.
In 1926, the students of P. S. 165
were examined in reference to their
musical ability. The Seashore Test
of Musical Sensitivity was adminis-
tered to 49 children with IQs above
135. Ninety-two percent of the chil-
dren were of Jewish descent, with

a median age of 10 years, 4 months, and a median IQ
of 153. Hollingworth questioned whether musical sensi-
tivity corresponded to chronological age or mental age.
Students were tested in the areas of pitch discrimination,
intensity, judgments of time, extent of time, consonance,
and tonal memory. Research revealed that “intellectually
superior children are not superior to average children of
their age in musical sensitivity” (Hollingworth, 1926b, p.
104). In some cases, gifted children were actually less able
when compared to the normal population. No subjects in
this particular sample were identified as musically gifted
(Hollingworth, 1926b).
As discussed earlier, Hollingworth and her colleagues
recognized variability among even those of high intel-
ligence and further separated the students at P. S. 165
according to IQs clustering at 145 and 165. Comparisons
in achievement and academic performance could thus
be made between the two groups. An additional ques-
tion frequently asked by researchers interested in intel-
ligence centered around “. . . children who are dull
by test and who learn poorly come from unprivileged
homes, it is inferred that not educability but educa-
tional opportunity is the basis of both intelligence quo-
tient and curve of learning” (Hollingworth, 1928, p. 3).
In terms of giftedness, Hollingworth asked, “Are they
bright because they are accelerated rather than by say-
ing that they are accelerated because they are bright[?]”
(Hollingworth, 1928, p. 4). Both classes consisted of 25
students who were given a litany of tests every year to
determine academic progress while in attendance at P.
S. 165. These tests included speed reading, vocabulary,
spelling, composition, penmanship, arithmetic, and
history. After interpreting the results from this battery
of tests, Hollingworth reached the following conclu-
sions: (a) equal educational opportunity did not result
in equal achievement, (b) those students clustering at
IQ 165 outperformed those students who clustered at
145, (c) tests of intelligence could be used to predict
achievement under conditions of equal opportunity,
(d) tests with fewer elements did not reveal a signifi-
cant difference between the two groups, (e) the mag-
nitude in differences increased as the elements in the
tasks became more complex and intricate, (f ) students
clustering at 145 and 165 greatly outperformed those of
average intelligence, and (g) the two groups from P. S.
165 came from similar home situations as determined
by the Whittier Scale (Hollingworth, 1928).
From its inception in 1916, the Stanford-Binet, devel-
oped by Lewis Terman, dominated the testing market.
Other psychologists developed similar tests in order
Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com at UNSW Library on November 9, 2014
The Research Legacy of Leta S. Hollingworth
to take advantage of this lucrative and growing field
(Lagemann, 2000). In 1924, the Herring-Binet was devel-
oped as an alternative measure to identify gifted students.
Hollingworth’s 1930 critique categorically rejected the
Herring-Binet as an alternative measure to the Stanford-
Binet. The Herring-Binet had only been normed on 154
children and relied extensively on mathematical statisti-
cal assumptions. By contrast, the Stanford-Binet was
normed with 2,300 students, comprising 1,700 normal
children, 260 superior/defective children, and 400 adults.
Comparing the two tests, the Herring-Binet yielded a
score 17 points lower when identifying gifted students.
“When the criterion of subsequent scholastic success
under conditions of full opportunity was applied” (Carroll
& Hollingworth, p. 9), a discrepancy of 18 points existed
between IQ and EQ (educational quotient). Hollingworth
also advised that instruments similar to the Herring-Binet
that are based solely on statistical assumptions rather than
“first hand study of human nature” (p. 9) should not be
used with confidence (Carroll & Hollingworth, 1930).
c
We invite you to become a member of the
National Society of the Gifted and Talented!
Students, parents and teachers will receive a
one-year membership with the following benefits:
• Information on programs, scholarships, and
related gifted articles & much more
• Access to the AIFS educational Planning Portal
• Access to the Renzulli Learning System of
enrichment activities, created by board member
Joseph Renzulli
Criteria: students must provide a national test
score of 95% or above, be enrolled in a gifted
program, or have a letters of recommendation.
If you are interested in becoming a member
of NSGT please contact Emilia Musella,
Membership Director at 800-572-6748
or by email at emusella@nsgt.org
gifted child today 63
The Research Legacy of Leta S. Hollingworth
Conclusion
Hollingworth’s more than two
decades of research on gifted chil-
dren concentrated on expunging the
ill-formed and misplaced generali-
ties about their intelligence, mental
health, physical strength, personality,
and overall appearance and health.
She combined quantitative and quali-
tative research methodologies to dem-
onstrate that gifted children, despite
their superior intelligence, were not
weak, unattractive, and sickly, nor
did their intelligence wane over time.
Hollingworth’s work also included
studies on the variability between
gifted children, revealing that fur-
ther differentiation of curriculum was
needed to meet the wide range of IQ
presented in the gifted population,
especially those students with IQs of
180 and above. On a much smaller
scale than Terman, Hollingworth also
began a longitudinal study of her stu-
dents from P. S. 165 whom she fol-
lowed for nearly 15 years.
Hollingworth’s work dispelled
many myths that surrounded gifted
children. Unfortunately, profoundly
gifted students, like Child E and I,
continue to struggle in current edu-
cational settings that are unable and
sometimes unwilling to meeting
their unique academic needs that
Hollingworth helped to identify. As
the field tries to identify and solve the
problem of today’s gifted children,
perhaps Hollingworth’s research can
lend guidance to current researchers.
GCT
References
Bruner, H. B. (1941). Education for the
gifted. Teachers College Record, 42,
375–377.
Carroll, H. A., & Hollingworth, L. S.
(1930). The systematic error of Her-
ring-Binet in rating gifted children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 21,
1–11.
Cobb, M. V., Hollingworth, L. S., Mona-
han, J. E., Taylor, G. A., & Theobald,
J. S. (1923). The special opportunity
class for gifted children at Public
School 165 Manhattan. Ungraded, 8,
121–128.
Hollingworth, H. L. (1990). Leta Stetter
Hollingworth: A biography. Boston:
Anker Publishing.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1917). The psychol-
ogy of a prodigious child. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1, 101–110.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1922). Subsequent
history of E—: Five years after the ini-
tial report. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 6, 205–210.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1924a). Provisions
for intellectually superior children.
In M. V. O’Shea (Ed.), The child: His
nature and his needs (pp. 277–299).
New York: The Children Foundation.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1924b). An intro-
duction to biography for young chil-
dren who test above 150 IQ. Teachers
College Record, 26, 277–287.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1925). Vocabulary
as a symptom of intellect. American
Speech, 1, 154–158.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1926a). Gifted chil-
dren: Their nature and nurture. New
York: Macmillan.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1926b). Musical
sensitivity of children who test above
135 IQ. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 17, 95–109.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1926c). Tapping
rate of children who test above 135
IQ. Journal of Educational Psychology,
17, 505–518.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1927). Subsequent
history of E—: Ten years after the ini-
tial report. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 11, 385–390.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1928). Clustering of
children at 165 IQ and children clus-
tering at 146 IQ compared for three
years in achievement. In G. M. Whip-
ple (Ed.), Twenty-seventh yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II: Nature and nurture,
their influence upon achievement (pp.
3–33). Yonkers, NY: World Book.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1929). The produc-
tion of gifted children from the paren-
tal point of view. Eugenics, 2, 3–7.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1930). Do intel-
lectually gifted children grow toward
mediocrity in stature? Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 37, 345–360.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1935). The compara-
tive beauty of the faces of highly intel-
ligent adolescents. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 47, 268–281.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1936). The Terman
Classes at Public School 500. Journal
of Educational Sociology, 10, 86–90.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children
above 180 IQ. Yonkers, NY: World
Book.
Hollingworth, L. S., & Cobb, M. V. (1925).
The regression of siblings of children
who test at or above 135 IQ. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 16, 1–7.
Hollingworth, L. S., & Gray, H. A. (1930).
Juvenile achievement as related to size.
Teachers College Record, 32, 236–244.
Hollingworth, L. S., & Kaunitz, R. M.
(1934). The centile status of gifted
children at maturity. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 45, 106–120.
Hollingworth, L. S., & Rust, M. M.
(1937). Application of the Bernreu-
ter Inventory of Personality to highly
intelligent adolescents. Journal of Psy-
chology, 4, 287–293.
Klein, A. G. (2002). A forgotten voice: A
biography of Leta Stetter Hollingworth.
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive sci-
ence: The troubling history of education
research. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Monahan, J. E., & Hollingworth, L. S.
(1927). Neuro-muscular capacity of
children who test above 135 IQ. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 18, 88–96.
Whipple, G. M. (1910). Manual of men-
tal and physical tests: A book of direc-
tions compiled with special reference to
the experimental study of school children.
Baltimore: Warwick and York.