Correlation Between I Q And The Teachers' Estimates Of The Children's Intelligence

By the Pearson formula the correlation found between the

I Q's and the teachers' rankings on a scale of five was .48. This is

about what others have found, and is both high enough and low enough to

be significant. That it is moderately high in so far corroborates the

tests. That it is not higher means that either the teachers or the tests

have made a good many mistakes.



When the data were searched for evi ence on this point, it was found, as

we have shown in Chapter II, that the fault was plainly on the part of

the teachers. The serious mistakes were nearly all made with children

who were either over age or under age for their grade, mostly the

former. In estimating children's intelligence, just as in grading their

school success, the teachers often failed to take account of the age

factor. For example, the child whose mental age was, say, two years

below normal, and who was enrolled in a class with children about two

years younger than himself, was often graded "average" in intelligence.



The tendency of teachers is to estimate a child's intelligence according

to the quality of his school work _in the grade where he happens to be

located_. This results in overestimating the intelligence of older,

retarded children, and underestimating the intelligence of the younger,

advanced children. The disagreements between the tests and the teachers'

estimates are thus found, when analyzed, to confirm the validity of the

test method rather than to bring it under suspicion.