Kuhlmann argued the difference between mental age and chronological age does not represent the true degree of deficiency¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1914 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 1917: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The review reports, citing Kuhlmann's 1913 paper, that the difference between mental age and chronological age does not represent the true degree of deficiency, and that the rate of mental progress was chosen as much more representative. → Kohs 1914

Evidence¶

Kohs 1914¶

Kohs, S. C. (1914). The Binet-Simon Measuring Scale for Intelligence: An Annotated Bibliography. Part II. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Binet-Simon+Measuring+Scale+for+Intelligence%22+Kohs+annotated+bibliography

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review attributes to Kuhlmann's 1913 International Congress on School Hygiene paper (also in the Journal of Psycho-Asthenics) the argument that the mental-age/chronological-age difference 'does not represent the true degree of deficiency'; no data or effect sizes are printed in the annotation.

"The difference between mental age and chronological age does not represent the true degree of deficiency. The "rate of mental progress" is chosen as much more representative."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Yerkes-Bridges coefficients of intelligence of 1.20 or more are attained by very different percentages of children at successive ages (34.5% at ages 4-5 down to 0% at ages 16-17 and 18-on), so they do not represent the same degree of brightness at all ages. — related
• IQs obtained by dividing mental by chronological age remain fairly constant up to the age of 14, which supports treating yearly increments of intelligence as equal absolute units up to about age 14. — related
• Repeated Vineland testings showed a vast majority of feeble-minded children making no mental progress — related