^* W. Stephenson, “Studies in Experimental Psychology”, Journ. Mest. Sci., October, 1931; April, 1932; October, 1933. Google Scholar

^† Spearman, Psychologies of 1930, ed. Carl Murchison, pp. 359-361. Google Scholar

^‡ E. Webb, “Character and Intelligence”, Brit. Journ. Psychol., Monogr. Suppl., 1915, i, No. 3. Google Scholar

^* June E. Downey, The Will Temperament and Its Testing. Google Scholar

^† Hartshorne and May, Studies in Deceit, 1928; Studies in Service and Self-control, 1929. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^* See Appendix for full table of correlations. Reference to this table will demonstrate the point more clearly. Google Scholar

^* H. L. Hargreaves, “The ‘Faculty’ of Imagination”, Briit. Journ. Psychol., Monogr. Suppl., iii, No. 10. Google Scholar

^* This test was unsatisfactory and was omitted in the second experiment. Google Scholar

^† The test numbers used here do not correspond to the numbers used in Table IV. Google Scholar

^‡ A test suggested by Dr. Cattell. See p. 121. Google Scholar

^* Discussed on p. 232. Google Scholar

^† This chart has been rearranged and reproduced here for convenience of comparison from Chart II in “Studiesin Experimental Psychiatry, No. IV”, Constance Simmins, Journ. Ment. Sci., October, 1933. Google Scholar

^* See Chart I. Google Scholar

^† At the time of testing A had been ill and was still very weak, which may account for the retardation. Google Scholar

^‡ See Miss Simmins' paper, Chart III, Journ. Ment. Sci., October, 1933. Google Scholar

^* Since published, “Temperamental Tests”, B. Cattell, Brit. Journ. Psychol., January July, 1933. Google Scholar

^† Emanuel Miller,“TemperamenDtiaflferencesin Children”, Brit. Journ. Educ. Psychol., November, 1933. Google Scholar

^* See p. 113. Google Scholar

^* In a few cases, one or other of the ratings was missing, but there were at least three ratings for all cases except on such traits as sociability, where the experimenters could not give ratings themselves. Google Scholar

^* The standard deviations of the two distributions were about equal, but it is not claimed that this crude comparison gives more than a rough approximation, and it is hoped that a more satisfactory method may be found for more exact work. Google Scholar

^† Scatter = range of scoresand number of cases at each point in the scale. Google Scholar

^* See p. 108. Google Scholar

^* Stephenson, Journ. Ment. Sd., April, 1932. Google Scholar

^* Individual score = t - 1.4d, where t = initial rate, d = drop, 1.4 = constant such that td =0. Google Scholar

^* This difference is not statistically significant. Google Scholar

^* C. Simmins, “Studies in Experimental Psychiatry, No. IV”, Journ. Ment. Sci., October, 1933. Google Scholar

^† See Charts IV, V, and VI. Google Scholar

^‡ Brit. Journ. of Med. Psycliol., xiv, July, 1934. Google Scholar

^* No attempt has been made in this study to analyse the responses given by the patients in their qualitative aspect. At the same time the varied “f” tests do provide ample material for observing qualitative differences such as have been noted on the Rorschach ink blots test and other association tests. Google Scholar