Data from the NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY Goodenough -Harris Test Estimates of IntellectualMaturity of Youths 12-17 Years Demographic and Socioeconomic Factors Intellectual maturity of youths 12 through 17 years of age as measured by the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test is discussed in terms of education of parent; family income; place of residence (size, type, and rate of population change); progress through school; race; and geographic region. DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 77-1641 Series11 Number 159 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Public Health Service Health Resources Administration National Center for Health Statistics Rockville, Md. April 1977
Transcript
Data from theNATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY
Goodenough-Harris Test Estimates
of IntellectualMaturityof Youths 12-17 YearsDemographic and Socioeconomic Factors
Intellectual maturity of youths 12 through 17 years of age asmeasured by the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test is discussed interms of education of parent; family income; place of residence (size,type, and rate of population change); progress through school; race;and geographic region.
DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 77-1641
Series11Number 159
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFAREPublic Health Service
Health Resources AdministrationNational Center for Health StatisticsRockville, Md. April 1977
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Harris, Dale B.Goodenough-Harris test estimates of intellectual maturity of youths 12-17 years.
(Vital and health statistics: Series 11, Data from the National Health Survey; no. 159)(DHEW publication; no. (HRA) 77-1641)
Bibliography: p.Supt. of Dots. no.: HE20.6209:ll/159
1. Goodenough-Harris drawing test —United States —Statistics. 2. Intelligence levels —United States – !Xatistics. 3. Adolescent psychology-United States– Statistics. I. Pinder,Glenn D., joint author. II. United States. National Center for Health Statistics, III. Title. IV.Series: United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and health statistics: Series11, Data From the National Health Survey; no. 159. V. Series: United States. Dept. ofHealth, Education, and Welfare. DHEW publication; no, (HRA) 77-1641. [DNLM: 1. In-telligence tests— In adolescence. 2. Demography. 3. Socioeconomic factors. W2 N148vk no.1591RA~07.3.A347 no. 159 [BF431] 312’. 0973s [153.9’324]ISBN 0-8406 -0068-0 76-608024
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS
DOROTHY P. RICE, Director
ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Deputy Director
JACOB J. FELDMAN, Ph.D., Associate Director for Analysis
GAIL F. FISHER, Associate Director for the Cooperative Health Statistics System
ELIJAH L. WHITE, Associate Director for Data Systems
JAMES T. BAIRD, JR., Acting Associate Director for International Statistics
ROBERT C. HUBER, Associate Director for Management
MONROE G. SIRKEN, Ph.D., Associate Director for Mathematical Statistics
PETER L. HURLEY, Associate Director for Operations
JAMES M. ROBEY, Ph.D., Associate Director for Program Development
PAUL E. LEAVERTON, Ph.D., Associate Director for Research
ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer
DIVISION OF HEALTH EXAMINATION STATISTICS
ARTHUR J. McDOWELL, Director
JEAN-PIERRE HABICHT, M.D., Ph.D., Special Assistant to Director
HAROLD J. DUPUY, Ph.D., Psychologz”cal Adviser
LINCOLN OLIVER, Chiej Psychological Statistics Branch
ROBERT S. MURPHY, chief Survey Pkrming and Developing ~ranch
COOPERATION OF THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
In accordance with specifications established by the National Health Survey, the Bureau of theCensus, under a contractual agreement, participated in the design and selection of the sample, andcamied out the first stage of the field interviewing and certain parts of the statistical processing.
1. Average T scores. of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by familyincome, education of parent, and geographic region: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2, Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harns Drawing Test, by place ofresidence, family income, and education of parent: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3, Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by familyincome, education of parent, and rate of population change: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Percent of youths 12-17 years of age within each modal grade level, by selected demographiccharacteristics: United States, 1966-70.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5, Percent of youths 12-17 years of age Within each modal grade level, by selected socioeconomiccharacteristics: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6, Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by race, familyhcome, andeducation ofparent: Ufited States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
LISTOFTEXTTABLES
A. Correlation coefficients for person T scores with socioeconomic variables and their standard errors . . . . 3
B Comparison of the relationships of early school experience and relative grade level in school to scores ofyouths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, two Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren subtesta, and two Wide Range Achievement Test subtests: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. Percentofyoutis l2-l7yeamofagewhodrewafi@reof&esmesexwhenaAedto drawa’’person,”byrace and sex, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure does not meet standards ofreliability or precision *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
GOODENOUGH-HARRIS TEST ESTIMATES OFINTELLECTUAL MATURITY OF YOUTHS 12-17 YEARS:
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS
Dale B. Harris, Ph. D., The Pennsylvania State University, andGlenn D. Pinder, ‘Division of Health Examination Statistics
INTRODUCTION
This is the second report to present data ob-tained from a modified version of theGoodenough-Harris Drawing Test administeredduring the Health Examination Survey of1966-70 to a probability sample of noninstitu-tionalized youths 12-17 years of age in the UnitedStates. Statistical information provided in thisreport concerns the relationship of socioeconomicand demographic factors to intellectual maturityduring the adolescent years.
It has been reported in a previous publicationof this seried that, as an indicator of the level ofintellectual maturity, the instrument discussedhere is of less value in rating adolescents than inassessing development in younger children. TheHealth Examination Survey data demonstrateda leveling off of mean scores after early ado-lescence, such as had been previously demon-strated by Harris.z Nevertheless, there aretwo important reasons for presenting the in-formation in this report: (1) the test appears to bean adequate measuring device for the youngerthree or four 1-year age groups in the populationaged 12-17 years, and (2) these data demonstratethe influence of background and situational fac-tors on the youth’s performance on this test.
For readers not familiar with the data collect-ing system from which the data presented here
aFormerly research psychologist with the Psychological Statis-tics Branch, DHES.
were obtained, detailed information regardingthe Health Examination Survey is presented inearlier reports,$s with one containing informat-ion most relevant to the survey of adolescents.sFollowing is a brief description of the surveyoperation.
THE HEALTH EXAMINATION SURVEY
The Health Examination Survey is an ongo-ing program that collects data by direct examinat-ion of representative sampIes of the noninstitu-tionalized population of the United States. Since1960 the survey has conducted a seriesof separateprograms (called “cycles”) concerned withspecific segments of the total population andfocused on certain aspects of the health of thesesubpopulations. Cycle III was an examination ofyouths 12-17 years of age, and it was a continua-tion of the immediately preceding cycle in whichchildren aged 6-11 years were given an examina-tion that focused on health factors related togrowth and development. Information about theCycle III survey design is presented in appen-dix I.
Each youth was examined during a single visitto a specially designed mobile unit. Along withthe standardized examinations by a physicianand dentist and a variety of tests andmeasurements performed by technicians, a 70-minute psychological test battery was given by apsychologist who had obtained at least a master’sdegree and had previous experience in ad-
1
ministering tests. The battery included thefollowing examinations that were administered inthe order listed: Wide Range Achievement Test,arithmetic and reading sections; Wechsler In-telligence Scale for Children, vocabulary andblock design subtests; a five-card, tape-recordedversion of the Thematic Apperception Test; amodified version of the Goodenough-HarrisDrawing Test; the Brief Test of Literacy; and aself-administered questionnaire concerning theyouth’s attitude and behavior relating to certainaspects of health. A critical evaluation of most ofthe psychological tests used in the survey, in-cluding a literature review of previous researchand evaluations, was made by S. B. Sellsof TexasChristian University. The National Center forHealth Statistics has published the results of theevaluation in its methodological reports series.6
Before the youths were examined, informa-tion about the demographic and socioeconomiccharacteristics of household members and amedical history and behavioral data on theyouths were obtained from parents, Performanceand adjustment information was requested in aquestionnaire sent to each youth’s school. All in-formation was obtained with a guarantee of strictconfidentiality.
Of the 7,514 youths in the sample, 6,768 (90percent) were examined. Sample design, ad-justments for nonresponse, and weighting pro-cedures were factors that produced results con-sidered representative of the approximately 23million noninstitutionalized youths aged 12-17years in the United States at the time of thesurvey. Sampling errors associated with estimatesin this report are presented in the detailed tables.
THE TEST
Information in this report is based on “per-son” and “self’ figure drawings scored on theGoodenough-Harris scales,2 The modification ofthe test used in this survey of adolescents isdescribed fully in the initial report on the find-ings from Cycle III. 1Two human figure drawingswere requested of each youth during thepsychological testing. Each of the drawings (per-son and self) tvas scored on the appropriate manor woman scale of the Goodenough-Harris instru-ment. A complete description of the history of
figure drawing tests and development of theGoodenough-Harris scales is presented in Harris’text.2 Brief summaries of that material are in twoprevious reports of this series.1’7
The presentation and descriptive analysis oftest performance according to demographic andsocioeconomic statusof the youths will be limitedin this report to the person figure drawing. Thecorrelation ratio between the scores for the selfand person drawings was 0.8. There are nomaterial differences in conclusions concerningintellectual maturity that can be drawn from anexamination of the results of the two types ofdrawings.
FINDINGS
Raw Scores and Standard Scores
The subject of the present study is the rela-tionship of intellectual maturity, as indicated byperformance on the drawing test, to backgroundfactors. Information on the relationships to ageand sex of the Goodenough-Harris drawing testscores was presented in a previous publicatiord inwhich the main conclusion was that the increasein scores associated with age leveled off for bothsexes between ages 15 and 16. This indicated thateither further development of those capacitiesand abilities called “intellectual maturity” didnot occur after age 15 or that the selected instru-ment was not sensitive enough to measure changein level after that age. In tables 1 and 2, wheremean scores according to socioeconomic statusare shown by age, it is demonstrated that thisleveling off effect is preserved for all the sub-groups examined and that scores for the man andwoman drawings follow a similar pattern.
The raw scores for each age-sex group and foreach scale (man and woman figures) separatelywere converted to normalized standard scoreswith a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10(T scores) in order to control for age and sex dif-ferences in performance. Thus, each sampleyouth has a “person T score” from which age ef-fect and sex differences have been removed.These T score distributions are used in the re-mainder of this report for the purpose of examin-ing the relationship of performance tosocioeconomic status. To facilitate conversion of
2
raw scores to Tscores, tables I-IV are presentedin appendix 1.
Background Factors
Background factors considered in this reportwere education of first-listed parent (usually thefather), income of family over the past year,geographic region, type of area (urban-rural),rate of population change, size and kind of placeof residence, and race. Each of these variables isrelated to one another in some way, and some aredefinitely related to performance on the ability orachievement tests administered in the survey.Although a valid claim can be made that thedrawing test measures something other thanachievement in early childhood, this assertionmay be confounded by the fact that some youthsdevelop in environments that are more conducivethan others to advancing their ability to draw.Thus, it would not be surprising that, as in othertypes of achievement tests, there is a socio-economicstatuslink.
Family income and first parent’s educationwere more closely correlated with test scores thanthe other factors were (table A). The negativebiserial coefficient for race is the result of coding(white = 1, black = 2), The partial correlationcoefficients throw additional light on the inter-relationship of social factors and performance onthe test. The biserial measure with race falls from-.15 to - .09 when the effect of income is heldconstant, For family income the ratio falls from+.19 to +.11 when the effect of education isheld constant.
The multiple correlation ratio for themodified drawing test score and the statistically
Table A. Correlation coefficients for person T scores with
socioeconomic variables and their standard errors
Socioeconomic VariablesStatistical measure
r I SE
Race . . . . . . . . . . .
Region . . . . . . . . . . .Size of place . . . . . . . .Income . . . . . . . . . .Grade, . . . . . . . . . .Parenth education , . . . . . .Type of area . . . . . . . .Rate of population change . . .
–.15
.08–.03
.19
.14
.17
.07
.09
0.030.030.030.020.02
0.020.020.03
“best” combination of race, parental education,and family income was only .22, with a standarderror of. 03, a negligible gain over the zero ordervalues for either education or income; therefore,it is not adequate for use in prediction.
Family income and education ofparent. —Drawing test scores, shown to berelated to income of family and parents’ educa-tional level, are presented according to the otherbackground factors considered for the various in-come and education of parent categories in tables3-12. An inspection of the mean scores for the en-tire population reveals a consistently increasingtrend with both. income and education (table 3).Table 4 indicates that this is also true when eitherof these variables is held constant. There is noevidence in these data that education of parenthad a stronger effect on performance than in-come level, or vice versa.
Geographic region. —The data at first glanceindicate some regional differences, with themean score for the South being somewhat lowerthan those for the Midwest and Northeast (table3). However, examination of scores according toeducation of parent and family income providessome insight into the basis for these differences.Distributions by income and education for thefour regions are distinctly different (see table V,appendix I). Thus, the lower means in theSouth– and to some extent in the West –reflectthe existence of lower incomes and parents withfewer years of education compared with the otherareas. There is every indication that in eachregion scores are higher for youths whose familieshad higher incomes and more education (table 4and figure 1).
Type of area. —A similar analysis was madefor the urban-rural contrast (tables 5 and 6) thatyielded the same general conclusions as those of-fered with respect to region (see table VI, appen-dix I). Overall, urban adolescents achieved aslightly higher average score than those from therural areas. Income and education of parent(figure 2) remained the important factors indetermining testscores.
Rate of population change. —Tables 7 and 8present drawing test scores for the youths ac-cording to rate of population change at place ofresidence. For each category of family incomeand parental education, youths residing in areas
60 —
50 -
40 —
g
g 30 —(nk
20 -
10—
o—
60 —
50 -
40 —
:
g 30 -
:
20 —
10 -
0 —
g$#&rjNortheast ~ south
II FAMILY INCOME
Total Lessthan $5,000 $5,033.$9,999
EOUCATION OF PARENT
$10,OCOor more
Elementary 9th 11th grade 12th grade Higher than 12th grade
Figure 1. Average T scoresof youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by family income, education of parent,and geographic region: United States, 1966-70
Figure 2. Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by place of residence, family income,and education of parent: United States, 1966-70
4
with above-average increases in population be-tween 1950 and 1960 made higher scores thanthose residing in areas with declining populations(figure 3). The differences are sufficient to sug-gest that type of community as distinguished byrate of population change may be furtherassociated with test performance, given incomeand education of parent.
Location of household. —When consideringdata shown in tables 9 and 10, the designations“In central city of SMSA” and “Not in centralcity of SMSA” should not be confused with thenotions of “within inner city” and “not in innercity”; although, if it were possible, the latterdistinction would be more suitable for this
analysis. As characterized, the test scores do notshow any marked differences, but this does notmean that none would be found with a moremeaningful grouping. However, as in the otherclassifications, the data exhibit trends by incomeand education.
Progression through school. —Youths aged12-17 years could not be grouped to representmore than one or two of six school grade levels inwhich most of them were assigned. In order to getdrawing test performance data with respect tothe youth’s progress through school, averagestandard scores were derived for the youths ingroups according to grade with respect to age.The youths were classified as above modal grade,
Figure 3. Average T scoresof youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by family income, education of parent,and rate of population change: United States, 1966-70
5
in modal grade, or below modalmodal level for 12-year-olds was
grade. The Relative school grade reflects many combina-the seventh tions of strong influences related to demographic
grade, that for 13-year-olds was the eighth, and characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and cer-so forth. Test scores for the youths in the threegrade groups are shown in tables 11 and 12 ac-
i cording to family income and education ofparent and in table 13 according to certain otherdemographic and socioeconomic characteristicsof the youths. Youths assigned to levels above themodal grade made higher scores than those madeby their counterparts in grades below the modallevel. This was the case in all but one category offamily income or parental education. Similar dif-ferences in performance with respect to relativegrade level were observed for each of the remain-ing demographic or socioeconomic groups con-sidered.
tain political or social decisions (figures 4 and 5).Background factors are also associated with in-tellectual maturity, the level of which the draw-ing test is supposed to measure.
Distributions of the youths by type of earlyschool attended are presented according toselected demographic characteristics or socio-economic factors in table 14. One-third of theyouths attended neither nursery school norkindergarten, and about 9 percent attendedboth.
Nursery school and kindergarten attendanceproved to be definitely related to education ofparent and family income. Larger proportions of
80
60 [
sEX
Grade level:
~ Ewl.wmxlalgrade
M Innvadalgrafk
80 i--= .im.,ln.a,dgrad,
I PLACE OF RESIDENCE
60 k
Urbanized areas Urban areas,other Rural areas
GEOGRAPHIC REGION
BOYS Girls Northeast Midwest South west
Figure 4. Percent of youths 12-17 years of age within each modal grade level, by selected demographic cherecteristics: United Stetes,
1966-70
Grade Levek
~ ,elownlcdal,rade
80
t
ant
I EDUCATION OF PARENT I ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME
20
0
60
40
20
0Elementary 9th. 1lth grade 12th grade Higher than 12th grade
80
tRATE OF POPULATION CHANGE
Lessthan $5.000
Loss Below averagegain Averagegain Above averagegain White Black
60
60[
$10,OW ormore
RACE
Figure 5. Percent of youths 12-17 years of age within each modal grade level, byselected socioeconomic characteristics: United States,
1966-70
youths whose parents had more years of formaleducation and of those from families with higherincomes attended nursery school andkindergarten. More urban than rural youths andmore youths living in areas with expandingpopulations attended early schools. Two-thirds ofthe youths from the South had not attendednursery school or kindergarten, compared withone-fourth of the youths in the rest of thecountry.
On the scale of test scores, youths who attend-ed both nursery school and kindergarten hadscores that were the highest and those who at-tended neither nursery school nor kindergartenhad scores that were the lowest. Regardless ofsocioeconomic status, youths who attended both
nursery school and kindergarten tended to havehigher average scores than those who attendedneither (table 15).
The age at which the youths started firstgrade appeared to be a better predictor of actualgrade in relation to modal grade than otheravailable variables. It seemed to be the best in-formation with which to evaluate the influence ofcertain background factors on school progressionand test performance. Youths whose parents hadless formal education and lower family incomestarted school later than youths whose parentswere more educated and had higher incomes(table 14). Enrolhnent in the first grade after theseventh birthday occurred more frequently in theSouth than in the other geographic regions, even
7
after consideration of differences in the distribu-tion of the youths by region and according tofamily income and education of parent. Averagedrawing test scores were consistently higher foryouths who started first grade earlier, regardlessof education of parent, family income, place ofresidence (an urban-rural distinction), rate ofpopulation change for the community, race, orgeographic region (table 16).
Overall, the differences in average scores onthe drawing test with respect to these school-related factors were in the same direction as theaverages for other tests of intellectual develop-ment or school achievement that were ad-ministered to youths during the survey. However,the effects of these factors on the drawing testscores were of significantly lesser magnitudesthan they were on those recorded for thevocabulary, nonverbal, reading, or arithmetictests, for which differences as large as one stan-dard deviation were observed (table B).
Race. —Racial evaluations must be made inconjunction with the distribution of the popula-tion according to income and education and themeaning of these variables for the two groups.Differences in performance according to incomeand educational levels are consistent for the tworacial groups (figure 6). The greater fluctuationin mean scores for black adolescents reflectssmaller sample frequencies in some groups withtheir associated larger errors of estimate (tables17 and 18). Other racial differences should be in-terpreted in light of the fact that classification ac-cording to income and education may not ade-quately define sufficiently comparable groupswith respect to living circumstances or at-mosphere when intellectual growth or achieve-ment is considered. It is understood that a givennumber of years of formal education does notnecessarily indicate the same level of intellectualachievement for all segments of the U.S. popula-tion. But the differences are greater for thegrouping by race than for other groupings, suchas those by income or education. Further, level ofincome or years of education is a reliable measureof socioeconomic status only to the extent thatthere exists the freedom to utilize such assets toproduce an appropriate environment. Withrespect to race, social restrictions and traditions
Table B. Comparison of relationships of early school experienceand relative grade level in school to scores of youths 12-17years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, twoWechsler Intelligence Scale for Children subtests, and twoWide Range Achievement Test subtests United States, 1966-70
Differences in averagescore between g~oups as
indicated
Attend-Average ~n~e at
Type of test or subtest T score nursery Age Modalschool started grade
z me average standard score for youths who attended neithernursery school nor kindergarten was subtracted from the corre-sponding average score of those who attended both.
3 The average standard score for youths who started firstgrade at age 7 or after was subtracted from the correspondingaverage score of those who started first grade at age 5 or before.
4 The average standard score for youths who were in gradesbelow the modal grade for their respective ages was subtractedfrom the average score for those who were in grades above themodal level.
have imposed more limits in connection with thistransformation for black persons than for whiteones. Somewhat related are the varied effectsthat the difference in historical experience hashad on those factors associated with progressionthrough school. This has been shown to berelated in a limited degree to performance on thedrawing test.
Although the man and woman drawings werein general combined to yield valid “personscores, ” a noteworthy observation concerning thedrawings is a difference in the preference for“same-sex” drawings between the white and blackadolescents. Table C shows the percentage of theyouths who drew persons of their own sex.
White boys were significantly more inclinedto draw the same-sex figure than were white girls
Race:
60
60
40
UIa$J 30In+
20
10
o—
~ White
= Black
FAMILY INCOME EOUCATION OF PARENT
Total Less than S6,000 Slo,ow$5,000 S9,999 or more
Elementary 9th llth 12th grade Higher than
grade 12th grade
Figure 6, Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by race, family income, and educationof parent: United States, 1966-70
(89.5 percent compared with 74.8 percent;t = 14,55, # < .0001). The same is true ofblacks, the difference being substantially less andonly approaching statistical significance (84. 7percent compared with 80.5 percent;
Table C. Percent of youths 12-17 years of age who drew a figure
of the same sex when asked to draw a “person, “by race andsex, with associated standard errors: United States: 1966-70
Sex I Total II White I BlackPercent of youths
Boys . . . . . . 88.9 II 89.5
I
84.7Girls . . . . . . 75.7 74.8 80.5
Standard error of percent
Boys . . . . . . 0.53 0.56Girls
1.65. . . . . 0.76 0.84 1.74
t = 1.75, # < .05). White boys significantlymore often drew the same-sex (male) figure thanblacks boys (t= 2.76, # < .01); while white girlswere less likely to draw the same-sex (female)figure than black girls (t = 2.95, # < .01). Thehypothesis frequently advanced in clinical litera-ture is that the decision to draw a “person” of aparticular sex represents an unconscious sex-roleidentification. If this is sound, this observationhas some interesting implications when sex-roleidentification for the two races is considered. Inlight of another hypothesis, that the sex of the
figure drawn reflects the subtle effects of per-ceived role prestige in society, there are other in-teresting implications. Conclusions concerningthis controversial issue are left to the reader; thedata are available for interpretation based on thereader’s theoretical inclinations.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report presents results of a modified ver-sion of the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test inrelation to selected demographic and socio-economic factors as they affect youths aged 12-17years in the noninstitutionalized population ofthe United States. The findings are based on datagathered in the Health Examination Survey of1966-70. A probability sample of 7,514 youthswas selected to represent the 23 million youths inthis age range in the United States at the time ofthe survey. Of this sample, 6,768 (90 percent)were examined.
In the field study, each youth was asked todraw a “person” and then to draw a self-portrait,both of which were to include the whole figure,not the face alone. Data of a previous reportl andof the present monograph are based on the “per-son” figure, evaluated by the appropriate sexscoring standards of the Goodenough-Harris pro-cedure.2 The earlier report on these youths con-tained general findings by age and sex. Collectedfrom a rigorously controlled national sample,probably one of the most carefully designedsamples ever to be used in a nationalpsychometric study, these data indicate that theceiling effect of the Goodenough-Harris Test,which was noted in the analysis by age and sex,persists across the socioeconomic anddemographic groups considered here.
There is a consistent positive relationship be-tween the level of parental education (usually thefather’s) and the youth’s test score. An equallyconsistent positive association exists between theyouth’s drawing score and the income of his fami-ly, When either one of these factors is held con-stant, the effect of the other persists. These rela-
tionships are shown to be robust over otherbackground factors considered here. It appearsthat if one could control all those factors in thesocioeconomic environment that income andeducation attempt to describe, differencesrelated to factors other than income and educa-tion would be negligible. The data do not yieldany significant information on differences amonggeographic regions, between urban and ruralareas, or among racial groups which are not to alarge degree ascribable to socioeconomic status.Location of household with respect to city orsuburbs was not sign~lcant, but rate of popula-tion change in the area of residence was asso-ciated with some small difference in perform-ance.
Drawing test scores related to the progress ofthe youths through school —as described by theirattendance at nursery school or kindergarten, theage they started first grade, and their grade at-tainment levels relative to the modal grade fortheir respective ages—were examined for varia-tion among the various demographic orsocioeconomic categories. Differences in drawingtest performance associated with school-relatedactions were considerably smaller than thoseobserved for the reading and arithmetic achieve-ment testsadministered to these youths.
In general, the relationship between drawingtest performance and socioeconomic statusdescribed in this report is similar but weaker thanthat demonstrated for children aged 6-11 years inan earlier study using’ this test. The test func-tioned as a general ability measure in the earlieryears of the adol~cent period studied, but afterabout age 15 it chscrirninated only in the lowerreaches of the ability distribution.
10
REFERENCES
1 National Center for Health Statistics: The Good-enough-Harris Drawing Test as a measure of intellec-tual maturity of youths 12-17 years, United States. Vital andHealth Stat&tics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 11-No. 138.Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, May 1974.
2 Harris, D. B.: Childrenk Drawings as Measures of In-tellectual Matun”ty. New York. Harcourt, Brace, & World,Inc., 1963.
3National Center for Health Statistics: Plan and initialprogram of the Health Examination Survey, Vital adHealth Statistics. PHS Pub, No. 1000-Series 1-No. 4. PublicHealth Service. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Of-fiC12, July 1965.
4 National Center for Health Statistics: Plan, operation,and response results of a program of children’s examina-tions. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series1-No. 5. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Gover-nmentPrinting Office, Oct. 1967.
5National Center for Health Statistics: Plan and opera-tion of a health examination survey of U.S. youths 12-17years of age. Vital and Health Statz3tics. PHS Pub. No.1000.Series 1-No, 8. Public Health Service. Washington.U.S. Government Printing Office, Sept. 1969.
6 National Center for Health Statistics: Evaluation ofpsychological measures used in the Health ExaminationSurvey of children ages 6-11. Vital and Health Statistics.PHS Pub. NJ. 1000-Series 2-No. 15. Public Health Service.Washhgton. U.S. Government Printing Office, Mar. 1966.
7 National Center for Health Statistics: Intellectualmaturity of children as measured by the Goodenough-HarrisDrawing Test, United States. Vital and Health StatzMk.PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 11-No. 105. Public Health Ser-vice. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Dec.1970.
8 National Center for Health Statistics: Sample designand estimation procedures for a national health examina-tion survey of children. Vital and Health Statistics. PHSPub. No. 1000-Series 2-No. 43. Public Health Service.Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Aug. 1971.
9National Center for Health Statistics: Quality controlin a national health examination survey. Vital and HealthStatistics. Series 2-No. 44. DHEW Pub. No. (HSM)72-1023. Health Services and Mental Health Administra-tion. Washington. U.S. Government Printing OffIce, Feb.1972.
10National Center for Health Statistics: Replication: Anapproach to the analysis of data from complex surveys. Vitaland Health Statirt/cs. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 2-No. 14.Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Goverrnent Print- .ing Office, Apr. 1966.
11National Center for Health Statistics: Pseudoreplica-tion: Further evaluation and application of the balancedhalf-sample technique. Vital and Health Stat&tics. PHSPub. No. 1000-Series 2-No. 31. Public Health Service.Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1969.
0 0
11
LIST OF DETAILED TABLES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7,
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Mean raw scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test on the male figure, by ageand selected demographic or socioeconomic characteristic.% United States, 1968-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Mean raw scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test on the female figure, by a9eand selected demographic or socioeconomic characteristics: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by geographic region, familyincome, and education of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by geographic region, familyincome, and education of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by type of area, family
income, and education of parent, with associated standard arrors: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of ege on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by type of area, familyincome, and education of parent, with associated standard errors United States, 1966 -70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Average T scores of youths 12-17 yaars of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Tast, by rate of populationchange, family income, and education of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . 19
Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Tast, by rate of population
change, family incoma, and education of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . 20
Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by location of housahold,family income, and education of parent, with associated standard errors United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Avarage T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by location of household,
family income, and education of parent, with associated standard errorx United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by grade level with respectto age, family income, and education of parent, with associated standard error% United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . 23
Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by grade level with respectto age, family income, and education of parent, with associated standard errors United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . 24
Average T scoras of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by grade level with respect to
age and selected demographic or socioeconomic characteristics, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70. 25
Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age, by type of early school attended and age started first grade, accord-ing to salected demographic or socioeconomic characteristics United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by type of early school
Table 1. Mean raw scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test on the male figure, by age andselected demographic or socioeconomic characteristics United States, 1966-701
Il)uto ,Jll youths for ,vhi~h ~lassificuti<)n ~ccnrding to the indicated characteristic wos unknown are included in the t~tnl$ but We
tw!ludwl from the subgroups shown. The number of youths whose race was reported as other than white or black ww.too small toyidd rdiuble cstinmtesof the measure presented; therefore, this category was omitted.
13
Table 2. Mean raw scores of youths 12-17 years of ageonthe Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test onthefemale figure, byage and selecteddemographic or socioeconomic characteristics: United States, 1966-70’
I ,)ata on ~{)uth5 for ~vhi~h ~las5ification according to the indicated characteristic WJS unknown are inchrded in the t@als, but are
excluded from the subgroups shown. The number of ymsthswhoserwse was reported as nther than white or black wos too smidl toyield relitible estimates of the measure presented: therefore, this category was omitted.
14
Table 3. Average Tscorasof youths 12-17 years of agaon the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, bygeographic region, family income,and education of parent, with associated standard errors: United Statas,1966-70
Table4. Average Tscores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, bygeographic region, family income,and education of parent, with associated standard errorx United States, 1966-70
Table 5. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17 years of ageonthe GOodenough-Harris Drawing Test, bytypeof area, family income, andeducation of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70
Table 7. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, byrateof population change, familyincome, andeducation ofparent, with associated standard errors United States, 1966-70
Table8. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, byrateof population change, familyincome, and education of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70
Table 9. Average Tscores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by location of household, family income,and education of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70
Table 10. Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by location of household, familyincome, and education of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70
TAle 11. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17 jearsof age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by grade level with respect to age,family income, and education of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70
Table 12. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by grade level with respect to age,family income, and education of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70
Table 13. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17years ofageon the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, bygrade level with respect to age andselected demographic orsocioeconomic characteristics, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70
Table 14. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age, by type of early school attended and agestarted first grade, according toselected demographic or socioeconomic characteristics: United States, 1966-70
Table 15. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17 yearsof ageonthe Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by type of early school attended andselected demographic orsocioeconomic characteristics, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70
Table 16. Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Testr by age the youth started first grade andselected demographic orsocioeconomic characteristics, with associated standard errorx United States, 1966-70
Table 17. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17 yearsof ageonthe Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, byrace, family income, and educationof parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70
1 Duta ,,n ~ouths ,Vhos.e race ~vas rep~)rted w Other than white or black are included in the totals. %p~r~kSCOreS are notshmvn for
this gruup because the number in thesample was too small to provide reliable estimates forthe various subgroups. TheoveraH score forthegrmspof youthsin the “other”c trtegorywas49.8wrd thestandard error of the estimate was 2.41.
29
Table 18. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17years ofageon the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, byrace, family income, and educationof parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70
lData on youths Whrjse race ,~,a5 ~ep~rted w other than white or black are included in the totais. Separate scmesarermt shown for
this group because the number in the sample was too small to provide reliable estimates for the various subgroups. The overall score forthegroup ofyouths in the “other’’c ategory wa.s49.8 and thestandard error of theestimate was 2.41.
IV. Tscoreequivalents ofrawscores of girls 12-17 years ofageon the Goodenough-Hamiswomanscale(persondrawing), byage:UnitedStates, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
v. Percent distributions of youths 12-17 years of ageinthe U.S. population, by race andgeographicregion andbyfamilyincome andeducationof parent, according torace andgeographicregion: UnitedStates, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
VI. Percent distribution ofyouths 12-17 years ofagein the U.S. population, by race andplace of residence and by family income and education of parent, according to race andplaceofresidence:UnitedStates,1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
31
APPENDIX I
TECHNICAL NOTES
The Survey Design
The sample design for each of the first threeprograms of the Health Examination Survey(Cycles I-III) has been essentiallysimilar in that ithas been a multistage, stratified probability sam-ple of clusters of households in land-basedsegments. The successive elements were theprimary sample unit (PSU), census enumerationdistrict (ED), segment (a cluster of households),household, eligible youths, and finally, the sam-ple youth.
The 40 sample areas and the segments uti-lized in the design of Cycle III were the same asthose in Cycle III. Previous reports describe indetail the sample design used for Cycle II, and, inaddition, discuss the problems and considera-tions given to other types of sampling frames andwhether or not to control the selection ofsiblings. q~s
Requirements and limitations placed on thedesign for Cycle III, similar to those for thedesign in Cycle II, were as follows:
The target population was defined as thecivilian noninstitutionalized population ofthe United States, including Alaska andHawaii, in the age range of 12-17 years, withthe special exclusion of children residing onreservation lands of the American Indians.The latter exclusion was adopted as a resultof operational problems encountered onthese lands in Cycle 1.
The time period of data collection waslimited to about 3 years, and the len~h of the
designed household, medical history, andschool questionnaires and from copies ofbirth certificates.
Examination objectives were related primari-ly to factors of physical and intellectualgrowth and development.
The sample was sufficiently large to yieldreliable findings within broad geographicregions and population density groups as wellas within age, sex, and limited socioeconomicgroups for the total sample.
The sample was drawn jointly with the U.S.Bureau of the Census, beginning with the 1960Decennial Census list of addresses and the nearly1,900 PSUS into which the entire United Stateswas divided. Each PSU is either a standardmetropolitan statistical area (SMSA), a county,or a group of two or three contiguous counties.These PSU’Swere grouped into 40 strata so thateach stratum had an average size of about 4.5million persons. Grouping was also done to max-imize the degree of homogeneityy within stratawith regard to the population size of the PSU’S,degree of urbanization, geographic proximity,and degree of industrialization. The 40 stratawere then classified into four broad geographicregions of 10 strata each and then cross-classifiedwithin each region by four population densityclasses and classes of rate of population changefrom 1950 to 1960, Using a modified Goodman-Kish controlled-selection technique, one PSU wasdrawn from each of the 40 strata.
Generally, within each PSU, 20 ED’s were● selected, with the probability of selection of aindividual examination within the-specially ‘
constructed mobile examination center to particular ED prop~rtional to its population in
between 2 and 3 hours. the age group 5-9 years in the 1960 census, whichbv 1966 almroximated the target Dom.dation for
Ancillary data were collected on specially C~cle III. ‘A’similar method wa; us;d ~or selecting
32
one segment (a smaller cluster of households) ineach ED. Because of the approximately 3-year in-terval between Cycle II and Cycle III, the CycleIII sampling frame was updated for new con-struction and to compensate for segments wherehousing was partially or totally demolished tomake room for highway construction or urbanredevelopment, Each of the resulting 20 segmentswithin a PSU was either a bounded area or acluster of households (or addresses). All youths inthe appropriate age range who resided at the ad-dress visited were eligible youths, i.e., eligible forinclusion in the sample. Operational considera-tions made it necessary to reduce the number ofprospective examinees at any one location to amaximum of 200. When the number of eligibleyouths in a particular location exceeded thisnumber, the “excess” eligible youths were deletedfrom the sample through a systematic samplingtechnique. Youths who were not selected as sam-ple youths in the Cycle III sample, but who werepreviously examined in Cycle II, were scheduledfor examination if time permitted and will be in-cluded in special longitudinal analyses. In addi-tion, individual twins who were deleted from theCycle III sample were also scheduled for ex-amination, as they had been in Cycle II, to pro-vide data on pairs of twins for future analysis.These data are not included in this report as partof the national probabilityy sample of youths.
The sample was selected in Cycle III, as it hadbeen for the children in Cycle II, to contain pro-portional representation of youths from familieshaving only one eligible youth, two eligibleyouths, and so on, so as to be representative of thetotal target population. However, sincehouseholds were one of the elements in the sam-ple frame, the number of related youths in theresulting sample is greater than that which wouldresult from a design which sampled youths aged12-17 years without regard to household. Theresulting estimated mean measurements or ratesshould be unbiased, but their sampling variabili-ty will be somewhat greater than those from amore costly, time-consuming, systematic sampledesign in which every hthyouth would be selected.
The total probability sample for Cycle III in-cluded 7,514 youths representative of the approx-imately 22.7 million noninstitutionalized U.S.youths aged 12-17 years. The sample contained
approximately 1,000 youths in each single year ofage who were drawn from 25 different States.
The response rate in Cycle III was 90 percent,with 6,768 youths examined out of the total sam-ple. These examinees were closely representativeof those in the population from which the samplewas drawn with respect to age, sex, race,geographic region, and population density andgrowth in area of residence. Hence it appearsunlikely that nonresponse could bias the findingsappreciably.
Estimated distributions by geographic regionand by type of area, i.e., urban versus rural, ac-cording to family income and first listed parent’slevel of education, are shown in tables V and VI.
Reliability
While measurement processes in the surveyswere carefully standardized and closely con-trolled, the correspondence between true popu-lation figures and survey results cannot be ex-pected to be exact. Survey data are imperfect forthree major reasons: (1) results are subject tosampling error, (2) the actual conduct of a surveynever agrees perfectly with the design, and (3) themeasurement processes themselves are inexacteven though standardized and controlled.
Ceneral methods used to control the qualityof the data from this survey have been discussedpreviously, g and some remarks relating spe-cifically to the human figure drawing test can befound in the text of this report. As indicated,quality control methods included two independ-ent scorings of each drawing by two adults whowere carefully trained in the Goodenough-Harrisscoring methods, and a high level of agreementwas realized between the two setsof scores.
An additional exploration of consistency inscoring on the Coodenough-Harris scales wasundertaken during the Cycle III program. Onehundred and forty man drawings and 84 womandrawings selected horn 11 of the first 19 samplingareas were restored under the direct supervisionof Dale Harris, author of the Coodenough-HarrisDrawing Test scoring standards. These 224 draw-ings fell into three groups representing differentteams of scorers used in the Health ExaminationSurvey study. Two persons restored the tests in-
33
dependently. Any differences between the scoringwere reconciled in conference before a score wasreported.
The correlation between these scores and thesurvey scores was about 0.9, which provided ad-ditional evidence of interscorer consistency.
Data recorded for each sample youth are in-flated in the estimation process to characterizethe larger universe of which the sample youth isrepresentative. The weights used in this inflationprocess are a product of the reciprocal of theprobability of selecting the youth, an adjustmentfor nonresponse cases, and a poststratified ratioadjustment which increases precision by bringingsurvey results into closer alignment with knownU.S. population figures by color and sex withinsingle years of age 12-17.
In the third cycle of the Health ExaminationSurvey (as for the children in Cycle II) the samplewas the result of three principal stages ofselection —the single PSU from each stratum, the20 segments from each sample PSU, and the sam-ple youth from the eligible youths. The prob-ability of selecting an individual youth is theproduct of the probability of selection at eachstage.
Because the strata are roughly equal inpopulation size and a nearly equal number ofsample youths were examined in each of the sam-ple PSU’S, the sample design is essentially self-weighting with respect to the target population;that is, each youth aged 12-17 years had aboutthe same probability of being drawn into thesample.
The adjustment upward for nonresponse isintended to minimize the impact of nonresponseon final estimates by imputing to nonrespondentsthe characteristics of “similar” respondents.“Similar” respondents in a sample PSU are de-fined here as examined youths of the same age inyears and of the same sex as youths not examinedin that sample PSU.
The poststratified ratio adjustment used inthe third cycle achieved most of the gains inprecision which would have been attained if thesample had been drawn from a populationstratified by age, color, and sex. This adjustmentmade the final sample estimates of populationagree exactly with independent controls preparedby the U.S. Bureau of the Census for the
noninstitutionalized population as of March 9,1968 (approximate midsurvey point for Cycle III)by race and sex for each single year of age 12-17.The weight of every responding sample youth ineach of the 24 age, race, and sex classes is ad-justed upward or downward so that the weightedtotal within the class equals the independentpopulation control.
Missing Test Results andImputation Procedures
In addition to youths who were selected forthe sample but not examined, there were somewhose examination was incomplete in one pro-cedure or another. Of the total 6,768 youths ex-amined, 536 had either the person drawing, theself drawing, or both drawings missing or notadequately completed for scoring. Of these 536cases, 504 were determined to be incompletebecause of factors not directly attributable to thesample youth, such as inadequate time for com-pletion of drawing, records lost in shipping, andexaminer’s errors in administration. Only 32cases were determined to be incomplete becauseof some characteristic of the youth being exam-ined, such as atypical behavior, sensory-motordefects, or language problems. Since the reasonfor incomplete test results in most cases was notdirectly related to the characteristic beingmeasured, raw scores were imputed for almost allof these examinees. In the 32 cases where someproblem of the youth was documented, imputa-tion was not considered appropriate.
Imputation was accomplished in the follow-ing manner: An intercorrelation matrix of allpsychological test data and selected socio-economic variables was derived to identify thosevariables which were most highly associated witheach raw test score. As a result, five variableswere chosen for the imputation of Goodenough-Harris raw scores–other available test scores,level of education of the head of the household(four categories), age, and two control variables,race and sex. Imputation of a missing test resultfor an examinee was accomplished by randomlyselecting a match among the group of examineesof the same age in years, parental level of educa-tion, race, sex, and available raw score testresults most highly correlated with the scores to
34
be imputed, The raw score of this “matched” ex-aminee was then imputed to the examinee withthe missing score. When data for any of thesevariables were not available, a match wasselected using information on the variablesavailable in the youth’s record.
Sampling and Measurement Error
In the present report, reference has beenmade to efforts to minimize bias and variabilityof measurement techniques. The probabilityydesign of the survey makes possible the calcula-tion of sampling errors. The sampling error isused here to determine how imprecise the surveytest results may be because they result from asample rather than from the measurement of allelements in the universe. The estimation ofsampling errors for a study of the type of theHealth Examination Survey is difficult for at leastthree reasons: (1) measurement error and “pure”sampling error are confounded in the data, andit is difficult to find a procedure that will eithercompletely include both or treat one or the otherseparately; (2) the survey design and estimationprocedure are complex and accordingly requirecomputationally involved techniques for the cal-culation of variances; and (3) thousands of sta-tistics are derived from the survey, many for sub-classes of the population for which there are asmall number of cases. Estimates of samplingerror are obtained from the sample data and arethemselves subject to sampling error, which maybe large when the number of cases in a cell issmall or, occasionally, even when the number ofcases is substantial.
Estimates of the approximate samplingvariability for selected statistics used in thisreport are presented alongside the statisticsin thedetailed tables. These estimates, called “standarderrors, ” have been prepared by a replicationtechnique that yields overall variability throughobservation of variability among random sub-samples of the total sample. The method reflectsboth “pure” sampling variance and a part of themeasurement variance and is described inpreviously published reports.lo,l 1
Hypothesis Testing
In accordance with usual practice, the inter-val estimate for any statistic may be consideredthe range within one standard error of thetabulated statistic with 68-percent confidence orthe range within two standard errors of thetabulated statisticswith 95-percent confidence.
An approximation of the standard error of adifference d = x – y of two statisticsx and y isgiven by the formula Sd = (Sxz + Sy2)~ whereSx and Sy are the sampling errors, respectively, ofx and y. Of course, where the two groups of meas-ures are positively or negatively correlated, thisformula will give an overestimate or underesti-mate of the actual standard error.
Small Categories
In some tables estimates have not been shownfor certain categories for which the sample sizewas so small that the relative standard error ex-ceeded 0.25. A few estimates which did not meetthis strict standard of precision have been includ-ed along with their corresponding standard er-rors in the belief that the information may add tothe overall impression of the survey findings andtherefore may be of interest to subject-matterspecialists.
Standard Scores
For each type of figure drawing the raw scoreswere converted by means of the cumulativepercentage distributions to normalized T scoreswith a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.This was done within each single age group formales and females separately. Since raw scores onthe Goodenough-Harris Test were found to leveloff after age 15, the age groups 15-17 years werecombined. Slight irregularities in the progressionof scaled score equivalents from age to age wereencountered during the standardization process,primarily in the man drawing by females and thewoman drawing by males. These irregularities,assumed to be due to sampling variability, werefound at the extremes of the distributions andwere eliminated by a graphic smoothing pro-cedure. The final conversions are shown intables I-IV.
35
Table 1. T score equivalents of raw scores of boys 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-l-larris man scale (person drawing), by age:
Table Il. T score equivalents of raw scores of girls 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris man scale (person drawing), by aga:United States, 1966-70
Table I I 1. T score equivalents of raw scores of boys 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris woman scale (person drawing), by age:United States, 1966-70
Table V. Percent distributions ofyouths 12-17years ofegein the U. S.pOpulation, byraceand geographic regiOnand by family incOmeandeducation ofparent, according toraceand geographic region: United States, 1966-70
Table VI. Percent distributions of youths 12-17years ofagein the U. S.population, byraceand place of residence and by family incomeand education of parent, according to race and place of residence: United States, 1966-70 *
[ Msed on HIS sample]
Family income and White Black
education of parentTotal II Urban
IRural Total
IIUrban
IRural
Percent distribution
Total U.S. population . . . . . . . 100.0 61.4 38.6 100.0
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLESAND RELATED TERMS
Age. —The age recorded for each youth wasage at last birthday as of the date of examination.Age was confirmed by comparison with the dateof birth on the youth’s birth certificate. The agecriterion for inclusion in the sample was the ageat the time of the fhst interview. Since the ex-amination usually took place 2 to 4 weeks afterthe interview, some youths who were 17 years oldat the time of interview became 18 years old bythe time of examination. There were 58 suchcases. In the adjustment and weighting pro-cedures and in the analysis, these youths were in-cluded in the l’7-year-old group.
Grade. —The grade placement of sampleyouths was obtained from the questionnaire sentto the schools they attended. If educational levelwas not available from the school questionnaire,grade placement or the fact of having completedor left school was determined from informationnoted by examiners on one of the psychologicaltest record forms. For youths on summer vaca-tion, the grade placement recorded was the gradethe youth would enter in the fall. Those includedin the “more than high school education”category are youths who were enrolled in collegesor training programs beyond high school level oryouths on summer vacation after high schoolgraduation who planned to continue their educa-tion in the fall.
Race. —Race was recorded as “white,”“Negro,” or “other,” The last category includedAmerican Indians, Chinese, Japanese, and allraces other than white or Negro. Mexican per-sons were included with “white” unless definitelyknown to be American Indian or of another race.Negroes and persons of mixed Negro and otherparentage were recorded as “Negro.” The term
“Negro” has been replaced by “black” in thisreport. Adolescents recorded as “other” com-prised less than 1 percent of the sample and wereexcluded from the detailed presentations.
Geographic region. —For purposes ofstratification, the United States was divided intofour broad geographic regions of approximatelyequal population. These regions, which corres-pond closely to those used by the U.S. Bureau ofthe Census, were as follows:
Region States Included
Northeast. . . . . . . . Maine, Vermont, New
Midwest, ,. .,.,
South . . . . . . . . .
West . . . . . . . . .
Hampshire, Massachu-setts, Connecticut, RhodeIsland, New York, NewJersey, and Pennsylvania.Ohio, Illinois, Indiana,Michigan, Wisconsin,Minnesota, Iowa, and Mis-souri .Delaware, Maryland, Dis-trict of Columbia, WestVirginia, Virginia, Ken-tucky, Tennessee, NorthCarolina, South Carolina,Georgia, Florida, Ala-bama, Mississippi, Louisi-ana, and Arkansas.Washington, Oregon,California, Nevada, NewMexico, Arizona, Texas,Oklahoma, Kansas, Ne-braska, North Dakota,South Dakota, Idaho,Utah, Colorado, Montana,Wyoming, Alaska, andHawaii.
42
Education of parent or guardian. —Thehighest grade completed in school was recorded.The only grades counted were those attended in aregular public or private school where personswere given formal education, whether during theday or at night and whether attendance was fullor part time. A “regular” school is one which ad-vances a person toward an elementary or highschool diploma, or a college, university, or pro-fessional school degree. Education in vocational,trade, or business schools outside the regularschool systemwas not counted in determining thehighest grade of school completed.
Family income. —The income recorded wasthe total income received during the past 12months by the head of the household and allother household members related to the head byblood, marriage, or adoption. This income wasthe gross cash income (excluding pay in kind) ex-cept in the case of a family with its own farm or
business, in which case net income was recorded.Parent. —A parent was the natural parent or,
in the case of adoption, the legal parent of thechild.
Guardian. —A guardian was responsible forthe care and supervision of the child. He (or she)did not have to be the legal guardian to be con-sidered the guardian for this survey. A guardian-ship could only exist when the parent(s) of thechild did not reside within the sample household.
Head of household. —Only one person in eachhousehold was designated as the “head.” He (orshe) was the person who was regarded as the“head” by the members of the household. In mostcases the head was the chief breadwinner of thefamilv. althowzh this was not alwavs true. Insome ‘cases ‘the”head was the parent ~f the chiefearner orhousehold.
the only adult - member of the
000
irU.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977–241-180:10
43
Sen”es 1.
Serz”es2.
Series 3,
Series 4.
VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS PUBLICATIONS SERIES
Formerly public Heulth Service tiblication No. 1000
Programs and Collection l+ocedures.-Reports which describe the general programs of the NationalCenter for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions, andother material necessary for understanding the data.
Data Evaluation and Methods Research. –Studies of new statistical methodology including experimentaltests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical techniques,objective evrduations of reliability of collected data, contributions to statistical theory.
Analytical Studies. –Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies baaed on vital and healthstatistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series.
Documents and Committee Reports. –Final reports of major committees concerned with vital and
/
health statistics, and documents such as recoin-mended model vital registration laws and revised birthand death certificates.
Series 10. Data from the Health Interview Survey. –Statistics on ~hwss; accidental injuries; disability; use ofhospital, medical, dental, and other services; and other health-related topics, based on data collected ina continuing national household hiterview survey.
Series 11. Data porn the Health Examination Survey. –Data from direct examination, testing, and measurem%’t
of national samples of the civilian, noninztitutionalized population provide the baais for two types ofreports: (1) estimates of the medically defined prevalence of ipecW1c diseases in the United States andthe distributions of the population with respect to physical, physiological, and psychological charac-teriztica;and (2) analysis of relationships among the various measurements without reference. to anexplicit ftite universe of persons.
Sm”es 12. Data from the Institutionalized Population Surveys. –Discontinued effective 1975. Future reports fromthese surveys will be in Series 13.
Sert”es 13. Data on Health Resources Utilization. –Statistics on the utilization of health manpower and facilkiesproviding long-term care, ambulatory care, hospital care, and family planning services.
Series 14. Data on Health Resources: Manpower and Fizcilities. –Statistics on the numbers, geographic distrib-ution, and characteristics of health resources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other health occu-pations, hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient facilities.
Sert”es20. Data on MortaIity.-Various statistics on mortality other than as included in regular annual or monthlyreports. Special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables; geographic and timeseries analyses; and statistics on characteristics of deaths not available from the vital records, based onsample surveys of those records.
Sert”es 21. Data on IVatality, Mamiage, and Divorce. –Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce otherthan as included in regular annual or monthly reports. Special analyses by demographic variables;geographic and time series analyses; studies of fertility; and statistics on characteristics of births notavailable from the vital records, based on sample surveys of those records.
Series 22. Data from the National Mortality and Natality Suweys. –Digcontinued effective 1975. Future reportshorn these sample surveys based on vital records will be included in Series 20 and 21, respectively.
Sera”es23. Data j?om the National Survey of Family Growth. –Statistics on fertility, family formation and disso-lution, family planning, and related maternal and infant health topics derived from a biennial survey ofa nationwide probability sample of ever-married women 15+4 years of age.
w
For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: Scientific and Technical Information BranchNational Center for Health StatisticsPublic Health Service, HRARockville, Md. 20857
