ll 5 Ill/5555555555 f I 55 ‘ x x a — ‘— x ‘ R x W s I 11 ll' 5.57555} 55.. RE? 55555? A5553 W (- Ext F- ?‘Jx'fiuh‘r 3%; 0555' 5555 53-5252? E553 55.155255 5:53: C25"- 3655555 955955535152 A. REA? PRIME-5&5. r ’- Thesis 5555' 5559 Bergma- cf' :55. .55. 59.555. 35556555555 315153253} :5! WE 57535?! Harvayfa '5'55 555555 5955 THESIS 1‘ #— L IBR A R Y Michigan State University ABSTRACT MENTAL RETARDATION AND PERFORMANCE ON THE PORTEUS MAZE TEST: A REAPPRAISAL OF SOME PREVIOUS FINDINGS by Harvey A. Tilker In a previous study using both the Porteus Maze Test and a Rating Scale of Personal Effectiveness there resulted a near perfect prediction of who later did or did not get hired from among a group of adolescents participating in a special workw training program. Although the adolescents were considered to be "mentally retarded," their scores on the Porteus test were not consistent with this labeling. They scored too high. The pre~ sent research attempted to determine the basis for this inor: dinately high performance. The Porteus Maze Test (PMT) was administered to 15a randomly selected normal §s in regular school programs. They attended the same high schools3 and were fairly comparable to the "mentally retarded" §s previously studied, in age. sex. and grade level distribution. In so far as possible3 socioeconomit information and intelligence test data were also obtained. The results show that a fairly large number of the re~ tarded gs are inappropriately labeled. While in comparison to the normal §s they do show a significantly inferior intellectual performance on the PMT9 they are apparently brighter than the "average person in the general population." Also. in comparison Harvey A. Tilker to a presumably representative High School population, the normal §s are significantly brighter. Analysis of intelligence test data shows that 67% of the retarded §s, on whom scores were available, are misclassified in terms of the usual statism tical dividing line for "mental retardation." Similarly, on the basis of IQ scores alone, a number of the normal §s should be classified as "retarded" but are not. At the same time, however, the retarded §s are signifim cantly poorer in scored qualitative performance on the PMT. Additional analyses indicate that the retarded §s more frequently have father's in lower level occupations and more frequently live in homes of low monetary value. The inefficient academic performance displayed by these youngsters is probably the result of unfavorable environmental conditions. It is proposed that rather than having been origm inally selected on the basis of "insufficient intelligence," selection is likely to have occurred more on the basis of §5s unacceptable personal-social characteristics. It is suggested than many of the §s are better "labeled" as "academically poor performers." This more neutral term appears to be more correct in fact and has the advantage of obviating the stereotyped thinke ing on the part of psychologists and educators which almost automatically attaches to the label "mentally retarded." Turnm ing to the Porteus Maze Test, it is noted that more difficult mazes need to be added at the adult level if discrimination among brighter or older §s is desired. In addition, serious Harvey A. Tilker reservations are noted and discussed regarding the "representaw tiveness" of what little normative or standardization informam tion is available. ,l ’ 7 -37 r7fl /7 '- Approved: jéitf, /i/'}47,40¥L1»4/ Committee Chairman a" Date: /’,5/£mwm5/ 3 L/ . / 7 :7 , / r Thesis Committee: Robert E. McMichael, Chairman M. Ray Denny C. Hanley MENTAL RETARDATION AND PERFORMANCE ON THE PORTEUS MAZE TESTi A REAPPRAISAL OF SOME PREVIOUS FINDINGS By Harvey A. Tiiker A THESIS Submit led to Michigan State UniverSLKy in partia. fuifllEmenL of the tequiremenrs for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Coliege of Social SCLence Department of Psychology 1965 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author Wishes to thank Dr. Robert E. McMichael. academic advisor and chairman of the thesis committee. for his continuous guidance and encouragement in the writing of this manuscript. AppreCLation is also eXIended to Drs. M. Ray Denny and C. Hanley for their helpful criticisms and worthwhile suggesm tions. Especial thanks are eXIended to the administration and students of the LanSing Public High Schools for their cooperax tion and participation. without Whth this study Would not have been possible. A debt of gratitude is due Mike Loupe and Carole Beice for their technical assistance in the preparation of the original manuscript. ii TABLE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . o . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . PROBLEM O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O PIETHOD 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O SUb‘Jec‘t S O O 0 0 0 0 O O O Retarded . . . . . . . . Normal . . . . . . . . . Measures . . . . . . . . . Porteus Maze Test (PMT) Socioeconomic . . . . . Intelligence Test Scores Procedure . . . . . . . . RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . DlSCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . S UbflVIAR Y o o o o e o o o c o o 0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES C 0 O O O O O O 0 0 CONTENTS 0 O 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O o O O O O O O 0 O 0 iii Page ii iv 26 27 Table LIST OF TABLES Mann-Whitney U Tests for Differences Between Normal and Retarded Samples on PMT . O O PMT Data for Normal and Retarded Samples . Number of "Retarded" §s Having WAIS or WISC IQ Score Above or Below 70 . . . . . . Distribution of Normal and Retarded §S by Father's Occupational Level . . . . Distribution of Normal and Retarded §s by House Value . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Normal and Retarded §s by Number of Siblings . . . . . . . . . Median House Value, Number of Siblings3 and PMT Test Age for Normal and Retarded §s Classified by Father's Occupational Level iv 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 Page 15 15 16 18 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Distribution of Test Age Scores for Normal and Retarded _S_S O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 O 0 9 2 Distribution of Q Scores for Normal and Retarded Ss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A B LIST OF APPENDICES Student Information Sheet . . . . . . . . . 0 Means and Standard Deviations of PMT TA and Q Scores for Normal and Retarded §s . . . . Mean Age and PMT Values for Normal and Retarded §S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Number of Siblings and Mean TA Score on O PMT for Normal and Retarded és: Grouped by Parental Occupation and House Value . . Pearson Correlations Between PMT and Intelw ligence Test Scores . . . . . . . . . . . Pearson Correlations Between PMT and Socio~ economic Measures for Normal and Retarded Samples Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Data (Normals) and (Retardeds) . . . . vi Page 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 PROBLEM Gambaro (1963), using the Porteus Maze Test and a Rating Scale of Personal Effectiveness, found that he was able to prea dict almost perfectly which Rmentally retarded? adolescents -~ in the special Type A work-training program conducted by the Lansing, Michigan Special Education Department -- would or would not be hired upon their completion of the program. However, in reviewing the Porteus Maze Test data it was noted that a large percentage of the retardates scored at or above the mean Test Age score reported by Porteus (1959) in the standardization of the test. If, as Porteus states, leanning capacity? (as measured by the Test Age score of the PMT) is an essential component of intelligence, one is forced to ponder the apparent inconsistency between the high test performance and the label accorded these adolescents. If these §s are retarded, how can one account for the fact that such a large percentage of them scored so high on the PMT? Does it have something to do with only part of Gambaro“s sample or with the Porteus Maze Test norms? Or, are the sou called retarded §s misclassified? In more specific terms, questions regarding sampling, Porteus test norms, and misclassification are as follows. First, since Gambaro's §s came from three schools, are his results attributable to the possibility that either the higher or lower performers come from just one of the schools? Second, do his r' r 5 tarded s score lower as a group than normal §s? Third, even IU) (11 if the retarded §S do score lower than the normal SS, how do both the normal and retarded samples compare to the standardiw zation sample of Porteus? In particular, do the normal age” and schoolamates of the retarded adolescents score higher or lower than the standardization group? Fourth, if the retarded Ss score lower and yet this is not due to a particular school or inadequate comparison groups, then in what sense are the retarded S3 to be so :lassified, if any? In the sense, for example, that they do. in fact. score in the ”mentally deficient" range on a standard intelligence test? Or, that they come from lower SOClO economic class backgrounds and they show in their school behaVior the effects of cultural impoverishment? In so far as pCSSlble, the present study was designed to answer such questions. The PMT was given to normal SS and additional descriptive and test information was obtained on them as well as on the retarded Ss originally studied by Gambaro. METHOD Subjects Retarded: The SS were 71 adolescents -- 25 girls and 46 boys a: ranging in age from 16 to 19 years. All of the SS attended one of the three Lansing Public High Schools; ll attended Sexton, 20 attended Everett, and 40 attended Eastern. These 71 SS origim nally studied by Gambaro, comprised all of those from the Lansing, Michigan Special Education Department population of 84 for whom complete test (PMT) information was available. .Nggmgl: The 154 normal adolescent §s -- 77 girls and 77 boys U, also ranged in age from 16 to 19 years. They were all fullmtime students in the regular school program at the same three high schools. In each of the three schools all regular students have one period a day devoted to a study hall, and it was from these classes that §s were selected. All were juniors or seniors, corresponding to the class status used by Gambaro, and were randomly selected from the study hall class lists. It was pose sible to select and test 46 SS attending Sexton, 56 attending Everett, and 52 attending Eastern. Measures Porteus Maze Test (PMT): For each subject a quantitative (TA) and a qualitative (Q) score was derived in accordance with Porteusg (1959) scoring systems. TA is based on the total number of mazes successfully completed taking into consideration the number of trials required. Q is based on such things as free quency or extent of cutting corners, crossing lines, taking a wrong direction, and lifting the pencil from the paper. Both TA and Q scores were used in all analyses involving the PMT data. Both measures are related but also supposedly tap different aspects of behavior (Porteus, 1942). Presumably, TA is more a measure of what a S can do while Q is more a measure of how, or the way, § does it. TA is then, supposedly, more a measure of ability as such, Q being more a measure of the way this ability is expressed. The latter ostensibly gets at features of temperament such as impulsivity and is felt by Porteus to relate to a SS general and social adjustment. Socioeconomic: In order to have at least some crude assessment of socio-economic level on most §S, the following three measures were used.1 The dwelling unit of each S was assigned a monetary value based on Census data for the City of Lansing, Michigan (1960). Assignment consisted of first locating each S's address on a base map of the city and then assigning to that dwelling unit the average value of all units on that particular block. House value was not determined where a S lived outside the city limits or on blocks with fewer than six dwelling units, nor where a recent address was unattainable. 1Occupation of mother and grade completed in school of mother and father were also considered for inclusion. Neither was feasible however, since almost all mothers were housewives and most §s did not know either the father's or mother's educam tional level. For those §s whose father's occupation was specifically determinable, an occupational classification was assigned. Five categories of classification were used, ranging from Professional to Unskilled, in accordance with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (1955). As an afterthought, a record was also kept of the latest report on the number of siblings each S reported as having. At least as a possibility, it seemed that less well-off families might have more children, yet not differ from more wellnoff families in house value or occupational level of father. ”Intelligence" Test Scores: Language and Non-Language scores on the California Test of Mental Maturity were obtained, as far as possible, for the normal §S. As is customary, the CMMT had been administered in groups on a school-wide basis. For most §s the test had been taken within the last one or two years. Full Scale WISC and WAIS IQ scores were obtained for as many of the reg tarded §s as possible. They do not ordinarily take the CMMT, but instead are usually given an individual WISC, WAIS, or Stanford-Binet as one of the requirements for admission to the Special Education program. Procedure Gambaro tested his §s individually and as a part of their activities in the special workwstudy training program. The normal §S, randomly selected, but volunteers, took part in the present study on the basis that they were participating in research being conducted by the "University." They were told that the research was being carried out in several schools in the city, that it involved a simple task, and did not take long. There were no refusals. Since individual testing was not feaa sible, §s were tested two at a time.2 The two §s were separated by a 30" X 30" X 1/4" pressed board divider which prevented them from seeing each other, but permitted E to maintain close vigi- lance on both §s throughout testing. Communication between S3 was not allowed, and testing required about 10-15 minutes per pair, a period of time similar to that reported by Gambaro. In scoring the PMT, all identifying information was removed so as to avoid scorer bias. This is especially imporu tant in the qualitative (Q) scoring of the mazes since many subjective decisions are made. As a further check on possible effects of bias, another judge was trained in Q-scoring. A sample of forty randomly selected sets of mazes were then scored by the investigator and independently by the trained judge (an undergraduate psychology major). A Pearson's correlation com efficient of .93 (df = 28) was obtained on the scoring of indi- vidual mazes and a .95 (df = 38) rank order correlation was obs tained on the scoring of the 40 sets of mazes. Data for the determination of house value and father's occupation, counts of number of siblings, and intelligence test score were obtained from either the school's files or from an information sheet filled out by S. Normal §s filled out the inu formation sheet shown in Appendix A prior to the administration of the PMT. A somewhat similar sheet had been completed by Gambaro for each of the retarded §S. Information regarding home 2A pilot study was conducted and revealed no signifim cant differences between individual and dual testing. address, father's occupation and number of siblings was then checked against S's school record folder. In cases of doubt or discrepancy, the information sheet was used, particularly since the school folders were often incomplete or lacking information. "Intelligence" test scores were obtainable solely from the school record folder. RESULTS In all comparisons between normal and retarded samples on PMT data, Mann-Whitney U tests and twomtailed rejection regions were used, unless otherwise stated. Did higher or lower performing retarded §s come from just one of the three schools? Mean TA and Q values on the PMT are presented for the retarded S5 of each school in Table 1. There are no significant differences among the three groups of retarded §s on either measure. The possible explanation is therefore ruled out that Gambaro's findings were due to just one of his school samples. TABLE 1 Mann~Whitney U Tests for Differences Between Normal and Retarded Samples on PMT PMT Sample Means Score School Normal Retarded U p Sexton 16.0 14.4 77.5 (.001 TA Everett 15.9 13.3 315.0 (.001 Eastern 15.9 14.1 . 823.5 (.001 Sexton 25.5 49.5 94.0 (.001 Q Everett 25.3 43.3 487.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 Test Age on PMT LEGEND: Retarded (N: 71) :1 Normal (N = 154) m 10 In terms of Q score, retarded §s should score signifiw cantly higher than normal SS. As shown by the summary data in Table 1, this is the case.3 In each school the retarded group scores significantly higher than the normal group. The distrim bution of Q scores for the normal §s shows some positive skewness but it is more markedly so for the retarded §s (see Figure 2). As in the case of the TA distributions there is also a fair amount of overlap of the two distributions on this measure. In this instance, it is instructive to apply a cutting score to the Q measure distributions which in several studies has been found to discriminate between dependable and undependable individuals (Docter & Winder, 1954; Fooks & Thomas, 1957; Porteus, 1959; Wright, 1944). Using cut scores of 29 for males and 32 for females, 75 per cent of the retarded §s and 36 per cent of the normal §s score above these values. These figures fit fairly well those previously found; in general 20~30 per cent of depend~ able individuals and 80-70 per cent of undependable individuals score above these values. In spite of this gross discrimination, however, it is clear that in using such a cut score many errors would occur in predicting for the individual case. How do both the normal and retarded groups score as compared_tg Porteus' standardization group? Surprising as it is, truly adequate normative informaw tion is not to be found either in the general literature or in 3In previous research,correlations from 0.22 to n.44 have been reported between TA and Q on the PMT. In the present study the correlation for the combined samples is -.40 (N = 225, p (.001). 11 FIGURE 2 Distribution of Q Scores for Normal and Retarded §s \ LEGEND: Retarded (N: 71) [:3 Normal (N = 154) g N N J ITIIIII ._ \\ Proportion of Sample L. 5—: i \\ \\ .5... . I 8- 46 47- 55 56~64 65 -73 74- 82 83: 91 92+ N 0 10 11- L5192028 937 (.15) Q Score on PMT Porteus' extensive writings. The closest thing to adequate data on a pgggibly representative normal sample of high school students is reported by Porteus (1959). As far as can be determined, the sample seemingly varies in age from 14 to 17 years, is of like sex distribution as that of the normal §s included in the present study, and has the mean and standard deviation values on TA and Q presented in Table 2. Comparison between this sample and the normal one under study shows that they differ significantly on TA (t 2.63, df = 452, p4(.01 two tailed), but not on Q (t = l.68, df = 452). 12 TABLE 2 PMT Data for Normal and Retarded Samples PMT Score Sample TA Q Mean S.D. ' Mean S.D. Porteus 15.43 1.63 22 13 Normal (N = 300) Present Study 15.94 1.09 25 13 Normal (N = l54) Retarded 13.69 2.68 42 21 (N = 71) According to Porteus a 14 year TA "can probably" be taken as representative of the average person in the general pope ulation. As compared to the "general average of the population" then, both high school groups are relatively bright, although the one under study is significantly brighter. On the basis of their TA the normal Lansing students have an average TQ of 128. As noted by Gambaro, his sowcalled retarded §s scored quite high on TA. Converting their TA scores into TQ data; their average TQ of 112 places them well within a "normal" range. On the other hand, in terms of the Q measure, the "retarded" group's performance appears to be more in keeping with its label. The apparent paradox, however, between the two findings seems resolvable on the basis of previous research. In studies where mean TA is about average or higher and mean Q is in the range of 29=50, the £8 are likely to be called such things as "undepene dable," "lazy," "slow," "illiterate," "confused," or "sloppy" (Porteus, 1959). More likely than not they will also be found 13 by their teachers to have unsatisfactory behavior in school as shown by "indifferent effort and undependable work in completing assignments" (Porteus, 1959). Essentially their difficulties are not a function of "subnormal intelligence" but are a function of motivation or other personal characteristics. Taken together these pieces of evidence give rise to a composite picture which suggests that a number of the "retarded" gs under study are probe ably better classified as "academically poor performers" due to lack of learning or motivation, rather than as individuals of subnormal intelligence. In what sense are the "retarded" §s appropriately so classified, if any? Do the retarded gs score in the "mentally deficient" range on a standard intelligence test? It was possible to obtain an IQ score of some vintage on 45 of the 71 retarded gs. It can only be presumed that the data for the 45 SS are representative of that for the total 71. The number of SS scoring above and below the conventional dividing value of an IQ score of 70 on the WAIS or WISC is shown in Table 3. Over 67 per cent of the retarded §s are inappropriately classified on this basis. If the dividing score is increased to the IQ value of 79, used by the Lansing Special Education System, 22 per cent are still misclassified. Even the mean IQ score of 77 for the group fails to be representative of what is to be eXpected for a mentally retarded sample. The mean CMMT nonmlanguage IQ of 109 for the normal group (N = 154) is at least more consistent. Here too, however, six per cent of the SS have an IQ score below 75, 14 TABLE 3 Number of "Retarded" §s Having WAIS or WISC IQ Score Above or Below 70 IQ Score Below 70 Above 70 15 ‘ 30 which is a fair approximation to a cut score of 70 on the WAIS or WISC.4 If the cut point is raised to 85, in approximation of a 79 on the WAIS or WISC, 10 per cent of the normal §s score below this value. For the CMMT language IQ scores the mean is 107; four per cent of the normal §s score below 75 and IS per cent score below a cut point of 85. Analysis of the socioeconomic measures raised additional questions about the appropriateness of the label or the bases on which the "retarded" §s may have been originally classified. It was possible to determine father's occupation for all normal and 54 of the retarded §S, house value for 119 of the normal and 33 of the retarded SS, and number of siblings for 153 of the normal and 61 of the retarded SS. Analysis of the paternal occupation data in Table 4, gives a X2 value of 20.96, df = 4, p 0001.5 rm ,._ 5 4There are low positive significant correlations between intelligence test score and TA of the PMT for both the normal and retarded samples (see Appendix E). And there is a low negae tive significant association between Q score on the PMT and none language IQ score on the CMMT for the normal group. These findm ipggggppear to agree with previous reports summarized by Porteus 5It was not one of the purposes of the present study to determine how close either the normal or retarded samples are to representative U.S. Census data. However what amounts to per=_ centage approximations of paternal occu aéion data are presented for i lustrative purposes in Table 4. he distribution is based 15 TABLE 4 Distribution cf Normal and Retarded SS by Father's Occupati onai Level v.,,2n:..»l _:x:.;_1._l_—L._1:L;;w_1_.l_1_41;_l.L-_l._1;.1—.t._J _... “4.- .2441 ' — I__L_J__aa_':l:f-;l .41.-. 41.8.. l—vl'u“ : t. 1:“! ‘41,:- my 4:1,; I - .l' l l ' L,_x_ .4..._A_.J .L hwy—1:21..- Wu‘l._.x “Mdmle—.LI- 1...! ALI -.l “wt—.14.— L-L-l... .1.- HWJ.;_I_'_J_J.J-_J;J—1— 1.4.3... [LLHJL_;__I - .«l. .—~L 1 «I . I 4.! I . Y M: _ _ U. So Ociupational Level Normal Retarded Popul at on 41+Lm :JA—Lfi—LJLI‘I .- ..an _ij_cwm;wr4 2:41—11 ._a_'_—_n .2" MII—‘AA‘l—Q 31-....‘1. J 41141-211 -r;_li4._4__l __l _-.l -,I .4-_l__'_- 1 % N % % In”, I 1 K"' ‘ Professional, Technical, Managerial & Selqumployed 50 32 3 6 23 Clerical and Sales 20 13 5 9 21 Skilled 40 26 16 30 23 SemimSkilled 24 16 19 35 11 Unskilled & Service 20 13 11 20 15 I'm -—-_g——»- 2'. ' rI'I—I-r ._1_‘J__.Jii.) m: J :fl’;' 4' 7 1:14 21:31:; LLMLM ‘m ‘ r-‘l " I“: I A similar analysis an the house value data of Table 5 gives a value of 16.8, df = 4, p<<.01. For the siblings data of TABLE 5 Distribution of Normal and Retarded §s by House Value {—1. ‘l ~-‘-M‘3—1 l...’ 44—4 «1 —l H -1 M 4‘. “Ln—1'4 [—11.7 —'.‘V .17. ~1J- -14 J'J—Ll J;’- —I -y' .t .‘J__.I.-_J ' . I -—Y I --'—'_-I' ..P‘.l .—..o I - ' _l_ gl I I -l I I- I . L 1 1-1—1. u-1_L.l"_—l__ 4 -- (-J __L— A. 1 .1 _’ " J .3 11-1. .4 f -11l l-.--l’ -.l_‘l 211.! .l..J--1_L- I_l,--J I -l (- 6—.1 “I 4 -81 J—L...‘ 1 J l L Sampk Horse Value Nerma1 Retarded HAW—.134 ;. - $15,000 + 22 ‘1 13,000 14,999 24 1 CI“ “ -Lt—L—ulgl LC- 41. l__ L—J ._L . L...) J W :L-J—J—l-ZJ—J—A‘- ‘-t_—I;;.z“_-1.-J-' 1 __l _-L- 1 11,000 - 12,999 25 2 9,000 e 10,999 50 13 5,000 4 8,999 13 12 C ‘I . C ‘- _‘..-". ‘ ‘ “fizz; ,. .. “' -_£—l 44—44;. —u_J—HA——t_m_1——C;&c t—KJ’LLJ—p—ILI-xn* (+1—1T- I.- 14444-1. .4er '11! ’ l '_8 (13,, - 'yqufl,-Ja:— mul.ml._l_ mun-“.mzm-ll ”'1 '3 v- '1u_u- 4:1,. I _- -Lirln-IA Ll .'_A Aux-r a -— ”.44.! on U.S. Census data for 1960 (Report PHC 1 73). The U.S. per cents are crude estimates at best, since the coding systems of the census report and the present study hardlv duplitate one another. It was impossible to find any soitably coded U. 8. Census data for either house value or number of siblings. 16 Table 6, X2 s 5027, df = 5, p o509,30.6 It is clear that the "retarded" §s have more fathers in lower occupations and fewer in higher occupations than do the normal SS, and that they more frequently live in homes of lower monetary valueo TABLE 6 Distribution of Normal and Retarded §s by Number of Siblings AA“ -_.- _ ,-‘__-. —_‘.. 1-1- ,-_4_'J I;-‘l£!__;_-_ — - — .— _ Semi“ Number of Siblings Normal Retarded O 7 4 1 39 9 2 40 13 3 3O 13 4 18 9 5+ 19 13 __—._ J-—'_ -e-ar-n1-n .1—-__ -.... A somewhat different way of visualiZing the relation~ ships that occur within and between each sample, with respect to n'.‘ m- m « l'__‘ “ __,___ — '_‘_"r.:.'.l.:“ —n,—I‘J -m -" ' "" 6It was considered possible that number of siblings would not reflect a difference between the retarded and normal §s unless they were equated for paternal occupation and home valueo This was crudely checked by noting the distribution of number of siblings for those §S whose fatherls occupation and home value measures were both above the respective median and for those 83 where both measures were below both the medians° This was dBne separately for retarded and normal _S__s° None of the U test comparisons etween distributions were significant, 7Fathergs occupation and house value correlate D28 50, (,01)° fatherls occupation and number of siblings 4 )2 2); an house value with number of siblings 012 0 ( df = 1 03 (df df = 1 \Dll 17 test and socioeconomic measures, is obtained by inspection of Table 70 The data in this table are based on those cases where complete information was obtained on each §o Looking at the data for normal §s first, it can be seen that while there is a tendency for the highest occupational categories to differ from the lowest with respect to house value$ there are no significant differences with respect to number of siblings or TAo In the case of "retarded" §_s3 the data suggest a somewhat greater den gree of association among the several measures° In particular this is so in comparing the Professional and Clerical category with any one of the three lower categories on each measure; as one goes from Professional and Clerical to a lower category there is a drop in house value9 number of siblings goes up, and TA goes downo Turning next to comparisons between normal and retarded gs, there is no significant difference on either of the socioeconomic measures at the ProfessionaloClerical levels. For all three of the lower occupational categories9 normal §s show a significantly higher TA and, except in the case of the lowest categoryS a significantly higher house value than do "retarded" §_so By a rather dubious process of backward reasoning9 it seems quite possible to conclude that for at least a fairly large fraction of the "retarded" §s, a sociocultural difference may have been Operative in their original selectiono That is3 a large number of them, if not allS may have been showing in their school behavior the effects of some kind of «w for want of a better term we cultural impoverishmento In turn9 their 18 .umwu D poHaMuumuo amo.V m mucouommwo AHucmuamaswam mum umma map on m umwuomummsm nuaB mmauuso uneconpm maamucowwuomx .pmmu D omHaMuquo moHoV.m m>m£ unwfiu Gnu on o unauomuwmdm Spas moanucm Hmoauum>o cummu D omaamuumso mmo.V.m Mummumm swap hausmoawacwfim mum unwau on“ on n no m mumauowuomdm cuHB moauucm Hmoauum> a n m .mummm CH ma <9 mmanHop mo moGMmDonu SH ma mDHw> bosom comma comm GM HHmEm ow mm3 z wocam UmGanEoo mumB mm Umpumumu map How mmauowmumo Hmoaumao paw Hmnoawmmmoum one “wuoz o 2 £0..me 98x nmé im 06 uwoofi moat/“mm a eonanxmcs 2 S «9me «.on mo.~ TN «if ammo; emfinxmfiamm w 3 0%me «0..on com 1m 0%? fidx 833m OH . m.©H . ©.N o m. H mmamm d Hmuaumao m Uanmmm max 9 X nmmm H . Ummm NH 9 N . mm N max m N ommw.HH ovum quoammmmoum dBUMMummeHmEuoz omoumumm Hmemmz ompumumm HmEuoz omoumuom HmEuoz Hw>mq mo umnadz mw< umme mwcwflnwm mdam> omdom HmaoaummSuoo m.uo£umm lllllll Ill Hm>oq Hmcoaummsooo mmumnumm kn pmfimammmHo mm omoumumm pom HmEuoz Mom ow< ummH HZm pom mmwnaanam mo umoESZ mmDHm> bosom sodomz m m4m<9 19 relatively poor everyday school performance may have been reacted to and judged to be due to intellectual insufficiency pg£_§g; thus justifying the label "mental retardation," but in a most circular way. Whatever the case, the evidence seems sufficient to warrant the conclusion that some number of the "retarded" §s, if not all9 are inappropriately classified; DISCUSSION If the §s in the Lansing "Special" program are retarded and representative of the population of all mentally retarded individuals, they should have scored in the "mentally deficient" range on the tests used and come somewhat proportionately from all socioeconomic levels. If, on the other hand, they are rem tarded and representative of the "Cultural or Garden Variety" retarded population, instead of all mentally retarded §s, they still should have scored in the appropriate range on the tests, but come disproportionately from the lower socioeconomic classeso The results show that neither set of conditions are sufficiently well met. While a disproportionate number of the so-called rem tarded §s do tend to come from the lower socioeconomic classes, practically every § scores above the "mentally retarded" range on at least one of the testso As an alternative, it is suggested that most of the "retarded" §s are probably more appropriately classified as "academically poor performers." This more neutral term has the advantage of obviating the stereotyped thinking on the part of psychologists and educators which almost automatically attaches to the label "mentally retarded." Equally or more important, however, the term appears to be more descriptively correct. The relatively high TA performance on the PMT, in conjunction with the relatively poor performance on.Q, the often at least borderm line IQ score performance, and the generally lower socioeconomic 20 21 level are all consistent with what previous investigators have found to be the case for samples with characteristics like the so-called retarded one under study (Havinghurst & Janke, 1944; Masland, Sarason, & Glandwin, 1958; McCandless, 1964; Porteus, 1959; Sarason, 1959). Such §s are characterized as tending to have values, interests, and habits that often make them misfits in the regular school classroom. They are likely to be indifm ferent, frustrated, or bored by school studies and activities. From kindergarten on, they may have been unduly inattentive or distractible in the classroom. Frequently they started off in school failing, and continued to eXperience failure in their school studies. Often, unless they are shunted into some kind of "special" program, they will end up being "dropouts" or are simply given "social passes" from grade to grade. While the extent to which the SS under study actually match such descripm tions in some quantitative sense is unknown, they at least probe ably come closer to being representative of such individuals than they are of the mentally retarded. Accordingly, the bee havior they show, on the basis of which they have been selected for special attention by the school, is presumed to be more a function of features of their personal and social adjustment or their intellectual efficiency, than a function of their intelw lectual ability or capacity as such. This way of viewing the results is also applicable, of course, in the case of those §s in the normal group who had a relatively low or high TA performance on the PMT, possibly in conjunction with a relatively poor Q performance, a borderline 22 or lower IQ score, and who come from lower socioeconomic classes; yet are not in the Lansing Special Education program. The approw priate answer would seem to be; they are less likely to be in the program because for some reason their personal social characterisu tics in the school situation are acceptable. Clearly, however, this is merely guessing, and a more respectable answer will rew quire further research. Turning to Gambaro 5 results, they are apparently better understood, then, as reflecting the relationship between how a S performs on the PMT and his Personal social characteristics; as opposed to how he performs en the PMT and his intelligence. Those indiViduals who are likely to be hired are not necessarily likely to be more intelligent, but more likely to be more coopw erative, more responsible, and careful in their work, and in general more trustworthy. That this interpretation is correct, is suggested by the fact that applying a cut score on the Q distribution of these §s works as well or better than does the TA cut score used by Gambaro. Further, this way of viewing the results is supported by the rather high correlation found by Gambaro between PMT performance and ratings of personal effective~ nesso Some final comments are called for regarding the Porteus Maze Test. First, as with GambaroTS §S, the scores of the normal SS in the present research bunch towards the top of the scale. If for some reason someone wishes to discriminate among brighter and/or older §s, more difficult mazes need to be added at the adult level. Second, Porteus' normative data are most unlikely 23 to be representative of U.S. male or female children, adolescents, or adults. Almost all standardization data was obtained more than a quarter of a century ago, and on Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean and mixed racialwethic subjects. It is hard to believe, without evidence to the contrary, that such data will hold for mainland American Caucasian or Negro subjects. In addim tion, it is particularly difficult to imagine that even what little normative data is to be found for mentally retarded subm jects in Hawaii, is representative of the case in the mainland U.S. SUMMARY A previous investigation found that a group of "mentally retarded" adolescents scored higher on the Porteus Maze Test than should be expected. The present research attempts to determine the basis for the inordinately high performance of these §s. The Porteus Maze Test was given to 154 normal §S, and additional descriptive and test information was obtained on them as well as on the 71 "mentally retarded" §s previously studied. Both groups of gs came from the same schools and were of fairly comparable age, sex, and grade level distribution. The results show that in comparison to the normal §s the retarded §s are significantly inferior in PMT performance, across all school situations. In comparison to a presumably representative high school sample, the normal §s are signifiu cantly brighter. The "retarded" SS in turn are apparently brighter than the "average person in the general population." At the same time, however, they are significantly poorer in scored qualitative performance on the PMT. Analysis of intelli~ gence test data shows that 67% of the retarded §S, on whom scores were available, are misclassified in terms of the usual statistical dividing line for "mental retardation." Also, on the basis of an IQ score alone, a number of the normal §s should be classified as "retarded" but are not° Additional analyses indicate that the retarded §s differ significantly from the normal 24 25 SS in socioeconomic level. The retarded §S more frequently have father's in lower level occupations and more frequently live in homes of low monetary value. Considering the results as a whole, it is concluded that a fairly large number of the "retarded" §s are inappropriately labeled. Rather than having been originally selected on the basis of "insufficient intelligence," it is proposed that selecm tion is likely to have occurred more on the basis of §'s unan ceptable personalasocial characteristics. Supporting evidence is cited for this proposal and it is suggested that many of the SS are better "labeled" as "academically poor performers." This more neutral term appears to be more correct in fact and has the advantage of obviating the stereotyped thinking on the part of psychologists and educators which almost automatically at» taches to the label "mentally retarded." Turning to the Porteus Maze Test, it is noted that more difficult mazes need to be added at the adult level if discrimination among brighter or older SS is desired. In addition, serious reservations are noted and discussed regarding the "representativeness" of what little normative or standardization information is available. REFERENCES Docter, R.F. and Winder, C.L. Delinquent vs. nonmdelinquent performance on the Porteus Qualitative Maze Test. J. consult. Psychol. 1954, 18, 71-73. Fooks, G. and Thomas, R. Differential qualitative performance of delinquents on the Porteus Maze. J. consult. Psychol. 1957, 21, 351-353. Gambaro, S. The Porteus Maze Test and a rating scale of personal effectiveness as predictors of employability among mentally retarded adolescents. Unpublished master3s thesis, Michigan State University, 1963. Havighurst, R. and Janke, L. Relations between ability and social status in a midwestern community. I: Tenuyear old children. J. educ. Psychol. 1944, 35, 375=368. McCandless, B.R. Relation of environmental factors to intellecw tual functioning. In Stevens, H.A. and Heber, R. (Eds.), Mental retardation: a review of the Researgh. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Masland, R.L., Sarason, 8.3. and Gladwin, T. Mental subnormality. New York. Basic Books, 1958. Porteus, S.D. Qualitative performance in the maze test. Vineland. Smith Printing House, 1942. The maze test and clinical psychology. Palo Alto. Pacific Books, 1942. Sarason, S.B. Psychological problems in mental deficiency. New York. Harper & Bros., 2nd edition, 1953. U.S. Dep’t. of Labor, Bureau of the Census. .Q.S. census of population and housing: census tracts a Lansing, Michigan; final report PHC (1-73). Dep't. of Labor. Washington, D.C., 1960. U.S. Dep't. of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, Division of Placement Methods. Dictionary of occupational titles: Suppl., 1. (2nd edition) Washington, 1955. Wright, C. The qualitative performance of delinquent boys on the Porteus Maze Test. J. consult. Psychol. 1944, 8, 24—26. 26 APPENDICES 27 APPENDIX A Student:;nfo£mation Sheet SEX YOUR BIRTHDATE: / / mo. day year YOUR PRESENT ADDRESS: PLEASE CHECK THE ONE WHICH APPLIES TO YOU: I LIVE IN THE FOLLOWING TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT APARTMENT PRIVATE HOUSE OTHER explain HOW MANY BROTHERS AND SISTERS DO YOU HAVE? BROTHERS SISTERS WHAT IS YOUR FATHER'S OCCUPATION? PLEASE CHECK THE BOX WHICH APPLIES TO YOUR PRESENT CLASS STATUS: FRESHMAN SOPHOMORE JUNIOR SENIOR 28 APPENDIX B Means and Standard Deviations of PMT TA and Q Scores for Normal and Retarded §s Score School Normal Retarded i gfi. _N_ ‘55 sfi. ii Sexton 16.0 .93 46 14.4 1.27 11 TA Everett 15.9 1.32 56 14.1 2.92 20 Eastern 15.9 .99 52 13.3 2.80 40 Sexton 25.4 12.9 46 49.6 22.5 11 Q Everett 23.7 11.8 56 35.8 18.8 20 Eastern 25.3 15.5 52 43.3 20.6 40 29 APPENDIX C Mean Age and PMT Values for Normal and Retarded §s Chrono- ’ PMT Score logical TA TQ Samp le N Age Mean Range Me an Range Normal 154 17.3 15.94 12.0 - 17.0 128.11 98 - 135 112.28 58 - 135 58 - 135 Retarded 71 18.4 13.70 7.0 a 17.0 Combined 115 17.3 15.23 7.0 - 17.0 122.80 30 APPENDIX D Mean Number of Siblings and Mean TA Score on PMT for Normal and Retarded §sz Grouped by Parental Occupation and House Value '————__- M r _ —I:_- W _ mn- Normal Retarded Sibling TA Score Sibling TA Score N Mggn Mean N, Mean Mean Above Median on H.V. & Occup. 37 2.5 16.0 4 1.3 15.5 Below Median on H.V. & Occup. 20 2.5 16.1 13 3.0 13.1 Above Median on H.V. mat or Below Median on Occup. 30 2.8 15.8 4 3.8 12.4 Below Median on H.V. -at or Above Median on Occup. 32 3.4 15.8 11 2.3 13.4 Note: Medians are based on Retarded and Normal samples (N a 151). Median House Value is $10,800; Median parental occupational classification is Skilled. 31 APPENDIX E Pearson Correlations Between PMT and Intelligence Test Scores PMT Score Sample Test Score TA Q Normal CMMT (N = 145) NL .23** =.25** L .22** .11 Retarded WAIS or WISC (N = 45) Full Scale Score .34* .08 *p (.05 32 APPENDIX F Pearson Correlations Between PMT and Socioeconomic Measures for Normal and Retarded Samples Combined PMT Score Socioeconomic Measure TA Q Father's Occupation .17* .08 (N = 208) House Value .22** .02 (N = 152) Number of Siblings .13 .12 (N = 217) *p (.05 **p (.01 33 HqH qHH m.HH m em mNH m.oH N mH E on wHH qu m.oH N Hq mmH o.NH H wH 2 Ne mo oHH m.m m om wHH m.qH m wH m HN Hm oN m.oH H wN mMH o.NH m- 0H 2 we moH wN Hz m mm mmH o.NH H 0H 2 «N NoH oHH Hz m we mMH o.NH H NH m Nd oHH HNH m.w m NH NNH o.mH N NH m m me oNH 0.0H n q mmH o.NH H 0H m mN NHH mN o.m N N wHH m.¢H H NH m oq ooH mm o.m H «m mmH o.NH o wH 2 0H wNH wNH o.NH m «s nMH o.NH H 0H 2 NH NNH qu Hz m HH mmH o.NH N NH 2 NH oHH ooH o.oH m mm NNH o.mH 0 NH m om mNH «NH m.HH m o NNH o.mH m NH m m moH om o.m m mm oNH m.mH N NH 2 NN mHH NHH m.mH H MN mmH o.NH N NH m HH Nd Nm m.m H mH mNH o.oH m NH m qH omH wHH m.m m mm oNH m.mH H wH 2 me NHH mm Hz H wH aNH o.©H m NH 2 0N ow Nw m.m N 0N oHH m.mH m NH m o mNH mmH o.NH m m mNH o.oH 0 NH m em ow oHH m.qH H NH NmH m.oH q 0H m H mm aw m.HH m N mmH o.NH m NH 2 NH NNH NmH Hz m NH mmH o.NH H NH 2 N om eoH o.w m an wHH m.qH m mH m om oHH ma o.HH m mm NNH o.mH m 0H 2 s cm am Hz m mH oNH m.mH m NH 2 mm emH OHH m.NH e N NmH m.oH e wH z m mHH HNH m.MH m me oHH m.mH N NH 2 Hm mNH ca o.w m ON oNH m.mH m 0H m 0H NoH ooH o.NH m wN oNH m.mH m 0H 2 aN NmH on m.w m 0H NmH m.oH m 0H m mN..:uoummm Hz g AmuuHHoe Ho Hm>mg we .o.H .¢.H mmaHHnum Hm...» cue xwm Hooeom em H220 m.ooo.H :Hv choHomdsooo Hzm Ho N mw< * uomnnom .O.H osHa> mmsom m.um:umm mwuum>< HmumH o .o.H .<.H mNaHHNHN Hmummw :HV me Hoonum NH szo m.ooo.H :Hv HmaOHHmanouo NEH H0 N mN< N HomNNnN .O.H osHm> omnom m.Hm£Hmm owmum>< HNHoH o .O.H .<.H mmcHHnHm AmHmHH cHV xom Hoozom Hm H220 ..ooo.H ch HmsoHumasooo HZH H0 N mN< N HooNNsN .O.H osHm> wmoom w.Ho:umH mwmuo>< HNHezmozv - H NHH NN o.HH H oH NNH o.NH N NH 2 NN NNH NNH o.NH H NN NNH N.NH N NH 2. NN Hz H HmHuHHoN Ho Hm>mH o .o.H .<.H mNcHHNHN Hmuwmw aHV me HooHoN NH szo m.ooo.H ch HmcoHumasuuo HHH H0 N mN< N HUNHN=N .O.H moHu> omsom m.HmLHmH mwauo>< HNHH NHH NN O.HH H OH NNH O.NH N NH 2 NN NNH NNH 0.0H H ON NNH N.NH N NH 2 NN Hz H HNHNHHoN Ho HN>NH O .O.H .N.H NNNHHNHN ANHNNH aHO NNN Hoocum NH szO N.OOO.H ch HNsoHNNNsooO NEH H0 N NNN N NomNNNN .O.H m:~m> mmsom N.Hmsumm mmmuw>< NNHNZNOzV - NHNO HNN .u_coo U xHszmm< 38 NOH NNH N.NH N NH NNH N.NH N NH 2 NN NN NN N.NH N oNN NHH N.NH H NH H NN HHH NN Hz N N NNH N.NH H NH H NN NHH OHH Hz N NN NNH OJNH N NH 2. NN NHH NOH N.OH N NH NNH O.NH N NH H NN NHH NHH N.HH N N NNH N.NH N NH 2 HN NHH NN O.NH N NN NNH O.NH N NH 2 ON Hz N.NH N NN NNH O.NH N NH H NN NNH NHH 0.0H N NN NNH N.NH H NH 2 NN Hz N.NH N ON NN 0.0H N NH H NN OHH NN N.HH N N NNH O.NH N NH H NN NOH OHH N.NH N ON NNH N.NH N NH 2‘ NN NN NHH O.N N NN NNH N.NH N NH 2 NN NNH HNH 0.0N N NN NNH O.NH H NH 2 NN NOH NOH Hz N HN NNH O.NH N NH H HN NNH NOH N.HH N O NNH O.NH N NH H ON NHH NOH N.NH N N NNH N.NH N NH H NN NHH NHH NN.N N O NNH N.NH N NH 2 NN NHH NN O.N N NN NNH O.NH O NH 2 NN NOH ONH N.NH N NN NNH O.NH N NH 2 NN HOH HHH O.NH N NN NNH O.NH N NH 2 NN NOH NOH N.NH N NN NHH N.NH H NH H NN NN NOH N.N N N NNH O.NH N NH 2 NN NN NN O.NH N NN NNH N.NH H NH H HN HN NN O.N N NN NNH N.NH N NH H ON NHH NHH O.N H NH NNH N.NH N NH 2‘ NN Hz H NNHNHHON Ho HNNNH O .O.H .<.H NNcHHNHN ANHNNN aHO Ham HooHuN NH szo N.OOO.H ch HmcoHuNNsooO HZH H0 N NNH N NUNNNNN .O.H msHm> wmsom N.Hmsumh mwmuo>< HNHHHHOHN - «HNH HNH .H_coo o NHazmmm< 39 Hz N.NH N NN NNH N.NH H NH 2 NON HN Hz N N NNH N.NH N NH 2 NONN Hz O.N N NH NNH O.NH N NH 2. NONN Hz Hz Hz NN NHH O.NH N NH 2 NONH H2 H2 H2 NN NNH N.NH Hz NH 2 NONN Hz O.NN N NH NNH N.NH N NH .2 NONN Hz N.NH N NN NHH N.NH H NH .2 NONN Hz N.NH H N NNH O.NH N NH ‘2 NONN NN 0.0H N ON OHH N.NH N NH .2 NON NN O.N N N NNH O.NH O NH .2 NONN NN Hz N NN NNH N.NH H NH .2 NONN H2 H2 N NN NN O.N N NH 2 NOH NN N.N N NN NN O.N Hz NH 2 HNN NN Hz Hz NN NN N.N H2 H2 .2 HN NN O.N N ON NOH O.NH O NH H HOH NN Hz H ON NNH N.NH H NH H HNH NN N.N N HN NHH N.NH N NH 2 HON Hz N.HH N NN NN N.N H NH 2 HN NN Hz N NN NNH N.NH N NH 2 HNN HN N.N H NN NNH O.NH N NH 2 HNH-OOOHO>H Hz H2 H2 NN NN O.NH Hz NH H NON ON . O.NH N NN NOH N.NH N NH 2 NON H2 H2 H2 HN NHH N.NH Hz NH 2 NONH NN Hz N ON NHH N.NH Hz NH H NONH NN H2 H2 N NNH O.NH OH NH H NONN NN O.NH N NN NHH N.NH H NH 2 NON H2 H2 Hz NN NHH O.NH N NH 2 HHN NN H2 H2 NN NNH N.NH H NH 2 HNH Hz O.N N NN NHH O.NH N NH 2 NNH Hz N.N N NN NNH O.NH N NH 2 HON NN H2 H2 NN NNH O.NH N NH 2 NNN..OOONON ONH: Ho NHH: HNHNHHON HO HN>NH_ O .O.H .<.H NNOHHNHN HNNNNN :HN NNN HOONON NH .O.H N.OOO.H OHO HNNOHONNOOOO HZH H0 N ONH N NOONNNN HSHH> mmsom N.Hmnumm wwwuw>< ANHHNHHHHHHV - NHNH HNH .O_:oo w XHszmm< 40 ON H2 H2 NN NNH N.NH N NH 2 NONN HN O.N N NN NHH N.NH N NH 2 NONH NN Hz N NN NNH O.NH O NH 2 NON ON H2 H2 NN NN N.N N NH 2 NONH NN Hz N NN NNH O.NH N NH 2 NONH NN Hz H NN NNH O.NH N NH 2 NONN NN N.N H NH NN N.N N NH H NONH NN H2 H2 NN NNH O.NH OH NH 2. NONN H2 H2 H2 NH NNH N.NH N NH H NONN NN Hz N NN NHH N.NH Hz NH H NOOH NN N.N N NN NNH N.NH N NH H NOON Hz N.N N ON NHH N.NH O NH 2 NOON NN O.N N N NNH O.NH N NH 2 NOHN NN Hz N NN NNH O.NH H NH H HNN NN N.NH H NN OHH N.NH N NH 2 HNN Hz H2 H2 ON NHH O.NH H NH H HNN NN O.N N NN OHH N.NH N NH 2 HN Hz O.OH N NN NN N.OH N NH H HNN Hz N.N N HN NN N.N N NH H HN HN N.N N NN NNH N.NH N NH 2 HN Hz Hz N NN NHH O.NH N NH 2 HNH NN N.N N NN NHH O.NH N NH 2 HNH Hz . Hz N NH NNH O.NH N NH 2 HN Hz N.N N HN NHH O.NH N NH 2 HNN NN Hz H NN NN O.N N NH H NN NN H2 H2 NN ON N.N N NH 2 HNH ON Hz H NN NHH N.NH N NH H HN NN N.N N ON NN O.N N NH H HNH Hz Hz N NN NNH N.NH N NH 2 HHN NN O.N N NN NOH O.NH N NH H HHH NN Hz H N NNH N.NH N NH H HN ON H2 H2 HN NN N.OH N NH 2 HH -NNNONNH ONHH Ho NH<3 HNHNHHON HON HN>NH HO .O.H .<.H NNNHHNHN HNHNNN NHV NON HOOHON NH .O.H N.OOO.H :HO HNOOHONNOOOO 52H H0 N NNH N NONNNON msHm> mmsom N.Hmsumm mwmum>< HNHHNOHNHHNV - «HNH HNH .u.coo O xHszmm¢ 41 H2 H2 Hz NN NNH O.NH N NH 2 NONN NN Hz N HN NOH O.NH N NH H NOHH Hz N.N H NN NOH O.NH N NH H NON NN O.N H HN NNH O.NH N NH 2 NONN NN Hz N NN NNH N.NH Hz NH 2 NOHN HN N.N N NN NN O.N N NH 2 NONH H2 H2 N NN OHH N.NH N NH H NOON NN Hz N NN NHH O.NH N NH H NON ONH3 Ho NHNH HNNNHHON HO HONOH O .O.H .<.H ,NNOHHNHN HNHNNN :HV NON HOONON NH .ONH N.OOO.H OHO HNOOHONNNOOO H2H H0 N ONN N OOONNNN maHm> mmsom N.Hmsumm mwmum>< HNHHNOHNHHHO - NHNH HNH .u.:ou u xHszmm< E '! A ,7" e. .u '. .' “I“. 3.. x 5.7;. ‘4'“ 'io' 7}. 1"; fl