AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

MOTOR EDUCABILITY AND INTELLIGENCE IN A

SELECTED GROUP OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS

A Thesis Presented to

the Faculty of the School of Education

THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Education

by

Leotha Joyce Martin

»i\
August 1965
 UMI Number: EP55977

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

Dissertation Publishing

UMI EP55977
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProOuest'
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
 T h i s thesis, w r i t t e n u n d e r th e d i r e c t i o n o f th e
C h a i r m a n o f th e c a n d id a te 's G u i d a n c e C o m m i t t e e
a n d a p p r o v e d by a l l m e m b e rs o f th e C o m m i t t e e ,
has been p re s e n t e d to a n d a c c e p t e d b y th e F a c u l t y
o f th e S c h o o l o f E d u c a t i o n o f T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f
S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e
r e q u ir e m e n t s f o r th e d e g re e o f M a s t e r o f S c ie n c e
in E d u c a t i o n .

D ean
Guidance Com m ittee

C hairm an

\aa
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION . .............................. 1

The Problem
Definitions of Terms Used
Purpose of the Study
Hypothesis

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Physical and Mental Learning

Literature on the Relationship between
Physical Skill and Intelligence
Literature on the Comparison of Physical
Ability with Intellectual Factors for
High School Girls

III. METHOD OF PROCEDURE

Subjects i
California Test of Mental Maturity I
Metheny-Johnson Test of Motor Educability
Test Administration ;
The Data

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ................ 13!

Statistical Analysis j
Discussion j

V.SUMMARY* CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 19 j

Findings j
Conclusions !
Recommendations j

B I B L I O G R A P H Y ........................................ 221i

A P P E N D I X E S ....................... • .................. 26|

 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between measures of intelligence

and measures of motor ability has been explored by many

investigators through the years. Less attention has been

directed to the question of motor educability as the

capacity for learning motor skills. The present study is an

attempt to compare scores made on a test designed to measure!

this educability factor with scores made on a commonly-used ■

test of mental maturity.

The Problem

Statement of the problem.--The problem of this study

i
is to examine the relationship between scores made on the

Metheny-Johnson Test of Motor Educability and scores made

on the California Test of Mental Maturity by junior high !

school girls.

Significance of the study.--This study will add one

more set of observations to the literature of a problem in

which physical educators have long been interested.

Specifically, it will provide data concerning the per­

formance of junior high school girls on the Metheny-Johnson

Test of Motor Educability and uncover new evidence

1
 2
concerning the relationship between this measure of motor

educability and a measure of intelligence for a specific

age and sex group.

Definitions of Terms Used

The definitions are presented in order to state the

frame of reference of the terms as they are referred to in

this report.

Motor educability.--A term referring to the ease

with which an individual learns new motor skills (2:299).

Motor educability score.— Numerical unit of total

points received for testable items on the Metheny-Johnson

Test.

Intelligence.--The rate at which the individual is

developing mental ability as indicated by the score on the

California Test of Mental Maturity (8:13)*

Purpose of the Study

It was the purpose of this study to investigate the

relationship between intelligence, as Indicated by the

California Test of Mental Maturity, and motor educability

as measured by the Metheny-Johnson Test of Motor Skill.

Hypothesis

Stated in null form for purposes of statistical

testing, the hypothesis of this study is: There is no j

relationship between motor educability, as measured by the (

Metheny-Johnson Test, and mental maturity or intelligence

as measured by the California Test of Mental Maturity.

 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This study combines specified -knowledge and in­

formation in tests and measurement in both psychology and

physical education. Because of the vast amount of liter­

ature concerned with testing and in these fields, only

those studies found most helpful in planning the present j

study are reviewed h e r e . !

Physical and Mental Learning

Learning for the below average individual.— The j

i
individual whose intelligence quotient falls within the j
i
range of fifty to seventy is generally limited in motor

skills (5:493)* but neither mental nor physical abilities

reach normal levels of development. In the Burckhart i

study, a group of feeble minded youngsters were found to be

definitely retarded in their motor functions (9**37). This

.suggests that the limited functioning of the brain serves

J
to limit physical efficiency. Thus, in the lowest range ,

of intelligence there is apt to be a positive correlation ;

between intelligence and motor quotients. However, where !

i
certain motivating factors are present, some aspect of

mental or physical functioning may be highly developed, i

4
 5
and the individual may., for example, demonstrate average or

above average faculties for memorizing certain items (5:

478). Ruch accounts for this uneven development in terms

of concentrated efforts in a single direction (5:478).

Similar phenomena may appear in respect to physical pro­

ficiency. In physical education classes, a slow student

may perform well, but in general such low-IQ students learn

segregated skills more readily than highly organized skills

The work of Francis and Rarick provided evidence

of the extent of motor retardation in slow or below average

learners. This study found a greater lag in skills of a

complex nature than those involving natural movement pat­

terns. This suggests that at least minimum intelligence

is of considerable importance in the execution of certain

skills (l4s8-9)•
Learning for the above average individual.--The

mentally limited individual is also physically limited.

This correspondence of capacities may not be necessarily

true at the other extreme. The extremely high intelligence

quotient may or may not be matched by an extremely high

motor quotient. Kulcinski found that the chances for a

positive correlation between the two faculties are greater j

1
1
in children under ten years of age, noting that: ^

In the case of the child who has superior

intelligence and superior health, the physical
quotient is apt to be higher than those of children
who have superior health but lower intelligence.
(1 9 :269 )
 6

Literature on the Relationship Between Phyaic.a.1

Skill and Intelligence

Jenny found that there was plenty of evidence

1 s
javailablej but most of it unpublished, that indicated

athletic abilities vary according to the so-termed normal

curve. These aptitudes which affect such ability appear to

be muscle viscosity, leg speed, horsepower, agility and

coordination, as related to age, height and weight (16:23).

! Seegers and Postpichal considered the relationship

between intelligence and certain phases of physical

achievement. They discovered lower levels of achievement

in physical activities in the schools organized primarily

to care for children of lower mentality. It was reported

that the correlations between intelligence scores and scores

in the athletic events were positive but too low to be of

much forecasting usefulness (27:104-9).

Nemek, Cronin and Brannom reported a negative

correlation between the Brace Scale Scores and the Pressey

Intelligence Quotients. The conclusion was that measures

of intelligence, as well as chronological age, height, and

weight are of little value for predicting motor ability as

measured by the Brace tests (25:593-4).

Granville Johnson conducted a study to determine

the relationship between physical skills and intelligence

j
of college students. Tests were given to the students of

the University of Denver. Johnson concluded that there was'

 7
no significant relationship between physical skill and the

mental power of general intelligence. Neither did he find

any significant indications of a relationship between

physical skills and academic grades (1 8 :57-9 )*

Burtt and a working team of Landis and Nichols

tested the freshmen of the Ohio State University. The sub­

jects were administered the Ohio State University Intel­

ligence T est. The results of this instrument were cor-

i
|related with the scores from physical ability tests, which

consisted of the hundred-yard dash, the running broad jump, <

the baseball throw, and the fence climb. The researchers

concluded that no relationship existed between physical

ability and intelligence. I

The reports of the Remp study are somewhat in

opposition to the previous studies cited. Remp found the

intelligence quotient of athletes to be slightly higher

than that of non-athletes. Football players received lower

test scores than other athletes but higher test scores

than the non-athletes (2 6 :191).

Literature on the Comparison of Physical Ability

with Intellectual Factors for High School Girls

Florence F y e ’s problem was:

. . . to determine whether or not there are differ­

ences between high-school girls of high and low
intelligence in regard to different motor abilities j
or in motor abilities as a whole. (29**1)

She concluded that the level of the intelligence quotient

 8

played a minimal part with the ability to perform certain

physical tests. The correlations indicated that ability to

perform motor ability tests decrease as age and weight

increase (2 9 :6 2 )*
One of Peterson’s endeavors was to delimit the

problem of the relationship between intelligence and motor

abilities by finding the coefficient of correlation between

the two variables (30:1). In the Peterson experiment with

'one hundred junior high school girls the correlation was

i !
obtained by comparing the scores made on the California Test;

of Mental Maturity with the motor quotient scores for the (

Sargent jump test, the Iowa revision of the Brace test, and

the Burpee test. It was reported that the correlation was !

not high enough to be of great predictive value. However, i

it would appear to be significant that the correlation

between the two quotients was higher than previous

correlations between one quotient and an acquired skill

( 30i 50) .
 CHAPTER III

METHOD OF PROCEDURE

Subjects

A total of 317 girls, a stratified chance selection

according to grade enrollment at the Louis Pasteur Junior

High School, Los Angeles, California, served as subjects for

this study. In age the subjects ranged from eleven to

fifteen years. I
j
1
California Test of Mental Maturity

On entrance to the junior high school, the Guidance i

I
Department administers the California Test of Mental Matur- |

ity to all students. The scores from this test were used 1
1
as indices of the intelligence quotient. This test was

devised by Elizabeth T. Sullivan, Willis W. Clark and W. j

Teigs. It is described as a diagnostic test of mental '

maturity in relation to the major factors involved in 1

intellectual capacity, as well as a general measurement of

mental maturity (8:13 ff).

The reliability of the California Test of Mental

1
Maturity was established by the split-halves method, as j

corrected by application of the Spearman-Brown formula.

With three exceptions, the reliability of each of the men­

tal factors scored for 600 subjects was .90 or above.
________________________________ 9 ___________
 10

Reliabilities for single grades were .95 and above (8:13).

Metheny-Johnson Test of Motor Educability

i
Permission was granted by the principal to admin­

ister the Metheny-Johnson Test of Motor Educability to the '

subjects during their regular physical education or health

classes. This simplified form of the Johnson test was

selected because of the ease in administration and the

established validity and reliability. It consisted of

Johnson’s items of the front roll* back roll* and the

jumping half turns, right and left alternately (2:302-3).

Barton compared the Johnson test with the Brace

test for measuring motor educability of junior high school j

girls. He concluded that the Johnson test was more accurate

but lacked practical usefulness. Roads announced a similar

conclusion in a study of senior high school girls . Koob, '

in a study with boys of the junior high level, used the I

number of trials required to learn a series of ten tumbling ji

stunts as his criterion for measuring motor educability. |

He obtained a correlation of .969 between the Johnson test J

i

and motor educability, and a correlation of .8l4 between ]

1
the test and scores made on three track and field events.

Metheny validated the Johnson test as a good measure of

motor educability by analyzing the data provided by and

suggested a short form of the test for class use (24:105-6),

Johnson reported a reliability coefficient of .97

for the test with college men (2:301). Gire and Espenschade

reported a reliability of .61 with high school girls (15:

4-3-53)> and Cooper verified this correlation in another

study of high school girls.

For the short form of the test for boys Metheny

reported a correlation of .98 with the total Johnson score,

and .93 with a criterion of learning tumbling stunts. For

girls a combination of three of the Johnson items gave a >

correlation of .86 with the total Johnson score. Johnson's;

1
items five, seven, and eight were used for both boys and |

girls. Item ten was added for boys (2:302). j

Test Administration

The California Test of Mental Maturity was admin­

istered by the Guidance Department. Scores for the intel­

ligence quotient were taken from existing school records.

j
The Metheny-Johnson test was the instrument I
I
utilized as a measure of motor educability. Instructions I
i
for equipment, scoring and methods for administration |
i
recommended by Clark were carefully followed.(2 :302-3). t

See Appendix B for details. All subjects were tested by j

the researcher, with the testing being done according to

grade levels during the scheduled health or physical

education class period. Demonstrations and instructions

were given by the researcher.

The testing period lasted for two-and-a-half \Ajeeks.

 J
12
On specified days, certain girls from the testing list ;
j
reported to the investigator and testing was commenced or !
!
continued with each group until the set of test items was j

completed. These girls were then released and another

group took their place. !

In order that the test might be made as valid as (

possible, the following rules were observed throughout the j

entire testing procedure: (a) all test items were admin- j

istered and scored by the investigator; (b) the same in- j
i
structions and demonstrations were given to all subjects;

(c) the place of the test and the equipment used were the

same for all; and (d) simple scoring was used throughout

the measuring period. Every precaution was taken in

selecting and administering the test in order to make the

comparative study of the variables as reliable and valu­

able as possible.

The Data

The data consisted of intelligence quotient scores

on the California Test of Mental Maturity, and the motor

educability scores on the Metheny-Johnson Test of Motor

Educability.
 CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA j

Statistical Analysis >
l
Means and standard deviations were computed for

the distributions of scores made on the California Test of <

Mental Maturity, separately for each grade level and for j

t
the total group. These are shown in Table I. j

The total group mean was 103.7 with a standard

deviation of 14.4. The means for the three grade levels

t

exhibited no pattern of change with age. However, the i

range of CTMM scores was largest for the Grade 7 group, and

declined successively in the Grade 8 and Grade 9 groups, as

indicated by standard deviations of 15.1, 14.9* and 13.4

respectively.

Similarly, means and standard deviations were com­

puted for the distributions of scores obtained for the

Metheny-Johnson Test of Motor Educability. The mean for

the total group was 22.1, with no consistent pattern of

change with age evidenced in the grade-level means. How ­

ever, the range of Motor Educability Scores tended to

increase with age, with the smallest range shown in the

Grade 7 group, and successively larger ranges in the

Grade 8 and Grade 9 groups, as indicated by standard

deviations of 3.8, 4.8, and 5.3 respectively.

--------------------------- _13___________________________
 14

TABLE I

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATA

Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Total

n = 85 n « 115 n = 117 n = 317

Mental Maturity

Mean 103.3 104.3 103.4 103.7

S.D.* 15.1 14.9 13.4 14.4

Variance 227.3 222.1 179.8 208.1 |

Motor Educability s

Mean 23.0 21.4 22.0 22.1 1

S.D. 3.8 4.8 5.3 4.8 |

Variance 14.4 23.2 27.8 22.9 |

i
Mental Maturity
vs.
Motor Educability )

Correlation .20 - .17 .10 .01

Covariance 11.22 -12.31 7.01 .89 !

i
Note: S.D. sstands for standard deviation.
 15
Analysis of variance techniques were used to de­

termine the significance of these observed differences.

None of the differences among the means approached statis- ,

tical significance. However* the difference between the

variances for Motor Educability scores were significant at

the .05 level of confidence for the comparison between

Grade 7 and Grade 8* and at the .01 level of confidence for

the comparison between Grade 7 and Grade 9* i

The relationship between the Mental Maturity scores j

i
and the Motor Educability scores was tested in two- ways. |
i
Product-moment correlations were computed for the entire !

group and for each grade level separately. These correla­

tions ranged from -.17 to .20* and none of them proved to j

be statistically significant. Analysis of the Mental

Maturity versus Motor Educability covariance within the

above-mentioned analysis of variance approach confirmed ;

this finding of no statistically significant relationship j

between the scores made on the Mental Maturity Test and |

those obtained on the Motor Educability Test. i

I
Discussion I

The review of the literature indicated that there

appears to be little if any correlation between measures '

of motor ability and measures of intelligence within the

normal range for both variables. The present study con­

firms this generalization with reference to a test designed

 16
to measure motor educability, defined as the ability to

learn new motor skills. Accordingly, the hypothesis, as

stated in null form, cannot be rejected.

However, the analysis has suggested that one of the

reasons for this lack of statistical relationship may be

found in the distributional patterns for the two variables

under study.

Hie means for Mental Maturity remain essentially j

constant for the three grade level groups, which suggests i

i
either that the test, as such, does not provide for an |

estimate of intellectual growth beyond the Grade 7 level, j

or that there is no substantial increase in intellectual

capacity after Grade 7* This interpretation is complicatedj

t
by the successive narrowing of the range of scores from >

Grade 7 to Grade 9. Since the means remain virtually un- 1

changed, the progressive decrease in the standard deviations

I
indicates both a raising of the lower limits and a lowering i
i
of the upper limits. However, since this pattern of change

in the variances found for the three grade levels did not

teach statistical significance, any speculations about it

must remain in the realm of conjecture. ,

The means for Motor Educability for the three grade .

levels also remain essentially constant. However, here the :

pattern of progressive increase in variance within the !

three grade levels is statistically confirmed. This

pattern may then be interpreted as a widening of the range i

 of performance on the Motor Educability test, in which j
i
there is regression toward lower scores for some subjects
i
and upward regression toward higher scores for others. j
4
Subjective observation of attitudes toward per-
i
formance in the three grade levels tends to confirm this

interpretation. The subjects in Grade 7 were consistently

more interested and eager to perform well on the Motor

Educability test, while the subjects in Grade 8 and Grade 9

were less consistently involved. Some subjects displayed

i
positive attitudes toward the testing situations, while |

others were disinterested or resistant. Also, some sub- !

j
jects in the upper grades seem to utilize their greater ’
I |
|height and weight to advantage in performing the tests, j
i f
Iwhile others seemed to be hampered by the bodily changes of j
I 1
!
|adolescence. j

Thus, the study indicates something of the com­

plexity of any attempt to categorize the variables related

to motor performance, particularly as they are evidenced |

by girls within the period of rapid change toward maturity j

which generally falls within the junior high school years, i

i
As each girl grows toward physical maturity at her own j

rate and in her own pattern, her motor performance will j

tend to reflect both that growth pattern and her own !

|attitudes toward herself. These factors may well influence!

i ■
her performance on any kind of test, either mental or :
 18
physicalj but as yet no simple way of taking these factors

into account has been developed.

 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Statement of the problem.--The problem was to

investigate the relationship between a measure of intel­

ligence and a measure of motor educability in junior high

school girls.

Method of procedure.--Information was collected

from physical education literature, both published and un- J

published theses, textbooks and periodical articles. The !

field of psychology supplied additional information from

text books and periodicals. j

The subjects were 317 girls of junior high school j
age. Scores made by these subjects on the California ]

Mental Maturity Test and the Metheny-Johnson Test of Motor 1

Educability were analyzed to ascertain the possibility of a;

J
relationship between these variables. :

Measures of central tendency and variance were

calculated for the motor educability scores and the

intelligence quotients. The calculations were reported by

grade levels for the total group. j

1
Findings '

1. The correlations between the measures of

intelligence and the measures of motor educability were not

19______
 20

statistically significant.

2. Similarly, there were no .statistically sig­

nificant differences among the means for the grade level

distributions for either of the two variables.

3. There was a consistent pattern of decrease in

variance from grade level to grade level for the measures

of intelligence, but this pattern was not statistically

significant.

4. jIin-fljU-iitmnyfr, there was a consistent pattern of

increase in variance from grade level to grade level for

the measures of motor educability. The differences found

in this pattern were statistically significant. This in­

dicates that the developmental pattern related to motor

educability is not consistent for all girls in this age

range. Some tend to become less adept in motor performance

as they progress through the years of adolescence, while

others tend to become more adept.

5. Subjectively, it was noted that the pattern of

change in motor performance is also evidenced in attitudes

toward such performance.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, the null

hypothesis of no consistent relationship between measures

of intelligence and measures of motor educability cannot be

rejected. However, it may also be concluded that many

 21

factors enter into both measures and the relationship be­

tween them, and these factors tend to establish a very com­

plex set of relationships which are not accounted for with­

in the limitations of single tests designed to measure

either form of ability*

Recommendations

In this study, the significant finding of a con­

sistent increase in the range of performance on a motor

test during the junior high school years serves to focus

attention on the complexity of developmental patterns ex­

hibited by pre-adolescent and adolescent girls. It warns

against the hazards of easy generalizations and emphasizes

the necessity for attempts to study the many factors which

may operate to increase or decrease both interest and per­

formance during these years of rapid change. One such

approach might be made through an intensive study of the

characteristics of groups of girls whose motor performance

scores are in the upper and lower limits of the distribu­

tion. Such a study might throw some light on the bodily

characteristics of those who excel in motor performance

and those who become progressively less able to perform;

it might also uncover some of the complex factors of

personal interest and concept of role within the cultural

pattern.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y

i
 "1

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

1. Brace* David. Measuring Motor Ability. New York:

A. S. Barnes & Co., 1927*

2. Clark, H. Harrison. Application of Measurement and

Physical Education. 3d ed. revised. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall Inc., i9 6 0 .

3. Matthews, Donald. Measurement in Physical Education.

2d ed. revised. Philadelphia: ¥. B. Saunders Co.,
1963.
4. Pintner, Rudolph. Intelligence Testing. New York:
Henry Holt & Co.” 1941.

5. Ruch, Floyd. Psychology and L ife. Chicago: Scott, j

Foreman & C o ., 1941.

j 6 . Scott, Gladys, and French, Esther. Measurement and 1

I Evaluation in Physical Education. Iowa: Mn. C. |
| Brown Co., 1959. 1
1 !
7. Stoddard, George. The Meaning of Intelligence. New !
York: The Macmillan Co., 1947. j
I
i 8 . Sullivan, Elizabeth, et a l . California Short Form
Test of Mental Maturity: Junior High Level.
California: California Test Bureau, 1957*

Periodicals

9. Bayley, Nancy. ’’Mental and Motor Development from

Two to Twelve Years,” Review of Educational Re­
search, IX (February, 1939)* 16-37• I

i 10. Brooks, Fowler. ’’Mental and Physical Development in

Adolescents,” Review of Educational Research, VIII
(April, 1933), H O .

11. Burtt, H. E., et a l . "Relation Between Physical Ef- |

ficiency and Intelligence," American Physical Edu- ;
cation Review, XXVIII (May, 1923)* 220-1. 1

— 2.3
 12. Carpenter, Aileen. "Factors in Motor Educability," |
Research Quarterly, XIV (December, 1943)* 366. ■

13. Cratty, Bryant J. "An Investigation of Motor Educabil4

ity," Perceptual and Motor Skills, XIII (August,
3.961), 179-61.

14. Francis, Robert, and Rarick, G. L. "The First Project

Reports Its Findings," School Life, XXXX, No. 3
(December, 1957). (Project report to the Cooper­
ative Educational Research Program, Washington,
D.C., October 24-25, 1957, 6-9.)
15. Gire, Eugenia, and Espenschade, Anna. "The Relation­
ship Between Measures of Motor Educability and the
Learning of Specific Motor Skills," Research Quar­
terly, XIII, No. 1 (March, 1942), 43-53.

1 6 . Jenny, John H. "The MQ is as Important as the IQ,"

Journal of Health and Physical Education, XXX ;
(April, 1959), 23. !
17. Johnson, Granville. "Physical Skill Test for Section-;
I ing Classes into Homogeneous Units," Research Quar-;
j terly, III (May, 1932), 128-36.*

i1 8 , ________ . "Study of the Relationship that Exists

between Physical Skills as Measured, and the Gener-1
1 al Intelligence of College Students," Research |
! Quarterly, XIII (March, 1942), 57-9. i

19. Kulcinski, Louis. "The Relation of Intelligence to

Learning of Fundamental Muscular Skills," Research
Quarterly, XVIII (December, 1945), 2 6 9 .
20. Lockhart, Aileene. "An Experiment in Homogeneous
Grouping and its Effects on Achievement in Sports
Fundamentals," Research Quarterly, XXII, No. 1
(March, 1951), 58-62'.
21. McCloy, C. H. "An Analytical Study of Stunt Type Test
as a Measure of Motor Educability," Research Quar­
terly, XIII, No. 3 (October, 1937), TO!
1
22. ________ . "A Preliminary Study of Factors in Motor
Educability," Research Quarterly, II, No. 8 (May,
1940), 28-39.
23. McCraw, L. W* ’’Comparative Analysis of Methods of
Scoring Motor Ability Test*” Research Quarterly,,
XVI (December, 1955), 440-53.

24. Metheny, Eleanor. ’’Studies of the Johnson Test as a

Test of Motor Educability," Research Quarterly, IX,
No. 4 (December, 1938), 1 0 5 - W I

25. Nemzek, Claude L., et a l . ’’Motor Ability of High

School Girls," Journal of Educational Research,
XVII (April, 1933), 593-4.
26. Remp, M. "A Comparison of the Scholastic Records of
Athletes and Non-Athletes," American Physical Edu-
cation Review, XXX (April, 1925), 191.

27. Seegers, J. C. "Relation between Intelligence and

Certain Aspects of Physical Activity," Journal of
Educational Research, XXX (October, 1938),. 104-9.

28. Wettstone, Eugene. "Test for Predicting Potential

Ability in Gymnastics and Tumbling," Research
Quarterly, IX, No. 4 (December, 1938), 121-7.

Unpublished Materials

29. Eye, Florence. "A Comparative Study of Motor Ability

of High and Low Intelligence." Unpublished
Master’s thesis, Department of Education, Universi­
ty of Southern California, 1935.

30. Peterson, Marcia Madole. "A Study and Extension of

Interpretations of Research Concerning the Relation­
ship between Intelligence and Motor Ability.”
Project, Department of Physical Education, Univer­
sity of Southern California, 1950.
I

I
A P P E N D I X E S ;
 n
APPENDIX A
I

THE JOHNSON TEST

In 1932 Johnson set up a battery of tests designed

to measure "native neuromuscular capacity." The test con­

sists of performing the following ten exercises down the

length of a five by ten foot gymnasium mat, especially

marked for this purpose: (l) straddle jump; (2) stagger

skip; (3) stagger jump; (4) forward skip, holding opposite

foot from behind; (5 ) forward roll; (6) jumping half-turns,

right or left; (7 ) back roll; (8) jumping half-turns, right I

i

and leftalternately; (9 ) front and back rollcombinations;!

j !
jand (10) jumping full turns. A score of ten is given for
» <
the perfect execution of eachexercise, andpoints are j
1 deducted for such violations as overstepping or missing

squares, failure to land on both feet at the same time,

failure to maintain rhythm, improper use of the hands,

turning the wrong way, and so forth. The individual’s

final score, therefore, is on the basis of one hundred

i

points. j
 APPENDIX B

METHENY-JOHNSON TEST OP MOTOR SKILL

With the elimination of six of the original Johnson

items , Metheny simplified the mat used in the performance

test as shown below. A lane twenty-four inches wide was

marked down the center of a fifteen foot mat. This lane

is divided into two equal narrow lanes by a center line,

and into ten equal parts lengthwise by lines placed every

eighteen inches. These lines are alternately three-fourths

inches wide, the eighteen inch width being measured to the

i
'middle of the line in each case.

Marking for Metheny-Johnson Test

 29 |

Items of the Test and Scoring |

On the mat, the selected Johnson items are per- j

formed and scored as follows. (Numbers refer to Johnson’s

original designations.)

Item N o . 5 Front R o l l . Perform rolls in the entire

twenty-four inch lane. Start with feet

outside of the markings. Perform two

front rolls, the first within the limits

of the first half of the lane (not going

beyond the middle three-inch line)j the

second x^/ithin the limits of the second ;

t

half, never touching or overreaching the J

lanes. i

Scoring. Count five points for each !

i
roll. Deduct two for overreaching side j

line right or left for each roll; and

five for failure to perform a true roll.j

Item No. 7 Back R oll. Perform two back rolls in en-j

tire twenty-four-inch lane, one in each j

half of the lane. Start with feet out- j

i
side of markings. j

Scoring. Same as in item No. 5. j

i
Item N o . 8 Jumping Half-Turns, Right and Left A l ­

ternately . Start with feet on first !

i
three-inch line, executing a half-turn
 in opposite direction; continue the !

length of the mat, alternating directions

i
of rotation.

Scoring. Deduct two points for each

jump in which the subject does not land

with both feet on the three-inch line,

or turns the wrong way, or both.

UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
LIBRARY-