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
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: Series

11, Data From the National Health Survey; no. 159. V. Series: United States. Dept. of

Health, Education, and Welfare. DHEW publication; no, (HRA) 77-1641. [DNLM: 1. Intelligence tests— In adolescence. 2. Demography. 3. Socioeconomic factors. W2 N148vk no.

1591

RA~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 the

Census, under a contractual agreement, participated in the design and selection of the sample, and

camied out the first stage of the field interviewing and certain parts of the statistical processing.

Vital and Health Statistics-Series 1l-No. 159

DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 77-1641

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 76-608024
CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

TheHealthExaminationSuwey... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

TheTest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Fkdings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Raw Scores and Standard Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

BackgroundFactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SummaryandConclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

LktofDetailedTables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Appendmes

1. TechnicalNotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

II. Demographic andSocioeconomic VariablesandRelatedTems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

LISTOFFIGURES

1. Average T scores. of 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2, Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harns Drawing Test, by place of

residence, 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 family

income, 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 demographic

characteristics: United States, 1966-70.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5, Percent of youths 12-17 years of age Within each modal grade level, by selected socioeconomic

characteristics: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

6, Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by race, family

hcome, 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 of

youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, two Wechsler Intelligence Scale for

Children subtesta, and two Wide Range Achievement Test subtests: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . 8

C. Percentofyoutis l2-l7yeamofagewhodrewafi@reof&esmesexwhenaAedto drawa’’person,”by

race and sex, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

...

Ill
SYMBOLS

Datanot availabk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---

Category nonapplicable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Quantity zero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..—

Quantity morethan 0butlessthan0.05 . . . . . . . . . . 0.0

Figure does not meet standards of

reliability or precision *

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv
GOODENOUGH-HARRIS TEST ESTIMATES OF

INTELLECTUAL MATURITY OF YOUTHS 12-17 YEARS:

DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS

Dale B. Harris, Ph. D., The Pennsylvania State University, and

Glenn D. Pinder, ‘Division of Health Examination Statistics

INTRODUCTION

This is the second report to present data obtained from a modified version of the

Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test administered

during the Health Examination Survey of

1966-70 to a probability sample of noninstitutionalized youths 12-17 years of age in the United

States. Statistical information provided in this

report concerns the relationship of socioeconomic

and demographic factors to intellectual maturity

during the adolescent years.

It has been reported in a previous publication

of this seried that, as an indicator of the level of

intellectual maturity, the instrument discussed

here is of less value in rating adolescents than in

assessing development in younger children. The

Health Examination Survey data demonstrated

a leveling off of mean scores after early adolescence, such as had been previously demonstrated by Harris.z Nevertheless, there are

two important reasons for presenting the information in this report: (1) the testappears to be

an adequate measuring device for the younger

three or four 1-year age groups in the population

aged 12-17 years, and (2) these data demonstrate

the influence of background and situational factors on the youth’s performance on this test.

For readers not familiar with the data collecting system from which the data presented here

aFormerly research psychologist with the Psychological Statistics Branch, DHES.

were obtained, detailed information regarding

the Health Examination Survey is presented in

earlier reports,$s with one containing information most relevant to the survey of adolescents.s

Following is a brief description of the survey

operation.

THE HEALTH EXAMINATION SURVEY

The Health Examination Survey is an ongoing program that collects data by direct examination of representative sampIes of the noninstitutionalized population of the United States. Since

1960 the survey has conducted a seriesof separate

programs (called “cycles”) concerned with

specific segments of the total population and

focused on certain aspects of the health of these

subpopulations. Cycle III was an examination of

youths 12-17 years of age, and it was a continuation of the immediately preceding cycle in which

children aged 6-11 years were given an examination that focused on health factors related to

growth and development. Information about the

Cycle III survey design is presented in appendix I.

Each youth was examined during a single visit

to a specially designed mobile unit. Along with

the standardized examinations by a physician

and dentist and a variety of tests and

measurements performed by technicians, a 70-

minute psychological test battery was given by a

psychologist who had obtained at least a master’s

degree and had previous experience in ad1
ministering tests. The battery included the

following examinations that were administered in

the order listed: Wide Range Achievement Test,

arithmetic and reading sections; Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, vocabulary and

block design subtests; a five-card, tape-recorded

version of the Thematic Apperception Test; a

modified version of the Goodenough-Harris

Drawing Test; the Brief Test of Literacy; and a

self-administered questionnaire concerning the

youth’s attitude and behavior relating to certain

aspects of health. A critical evaluation of most of

the psychological tests used in the survey, including a literature review of previous research

and evaluations, was made by S. B. Sells of Texas

Christian University. The National Center for

Health Statistics has published the results of the

evaluation in its methodological reports series.6

Before the youths were examined, information about the demographic and socioeconomic

characteristics of household members and a

medical history and behavioral data on the

youths were obtained from parents, Performance

and adjustment information was requested in a

questionnaire sent to each youth’s school. All information was obtained with a guarantee of strict

confidentiality.

Of the 7,514 youths in the sample, 6,768 (90

percent) were examined. Sample design, adjustments for nonresponse, and weighting procedures were factors that produced results considered representative of the approximately 23

million noninstitutionalized youths aged 12-17

years in the United States at the time of the

survey. Sampling errors associated with estimates

in this report are presented in the detailed tables.

THE TEST

Information in this report is based on “person” and “self’ figure drawings scored on the

Goodenough-Harris scales,2 The modification of

the test used in this survey of adolescents is

described fully in the initial report on the findings from Cycle III. 1Two human figure drawings

were requested of each youth during the

psychological testing. Each of the drawings (person and self) tvas scored on the appropriate man

or woman scale of the Goodenough-Harris instrument. A complete description of the history of

figure drawing tests and development of the

Goodenough-Harris scales is presented in Harris’

text.2 Brief summaries of that material are in two

previous reports of this series.1’7

The presentation and descriptive analysis of

test performance according to demographic and

socioeconomic status of the youths will be limited

in this report to the person figure drawing. The

correlation ratio between the scores for the self

and person drawings was 0.8. There are no

material differences in conclusions concerning

intellectual maturity that can be drawn from an

examination of the results of the two types of

drawings.

FINDINGS

Raw Scores and Standard Scores

The subject of the present study is the relationship of intellectual maturity, as indicated by

performance on the drawing test, to background

factors. Information on the relationships to age

and sex of the Goodenough-Harris drawing test

scores was presented in a previous publicatiord in

which the main conclusion was that the increase

in scores associated with age leveled off for both

sexesbetween ages 15 and 16. This indicated that

either further development of those capacities

and abilities called “intellectual maturity” did

not occur after age 15 or that the selected instrument was not sensitive enough to measure change

in level after that age. In tables 1 and 2, where

mean scores according to socioeconomic status

are shown by age, it is demonstrated that this

leveling off effect is preserved for all the subgroups examined and that scores for the man and

woman drawings follow a similar pattern.

The raw scores for each age-sex group and for

each scale (man and woman figures) separately

were converted to normalized standard scores

with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10

(T scores) in order to control for age and sex differences in performance. Thus, each sample

youth has a “person T score” from which age effect and sex differences have been removed.

These T score distributions are used in the remainder of this report for the purpose of examining the relationship of performance to

socioeconomic status. To facilitate conversion of

2
raw scores to Tscores, tables I-IV are presented

in appendix 1.

Background Factors

Background factors considered in this report

were education of first-listed parent (usually the

father), income of family over the past year,

geographic region, type of area (urban-rural),

rate of population change, size and kind of place

of residence, and race. Each of these variables is

related to one another in some way, and some are

definitely related to performance on the ability or

achievement tests administered in the survey.

Although a valid claim can be made that the

drawing test measures something other than

achievement in early childhood, this assertion

may be confounded by the fact that some youths

develop in environments that are more conducive

than others to advancing their ability to draw.

Thus, it would not be surprising that, as in other

types of achievement tests, there is a socioeconomicstatuslink.

Family income and first parent’s education

were more closely correlated with test scores than

the other factors were (table A). The negative

biserial coefficient for race is the result of coding

(white = 1, black = 2), The partial correlation

coefficients throw additional light on the interrelationship of social factors and performance on

the test. The biserial measure with race falls from

-.15 to - .09 when the effect of income is held

constant, For family income the ratio falls from

+.19 to +.11 when the effect of education is

held constant.

The multiple correlation ratio for the

modified drawing test score and the statistically

Table A. Correlation coefficients for person T scores with

socioeconomic variables and their standard errors

Socioeconomic Variables

Statistical 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

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.03

“best” combination of race, parental education,

and family income was only .22, with a standard

error of. 03, a negligible gain over the zero order

values for either education or income; therefore,

it is not adequate for use in prediction.

Family income and education of

parent. —Drawing test scores, shown to be

related to income of family and parents’ educational level, are presented according to the other

background factors considered for the various income and education of parent categories in tables

3-12. An inspection of the mean scores for the entire population reveals a consistently increasing

trend with both. income and education (table 3).

Table 4 indicates that this is also true when either

of these variables is held constant. There is no

evidence in these data that education of parent

had a stronger effect on performance than income level, or vice versa.

Geographic region. —The data at first glance

indicate some regional differences, with the

mean score for the South being somewhat lower

than those for the Midwest and Northeast (table

3). However, examination of scores according to

education of parent and family income provides

some insight into the basis for these differences.

Distributions by income and education for the

four regions are distinctly different (see table V,

appendix I). Thus, the lower means in the

South– and to some extent in the West –reflect

the existence of lower incomes and parents with

fewer years of education compared with the other

areas. There is every indication that in each

region scores are higher for youths whose families

had higher incomes and more education (table 4

and figure 1).

Type of area. —A similar analysis was made

for the urban-rural contrast (tables 5 and 6) that

yielded the same general conclusions as those offered with respect to region (see table VI, appendix I). Overall, urban adolescents achieved a

slightly higher average score than those from the

rural areas. Income and education of parent

(figure 2) remained the important factors in

determining test scores.

Rate of population change. —Tables 7 and 8

present drawing test scores for the youths according to rate of population change at place of

residence. For each category of family income

and parental education, youths residing in areas
60 —

50 -

40 —

g

g 30 —

(n

k

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 Higherthan 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

—.

60

r II FAMILY INCOME EOUCATION OF P.4RENT

Total Lessthan $5,000 Slo,ox

$5,m $9,999 or more

Placeof rewfcnce

Elementary 9th. ll!h 1Zth grade Higherthan

grade 12th grade

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 between 1950 and 1960 made higher scores than

those residing in areas with declining populations

(figure 3). The differences are sufficient to suggest that type of community as distinguished by

rate of population change may be further

associated with test performance, given income

and education of parent.

Location of household. —When considering

data shown in tables 9 and 10, the designations

“In central city of SMSA” and “Not in central

city of SMSA” should not be confused with the

notions of “within inner city” and “not in inner

city”; although, if it were possible, the latter

distinction would be more suitable for this

analysis. As characterized, the test scores do not

show any marked differences, but this does not

mean that none would be found with a more

meaningful grouping. However, as in the other

classifications, the data exhibit trends by income

and education.

Progression through school. —Youths aged

12-17 years could not be grouped to represent

more than one or two of six school grade levels in

which most of them were assigned. In order to get

drawing test performance data with respect to

the youth’s progress through school, average

standard scores were derived for the youths in

groups according to grade with respect to age.

The youths were classified as above modal grade,

60

t II FAMILY INCOME

Rate of population chans

~ l-m,

m Bekawwerw*in

m Averagggaf.

@ .tmvea.erwgain

Total Lessthan $5,030

60

r

EDUCATION

$5,0J0 $9,9s9

OF PARENT

—

$10,OOJor more

E[ementaw 9th -1 lth grade 12th grade Higherthan lZth 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 modal

modal level for 12-year-olds was

grade. The Relative school grade reflects many combinathe seventh tions of strong influences related to demographic

grade, that for 13-year-olds was the eighth, and characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and cerso forth. Test scores for the youths in the three

grade groups are shown in tables 11 and 12 aci cording to family income and education of

parent and in table 13 according to certain other

demographic and socioeconomic characteristics

of the youths. Youths assigned to levels above the

modal grade made higher scores than those made

by their counterparts in grades below the modal

level. This was the case in all but one category of

family income or parental education. Similar differences in performance with respect to relative

grade level were observed for each of the remaining demographic or socioeconomic groups considered.

tain political or social decisions (figures 4 and 5).

Background factors are also associated with intellectual maturity, the level of which the drawing testis supposed to measure.

Distributions of the youths by type of early

school attended are presented according to

selected demographic characteristics or socioeconomic factors in table 14. One-third of the

youths attended neither nursery school nor

kindergarten, and about 9 percent attended

both.

Nursery school and kindergarten attendance

proved to be definitely related to education of

parent 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

Urbanizedareas 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

an

t

I

EDUCATION OF PARENT IANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

20

0

60

40

20

0

Elementary 9th. 1lth grade 12th grade Higherthan 12th grade

80

t

RATE 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 formal

education and of those from families with higher

incomes attended nursery school and

kindergarten. More urban than rural youths and

more youths living in areas with expanding

populations attended early schools. Two-thirds of

the youths from the South had not attended

nursery school or kindergarten, compared with

one-fourth of the youths in the rest of the

country.

On the scale of test scores, youths who attended both nursery school and kindergarten had

scores that were the highest and those who attended neither nursery school nor kindergarten

had scores that were the lowest. Regardless of

socioeconomic status, youths who attended both

nursery school and kindergarten tended to have

higher average scores than those who attended

neither (table 15).

The age at which the youths started first

grade appeared to be a better predictor of actual

grade in relation to modal grade than other

available variables. It seemed to be the best information with which to evaluate the influence of

certain background factors on school progression

and test performance. Youths whose parents had

less formal education and lower family income

started school later than youths whose parents

were more educated and had higher incomes

(table 14). Enrolhnent in the first grade after the

seventh birthday occurred more frequently in the

South than in the other geographic regions, even

7
after consideration of differences in the distribution of the youths by region and according to

family income and education of parent. Average

drawing test scores were consistently higher for

youths who started first grade earlier, regardless

of education of parent, family income, place of

residence (an urban-rural distinction), rate of

population change for the community, race, or

geographic region (table 16).

Overall, the differences in average scores on

the drawing test with respect to these schoolrelated factors were in the same direction as the

averages for other tests of intellectual development or school achievement that were administered to youths during the survey. However,

the effects of these factors on the drawing test

scores were of significantly lesser magnitudes

than they were on those recorded for the

vocabulary, nonverbal, reading, or arithmetic

tests, for which differences as large as one standard deviation were observed (table B).

Race. —Racial evaluations must be made in

conjunction with the distribution of the population according to income and education and the

meaning of these variables for the two groups.

Differences in performance according to income

and educational levels are consistent for the two

racial groups (figure 6). The greater fluctuation

in mean scores for black adolescents reflects

smaller sample frequencies in some groups with

their associated larger errors of estimate (tables

17 and 18). Other racial differences should be interpreted in light of the fact that classification according to income and education may not adequately define sufficiently comparable groups

with respect to living circumstances or atmosphere when intellectual growth or achievement is considered. It is understood that a given

number of years of formal education does not

necessarily indicate the same level of intellectual

achievement for all segments of the U.S. population. But the differences are greater for the

grouping by race than for other groupings, such

as those by income or education. Further, level of

income or years of education is a reliable measure

of socioeconomic status only to the extent that

there exists the freedom to utilize such assets to

produce an appropriate environment. With

respect to race, social restrictions and traditions

Table B. Comparison of relationships of early school experience

and relative grade level in school to scores of youths 12-17

years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, two

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children subtests, and two

Wide Range Achievement Test subtests United States, 1966-70

Differences in average

score between g~oups as

indicated

AttendAverage ~n~e at

Type of test or subtest T score nursery Age Modal

school started grade

z and schoo13 for ag~

kindergarten

Goodenough-Harris

Drawing Test . . .. . . . . . . 50.0 2.5 3.2 4.7

Wechsler Intelligence

Scale for Children:

Vocabulary subtest. . . . 50.0 8.7 9.5 8.8

Block Design subtest. . . 50.0 5.5 6.0 6.0

Wide Range Achievement

Test:

Reading subtest . . . . . . 50.0 7.7 7.8 10.4

Arithmetic subtest . . . . 50.0 5.8 6.6 8.8

1The values shown represent statistically significant differences (one-tailed t test, p<.01 ).

z me average standard score for youths who attended neither

nursery school nor kindergarten was subtracted from the corresponding average score of those who attended both.

3 The average standard score for youths who started first

grade at age 7 or after was subtracted from the corresponding

average score of those who started first grade at age 5 or before.

4 The average standard score for youths who were in grades

below the modal grade for their respective ages was subtracted

from the average score for those who were in grades above the

modal level.

have imposed more limits in connection with this

transformation for black persons than for white

ones. Somewhat related are the varied effects

that the difference in historical experience has

had on those factors associated with progression

through school. This has been shown to be

related in a limited degree to performance on the

drawing test.

Although the man and woman drawings were

in general combined to yield valid “person

scores,” a noteworthy observation concerning the

drawings is a difference in the preference for

“same-sex” drawings between the white and black

adolescents. Table C shows the percentage of the

youths who drew persons of their own sex.

White boys were significantly more inclined

to draw the same-sex figure than were white girls
Race:

60

60

40

UI

a

$J 30

In

+

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 education

of parent: United States, 1966-70

(89.5 percent compared with 74.8 percent;

t = 14,55, # < .0001). The same is true of

blacks, the difference being substantially less and

only approaching statistical significance (84. 7

percent 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 and

sex, with associated standard errors: United States: 1966-70

Sex I Total II White I Black

Percent of youths

Boys . . . . . . 88.9 II 89.5

I

84.7

Girls . . . . . . 75.7 74.8 80.5

Standard error of percent

Boys . . . . . . 0.53 0.56

Girls

1.65

. . . . . 0.76 0.84 1.74

t = 1.75, # < .05). White boys significantly

more often drew the same-sex (male) figure than

blacks boys (t= 2.76, # < .01); while white girls

were less likely to draw the same-sex (female)

figure than black girls (t = 2.95, # < .01). The

hypothesis frequently advanced in clinical literature is that the decision to draw a “person” of a

particular sex represents an unconscious sex-role

identification. If this is sound, this observation

has some interesting implications when sex-role

identification for the two races is considered. In

light of another hypothesis, that the sex of the

figure drawn reflects the subtle effects of perceived role prestige in society, there are other interesting implications. Conclusions concerning

this controversial issue are left to the reader; the

data are available for interpretation based on the

reader’s theoretical inclinations.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This report presents results of a modified version of the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test in

relation to selected demographic and socioeconomic factors as they affect youths aged 12-17

years in the noninstitutionalized population of

the United States. The findings are based on data

gathered in the Health Examination Survey of

1966-70. A probability sample of 7,514 youths

was selected to represent the 23 million youths in

this age range in the United States at the time of

the survey. Of this sample, 6,768 (90 percent)

were examined.

In the field study, each youth was asked to

draw 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 and

of the present monograph are based on the “person” figure, evaluated by the appropriate sex

scoring standards of the Goodenough-Harris procedure.2 The earlier report on these youths contained general findings by age and sex. Collected

from a rigorously controlled national sample,

probably one of the most carefully designed

samples ever to be used in a national

psychometric study, these data indicate that the

ceiling effect of the Goodenough-Harris Test,

which was noted in the analysis by age and sex,

persists across the socioeconomic and

demographic groups considered here.

There is a consistent positive relationship between the level of parental education (usually the

father’s) and the youth’s test score. An equally

consistent positive association exists between the

youth’s drawing score and the income of his family, When either one of these factors is held constant, the effect of the other persists. These relationships are shown to be robust over other

background factors considered here. It appears

that if one could control all those factors in the

socioeconomic environment that income and

education attempt to describe, differences

related to factors other than income and education would be negligible. The data do not yield

any significant information on differences among

geographic regions, between urban and rural

areas, or among racial groups which are not to a

large degree ascribable to socioeconomic status.

Location of household with respect to city or

suburbs was not sign~lcant, but rate of population change in the area of residence was associated with some small difference in performance.

Drawing test scores related to the progress of

the youths through school —as described by their

attendance at nursery school or kindergarten, the

age they started first grade, and their grade attainment levels relative to the modal grade for

their respective ages—were examined for variation among the various demographic or

socioeconomic categories. Differences in drawing

test performance associated with school-related

actions were considerably smaller than those

observed for the reading and arithmetic achievement testsadministered to these youths.

In general, the relationship between drawing

test performance and socioeconomic status

described in this report is similar but weaker than

that demonstrated for children aged 6-11 years in

an earlier study using’ this test. The test functioned as a general ability measure in the earlier

years of the adol~cent period studied, but after

about age 15 it chscrirninated only in the lower

reaches of the ability distribution.

10
REFERENCES

1 National Center for Health Statistics: The Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test as a measure of intellectual maturity of youths 12-17 years, United States. Vital and

Health Stat&tics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 11-No. 138.

Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Office, May 1974.

2 Harris, D. B.: Childrenk Drawings as Measures of Intellectual Matun”ty. New York. Harcourt, Brace, & World,

Inc., 1963.

3National Center for Health Statistics: Plan and initial

program of the Health Examination Survey, Vital ad

Health Statistics. PHS Pub, No. 1000-Series 1-No. 4. Public

Health Service. Washington, U.S. Government Printing OffiC12, July 1965.

4 National Center for Health Statistics: Plan, operation,

and response results of a program of children’s examinations. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series

1-No. 5. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Oct. 1967.

5National Center for Health Statistics: Plan and operation of a health examination survey of U.S. youths 12-17

years 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 of

psychological measures used in the Health Examination

Survey 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: Intellectual

maturity of children asmeasured by the Goodenough-Harris

Drawing Test, United States. Vital and Health StatzMk.

PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 11-No. 105. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Dec.

1970.

8 National Center for Health Statistics: Sample design

and estimation procedures for a national health examination survey of children. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS

Pub. No. 1000-Series 2-No. 43. Public Health Service.

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Aug. 1971.

9National Center for Health Statistics: Quality control

in a national health examination survey. Vital and Health

Statistics. Series 2-No. 44. DHEW Pub. No. (HSM)

72-1023. Health Services and Mental Health Administration. Washington. U.S. Government Printing OffIce, Feb.

1972.

10National Center for Health Statistics: Replication: An

approach to the analysis of data from complex surveys. Vital

and 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: Pseudoreplication: Further evaluation and application of the balanced

half-sample technique. Vital and Health Stat&tics. PHS

Pub. 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 age

and 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 a9e

and 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, family

income, 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, family

income, 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, family

income, 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 population

change, 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 respect

to 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 respect

to 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, according 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

attended and selected demographic or socioeconomic characteristics, with associated standard errors: U nited States,

1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of aga on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by age the youth started first

grade and selected demographic or socioeconomic characteristics, with associated standard error= United States,

1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘“””’” 28

Average Tscoresof youths 12-17years ofageon the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Te=, byrace, family income, and

education of parent, with associated standard errors United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Average T scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Teat, by race, family income, and

education of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

12
Table 1. Mean raw scores of youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test on the male figure, by age and

selected demographic or socioeconomic characteristics United States, 1966-701

Demographic or socioeconomic characteristic

All youths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family income

Lessthan $5,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

S5,000 -9,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$10,000 ormore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education of parent

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th. llth grade. ..,.,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higherthan 12thgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

White , , . . , , . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . .

.,, . . . .

Black , , . , . , , . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geographic region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Type of area

Urban, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rural . . , . . $ . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rate of population change

Loss . . ., . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Below average gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average gain . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Above average gain . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Location of household

lncentral city of SMSA. ,,, ..,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not in central city of SMSA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NotinSMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II

Age (in years)

Total

12 13

I

14 15

I

16 17

Raw score

37.2

~

35.1

37.3

38.7

35.2

37.3

37.7

38.7

37.6

33.9

37.4

37.8

36.2

37.1

37.4

36.8

35.9

37.7

36.6

38.1

37.0

37.6

36.8

32.5

34.7

35.7

33.1

34.4

34.6

35.6

34.6

33.2

34.8

35.0

33.2

34.6

34.6

34.1

32.8

35.0

34.5

35.2

34.2

35.0

34.0

33.4

35.6

37.0

33.4

35.5

36.6

36.4

36.1

31.5

35.6

36.4

33.7

35.9

35.8

34.8

34.2

35.8

35.2

36.6

36.0

35.6

34.9

37.5

~

35.2

37.5

39.6

34.7

36.8

38.4

39.9

38.1

33.5

37.2

38.5

37.9

36.6

37.6

37.4

36.5

37.9

35.7

39.4

36.4

38.5

37.6

37.9

~

35.9

38.2

39.5

36.0

37.4

38.9

39.6

38.2

35.3

38.5

38.0

37.5

37.6

38.0

37.6

36.4

38.5

37.2

39.0

37.9

38.5

37.3

Standard error of score

37.5

38.7

40.0

37.3

40.4

38.1

40.3

39.2

35.8

39.3

39.4

37.8

38.6

39.0

38.4

37.8

3B.8

39.4

39.1

38.8

39.4

38.2

38.8

36.4

39.2

40.4

36.6

39.3

39.5

41.0

39.5

34.2

39.1

39.7

36.8

39.5

39.0

38.5

37.5

39.6

38.6

39.5

38.7

39.0

38.8

All youths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.24 0.34 I

0.29 0.25 0.40 0.48 0.52

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 to

yidd 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 selected

demographic or socioeconomic characteristics: United States, 1966-70’

Demographic or socioeconomic characteristic

All youths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...!... . . . . . .

Family income

Less than $5,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$5,000-9,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$10,000 or more . . . . . . ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education of parant

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th-llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higherthan 12thgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rata

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geographic region

Northaast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOU th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Type of area

Urban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rate of population change

Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Below average gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Averagegain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Above average gain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Location ofhousehold

Incentralcityof SMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not in central city of SMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not in SMSA . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .

II Age (in years)

Tota I

12

I

13

I

14

I

15 I

16

I

17

38.2

~

35.9

38.7

39.9

36.4

37.7

39.0

40.2

38.7

35.5

39.1

38.6

36.8

38.2

38.3

37.9

37.4

37.9

37.6

39.8

37.9

38.2

38.4

34.7

37.0

38.0

35.2

35.8

37.2

37.8

36.9

33.9

38.1

36.6

35.2

36.0

36.5

36.5

36.2

36.2

36.0

37.9

35.9

36.5

36.9

37.4

35.8

37.3

39.1

35.5

36.5

38.8

38.8

37.8

35.0

37.3

38.2

35.2

38.4

37.3

37.5

36.2

38.0

36.4

39.1

35.8

38.2

37.9

Raw score

38.9

36.0

39.7

41.4

36.0

39.5

40.4

41.0

39.3

36.8

41.0

39.5

37.3

38.3

39.5

38.0

37.7

38.2

38.4

41.4

38.8

39.6

38.4

39.1

36.4

40.4

40.9

37.0

38.0

40,2

42.8

39.6

36.4

39,8

39.2

38.6

39.1

39.4

38.6

38.1

38.0

40.0

40.3

40.0

38.4

39.2

Standard error of score

38.7

36.6

38.8

40.7

37.4

37.8

38.5

41.5

39.3

35.6

39,6

39.9

36.1

39.0

38.8

38.6

37.8

39.2

38.3

39.5

39.0

38.5

38.9

39.0

36.7

40,3

39.4

37.8

38,7

39.3

40.3

39.6

36.1

39.8

38.8

38.7

38.9

39.1

38.9

39.6

38.4

37.6

40.5

39.1

37.9

40.0

All youths, 12-17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.44

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 to

yield 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

Family income and

education of parent

All youths, 12-17 years . . .

Family income

Lessthan $3,000 . . . . . . . . . . .

$3,000 -4,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$5,000 -6,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$7,000-9,999, . . . . . . . . . . . .

$10,000-14,999 . . . . . . . . . . .

$15,0000r more . . . . . . . . . . .

Education of narent

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lessthan 5years . . . . . . . . . . .

5-7 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9- 11 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13- 15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I(jyear s, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years or more . . . . . . . . . . .

Geographic region

Total

North- Mid- 1

South West

east west

Average T score

50.0 50.7

46.5 48.3

48.2 49.0

49.6 49.5

51.0 51.0

51.6 52.5

52.7 52.8

43.0 *

45.4 49.4

47.7 47.9

49.0 48.6

49.8 49.6

50.9 51.4

52.0 52.7

52.0 52.7

52.9 53.7

50.7

50.3

49.0

49.8

51.1

51.0

52.3

45.8

48,0

49.6

49.6

50.3

51.0

51.7

51.9

52.1

48.5

44.1

47.1

48.6

52.4

52.6

53.7

42.1

43.3

46.6

48.7

49.3

50.5

52.2

52.7

54.5

49.9

48.9

48.3

50.1

49.8

51.0

52.3

43.4

47.9

46.8

48.7

49.9

50.4

51.7

51.0

51.9

Total North- Mid- South West

east west

Standard error of T score

0.30

0.78

0.37

0.52

0.44

0.51

0.61

2.03

0.91

0.62

0.51

0.31

0.39

0.60

0.45

0.40

0.41

1.75

0.67

0.88

0.87

0.76

1.42

. . .

1.51

1.38

0.72

0.49

0.62

2.11

0.70

1.14

0.71

1.48

1.16

1.19

0.99

1.20

1.17

7.02

2.40

1.63

1.34

0.60

0.84

1.09

0.48

0.45

0.75

0.90

0.54

0.86

0.67

0.79

1.03

1.42

0.55

0.87

0.78

0.93

0.76

0.80

1.12

1.30

0.60

0.91

1.14

1.12

0.67

0.78

1.39

10.58

2.63

1.14

1.18

0.29

0.98

0.94

1.42

1.15

15
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

Family income and

education of parent

All youths, 12-17 years. . . . . .

Income of lessthan $5,000

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . . . .

9th- llth grade . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade. . . . . .

Income of $5,000-9,999

Education of parent:

Elementary school. . . . . . . . . .

9th- llth grade . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade. . . . . .

Income of $10,000 or more

Education of parent:

Elementary school. . . . . . . . . .

9th- llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade. . . . . .

Geographic region

Average T score

50.0

46.4

48.4

48.6

50.5

49.1

50.1

50.8

52.0

50.3

51.4

51.9

52.4

50.7

~

48.2

48.9

49.4

46.3

49.2

49.8

51.0

51.4

47.7

50.6

52.9

53.9

50.7

48.3

50.9

48.5

50.5

49.6

49.3

51.1

53.8

50.7

52.4

51.5

51.3

y

48.5

45.0

45.2

46.2

52.9

48.5

52.1

51.7

50.8

50.9

51.6

51.9

54.1

49.9

47.4

49.4

50.0

49.9

48.7

49.8

49.9

51.7

52.9

50.7

51.6

51.5

Standard error of T score

0.30

0.51

0.63

0.89

1.13

0.86

0.49

0.36

0.57

0.58

0.81

0.42

0.42

041 -

1.07

1.35

2.43

5.89

1.29

0.62

0.65

0.62

1.33

2.65

0.66

1.33

071 -

1.31

0.80

2.40

1.02

1.57

0.73

0.67

1.45

0.90

1.25

0.81

0.28

QJL

-

0.72

1.20

1.06

2.13

0.62

1.06

0.68

1.01

2.51

1.41

0.87

0.81

060 -

0,92

1.05

1.99

1.70

2.03

0.79

0.89

1.34

4.56

1.18

0.93

0.86

16
Table 5. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17 years of ageonthe GOodenough-Harris Drawing Test, bytypeof area, family income, and

education of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70

Family income and education of parent

All youths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family income

Less than $3,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$3,000-4,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$5,000-6,999 .............................................

$7,000-9,999 .............................................

$10,000-14,999 ...........................................

$15,0000r more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education of parent

None . . . , . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Less than 5 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5- 7 years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9-n years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13- 16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17yearsor more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Type of area

=

Average T score

50.0

~

46.5

48.2

49.6

51.0

51.6

52.7

43.0

45.4

47.7

49.0

49.8

50.9

52.0

52.0

52.9

50.2

~

47.1

48.3

49.6

51.0

51.4

52.6

45.0

46.9

48.0

48.1

49.7

50.8

52.2

52.2

52.8

49.6

~

45.8

47.9

49.4

51.0

52.1

52.7

41.4

44.0

47.2

49.9

50.0

51.0

51.3

51.5

53.1

EllEiE

Standard error of T score

0.30

0.78

0.37

0.52

0.44

0.51

0.61

2.03

0.91

0.62

0.51

0.31

0.39

0.60

0.45

0.40

0.26

~

1.06

0.41

0.56

0.54

0.58

0.52

2.95

1.32

0.80

0.48

0.31

0.34

0.81

0.51

0.58

0.50

0,82

0.70

0.98

0.49

0.65

1.37

1.93

0.67

0.72

0.76

0.58

0.68

1.14

1.06

1.56

17
Takde6. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by type ofarea, family income, and

education of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70

Family income and education of parent

Allyouths, 12-17 years of age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income of less than $5,000

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...”...

9th -llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lncomeof$5,000 -9,999

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th -llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income of $10,000 or more

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th -llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Type of area

Average T score

50.0 50.2

46.4 47.1

48.4 48.5

48.6 48.2

50.5 49.7

49.1 48.9

50.1 49.9

50.8 50.8

52.0 52.5

50.3 48.3

51.4 51.2

51.9 51.9

52.4 52.5

49.6

45.8

48.2

49.3

51.9

49.2

50.6

50.9

50.9

53.2

51.9

52.0

52.4

Total I Urban I Rural

Standard error of T score

0.30 I

0.51

0.63

0.89

1.13

0.86

0.49

0.36

0.57

0.58

0.81

0.42

0.42

0.26

0.78

0.78

0.95

1.36

0.66

0.46

0.47

0.74

0.60

0.96

0.32

0.52

0.50

0.62

0.97

1.43

2.00

1.34

0.85

0.53

0.78

1.31

1.48

1.31

1.22

18
Table 7. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, byrateof population change, family

income, andeducation ofparent, with associated standard errors United States, 1966-70

Family income and

education of parent

All youths, 12-17 years . . .

Family income

Less than $3,000 . . . . . . . . . . .

$3,000 -4,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$5,000 -6,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$7,000-9,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$10,000- 14,999 . . . . . . . . . . .

$15,0000r mora. . . . . . . . . . . .

Education of Darent

, None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Less than 5years . . . . . . . . . . .

5- 7yaers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. 11 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13- 15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17yewsor more . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rate of population change

Averaga T score

50.0

46.5

48.2

49.6

51.0

51.6

52.7

43.0

45.4

47.7

49.0

49.8

50.9

52.0

52.0

52.9

48.7

~

45.5

48.7

48.7

50.7

51.0

50.4

40.9

44.2

47.6

49.0

49.3

49.4

51.1

50.9

51.9

50.2

~

48.8

48.1

49.7

50.7

51.0

52.7

it

48.1

47.7

48.8

50.0

51.4

51.6

51.3

52.8

49.4

~

45.4

46.4

49.4

50.0

51.2

53.9

44.5

45.9

46.7

47.0

49.1

50.1

51.7

52.0

54.3

51.6

~

47.4

49.5

50.7

52.3

52.5

52.5

*

41.7

49.6

51.0

50.8

52.0

52.8

52.6

52.6

Standard error of T score

0.30

0.78

0.37

0.52

0.44

0.51

0.61

2.03

0.91

0.62

0.51

0.31

0.39

0.60

0.45

0.40

0.81

1.02

0.75

1.07

0.64

1.38

0.66

1.21

0.69

0.86

1.30

0.69

0.99

1.49

1.29

1.06

0.42

1.17

0.76

1.15

0.55

0.? 1

1.51

2:69

1.53

1.49

0.39

0.57

1.46

1.44

1.49

0.60

2.31

0.73

0.71

0.78

1.07

1.33

1.50

1.70

1.54

1.24

0.48

0.55

1.16

0.72

1.43

0.42

1.02

1.17

0.87

0.98

0.40

1.12

. . .

1.02

0.91

0.43

0.92

0.73

0.99

0.53

1.26

19
Table8. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17 years of age on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, byrateof population change, family

income, and education of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70

Family income and

education of parent

Allyouths, 12-17 years . . .

[ ncome of less than $5,000

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . .

9th- llth grade . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade. . . .

Income of $5,000-9,999

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . .

9th- llth grade . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade. . . .

Income of $10,000 or more

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . .

9th- llth grade . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade....

Rate of population change

Average T score

50.0 48.7

46.4 46.2

48.4 48.8

48.6 47.4

50.5 53.3

49.1 49.5

50.1 49.9

50.8 49.8

52.0 50.4

50.3 51.4

51.4 48.6

51.9 50.6

52.4 51.8

50.2

47.6

48.8

49.9

49.1

47.5

50.3

51.8

51.7

50.9

51.1

51.2

52.1

49.4

44.8

47.6

47.9

51.5

48.8

49.2

49.4

51.0

48.7

51.4

52.0

53.2

51.6

48.1

48.6

49.4

49.0

50.5

51.1

51.9

53.8

50.8

53.2

53.0

52.3

Standard error of T score

0.30

0.51

0.63

0.89

1.13

0.86

0.49

0.36

0.57

0.58

0.81

0.42

0.42

0.81

~

0.50

0.94

1.75

4.10

1.53

1.16

0.69

.128

3.03

1.15

1.55

1.46

0.42

1.33

1.31

2.24

11.48

1.57

0.77

0.47

1.56

3.10

1.37

0.79

1.10

0.60

~

1.82

1.76

1.32

3.91

1.03

0.82

0.80

1.25

1.49

1.06

0.78

1.33

0.42

0.70

1.51

1.67

1.01

0.99

1.07

0.89

0.75

1.31

2.09

0.47

0.81

20
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

Family income and aducation of parent

All youths, 12-17 yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Femily income

Less than $3,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$3,000-4,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$5,000.6,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$7,000.9,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$10,000-14,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$15,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education of oarent

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Less than 5 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5-7 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.11 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13-15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 yaws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Location of household

EEiiEiE

Average T score

50.C

~

46.5

48.2

49.6

51.0

51.6

52.7

43.0

45,4

47,7

49.0

49.8

50.9

52.0

52.0

52.9

49.7

~

48.0

47.8

49.3

50.1

51.8

51.5

*

48.9

47.8

47.9

48.9

50.5

51.4

51.9

53.0

50.3

~

45.7

47.2

50.0

51.2

51.4

53.1

45.8

43.5

47.1

48.6

50.3

51.2

52.1

52.0

52.0

49.9

45.8

49.0

49.4

51.3

51.6

53.1

39.7

44.3

47.9

49.6

50.3

50.8

52.2

52.1

54.3

EEiEE

Standard error of Tscrxe

0.30

~

0.78

0.37

0.52

0.44

0.51

0.61

2.03

0.91

0.62

0.51

0.31

0.39

0.60

0.45

0.40

0.30

~

0.87

0.46

0.72

0.70

0.56

0.66

. . .

1.29

1.13

0.93

0.55

0.42

1.22

0.88

1.16

0.45

2.04

1.07

0.69

0.79

0.89

0.97

2.27

2.01

1.40

0.85

0.51

0.58

0.89

1.12

0.82

0.53

0.81

0.50

1.06

0.57

0.56

1.25

2.00

0.60

0.86

0.79

0.53

0.73

0.88

0.56

0.74

21
Table 10. Average 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 errors: United States, 1966-70

Family income and education of parent

All youths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income of less than $5,000

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th- llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lncomeof$5,000 -9,999

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th -llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income of $10,000 or more

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th -llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total

50.C

46.4

48.4

48.6

50.5

49.1

50.1

50.8

52.0

50.3

51.4

51.9

52.4

[n

central

city of

SMSA

Not in

central

city of

SMSA

Average T score

49.7

47.9

47.9

48.2

48.9

49.3

49.4

50.0

51.1

45.1

49.9

52.6

52.6

50.3

44.4

48.4

49.4

50.3

48.8

50.0

~1.r)

52.1

50.7

52.7

51.9

52.1

Location of household

Not in

SMSA

49.9

46.5

49.2

48.2

51.8

49.1

50.9

51.2

52.4

52.2

51.3

51.4

53.0

1

Total

Sti

0.30

0.51

0.63

0.89

1.13

0.86

0.49

0.36

0.57

0.58

0.81

0.42

0.42

I I

In Not in

central central Not In

city of city of SMSA

SMSA SMSA

1 I

dard error of T score

0.30

0.96

1.00

1.31

3.76

0.76

0.62

0.65

1,44

2.13

1.00

0.52

0.57

0.45

1.65

1.58

1.54

2.33

0.99

0.95

0.64

1.13

1.16

0.95

0.71

0.65

0.53

0.33

0.66

1.60

1.12

7.57

0.65

0.51

0.39

1.20

1.81

0.96

0.94

22
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

F~mily income and education of parent

All youths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family income

Less than$3,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$3,000 -4,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$5,000-6,999 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$7,000-9,999 . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .

$10,000-14,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . ,

$15,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education of parent

None . , , . . . .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .

Lt?ssthan 5years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5-7 years..,.

. . . . , . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,

8 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9-11 years , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 yew-s . , . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 -15ywrs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years or more . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grade level with respect to age

Total

Below

modal

grade

I

In IAbove

modal modal

grade grade

Average T score

50.0

46.5

48.2

49.6

51.0

51.6

52.7

43.0

45.4

47.7

49,0

49.8

50.9

52.0

52.0

62.9

47.9

~

44.5

46.4

48.2

49.0

49.9

52.1

42.9

43.5

46.1

46.9

48.9

49.3

50.5

51.3

49.3

51.1

49.6

49.3

50.7

51.6

51.8

52.5

45.6

49.5

49.8

50.3

50.3

51.3

52.2

51.8

53.5

52.6

48.0

52.5

51.1

53.4

53.7

54.1

(1)

48.2

49.3

50.9

52.2

52.8

54.2

54.1

55.2

m

Standard error of T score

0.30

~

0.78

0.37

0.52

0.44

0.51

0.61

2.03

0.91

0.62

0.51

0.31

0.39

0.60

0.45

0.40

0.51

~

1.15

0.59

0.75

0.65

0.48

1.60

3.02

1.62

0.81

0.89

0.33

0.82

1.19

1.06

1.10

0.29

0.67

0.54

0.45

0.54

0.43

0.71

1,51

0.95

0.59

0.66

0.48

0.38

0.60

0.52

0.84

0.62

1.97

1.00

1.07

0.72

1.35

0.74

. . .

2.34

2.34

1.15

1.14

0.82

1.29

1.39

1.46

23
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

Family income and education of parent

All youths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income of less than $5,000

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th- llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade. .:.... . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income of $5,000-9,999

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th -llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income of $10,000 or more

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th -llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total

Below

modal

grade

Grade level with respect to age

In

modal

grade

Average T score

50.0

46.4

48.4

48.6

50.5

49.1

50.1

50.8

52.0

50.3

51.4

51.9

52.4

47.9

44.4

47.5

45.9

53,0

47.0

49.6

49.1

50.1

49.6

49.3

51.5

50.5

51.1

49.2

49.5

49.5

49.9

50.8

50.4

51.5

52.7

50.5

52.0

51.7

52.5

Above

modal

grade

52.6

49.4

51.9

51.6

●

51.3

51.6

52.5

53.2

50.9

53.0

53.6

55.1

1Total

I

Sti

0.30 I

0.51

0.63

0.89

1.13

0.86

0.49

0.36

0.57

0.58

0.81

0.42

0.42

I I

Idard error of T score

0.51

0.79

0.91

1.28

1.22

1.13

0.50

0.98

0.90

1.88

1.13

0.74

0.96

0.29

0.53

0.78

1.10

1.12

0.76

0.76

0,50

0.73

0.85

0.98

0.51

0.47

0.62

1.30

2.50

2.14

.,.

1,29

1.11

0.74

1.42

2.12

2.01

1.39

1.18

24
Table 13. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17years ofageon the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, bygrade level with respect to age and

selected demographic orsocioeconomic characteristics, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70

Demographic or socioeconomic characteristic

Allyouths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Place of residence

Urbanized areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urban,other, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rural areas, ., .,, ,,, ...,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rate of population change

Loss .,, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Belowaveragegain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Averagegain, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aboveaverage gain, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geoara~hic reaion

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family income

Less than$5,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$5,000-9,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$10,000 or more, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grade level with respect to age

Average T score

50.0

50.2

50.1

49.6

48.7

50.2

49.4

51.6

50.6

46.3

50.7

50.7

48.5

49.9

47.4

50.4

52.0

47.9

47.9

48.6

47.5

45.8

49.3

46.6

49.1

48.6

44.3

47.4

49.2

46.3

48.6

45.4

48.6

50.6

51.1

51.0

51.4

51.2

49.9

51.1

50.7

52.4

51.5

48.2

51.3

50.9

51.0

51.3

49.5

51.3

52.0

52.6

52.7

52.4

52.2

51.1

51.2

52.7

54.7

52.7

50.8

52.8

53.5

50.1

50.6

50.5

52.6

53.9

Standard error of T score

0.30

0.33

0.45

0.50

0.82

0.41

0.65

0.41

0,32

0.71

0.41

0.71

0.72

0.60

0.48

0.38

0.30

0.52

0.53

0.99

0.76

1.44

0.54

1.27

0.72

0.53

0.94

1.29

0.75

0.95

1.27

0.66

0.55

0.55

0.27

0.31

0.47

0.54

0.80

0.32

0.60

0.51

0.33

0.61

0.29

0.55

0.58

0.70

0.43

0.38

0.36

0.63

0.66

1.88

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.94

1.16

0.61

1.53

0.86

1.08

0.65

2.22

0.86

0.55

0.92

25
Table 14. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age, by type of early school attended and agestarted first grade, according to

selected demographic or socioeconomic characteristics: United States, 1966-70

Demographic or socioeconomic characteristic

Allyouths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education of parent

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th -llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family income

Lessthan $5,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$5,000 -9,999...............,.. . . . . . . . .

$lO,OOOor more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Place of residence

Urbanized areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urban,other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rural areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rate of population change

Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Below average gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aboveaveragegain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geographic region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Early school attel

I

Nursery

school

Total and

kindergarten

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

8.5

3.8

5.1

7.5

19.1

4.8

5.1

15.8

11.6

6.3

5.0

3.9

6.3

8.6

14.3

8.8

5.9

9.0

7.0

7.1

11.0

Kindergarten

only

57.4

40.6

61.2

66.7

64.4

40.5

62.4

65.4

66.0

57.9

45.2

44.1

61.4

59.4

63.7

58.8

48.5

67.1

75.3

23.4

60.1

Nursery

school IINeither Total

only

Percent distribution

0.8

0.6

0.9

0.9

0.7

0.8

0.7

0.9

O.g

0.6

0.6

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.9

0.4

1.3

0.6

33.4

55.0

32.8

24.8

15.7

53.9

31.9

17.9

21.5

35.2

49.1

51.8

31.7

31.1

20.8

31.6

45.1

23.0

17.3

68.2

28.3

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Age started

first grade

Tr Sor 6 7 or

u rider over

14.5

19.>

22.4

23.C

14.4

20.7

22.7

22.7

17.2

17,2

20.0

79.2

19.2

21.0

20.1

18.2

27.8

20.1

13.0

19.3

74.L

74.E

75.:

74.C

74.C

74.5

75.1

74.1

72.7

75.7

76.2

73.0

74.5

74.9

75.0

74.3

75.5

68.6

76.0

78.1

74.2

5.7

10.3

5.0

3.6

3.1

10.8

4.3

3.2

4.6

7.1

6,6

7.0

6.2

5.9

3.9

5.6

6.3

3.6

4.0

8.9

6.4

26
Table 15. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17 yearsof ageonthe Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, by type of early school attended and

selected demographic orsocioeconomic characteristics, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70

Demographic or socioeconomic characteristic

Allyouths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grade level for age

Above modal grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In modal grade .,, ..,,,., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Below modal grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education of ~arent

Elementary school , ,.,. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th -llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family income

Lessthan$5,000 ,., ., . . , ,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$5,000-9,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$10,000 or mora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Place of residence

.,

Urbanized areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urban,other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rural areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rate of population change

Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Belowaveragegain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Averagegain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aboveaveragegain, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black, , .,...,,,,..,......,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geographic region

Northeast . . . . . ,.., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South , .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .

West ,., . . . , . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Early school attendance

Nursery

school

and

kindergarten

Kindergarten

only

Nursery

school

only

Neither

I I I

Average T score

51.2

53.3

51.9

49.3

49.6

51.9

49.6

52.2

49.9

51.8

51.3

51.6

48.5

51.1

49.8

50.2

51.5

51.7

51.5

47.5

51.3

51.2

51.7

50.8

50.6

53.0

51.3

48.7

49,0

49.4

51.0

52.3

48.3

50.5

52.3

50.4

50.6

51.2

50.0

50.3

50.1

51.8

51.0

47.7

50.8

50.7

50.9

50.2

49.7

●

52.5

46.4

45.8

48.6

48.6

56.6

48.5

46.8

53.7

49.9

43.0

51.6

51.0

48.4

46.1

52.2

50.1

46.0

45.5

51.2

51.1

50.9

48.7

51.6

50.3

46.8

46.5

50.2

50.9

51.7

46.4

50.1

51.1

49.1

49.7

48.1

47.5

50.0

47.5

50.9

49.5

44.6

50.5

51.0

47.3

49.0

Nursery

school

and

KindergartenNursery

school Neither

kinder- only only

garten

Standard error of T score

0.36

1.09

0.56

0.88

1.09

0.92

1.15

0.56

1.44

0.60

0.45

0.47

0.97

0.82

1.10

1.10

0.96

0.59

0.40

0.91

0.83

0.35

0.33

1.04

0.33

0.76

0.30

0.57

0.57

0.38

0.39

0.50

0.43

0.40

0.40

0.33

0.48

0.61

0.94

0.47

0.52

0.47

0.35

0.64

0.50

0.86

0.73

0.48

1.31

2.i i

3.41

4.51

3.13

1.64

3.68

4.52

1.89

3.09

2.34

4.00

1.16

2.08

3.20

4.20

2.15

1.61

9.35

0.97

3.07

1.99

5.41

0.48

0.77

0.41

0.74

0.68

0.64

0.65

0.81

0.64

0.55

0.53

0.72

0.78

0.71

0.84

1.08

1.22

0.70

0.47

1.14

0.55

0.81

0.73

1.27

27
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 and

selected demographic orsocioeconomic characteristics, with associated standard errorx United States, 1966-70

Demographic or socioeconomic characteristic

Allyouths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grade level for aae

Above modal grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In modal grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Belowmodal grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education of oerent

Elementary school .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th -llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family income

Less than$5,00Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$5,000-9,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$lO,OOOOr more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Place of residence

Urbanized areas , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Urban,other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rural areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rate of population change

Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Below average gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Averagegain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Above averagegain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , , ,...,

Geographic region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1Total

50.0

52.6

51.1

47.9

47’.6

49.8

50.9

52.2

47.4

50.4

52.0

50.2

50.1

49.6

48.7

50.2

49.4

51.6

50,6

46.3

50.7

50.7

48.5

49.9

5 years

m uncle

6

I

7 years

years or over

Average T score

50.7

~

52.4

51.0

47.9

48.7

50.3

50.8

52.4

48.5

50.8

52.2

50.7

50.9

50.6

49.1

51.0

50.8

51.8

51.1

47.7

50.8

51.1

50.5

50.3

50.0

~

52,7

51.1

48.2

47.7

49.7

51.0

52.2

47.4

50.4

52.0

50.2

50.3

49.8

49.0

50.1

49.2

51.6

50.6

46.2

50.9

50.8

48.5

50.0

47.5

●

52.4

46.2

46.1

49.1

48.6

50.6

46.0

49.3

49.8

49.1

47.2

46.1

44.6

49.7

46.7

49.9

48.2

43.5

47.1

48.5

46.1

48.8

Standard error of T score

0.30

0.63

0.27

0.52

0.51

0.31

0.37

0.34

0.48

0.37

0.30

0.33

0.45

0.50

0.82

0.41

0.65

0.47

0.32

0.71

0.39

0.72

0.73

0.60

0.39

~

0.60

0.49

0.68

1.00

0.56

0.40

0.74

0.81

0.47

0.50

0.54

0.62

0.58

0.78

0.53

1.17

0.46

0.35

1.36

0.97

0.38

0.71

0.79

0.32

0.88

0.29

0.62

0.59

0.37

0.43

0.36

0.60

0.42

0.32

0.33

0.53

0.52

0.83

0,51

0.77

0.45

0.31

0.68

0.26

0.80

0.80

0.56

0.89

~

. . .

1.41

0.99

1,12

1.46

1,36

4.40

1.17

1.17

2.20

1.51

2.57

1.07

1.46

1.93

0.53

1.60

1,01

1.49

1.27

2.65

0.87

3.37

28
Table 17. Average Tscoresof youths 12-17 yearsof ageonthe Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, byrace, family income, and education

of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70

Family income and education of parent

Allyouths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Familv income

Less than $3,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$3,000-4,999 ~5,000.6,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$7,000-9,999 . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$10,000-14,999 . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$15,000 or morez . . , . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education of parent

None . , , . , ,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Less than 5years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-7 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9- 11 years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . , , , , . . . . . , . ., . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .

13. 15years . . . . . .. o. . . . . . . ..o.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years , . , , . , . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years or more ,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E!EE

Average T score

50.0 50.6

46.5 47.4

48.2 48.9

49.6 50.0

51.0 51.1

51.6 51.8

52.7 52,6

43.0 43.2

45.4 46.8

47.7 49.3

49.0 49.4

49.8 50.3

50.9 51.0

52.0 52.1

52.0 52.2

52.9 52.7

46.3

44.8

46.3

46.8

50.0

46.7

51.5

42.1

42.8

43.9

45.1

47.9

49.0

48.7

42.7

56.3

ZEE

Standard error of T score

0.30 0.32

0.78 0.73

0.37 0.42

0.52 0.56

0.44 0.44

0.51 0.53

0.61 0.63

2.03 2.54

0,91 1.02

0.62 0.55

0.51 0.53

0.31 0.36

0.39 0.37

0.60 0.61

0.45 0.47

0.40 0.41

0.73

1.35

0.72

0.83

1.71

2.23

2.33

1.72

0.98

1.05

1.52

0.88

1.38

1.34

1.39

13.17

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 for

thegrmspof 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 education

of parent, with associated standard errors: United States, 1966-70

Family income and education of parent

Allyouths, 12-17 years of age.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income of less than $5,000

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th -llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income of $5,000-9,999

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th -llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Income of $10,000 or more

Education of parent:

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9th -llth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ZiEE

Average T score

50.0

~

46.4

48.4

48.6

50.5

49.1

50.1

50.8

52.0

50.3

51.4

51.9

52.4

50.6

~

47.5

49.0

48.7

51.9

49.6

50.4

50.9

52.0

51.2

51.4

52.0

52.5

46.3

43.8

47.4

48.2

46.2

45.4

48.3

50.0

50.6

40.2

*

50.0

48.7

EEIE

Standard error of T score

0.30

0.51

0.63

0.89

1.13

0.86

0.49

0.36

0.57

0.58

0.81

0.42

0.42

0.32

0.31

0.61

1.01

0.88

0.98

0.54

0.34

0.60

0.81

0.76

0.43

0.41

0.73

1.25

1,16

1.59

2.68

0.88

1.34

1.95

2.70

3.20

;.42

3.31

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 for

thegroup ofyouths in the “other’’c ategory wa.s49.8 and thestandard error of theestimate was 2.41.

000

30
APPENDIXES

CONTENTS

I. Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

TheSurveyDesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

MissingTestResultsandImputation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

SamplingandMeasurementError. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

HypothesisTesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Small Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Standard Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

H. Demographic and Socioeconomic Variables andRelatedTerrns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

LISTOFAPPENDIX TABLES

I. T score equivalents ofraw scoresof bo~12-17 years ofageon the Goodenough-Harns

manscale(persondrawing), byage: UnitedStates, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

II. TScoreequivalents ofrawscores of girls 12-17 years ofageon the Goodenough-Harns

manscale(persondrating), byage: UnitedStates, 1966-70. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

111. Tscoreequivalents ofrawscores of bop12-17yeam ofageon the Goodenough-Harns

womanscale(persondrating), byage:UnitedStates, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

IV. Tscoreequivalents ofrawscores of girls 12-17 years ofageon the Goodenough-Hamis

womanscale(persondrawing), byage:UnitedStates, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

v. Percent distributions of youths 12-17 years of ageinthe U.S. population, by race and

geographicregion andbyfamilyincome andeducationof parent, according torace and

geographicregion: UnitedStates, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

VI. Percent distribution ofyouths 12-17 years ofagein the U.S. population, by race and

place of residence and by family income and education of parent, according to race and

placeofresidence:UnitedStates,1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

31
APPENDIX I

TECHNICAL NOTES

The Survey Design

The sample design for each of the first three

programs of the Health Examination Survey

(Cycles I-III) has been essentiallysimilar in that it

has been a multistage, stratified probability sample of clusters of households in land-based

segments. The successive elements were the

primary sample unit (PSU), census enumeration

district (ED), segment (a cluster of households),

household, eligible youths, and finally, the sample youth.

The 40 sample areas and the segments utilized in the design of Cycle III were the same as

those in Cycle III. Previous reports describe in

detail the sample design used for Cycle II, and, in

addition, discuss the problems and considerations given to other types of sampling frames and

whether or not to control the selection of

siblings. q~s

Requirements and limitations placed on the

design for Cycle III, similar to those for the

design in Cycle II, were as follows:

The target population was defined as the

civilian noninstitutionalized population of

the United States, including Alaska and

Hawaii, in the age range of 12-17 years, with

the special exclusion of children residing on

reservation lands of the American Indians.

The latter exclusion was adopted as a result

of operational problems encountered on

these lands in Cycle 1.

The time period of data collection was

limited to about 3 years, and the len~h of the

designed household, medical history, and

school questionnaires and from copies of

birth certificates.

Examination objectives were related primarily to factors of physical and intellectual

growth and development.

The sample was sufficiently large to yield

reliable findings within broad geographic

regions and population density groups as well

aswithin age, sex, and limited socioeconomic

groups for the total sample.

The sample was drawn jointly with the U.S.

Bureau of the Census, beginning with the 1960

Decennial Census list of addresses and the nearly

1,900 PSUS into which the entire United States

was divided. Each PSU is either a standard

metropolitan statistical area (SMSA), a county,

or a group of two or three contiguous counties.

These PSU’Swere grouped into 40 strata so that

each stratum had an average size of about 4.5

million persons. Grouping was also done to maximize the degree of homogeneityy within strata

with regard to the population size of the PSU’S,

degree of urbanization, geographic proximity,

and degree of industrialization. The 40 strata

were then classified into four broad geographic

regions of 10 strataeach and then cross-classified

within each region by four population density

classes and classes of rate of population change

from 1950 to 1960, Using a modified GoodmanKish controlled-selection technique, one PSU was

drawn from each of the 40 strata.

Generally, within each PSU, 20 ED’s were

● selected, with the probability of selection of a

individual 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, which

bv 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) in

each ED. Because of the approximately 3-year interval between Cycle II and Cycle III, the Cycle

III sampling frame was updated for new construction and to compensate for segments where

housing was partially or totally demolished to

make room for highway construction or urban

redevelopment, Each of the resulting 20 segments

within a PSU was either a bounded area or a

cluster of households (or addresses). All youths in

the appropriate age range who resided at the address visited were eligible youths, i.e., eligible for

inclusion in the sample. Operational considerations made it necessary to reduce the number of

prospective examinees at any one location to a

maximum of 200. When the number of eligible

youths in a particular location exceeded this

number, the “excess” eligible youths were deleted

from the sample through a systematic sampling

technique. Youths who were not selected as sample youths in the Cycle III sample, but who were

previously examined in Cycle II, were scheduled

for examination if time permitted and will be included in special longitudinal analyses. In addition, individual twins who were deleted from the

Cycle III sample were also scheduled for examination, as they had been in Cycle II, to provide data on pairs of twins for future analysis.

These data are not included in this report as part

of the national probabilityy sample of youths.

The sample was selected in Cycle III, as it had

been for the children in Cycle II, to contain proportional representation of youths from families

having only one eligible youth, two eligible

youths, and so on, so as to be representative of the

total target population. However, since

households were one of the elements in the sample frame, the number of related youths in the

resulting sample is greater than that which would

result from a design which sampled youths aged

12-17 years without regard to household. The

resulting estimated mean measurements or rates

should be unbiased, but their sampling variability will be somewhat greater than those from a

more costly, time-consuming, systematic sample

design in which every hthyouth would be selected.

The total probability sample for Cycle III included 7,514 youths representative of the approximately 22.7 million noninstitutionalized U.S.

youths aged 12-17 years. The sample contained

approximately 1,000 youths in each single year of

age 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 sample. These examinees were closely representative

of those in the population from which the sample

was drawn with respect to age, sex, race,

geographic region, and population density and

growth in area of residence. Hence it appears

unlikely that nonresponse could bias the findings

appreciably.

Estimated distributions by geographic region

and by type of area, i.e., urban versus rural, according to family income and first listed parent’s

level of education, are shown in tables V and VI.

Reliability

While measurement processes in the surveys

were carefully standardized and closely controlled, the correspondence between true population figures and survey results cannot be expected to be exact. Survey data are imperfect for

three major reasons: (1) results are subject to

sampling error, (2) the actual conduct of a survey

never agrees perfectly with the design, and (3) the

measurement processes themselves are inexact

even though standardized and controlled.

Ceneral methods used to control the quality

of the data from this survey have been discussed

previously, g and some remarks relating specifically to the human figure drawing test can be

found in the text of this report. As indicated,

quality control methods included two independent scorings of each drawing by two adults who

were carefully trained in the Goodenough-Harris

scoring methods, and a high level of agreement

was realized between the two setsof scores.

An additional exploration of consistency in

scoring on the Coodenough-Harris scales was

undertaken during the Cycle III program. One

hundred and forty man drawings and 84 woman

drawings selected horn 11 of the first 19 sampling

areas were restored under the direct supervision

of Dale Harris, author of the Coodenough-Harris

Drawing Test scoring standards. These 224 drawings fell into three groups representing different

teams of scorers used in the Health Examination

Survey study. Two persons restored the tests in33
dependently. Any differences between the scoring

were reconciled in conference before a score was

reported.

The correlation between these scores and the

survey scores was about 0.9, which provided additional evidence of interscorer consistency.

Data recorded for each sample youth are inflated in the estimation process to characterize

the larger universe of which the sample youth is

representative. The weights used in this inflation

process are a product of the reciprocal of the

probability of selecting the youth, an adjustment

for nonresponse cases, and a poststratified ratio

adjustment which increases precision by bringing

survey results into closer alignment with known

U.S. population figures by color and sex within

single years of age 12-17.

In the third cycle of the Health Examination

Survey (as for the children in Cycle II) the sample

was the result of three principal stages of

selection —the single PSU from each stratum, the

20 segments from each sample PSU, and the sample youth from the eligible youths. The probability of selecting an individual youth is the

product of the probability of selection at each

stage.

Because the strata are roughly equal in

population size and a nearly equal number of

sample youths were examined in each of the sample PSU’S, the sample design is essentially selfweighting with respect to the target population;

that is, each youth aged 12-17 years had about

the same probability of being drawn into the

sample.

The adjustment upward for nonresponse is

intended to minimize the impact of nonresponse

on final estimatesby imputing to nonrespondents

the characteristics of “similar” respondents.

“Similar” respondents in a sample PSU are defined here as examined youths of the same age in

years and of the same sex as youths not examined

in that sample PSU.

The poststratified ratio adjustment used in

the third cycle achieved most of the gains in

precision which would have been attained if the

sample had been drawn from a population

stratified by age, color, and sex. This adjustment

made the final sample estimates of population

agree exactly with independent controls prepared

by 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 in

each of the 24 age, race, and sex classes is adjusted upward or downward so that the weighted

total within the class equals the independent

population control.

Missing Test Results and

Imputation Procedures

In addition to youths who were selected for

the sample but not examined, there were some

whose examination was incomplete in one procedure or another. Of the total 6,768 youths examined, 536 had either the person drawing, the

self drawing, or both drawings missing or not

adequately completed for scoring. Of these 536

cases, 504 were determined to be incomplete

because of factors not directly attributable to the

sample youth, such as inadequate time for completion of drawing, records lost in shipping, and

examiner’s errors in administration. Only 32

cases were determined to be incomplete because

of some characteristic of the youth being examined, such as atypical behavior, sensory-motor

defects, or language problems. Since the reason

for incomplete test results in most cases was not

directly related to the characteristic being

measured, raw scores were imputed for almost all

of these examinees. In the 32 cases where some

problem of the youth was documented, imputation was not considered appropriate.

Imputation was accomplished in the following manner: An intercorrelation matrix of all

psychological test data and selected socioeconomic variables was derived to identify those

variables which were most highly associated with

each raw test score. As a result, five variables

were chosen for the imputation of GoodenoughHarris 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 result

for an examinee was accomplished by randomly

selecting a match among the group of examinees

of the same age in years, parental level of education, race, sex, and available raw score test

results most highly correlated with the scores to

34
be imputed, The raw score of this “matched” examinee was then imputed to the examinee with

the missing score. When data for any of these

variables were not available, a match was

selected using information on the variables

available in the youth’s record.

Sampling and Measurement Error

In the present report, reference has been

made to efforts to minimize bias and variability

of measurement techniques. The probabilityy

design of the survey makes possible the calculation of sampling errors. The sampling error is

used here to determine how imprecise the survey

test results may be because they result from a

sample rather than from the measurement of all

elements in the universe. The estimation of

sampling errors for a study of the type of the

Health Examination Survey is difficult for at least

three reasons: (1) measurement error and “pure”

sampling error are confounded in the data, and

it is difficult to find a procedure that will either

completely include both or treat one or the other

separately; (2) the survey design and estimation

procedure are complex and accordingly require

computationally involved techniques for the calculation of variances; and (3) thousands of statistics are derived from the survey, many for subclasses of the population for which there are a

small number of cases. Estimates of sampling

error are obtained from the sample data and are

themselves subject to sampling error, which may

be large when the number of cases in a cell is

small or, occasionally, even when the number of

cases is substantial.

Estimates of the approximate sampling

variability for selected statistics used in this

report are presented alongside the statisticsin the

detailed tables. These estimates, called “standard

errors, ” have been prepared by a replication

technique that yields overall variability through

observation of variability among random subsamples of the total sample. The method reflects

both “pure” sampling variance and a part of the

measurement variance and is described in

previously published reports.lo,l 1

Hypothesis Testing

In accordance with usual practice, the interval estimate for any statistic may be considered

the range within one standard error of the

tabulated statistic with 68-percent confidence or

the range within two standard errors of the

tabulated statisticswith 95-percent confidence.

An approximation of the standard error of a

difference d = x – y of two statisticsx and y is

given by the formula Sd = (Sxz + Sy2)~ where

Sx and Sy are the sampling errors, respectively, of

x and y. Of course, where the two groups of measures are positively or negatively correlated, this

formula will give an overestimate or underestimate of the actual standard error.

Small Categories

In some tables estimates have not been shown

for certain categories for which the sample size

was so small that the relative standard error exceeded 0.25. A few estimates which did not meet

this strict standard of precision have been included along with their corresponding standard errors in the belief that the information may add to

the overall impression of the survey findings and

therefore may be of interest to subject-matter

specialists.

Standard Scores

For each type of figure drawing the raw scores

were converted by means of the cumulative

percentage distributions to normalized T scores

with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.

This was done within each single age group for

males and females separately. Since raw scores on

the Goodenough-Harris Test were found to level

off after age 15, the age groups 15-17 years were

combined. Slight irregularities in the progression

of scaled score equivalents from age to age were

encountered during the standardization process,

primarily in the man drawing by females and the

woman drawing by males. These irregularities,

assumed to be due to sampling variability, were

found at the extremes of the distributions and

were eliminated by a graphic smoothing procedure. The final conversions are shown in

tables 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:

United States, 1966-70

T score

75 . . . . . . . . . .

74 . . . . . . . . . .

73 . . . . . . . . . .

72 . . . . . . . . . .

71 . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

%... . . . . .

68 . . . . . . . . . .

67 . . . . . . . . . .

66. . . . . . . . . .

65 . . . . . . . . . .

64 . . . . . . . . . .

63 . . . . . . . . . .

62 . . . . . . . . . .

61 . . . . . . . . . .

60 . . . . . . . . . .

59 . . . . . . . . . .

58 . . . . . . . . . .

57 . . . . . . . . . .

56 . . . . . . . . . .

55 . . . . . . . . . .

54 . . . . . . . . . .

53 . . . . . . . . . .

52 . . . . . . . . . .

51 . . . . . . . . . .

50 . . . . . . . . . .

Age (in years)

12 I13 I14 I

15-17

Raw score

55-71

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

55-71

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

56-71

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

59-71

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

T score

49 . . . . . . . . .

48 . . . . . . . . .

47 . . . . . . . . .

46 . . . . . . . . .

45 . . . . . . . . .

44 . . . . . . . . .

43 . . . . . . . . .

42 . . . . . . . . .

41 . . . . . . . . .

40 . . . . . . . . .

39 . . . . . . . . .

38 . . . . . . . . .

37 . . . . . . . . .

36 . . . . . . . . .

35 . . . . . . . . .

34 . . . . . . . . .

33 . . . . . . . . .

32 . . . . . . . . .

31 . . . . . . . . .

30 . . . . . . . . .

29 . . . . . . . . .

28 . . . . . . . . .

27 . . . . . . . . .

26 . . . . . . . . .

25 . . . . . . . . .

Age (in years)

12 I

13 I

14 I

15-17

Raw score

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

0-16

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

0-16

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

0-16

39

38

37

46

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

0-16

36
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

T score

75.. .,..,,..

74. .,,......

73. ..,......

72 . . . . . . . . . .

71 . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

;; . . . . . . . . . .

68. ..,...,..

67. .,.......

66 . . . . . . . . . .

65 . . . . . . . . . .

64 . . . . . . . . . .

63. ..,..,...

62 . . . . . . . . . .

61 . . . . . . . . . .

60 . . . . . . . . . .

59 . . . . . . . . . .

58 . . . . . . . . . .

57 . . . . . . . . . .

56 . . . . . . . . . .

55, . . . . . . . . .

54 . . . . . . . . . .

53 . . . . . . . . . .

52 . . . . . . . . . .

51, .,.....,,

50. . . . . . . . . .

Age (in years)

12

I

13 I

14

I

15-17

Raw score

53-71

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

53-71

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

55-71

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

45

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

56-71

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

T score

49 . . . . . . . . .

48 . . . . . . . . .

47 . . . . . . . . .

46 . . . . . . . . .

45 . . . . . . . . .

44 . . . . . . . . .

43 . . . . . . . . .

$2 . . . . . . . . .

41 . . . . . . . . .

40 . . . . . . . . .

39 . . . . . . . . .

38 . . . . . . . . .

37 . . . . . . . . .

36. . . . . . . . .

15 . . . . . . . . .

34. . . . . . . . .

33. . . . . . . . .

32. . . . . . . . .

31. . . . . . . . .

30. . . . . . . . .

29. . . . . . . . .

28. . . . . . . . .

27. . . . . . . . .

26. . . . . . . . .

?5. . . . . . . . .

Age (in years)

12 I 13 I 14 I 15-17

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

0-16

Raw score

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

0-16

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

0-18

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

0-18

37
Table I I1. 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

T score

75 . . . . . . . . . .

74 . . . . . . . . . .

73 . . . . . . . . . .

72. . . . . . . . . .

71 . . . . . . . . . .

70 . . . . . . . . . .

69 . . . . . . . . . .

68 . . . . . . . . . .

67 . . . . . . . . . .

66 . . . . . . . . . .

65 . . . . . . . . . .

64 . . . . . . . . . .

63 . . . . . . . . . .

62 . . . . . . . . . .

61 . . . . . . . . . .

60 . . . . . . . . . .

59 . . . . . . . . . .

58 . . . . . . . . . .

57 . . . . . . . . . .

56 . . . . . . . . . .

55 . . . . . . . . . .

54 . . . . . . . . . .

53 . . . . . . . . . .

52 . . . . . . . . . .

51 . . . . . . . . . .

50 . . . . . . . . . .

Age (in years)

T score

12 I13 I14 I 15-17

49-73

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

Raw score

51-73

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

54-73

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

54-73

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

49 . . . . . . . . .

48 . . . . . . . . .

47 . . . . . . . . .

46 . . . . . . . . .

45 . . . . . . . . .

44 . . . . . . . . .

43 . . . . . . . . .

42 . . . . . . . . .

41 . . . . . . . . .

40 . . . . . . . . .

39 . . . . . . . . .

38 . . . . . . . . .

37 . . . . . . . . .

36 . . . . . . . . .

35 . . . . . . . . .

34 . . . . . . . . .

33 . . . . . . . . .

32 . . . . . . . . .

31 . . . . . . . . .

30 . . . . . . . . .

29 . . . . . . . . .

28 . . . . . . . . .

27 . . . . . . . . .

26 . . . . . . . . .

25 . . . . . . . . .

Age (in years)

12 [ 13 I 14 I 15-17

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

0-17

Raw score

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

0-17

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

26

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

0-17

35

34

33

%

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

0-19

38
Table lV. Tscore equivalents of rawscores ofgirls 12-17years ofageon the Goodenough-Harris woman scale (person drawing), by age:

United States, 1966-70

T score

75 . . . . . . . . . .

74 . . . . . . . . . .

73 . . . . . . . . . .

72. .,...,,..

71 . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

;: . . . . . . . . . .

68 . . . . . . . . . .

67 . . . . . . . . . .

66. ,,, .,....

65 . . . . . . . . . .

64. ..,......

63. . . . . . . . . .

62. . . . . . . . . .

61 . . . . . . . . . .

60 . . . . . . . . . .

59 . . . . . . . . . .

58. ..,,.....

57 . . . . . . . . . .

56 . . . . . . . . . .

55 . . . . . . . . . .

54. ..,......

53 . . . . . . . . . .

52 . . . . . . . . . .

51, . . . . . . . . .

50 . . . . . . . . . .

Age (in years)

12 I

13 I14 I

15-17

Raw score

53-73

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

56-73

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

58-73

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

59-73

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

T score

49 . . . . . . . . .

48 . . . . . . . . .

47 . . . . . . . . .

46. ..,.....

45 . . . . . . . . .

44 . . . . . . . . .

43 . . . . . . . . .

42 . . . . . . . . .

41 . . . . . . . . .

40 . . . . . . . . .

39 . . . . . . . . .

38 . . . . . . . . .

37 . . . . . . . . .

36 . . . . . . . . .

35 . . . . . . . . .

34 . . . . . . . . .

33 . . . . . . . . .

32 . . . . . . . . .

31 . . . . . . . . .

30 . . . . . . . . .

29 . . . . . . . . .

28 . . . . . . . . .

27 . . . . . . . . .

26 . . . . . . . . .

25 . . . . . . . . .

Age (in years)

12 I

13 I14 I

15-17

Raw score

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

0-18

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

0-18

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

0-19

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

0-19

39
.

Table V. Percent distributions ofyouths 12-17years ofegein the U. S.pOpulation, byraceand geographic regiOnand by family incOme

andeducation ofparent, according toraceand geographic region: United States, 1966-70

[Based on HEX sample]

Family income and

educetion of parent

Total U.S. populatiwr. . . . . .

Family income

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lessthan $5,000 . . . . . . . . . . . .

$5,000 -9,999, . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$lO,OOOOr more . . . . . . . . . . . .

Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education of Darent

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Elementary school . . . , . . . .

9th-llth grade. . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . .

Unknown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

White I Black

Total

North- Mid- South West Total North- Mid- South West

east west east west

Percent distribution

1‘ ‘

100.0 22.4 30.3 20.0 27.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 foo.o

20.1 12.8 12.6 35.8 22.8

40.0 43.4 43.3 34,0 37.9

33.4 35.4 39.8 25.7 30.7

6.5 8.5 4.3 4.4 8.6

700.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

25.2 18.9 21.2 39.4 24.6

18.8 21.8 20.3 16.8 16.2

+}

100.0 21.41 17.3 I 47.8 I

13,4

I I

1~:

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0

59.1 48.0 40.5 75.2 43.5

27.5 34.9 38.1 18,1 35,4

6.8 4.3 17.9 1.6 14.8

6.7 12.7 3.5 5.1 6.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

43.2 30.7 28.0 58.3 29.2

28.2 35.9 28.3 22.4 36.1

16,8 19.9 28.2 9.8 22.0

6.0 5.8 8.2 3,8 11.5

5811761 7’1 5“81 ‘2

40
Table VI. Percent distributions of youths 12-17years ofagein the U. S.population, byraceand place of residence and by family income

and 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 parent Total II Urban

I

Rural Total

II

Urban

I

Rural

Percent distribution

Total U.S. population . . . . . . . 100.0 61.4 38.6 100.0

Family income

Total, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Less than $5,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.1 16.2

$5,000 -9,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26.2 59.1

40.0 41.1

$10,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38.1 27.5

33.4 37.3 27.3 6.8

Unknown ..,. . , . . . . . , ,. , ,. . . 6.5 5.4 8.3 6.7

Education of parent

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Elementary school . . . . . . . . . 25.2 19.5 34.3 43.2

9th-llthgrede . . . . . . . . . . 18.8 19.7 17.5 28.2

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.9 32.6 25.4 16.8

Higher than 12th grade . . . . . . . . 23.9 26.3 20.1 6.0

Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 1.9 2.7 5.8

100.0I 100.0

I

56.1 I

69.9

29.9 18.9

8.0 2.4

L

6.1 8.9

100.0 100.0

38.0 61.9

31.0 18.1

19.2 8.1

7.3 1.3

4.5 10.6

J I

000

41
APPENDIX II

DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES

AND RELATED TERMS

Age. —The age recorded for each youth was

age at lastbirthday as of the date of examination.

Age was confirmed by comparison with the date

of birth on the youth’s birth certificate. The age

criterion for inclusion in the sample was the age

at the time of the fhst interview. Since the examination usually took place 2 to 4 weeks after

the interview, some youths who were 17 years old

at the time of interview became 18 years old by

the time of examination. There were 58 such

cases. In the adjustment and weighting procedures and in the analysis, these youths were included in the l’7-year-old group.

Grade. —The grade placement of sample

youths was obtained from the questionnaire sent

to the schools they attended. If educational level

was not available from the school questionnaire,

grade placement or the fact of having completed

or left school was determined from information

noted by examiners on one of the psychological

test record forms. For youths on summer vacation, the grade placement recorded was the grade

the youth would enter in the fall. Those included

in the “more than high school education”

category are youths who were enrolled in colleges

or training programs beyond high school level or

youths on summer vacation after high school

graduation who planned to continue their education in the fall.

Race. —Race was recorded as “white,”

“Negro,” or “other,” The last category included

American Indians, Chinese, Japanese, and all

races other than white or Negro. Mexican persons were included with “white” unless definitely

known to be American Indian or of another race.

Negroes and persons of mixed Negro and other

parentage were recorded as “Negro.” The term

“Negro” has been replaced by “black” in this

report. Adolescents recorded as “other” comprised less than 1 percent of the sample and were

excluded from the detailed presentations.

Geographic region. —For purposes of

stratification, the United States was divided into

four broad geographic regions of approximately

equal population. These regions, which correspond closely to those used by the U.S. Bureau of

the Census, were as follows:

Region States Included

Northeast. . . . . . . . Maine, Vermont, New

Midwest, ,. .,.,

South . . . . . . . . .

West . . . . . . . . .

Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode

Island, New York, New

Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Ohio, Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan, Wisconsin,

Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri.

Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, West

Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North

Carolina, South Carolina,

Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas.

Washington, Oregon,

California, Nevada, New

Mexico, Arizona, Texas,

Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Idaho,

Utah, Colorado, Montana,

Wyoming, Alaska, and

Hawaii.

42
Education of parent or guardian. —The

highest grade completed in school was recorded.

The only grades counted were those attended in a

regular public or private school where persons

were given formal education, whether during the

day or at night and whether attendance was full

or part time. A “regular” school is one which advances a person toward an elementary or high

school diploma, or a college, university, or professional school degree. Education in vocational,

trade, or business schools outside the regular

school systemwas not counted in determining the

highest grade of school completed.

Family income. —The income recorded was

the total income received during the past 12

months by the head of the household and all

other household members related to the head by

blood, marriage, or adoption. This income was

the gross cash income (excluding pay in kind) except 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 the

child.

Guardian. —A guardian was responsible for

the care and supervision of the child. He (or she)

did not have to be the legal guardian to be considered the guardian for this survey. A guardianship could only exist when the parent(s) of the

child did not reside within the sample household.

Head of household. —Only one person in each

household was designated as the “head.” He (or

she) was the person who was regarded as the

“head” by the members of the household. In most

cases the head was the chief breadwinner of the

familv. althowzh this was not alwavs true. In

some ‘cases ‘the”head was the parent ~f the chief

earner or

household.

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 National

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions, and

other material necessary for understanding the data.

Data Evaluation and Methods Research. –Studies of new statistical methodology including experimental

tests 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 health

statistics, 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 birth

and death certificates.

Series 10. Data from the Health Interview Survey. –Statistics on ~hwss; accidental injuries; disability; use of

hospital, medical, dental, and other services; and other health-related topics, based on data collected in

a 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 of

reports: (1) estimates of the medically defined prevalence of ipecW1c diseases in the United States and

the distributions of the population with respect to physical, physiological, and psychological characteriztica; and (2) analysis of relationships among the various measurements without reference. to an

explicit ftite universe of persons.

Sm”es 12. Data from the Institutionalized Population Surveys. –Discontinued effective 1975. Future reports from

these surveys will be in Series 13.

Sert”es 13. Data on Health Resources Utilization. –Statistics on the utilization of health manpower and facilkies

providing 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 distribution, and characteristics of health resources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other health occupations, hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient facilities.

Sert”es20. Data on MortaIity.-Various statistics on mortality other than as included in regular annual or monthly

reports. Special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables; geographic and time

series analyses; and statistics on characteristics of deaths not available from the vital records, based on

sample surveys of those records.

Sert”es 21. Data on IVatality, Mamiage, and Divorce. –Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other

than 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 not

available 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 reports

horn 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 dissolution, family planning, and related maternal and infant health topics derived from a biennial survey of

a 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 Branch

National Center for Health Statistics

Public Health Service, HRA

Rockville, Md. 20857