lost in I.Q., as compared with 7 in the control group. Thirteen test cases lost in comparison with their respective controls. Two gained equally with their controls, and the remaining thirteen showed a larger gain. In regard to the three pairs taken from the nutrition cla.s.s, number 7 gained 8 points and his control, 4. Number 10 lost a point and his control lost 4, while number 11 lost 3 points with a gain of 1 point by his control. So that these cases, in spite of most favorable conditions, show no consistent gain in I.Q.

The results of the Healy tests are similar. There is a slightly higher average gain in the control group. The test group contains eight cases which made a poorer score at the end of the interval, the control group six. The range of gains is from -22 to +44, or 66 points, in the test group, while in the control group the gains range from -14 to +415 or 555

TABLE VIII

Decrease in fatigue in tapping--Difference in rates of second half minute over first half minute. Sixteen pairs

N[16] Test Group (A) Control Group (B)

Test 1 Test 2 Gain Test 1 Test 2 Gain A-B

13 -03 05 -08 27 -28 55 -63 28 01 11 -10 17 04 13 -23 20 10 15 -05 20 04 16 -21 10 -09 07 -16 23 19 04 -20 17 01 33 -32 07 20 -13 -19 25 09 21 -12 09 11 -02 -10 11 28 11 17 19 -06 25 -08 15 03 08 -05 18 16 02 -07 22 10 23 -13 03 19 -16 03 27 15 05 10 09 03 06 04 14 09 06 03 02 06 -04 07 18 14 18 -04 01 12 -11 07 24 13 11 02 13 35 -22 24 26 18 15 03 16 37 -21 24 23 21 04 17 06 21 -15 32 21 27 05 22 03 20 -17 39

Av. 104 124 -020 121 121 0 -020 M -045 -03 -015 75%ile 03 +04 07 25%ile -12 -16 -20 Q 075 10 135 P. E. (distribution) 09 11 05 P. E. (average) 02 03 04

Av. = -5 P. E.

M. = -38 P. E.

points. Seventeen of the operative cases showed a smaller gain than their respective controls. The three pairs of cases from the nutrition cla.s.s show the following gains:--pair 7; the test case loses 22 points, the control gains 23 points; pair 10, test case gains 185, but control gains 38 points; pair 11, test case gains 14 points, and control gains 255 points. From this test then, we can find no general tendency for cases operated on to improve in intelligence in excess of improvement in a control group which was not so treated.

This question presents itself:--is there any relationship between improvement in physical well-being as revealed in weight, and improvement in intelligence? If, as has been supposed, adenoids and diseased tonsils cause mental r.e.t.a.r.dation indirectly through physical deprivation, it would seem as though greater improvement in intelligence after operation should accompany greater improvement in weight, and smaller intelligence gain should accompany slighter gain in weight. In order to determine whether this was true for our cases, improvement in I.Q. was correlated with gain in weight, for the test group. The order of merit method was used, and the formula [Rho] = 1 - ((6 [Sum] D_n) /( n(n-1))) where f = 2 sin ([Pi]/6)[Rho]. The resulting value of r was -10 with unreliability of 226, calculated by the formula [Sigma]t.r - obt.r = (105(1-r)) / [sqrt]n. There is therefore no correlation between improvement in intelligence and gain in weight.

TABLE IX

Improvement in I.Q., 28 Pairs

N[16] Test Group (A) Control Group (B)

Test 1 Test 2 Gain Test 1 Test 2 Gain A-B

27 110 109 -1 72 96 24 -25 20 106 102 -4 118 131 13 -17 8 91 86 -5 98 104 6 -11 24 131 124 -7 89 92 3 -10 21 64 67 3 86 97 11 -8 3 94 91 -3 82 85 3 -6 12 98 95 -3 98 101 3 -6 23 85 94 9 81 96 15 -6 11 103 100 -3 101 102 1 -4 15 97 94 -3 78 79 1 -4 18 98 98 0 90 94 4 -4 4 96 96 0 83 85 2 -2 26 80 76 -4 90 88 -2 -2 16 65 73 8 74 82 8 0 28 81 84 3 95 98 3 0 5 95 99 4 114 117 3 1 2 107 114 7 91 96 5 2 10 110 109 -1 104 100 -4 3 17 71 77 6 96 99 3 3 7 91 99 8 95 99 4 4 1 82 83 1 80 76 -4 5 6 95 101 6 88 89 1 5 19 96 101 5 98 98 0 5 9 83 93 10 87 90 3 7 25 77 76 -1 145 137 -8 7 13 70 78 8 66 64 -2 10 22 91 100 9 63 62 -1 10 14 96 107 11 140 137 3 14

Av. 9153 9378 225 9293 9621 3285 -1035 M 2 3 -1 75%ile 7 4 5 25%ile -3 -1 -6 Q 5 25 55 P. E. (distribution) 525 25 5 P. E. (average) 99 47 110 Av. = -94 P. E.

M. = -99 P. E.

TABLE X

Improvement in Performance of Healy Test, 24 Pairs

N[16] Test Group (A) Control Group (B)

Test 1 Test 2 Gain Test 1 Test 2 Gain A-B

7 - 6 -28 -22 45 275 23 -45 13 43 42 - 1 - 15 305 -32 -33 17 295 12 -175 15 15 135 -31 15 7 25 18 1 425 415 -235 26 225 7 -155 56 615 55 -215 10 -12 65 185 27 65 38 -195 19 575 49 - 85 -22 -11 11 -195 24 545 63 85 315 595 28 -195 20 0 -11 -11 30 35 5 -16 9 35 105 7 34 55 21 -14 11 -8 6 14 -29 -35 255 -115 16 49 475 - 15 30 37 7 - 85 1 -25 2 27 -50 -16 34 - 7 22 485 435 - 5 345 335 - 1 - 4 18 -135 -12 15 -32 -28 4 - 25 23 495 68 185 4 25 21 - 25 3 215 225 1 17 19 2 - 1 12 20 21 1 -10 -12 - 2 3 14 125 485 36 - 5 255 305 65 27 -25 15 40 2 275 255 145 2 285 30 15 3 -11 -14 155 25 8 25 17 295 29 - 5 175 21 20 32 12 705 585 -12 24 28 295 735 44 645 515 -13 57 Av. 1729 2494 764 1212 2569 1356 - 585 M 425 1225 - 775 75%ile 18 255 3 25%ile - 5 - 5 -195 Q 115 13 1125 P. E. (distribution) 106 1056 1365 P. E. (average) 216 216 305

Av. = -192 P. E.

M. = -254 P. E.

Similarly, it might be thought that the children who had suffered from the defects for a comparatively short time, might reveal greater improvement in intelligence after six months than those who had been afflicted for a longer s.p.a.ce of time. We had no way of knowing definitely how long the defects had been present in the cases studied.

Roughly, though, we may say that in general the older boys have had defective tonsils and adenoids for a longer time than the younger ones, and that the older the boy, the older the defect. On this basis, if correlation of youth with gain in I.Q. should give a larger positive value for r, we might be justified in saying that the younger boys, who have been handicapped for a lesser period, show greater mental recuperation than their older companions. Such a correlation was attempted in the test group, correlating age at the first test with gain in I.Q. The same methods and formulae were used as in the weight and intelligence comparison, the greatest gain in I.Q. being given first position, and the lowest age. The resulting value for r was -24, with an unreliability of 186. The relationship would appear to be in the other direction but it is so small, with an unreliability measure so large as to be insignificant. Once more, then, we find in our results no correspondence between recency of defect and quick mental recovery.

TABLE XI

Showing percentile ratings of the members of the two groups at the beginning and end of the six months' interval

Weight Height Grip Tapping

1 29 44 25 40 47 40 51 33 1C 43 54 27 45 33 47 17 30

2 04 10 04 11 16 16 16 25 2C 38 55 20 32 25 40 80 28

3 46 59 32 49 44 56 52 58 3C 65 69 74 81 54 67 51 42

4 33 44 39 52 16 13 4C 27 32 51 78 18 19

5 16 20 18 20 33 23 5C 50 53 28 47 40 87

6 12 15 06 10 10 23 6C 31 40 22 38 27 41

7 03 07 05 15 07 06 40 27 7C 01 02 03 07 16 24 16

8 62 71 63 75 24 27 23 8C 18 37 31 40 67 72 43 11

9 31 41 47 53 26 47 71 51 9C 60 65 76 89 76 89 63 78

10 26 35 26 43 44 33 01 04 10C 21 22 23 37 24 67 02 51

11 24 23 25 43 33 67 40 08 11C 08 09 09 17 36 36 86 11

12 25 40 15 53 08 12C 06 15 02 08 04 01 12 03

13 95 100 99 100 99 100 90 66 13C 87 89 93 96 94 96 78 36

14 49 66 67 74 72 67 100 57 14C 92 93 96 98 93 98 97 97

15 56 68 70 95 94 15C 79 80 59 66 67 70 62 54

16 49 53 74 79 81 77 69 16C 34 28 50 54 24 24 69 51

17 53 50 53 05 78 17C 17 15 24 11 40 34

18 57 38 33 45 51 18C 17 20 30 34 10 06 09 03

19 95 99 94 98 94 88 93 19 38 45 30 37 67 40 09 31

20 13 37 33 16 23 20C 63 75 56 88 67 44 78 86

21 83 89 84 76 76 80 44 21C 67 77 55 61 81 67 62 57