WeRead Powered by ReaderPub
Adenoids and Diseased Tonsils: Their Effect on General Intelligence cover

Adenoids and Diseased Tonsils: Their Effect on General Intelligence

Chapter 25: TABLE VIII Decrease in fatigue in tapping—Difference in rates of second half minute over first half minute. Sixteen pairs
Open in WeRead

About This Book

A controlled psychological and statistical investigation examines whether enlarged adenoids and diseased tonsils affect children's measured intelligence and school performance. Standardized mental tests were given to selected cases before and at several intervals after surgical removal, and results were compared with a randomly chosen control group. Findings indicate a brief postoperative decline followed by notable gains in test scores and pedagogical records relative to controls. The discussion considers mechanisms such as impaired breathing, infection, fatigue, and reduced attention as mediators of academic underperformance and concludes that removal of these defects can produce measurable improvement in cognitive functioning and school efficiency.

N[16] Test Group (A) Control Group (B)
Test 1Test 2GainTest 1Test 2Gain
14190      138      -52      175      175      0      -52      
1068      88      20      70      135      65      -45      
23150      141      - 9      122      140      18      -27      
1135      120      -15      106      115      9      -24      
9149      135      -14      144      150      6      -20      
21152      132      -20      140      138      - 2      -18      
22164      183      19      120      157      37      -18      
24157      142      -15      155      155      0      -15      
27108      97      -11      115      112      - 3      - 8      
20105      110      5      150      155      5      0      
15172      170      - 2      140      137      - 3      1      
26137      138      1      125      125      0      1      
25140      150      10      148      151      3      7      
3136      139      3      135      129      - 6      9      
13160      142      -18      150      122      -28      10      
18133      135      2      100      84      -16      18      
28150      162      12      178      170      - 8      20      
8113      110      - 3      131      101      -30      27      
11125      98      -27      155      101      -54      27      
2105      112      7      152      114      -38      45      
1790      150      60      125      121      - 4      64      
Av.135·19132·95- 2·24136·47134·14- 2·33·09
M -2      -2      0      
75%ile6·5  4·5   16·0  
25%ile-15            -14      19·50
Q      10·759·2517·75
P. E. (distribution)12·247·3318·09
P. E. (average)2·66±1·59±3·10
Av.=   ·03 P. E.
M.= 0       P. E.

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 class, 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 +41·5 or 55·5

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 1Test 2GainTest 1Test 2Gain
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   -0·015
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.= -·50 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 class show the following gains:—pair 7; the test case loses 22 points, the control gains 23 points; pair 10, test case gains 18·5, but control gains 38 points; pair 11, test case gains 14 points, and control gains 25·5 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 retardation 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 ρ = 1 - ((6ΣD_n) /( n(n²-1))) where f = 2 sin (Π/6)ρ. The resulting value of r was -·10 with unreliability of ·226, calculated by the formula σt.r - obt.r = (1·05(1-r²)) / √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 1Test 2GainTest 1Test 2Gain
27110       109       -1       72       96       24         -25        
20106       102       -4       118       131       13         -17        
891       86       -5       98       104       6         -11        
24131       124       -7       89       92       3         -10        
2164       67       3       86       97       11         -8        
394       91       -3       82       85       3         -6        
1298       95       -3       98       101       3         -6        
2385       94       9       81       96       15         -6        
11103       100       -3       101       102       1         -4        
1597       94       -3       78       79       1         -4        
1898       98       0       90       94       4         -4        
496       96       0       83       85       2         -2        
2680       76       -4       90       88       -2         -2        
1665       73       8       74       82       8         0        
2881       84       3       95       98       3         0        
595       99       4       114       117       3         1        
2107       114       7       91       96       5         2        
10110       109       -1       104       100       -4         3        
1771       77       6       96       99       3         3        
791       99       8       95       99       4         4        
182       83       1       80       76       -4         5        
695       101       6       88       89       1         5        
1996       101       5       98       98       0         5        
983       93       10       87       90       3         7        
2577       76       -1       145       137       -8         7        
1370       78       8       66       64       -2         10        
2291       100       9       63       62       -1         10        
1496       107       11       140       137       3         14        
Av.91·5393·782·2592·9396·213·285-1·035
M 2       -1       -0·015
75%ile7       +·04   5        
25%ile-3       -·16   -6        
Q5       2·5    5·5    
P. E. (distribution)5·252·5     5        
P. E. (average)±·99±·47  ±1·10 
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 1Test 2GainTest 1Test 2Gain
7- 6      -28      -22      4·5      27·5   23      -45        
1343      42      - 1      - 1·5   30·5  -32      -33        
1729·5   12      17·5   1·5   15      - 13·5   -31        
157      25      18      1      42·5   41·5   23·5    
2622·5  7      -15·5   56      61·5   5·5   -21·5    
10-12      6·5   18·5   27      65      38      -19·5    
1957·5   49      - 8·5   -22      -11      11      -19·5    
2454·5   63      8·5   31·5   59·5   28      -19·5    
200      -11      -11      30      35      5      -16        
93·5   10·5   7      34      55      21      -14        
11-8      6      14      -29      -3·5   25·5   -11·5    
1649      47·5   - 1·5   30      37      7      - 8·5    
1-25      2      27      -50      -16      34      - 7        
2248·5   43·5   - 534·5   33·5      - 1      - 4        
18-13·5   -12      1·5   -32      -28      4      - 2·5    
2349·5   68      18·5   4      25      21      - 2·5    
321·5   22·5   1      17      19      2      - 1        
1220      21      1      -10      -12      - 2      3        
1412·5   48·5   36      - 5      25·5   30·5   6·5    
27-25      15      40      2      27·5   25·5   14·5    
228·5   30      1·5   3-11      -14      15·5    
258      25      17      29·5   29      -·5   17·5    
2120      32      12      70·5   58·5   -12      24        
2829·5   73·5   44      64·5   51·5   -13      57        
Av.17·2924·947·6412·1225·6913·56- 5·85  
M 4.25- 7·75-0·015
75%ile18      +·043        
25%ile-5      -·16-19·5    
Q11·5   13        11·25
P. E. (distribution)10·6   10·5613·65  
P. E. (average)±2·16± 2·16± 3·05  
Av.= -1·92 P. E.
M.= -2·54 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 space 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
13·951·00·991·00·991·00 ·90 ·66
13C·87·89·93·96 ·94·96·78 ·36
14·49·66·67·74 ·72·67 1·00 ·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
22·85 ·81 ·91·78 ·95 ·92·99
22C·83 ·92 ·93·97 ·82 ·91 ·33 ·89
23·36 ·45 ·36·70 ·78 ·63
23C·73 ·74 ·70 ·82 ·55 ·53·36·62
24·59 ·69·67 ·81 ·85 ·89 ·66
24C·62·63 ·59 ·71 ·67·67 ·86 ·86
25·47 ·60 ·57·63 ·53 ·62·78
25C·73 ·74 ·60·64 ·44 ·91 ·70 ·79
26·74·89·74·85 ·53 ·54 ·57
26C·76 ·81 ·70·79 ·84 ·76·40·40
27·11 ·23 ·16 ·04 ·18 ·06
27C·07 ·12 ·12·23 ·10·16 ·30 ·25
28·86 ·90 ·87·90·97 ·88 ·78·91
28C·87·93·83·86·88 ·98 ·94

TABLE XI (Continued)

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