the effect of unlike qualities upon a single linear variable, namely, the man's competence for a particular occupation. Gillette's criticisms of the choice of qualities and of the arbitrary weighting procedure are more valuable. Thorndike (160, 161) maintains, on the basis of statistical evidence, that a constant error runs through the ratings on separate qualities-a "halo" effect which spreads to all the separate qualities. He suggests, accordingly, that the rating official "should report the evidence, not a rating, and the rating should be given on the evidence, to each quality separately". Hollingworth (59) and others have pointed out some tendencies toward over-rating and under-rating of associates, depending upon the qualities in use. Simpson (149), Kelly (67), Link (83), and others have emphasized many of the limitations and more or less obvious difficulties of rating systems. In part of the literature criticizing rating scales there is evident that all too common tendency to condemn things on the ground that they fall sadly short of perfection, instead of coolly evaluating them in comparison with any reasonable alternative.

Two articles in particular have gone into the logic of rating methods and laid down valuable theoretical principles for the construction and utilization of scales. These are Thorndike's "Fundamental Theorems in Judging Men" (162) and Kelly's "Principles Underlying the Classification of Men" (71). Studies of this sort make vivid the intricacy of the problem and the consequent necessity for careful experimentation and statistical treatment by trained workers. The central problem of both papers is the question of weighting and combining a number of contributing elements in such a manner as to give the most adequate prediction of a man's success in one of several fields of work. The papers deal with considerations applicable not merely to rating scale technique but likewise to tests and other measurable elements in judging men's fitness. Thorndike concludes that in prophesying a man's fitness, we must assign weights to the traits according to "(1) their relation to fitness, (2) their partial constitution by common elements, and (3) any dependencies whereby one gains or loses in influence according to the amounts of the others which are present". The last necessity is especially disconcerting. It arises from the fact that qualities may have vastly different significance depending upon the extent to which some other quality or qualities are present. Thorndike suggests that informal intuitive judgments in the past have derived their strength, as compared with formal scales, from the fact that they have allowed for the interdependence of traits. He thinks, perhaps too optimistically, that "sufficient insight and investigation should enable us to secure all the advantages of the impressionistic judgment (except its speed and convenience) without any of its defects". To date, however, we are still without evidence that the formal analytical rating method has given either better or worse results than could be obtained under the same circumstances by a single impressionistic judgment.

In view of the refinements of technique that have been developed for the obtaining and using of rating estimates and checking of results, and in view of the careful examinations of logical and psychological assumptions of rating methods, there would seem to be rather questionable support for the contention of the committee of the National Association of Corporation Schools (107) that "a person who is not a psychologist and has had no training in its technique may devise and use rating scales as successfully as a highly trained psychologist or even more so". Is rating scale technique, after all, less a concern of psychologists than a great part of the test work that has been called psychological?

Progress Records. There is little that is of distinctly psychological interest in those devices of vocational selection that attempt to utilize all available information concerning the worker's productive efficiency, attendance record, earnings, etc. The psychological importance lies mainly in the emphasis upon the taking of a "clinical" view of the individual worker-considering him as a complete personality to be studied and evaluated from every angle-and in the stressing of the necessity for individual growth and advancement for the worker. These points of view, as well as detailed ways and means of keeping "living records" of employees with a view among other things to adequate provision for selection from among them, are well discussed by Scott and Hayes (142), Kelly (70), Link (83), Simons (148), and many others.

5. ALLPORT, G. W. Personality and Character. PSYCHOL. BULL., 1921, 18, 441

455.

6. ANDERSON, L. D. Estimating Intelligence by Means of Printed Photographs. J. of Appl. Psychol., 1921, 5, 152-155.

7. AVERY, C. P. The Value of the Application Form. Annals of Amer. Acad. of Polit. & Soc. Sci., 1916, 65, 219-222.

8. AYRES, L. P. Psychological Tests in Vocational Guidance. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1913, 4, 232-237.

9. BALKIN, H. H. The New Science of Analyzing Character. Boston: Four Seas. Co., 1919. Pp. 249.

10. BAWDEN, W. T. The Army Trade Tests. Industrial Education Circular No. 4. Washington: Bur. of Educ., 1919. (Series of papers by Strong, Bingham, Swan, Dodd, et al.)

II. BENGE, E. J. Simple Tests for Selecting Office Workers. Industrial Management, 1921, 61, 91-93.

12. BILLS, M. A. Methods for the Selection of Comptometer Operators and Stenographers. J. of Appl. Psychol., 1921, 5, 275-283.

13. BILLS, M. A. A Test for Use in the Selection of Stenographers. J. of Appl. Psychol., 1921, 5, 373-377

14. BINGHAM, W. V. 15. BINGHAM, W. V.

Army Personnel Work. J. of Appl. Psychol., 1919, 3, 1-12.
Measuring a Workman's Skill. Bull. No. 30, Nat. Soc. for

Voc. Educ., Proc. of St. Louis Conv., 1919, 7-17.

16. BLACKFORD, K. M. H. Analyzing Character. New York: Rev. of Reviews, 1916. Pp. 488.

17. BLACKFORD, K. M. H. & NEWCOMB, A. The Job, The Man, The Boss. New York: Doubleday, Page, 1914. Pp. 266.

18. BLOOMFIELD, D. (Editor.) Employment Management. New York: Wilson,

1919. Pp. 507. 19. BLOOMFIELD, M. (Editor.) 1915. Pp. 515-678.

Readings in Vocational Guidance. Boston: Ginn,

20. BLOOMFIELD, M. Vocational Guidance of Youth. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1911. Pp. 120.

21. BREGMAN, E. O. A Study in Industrial Psychology-Tests for Special Abilities. J. of Appl. Psychol., 1921, 5, 127-151.

22. BREWER, J. M. The Vocational Guidance Movement. New York: Macmillan, 1918. Pp. 333.

23. BURKE, R. J. Written Specifications for Hiring. Annals of Amer. Acad. of Polit. & Soc. Sci., 1916, 65, 176-182.

24 BURT, C. Vocational Diagnosis in Industry and at School. In Lectures on Industrial Administration (Ed. by B. Muscio). London: Pitman, 1920. Pp. 79-120.

25. BURTT, H. E. Employment Psychology in the Rubber Industry. J. of Appl. Psychol., 1920, 4, 1-17.

26. BURTT, H. E. Professor Münsterberg's Vocational Tests. J. of Appl. Psychol., 1917, 1, 201-213.

27. Carnegie Institute of Technology. Aids in Selecting Salesmen. Pittsburgh: Bur. of Salesmanship Research, 1917.

28. CARNEY, C. S. Some Experiments with Mental Tests as an Aid in the Selection and Placement of Clerical Workers in a Large Factory. Conference on Educational Measurements, Ind. U., 1919, 5, 60-74.

29. CATTELL, J. McK. American Men of Science. New York: Science Press, 1910. Pp. 596.

30. CHAPMAN, J. C. Trade Tests. New York: Holt, 1921. Pp. 435.

31. CHAPMAN, J. C. & TOOPS, H. A. A Written Trade Test. J. of Appl. Psychol., 1919, 3, 358-365.

32. CODY, S. Commercial Tests and How to Use Them. Yonkers: World Book Co., 1919. Pp. 216.

33. COGAN, L. C., CONKLIN, A. M. & HOLLINGWORTH, H. L. An Experimental Study of Self-Analysis, Estimates of Associates, and the Results of Tests. School & Society, 1915, 2, 171-179.

34. DOCKERAY, F. C. & ISAACS, S. Psychological Research in Aviation in Italy, France, England, and the American Expeditionary Forces. J. of Compar. Psychol., 1921, 1, 115-148.

35. DREVER, J. The Psychology of Industry. New York: Dutton, 1921. Pp. 148. 36. DUNLAP, K. Psychological Research in Aviation. Science, 1919, 49, 94-97.

37. EMERSON, H. The Twelve Principles of Efficiency. New York: Engineering Mag., 1912. Pp. 423.

38. FERREE, C. E. & RAND, G. A Study of Ocular Functions with Special Reference to the Look-Out and Signal Service of the Navy. PSYCHOL. BULL., 1920, 17, 77-78.

39. FISH, E. H. Human Engineering. J. of Appl. Psychol., 1917, 1, 161-174. 40. FLANDERS, J. K. Mental Tests of a Group of Employed Men Showing Correlations with Estimates Furnished by Employer. J. of Appl. Psychol., 1918, 2, 197-206.

41. FOSBROKE, G. E. Character Reading through Analysis of Features. New York: Putnam, 1914. Pp. 193.

42. FOWLER, J. A. Character Analysis. New York: Fowler, 1912.

43. FRANKEL, L. K. & FLEISHER, A. The Human Factor in Industry. New York:

Macmillan, 1920. Pp. 366.

44. FRENCH, W. L. Judging Applicants by Form Value of Their Handwriting. Industrial Management, 1917, 53, 487-494

45. FREYD, M. Test Series for Journalistic Aptitude. J. of Appl. Psychol., 1921, 5, 46-56.

46. GARDENER, H. L. The Selection Problem of Cheney Bros. U. S. Bur. of Labor Statistics, Bull. 227, 1917. Pp. 120-125.

47. GERHARDT, P. W. Psychological Tests for Workmen. Industrial Management, 1916, 51, 605-606.

Fatigue Study. New York: Macmillan, 1919. Pp. 175.
Motion Study. New York: Van Nostrand, 1911. Pp. 116.
Illogical Methods of Rating Human Qualities in Selecting

55. HENDERSCHOTT, F. C. & WEAKLEY, F. E. The Employment Department and Employee Relations. Chicago: LaSalle Ext. U., 1918. Pp. бо.

56. HENMON, V. A. C. Air Service Tests of Aptitude for Flying. J. of Appl. Psychol., 1919, 3, 103-109.

Pp. 302.

60. HOLLINGWORTH, H. L. & POFFENBERGER, A. T. Applied Psychology. New

York: Appleton, 1917. Pp. 337.

61. HUBBELL, W. D. Written Standard Job Specifications. Industrial Management, 1917, 54, 431-436.

62. HUEY, K. Problems Arising and Methods Used in Interviewing and Selecting Employees. Annals of Amer. Acad. of Polit. & Soc. Sci., 1916, 65, 208-219.

63. Industrial Relations Association of America. Proc. of Annual Conv., Chicago, 1920. Subject Sessions on: Employment Office Methods (pp. 231-262); Job Specifications (pp. 199-211); Mental Tests (pp. 271-289); Periodic Rating (pp. 311-327).

64. JACQUES, M. P. Mental Tests for Typists and Stenographers. Industrial Management, 1919, 58, 145-147.

65. JONES, E. S. The Woolley Test Series Applied to the Detection of Ability in Telegraphy. J. of Educ. Psychol., 1917, 8, 27-34

66. JONES, M. M. 57, 66-67.

67. KELLY, R. W.

Interviewing and Selecting. Industrial Management, 1919,

Dangers in Rating Employees. Industrial Management, 1919,