¹ J. Z. Jacobson, Scott of Northwestern (Chicago, 1951), 31.Google Scholar

² Ibid., 77.

³ Ibid., 44.

⁴ Ibid., 48.

⁵ Ibid., 72.

⁶ Scott, W. D., “The Psychology of Involuntary Attention as Applied to Advertising,” Agricultural Advertising, IX (January, 1902), 10Google Scholar and editorial comment, 4. Scott later noted that, while Gale was studying involuntary attention he was not interested in its application. Scott, W. D., Clothier, R. C., and Spriegel, W. R., Personnel Management (5th ed., New York, 1954), 242.Google Scholar

⁷ Scott, W. D., The Theory and Practice of Advertising (Boston, 1903Google Scholar). Scott said later that this book created a new era in the science of advertising, The Psychology of Advertising (Boston, 1908), 255.Google Scholar The later book resulted from the entire series.

⁸ One chapter in The Psychology of Advertising considered the strengths and limitations of the questionnaire with an example.

⁹ Published later as The Psychology of Public Speaking (Philadelphia, 1907Google Scholar) by the publishers of Talent. Scott said that he knew of no earlier work under this title (p. 11).

¹⁰ Jacobson, Scott, 53.

¹¹ Scott, W. D., “The Psychology of Business – Wages,” System, XVIII (December, 1910), 610.Google Scholar The first article appeared in XVII (March, 1910), 252.

¹² Psychological Bulletin, IX (November, 1912), 429.Google Scholar Strong was later a professor of psychology, George Peabody College for Teachers, and a member of the Committee on Classification of Personnel in the Army.

¹³ The series was published as Increasing Human Efficiency In Business (New York, 1911).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Scott, W. D., “Personal Differences in Suggestibility,” Psychological Review, XVII (March, 1910), 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ Jacobson, Scott, 63.

¹⁶ Scott, W. D., Influencing Men In Business (New York, 1911Google Scholar). Review in Psychological Bulletin, VIII (November, 1911), 398.

¹⁷ National Association of Corporation Schools, Bulletin, I (March, 1914), 48.Google Scholar This is now Management Review.

¹⁸ National Association of Corporation Schools, Bulletin, I (July, 1914), 41.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Scott, W. D., “Selection of Employees by Means of Quantitative Determinations,” American Academy of Political and Social Science, Annals, LXV (May, 1916), 182.Google Scholar

²⁰ National Association of Corporation Schools, Second Annual Convention: Papers, Reports, Bibliographies, and Discussions, Philadelphia, Pa., June 9–12, 1914. Company members were listed on p. 29.

²¹ Scott, W. D., “The Scientific Selection of Salesmen, Part I,” Advertising and Selling, XXV (October, 1915), 5.Google Scholar Assisted by W. V. Bingham and G. M. Whipple he conducted a similar demonstration on July 8, 1916, with the same results. Salesmanship, IV (1916), 106.Google Scholar

²² Scott, W. D., “The Scientific Selection of Salesmen, Part II,” Advertising and Selling, XXV (November, 1915), 11.Google Scholar

²³ Scott, W. D., “The Scientific Selection of Salesmen, Part III,” Advertising and Selling, XXV (December, 1915), 11.Google Scholar

²⁴ H. L. Gardner, “The Selection Problem of Cheney Brothers,” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 227 (October, 1917), 123.

²⁵ M. B. Gilson, “Work of the Employment and Service Department of the Clothcraft Shops,” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 227 (October, 1917), 144.

²⁶ Scott, Scientific Selection of Salesmen, Part III, 69.

²⁷ Ibid., 70. The poor salesmen in this test had already been selected for dismissal because of poor performance.

²⁸ Scott, W. D., “A Fourth Method of Checking Results in Vocational Selection,” Journal of Applied Psychology, I (March, 1917), 81.Google Scholar All four methods were described.

²⁹ Whipple, G. M., “The Use of Mental Tests in Vocational Selection,” Annals, LXV (May, 1916), 195.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ferguson, L. W., The Heritage of Industrial Psychology, Volume 5, Bureau of Salesmanship Research, Walter Dill Scott, Director (Hartford, 1963), 61.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid., 55. The eighteen companies were named.

³² Scott, et al, Personnel Management (5th ed.), 246.

³³ Murchison, C. (ed.), A History of Psychology in Autobiography, Volume 4 (Worcester, 1952), 13.Google Scholar

³⁴ Scott, Selection of Employees (1916), 182.

³⁵ Scott, W. D. and Clothier, R. C., Personnel Management (Chicago, 1923), 333.Google Scholar

³⁶ War Department, The Personnel System of the United States Army, Volume I, History of the Personnel System (Washington, 1919), 42.Google Scholar These tests measured general intelligence, range of information, facility in language, imagination, and speed and accuracy in clerical work.

³⁷ Ferguson, Bureau of Salesmanship Research, 57.

³⁸ Ferguson, L. W., The Heritage of Industrial Psychology, Volume 9, Psychology and The Army — Introduction of The Rating Scale (Hartford, 1963), 125.Google Scholar Roswell P. Angier, Knight Dunlap, and Herbert S. Langfeld were present with Scott, Bingham, and Yerkes. H. L. Hollingworth, a member, was absent.

³⁹ As early as April 10, 1917, Scott had considered the use of the aids in Army work. War Department, The Personnel System of the United States Army, Volume II, The Personnel Manual (Washington, 1919), 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ferguson, Introduction of The Rating Scale, 126.

⁴¹ War Department, History of The Personnel System, 45.

⁴² Ibid., 51.

⁴³ Ibid., 52. Scott's first version included: appearance, military experience, influence over men, regard for authority, vigor, stability, judgment, and total value to the regiment. Most of the change came before the test at Fort Myer.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 56.

⁴⁵ Eilbirt, Henry, “The Development of Personnel Management in The United States,” Business History Review, XXXIII (Autumn, 1959), 352.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 227, 114.

⁴⁷ Douglas, P. H., “Plant Administration of Labor,” Journal of Political Economy, XXVII (July, 1919), 548, 550, 556.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Bingham summarized the work of this committee in “Army Personnel Work,” Journal of Applied Psychology, III (March, 1919), 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ War Department, History of The Personnel System, 61.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 3–24.

⁵¹ War Department, The Personnel Manual, 20.

⁵² Bingham said, “My first years in Pittsburgh proved to have been a rehearsal for the enormous task of military classification and assignment.” He noted that the paper and pencil adult intelligence test developed by the Bureau was a forerunner of the Army Alpha. Murchison, , History of Psychology, Volume 4, p. 14.Google Scholar Bingham worked with Yerkes in developing the Army Alpha.

⁵³ Crennan, C. H., editor of, The Annals, vol. 81 (January, 1919), considered trade tests a notable innovation, p. xiiGoogle Scholar, as did Douglas, Plant Administration, 554.

⁵⁴ War Department, History of The Personnel System, 135. Yerkes agreed later that the main value of mental testing was in placement. Ferguson, L. W., The Heritage of Industrial Psychology, Volume 8, Psychology and The Army — Examining Recruits (Hartford, 1963), 113.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ War Department, History of The Personnel System, 179–84.

⁵⁶ A. M. Simons thought that this idea should be considered by industrial managers, Personnel Relations in Industry (New York, 1921), 90.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ War Department, History of the Personnel System, 559–64.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 62. Scott was commissioned a colonel in the Adjutant General's Department on November 6, 1918.

⁵⁹ Murchison, , History of Psychology, Volume 4, p. 22.Google Scholar The author of this paper participated in that revision.

⁶⁰ Clothier, R. C., “Organization for an Occupational Survey,” Journal of Personnel Research, I (February, 1923), 427.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ferguson, L. W., “Industrial Psychology and Labor,” in von Haller Gilmer, B. (ed.), Walter Van Dyke Bingham Memorial Program (Pittsburgh, 1961), 17.Google Scholar

⁶² “Strawbridge & Clothier Adopt Modification of the Army Personnel System,” National Association of Corporation Schools, Bulletin, VI (June, 1919), 268.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ruml, Beardsley, “The Extension of Selective Tests to Industry,” Annals, 81 (January, 1919), 38.Google ScholarPaterson, Donald G. and Ruml, Beardsley, “The Extension of Rating Scale Theory and Technique,” Psychological Bulletin, XVII (February, 1920), 80.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ferguson, Industrial Psychology and Labor, 15.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 8.

⁶⁶ Paterson, D. G., “The Scott Company's Graphic Rating Scale,” Journal of Personnel Research, I (Dec. 1922–Jan. 1923), 361.Google Scholar Several articles on the work of the Scott Company may be found in this volume.

⁶⁷ Moore, Bruce V. and Hartman, George W., Readings in Industrial Psychology (New York (1931), 6.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Scott and Clothier, Personnel Management (1923), 21.

⁶⁹ Ibid., 7, 60.

⁷⁰ Ibid., 259.

⁷¹ Ibid., 598.

⁷² Personal interview with William R. Spriegel, distinguished professor of management, the University of Texas at Austin, December 1967.

⁷³ Scott, W. D., “Changes in Some of Our Conceptions and Practices of Personnel,” Psychological Review, XXVII (March, 1920), 86.Google Scholar Edward B. Titchener, professor of psychology, Cornell University, was one of those who criticized Scott and later changed his views. Jacobson, Scott, 47.

⁷⁴ Scott, W. D., “The Rate of Improvement in Efficiency,” System, XX (August, 1911), 162.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Jacobson, Scott, 52.

⁷⁶ Gilson, M. B., What's Past Is Prologue (New York, 1940), 65.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Interview with Spriegel December 1967.

⁷⁸ Bingham, W. V., “Salute to the Pioneer of Personnel Psychology,” Personnel Psychology, II (Summer, 1949), 274.Google Scholar Spriegel said that Bingham and Scott had a warm and deep liking and respect for each other, both personally and professionally.