Diagnostic Drawing Series (DDS)
Reference: Cohen, B.M., S., & Kijak, A.K. (1994). An introduction to the Diagnostic Drawing Series: A standardized tool for the diagnostic and clinical use. Art therapy, 11(2), 105-110.
Purpose: Standardized. Combines research methodology of social sciences with the attention to materials, task, and process of art therapy. Not predicated on one model of verbal psychotherapy. How to get the most info in one session. Employ materials and techniques compatible to art therapy. Reflect the affective and behavioral changes throughout the session.
Ages: Mostly used with adolescents and adults, although there is an additional DDS that addresses children.
Materials: Flat-sided chalk pastels, 18x24” 70lb white drawing paper. Designed to be worked on a table
Administration:
1. “Make a picture using these materials.”
2. “Draw a picture of a tree.”
3. “Make a picture of how you are feeling using line, shape, and colors.”
Inquiry: No specific inquiry. The third drawing serves as a wrap-up.
Interpretation: Interpretation is based on color types/usage, blended colors, idiosyncratic use of color, use of line and shape, integration and abstraction, representation of the image itself (content), enclosures, ground lines, the use of people or animals, inanimate objects, line quality, line length, movement, space usage, how the pastel was used, what type of tree is depicted, placement on page, etc. For specific interpretation, extensive training is needed.
Strengths: Of all the art therapy assessments, the DDS is the most research-based assessment, and many drawings from this assessment have been archived. There is even a protocol that controls for effects of medication. The DDS has a standardized rating system and administration.
Limitations: Evaluators must have extensive and costly training to learn how to score assessments.
Reflection: This assessment feels like the exclusive country club of art therapy assessments in that the training is so costly and time consuming. I doubt that I will use this assessment any time soon! I do give the authors credit for finally figuring out a way to quantify art therapy, and I would like to learn more about the methods in case I ever have the opportunity to conduct research.
Ulman Personality Assessment
Ulman Personality Assessment (UPAP)
Reference: Agell (1989) & Ulman & Dachinger (1975)
Purpose: The UPAP is a projective assessment that provides information about the personality and emotional status of an individual.
Materials: Grey bogus paper, or grey construction paper, 18x24”, Nu pastels (12 assorted hard chalk pastels with full spectrum of color), Drawing board, 24x30” and easel, Masking tape, Stopwatch
Administration:
1. Draw anything you’d like.
2. Exercise big sweeping motions. Then recreate those motions on paper with the chalk pastels.
3. With you eyes closed, draw a large scribble on the paper. Put paper on floor. Ask artist to find object in scribble.
4. Make a picture from the found scribble image.
Taking notes is okay unless it is bothersome to artists. At the same time, examiner must give artist full attention. With much tactfulness, encourage person to not make too much of a tangled scribble. If too much resistance to eyes closed, artist may open eyes. Discreetly, take note of how much time is used.
Inquiry: No specific inquiry is noted.
Interpretation: Put all four drawings up on a wall. The evaluator sits next to the client, facing the drawings. The evaluator asks the client about their associations, ideas, feelings about the individual drawings and the collective series of drawings.
Look at use of color and line quality, and not how easy it is for the person to work abstractly. Is it easy to for him or her to find images in scribble? What is the content of free drawings? Look at whole picture that emerges from the series of drawings.
Strengths: This assessment functions on a kinesthetic level, as well as symbolic, cognitive, and perceptive. It evokes the imagination.
Limitations: Clients may feel uncomfortable making large sweeping motions. This assessment requires a lot of space and relatively unusual materials. Reliability and validity have yet to be determined.
Reflection: I would feel silly making large sweeping motions with my eyes closed, especially if I hadn’t yet established rapport with my therapist. I would like the part about finding a picture in the scribble because it is imaginative and fantasy-based, which is always fun. If I were to administer this assessment, I would probably opt out of the first two steps unless I knew the client felt very comfortable being silly with me.
Reference: Agell (1989) & Ulman & Dachinger (1975)
Purpose: The UPAP is a projective assessment that provides information about the personality and emotional status of an individual.
Materials: Grey bogus paper, or grey construction paper, 18x24”, Nu pastels (12 assorted hard chalk pastels with full spectrum of color), Drawing board, 24x30” and easel, Masking tape, Stopwatch
Administration:
1. Draw anything you’d like.
2. Exercise big sweeping motions. Then recreate those motions on paper with the chalk pastels.
3. With you eyes closed, draw a large scribble on the paper. Put paper on floor. Ask artist to find object in scribble.
4. Make a picture from the found scribble image.
Taking notes is okay unless it is bothersome to artists. At the same time, examiner must give artist full attention. With much tactfulness, encourage person to not make too much of a tangled scribble. If too much resistance to eyes closed, artist may open eyes. Discreetly, take note of how much time is used.
Inquiry: No specific inquiry is noted.
Interpretation: Put all four drawings up on a wall. The evaluator sits next to the client, facing the drawings. The evaluator asks the client about their associations, ideas, feelings about the individual drawings and the collective series of drawings.
Look at use of color and line quality, and not how easy it is for the person to work abstractly. Is it easy to for him or her to find images in scribble? What is the content of free drawings? Look at whole picture that emerges from the series of drawings.
Strengths: This assessment functions on a kinesthetic level, as well as symbolic, cognitive, and perceptive. It evokes the imagination.
Limitations: Clients may feel uncomfortable making large sweeping motions. This assessment requires a lot of space and relatively unusual materials. Reliability and validity have yet to be determined.
Reflection: I would feel silly making large sweeping motions with my eyes closed, especially if I hadn’t yet established rapport with my therapist. I would like the part about finding a picture in the scribble because it is imaginative and fantasy-based, which is always fun. If I were to administer this assessment, I would probably opt out of the first two steps unless I knew the client felt very comfortable being silly with me.
Draw a Person in the Rain
Draw-A-Person-In-The-Rain
References:
Verinis, J.S., Lichtenberg, E.F. & Henrich, L. 1974. The Draw-A-Person in the rain technique: Its relationship to diagnostic category and other personality indicators. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 407-414.
Oster, G.D. & Crone, P.G. 2004. Using drawings in assessment and therapy: A guide for mental health professionals. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Purpose: The DAPR is an adapted form of Machover’s Draw-A-Person assessment (1948). The DAPR focuses on a person’s vulnerability, environmental stressors, supports, and coping strategies.
Materials: One 8.5 x 11 piece of blank, white paper, and two #2 graphite pencils with working erasers
Administration: The evaluator hands the paper to the client so that it is vertically-oriented. The evaluator then requests that that the client, “Draw a picture of a person in the rain.” There is no time limit, but the evaluator should remain cognizant of the amount of time the client uses to complete the drawing.
Inquiry: There is no specific post-drawing inquiry. The evaluator may ask the client about the person in the person in the drawing and how he or she is probably feeling. The evaluator could also ask the client to rate his or her stress level on a scale of 1- 10. The evaluator may use this metaphor to talk about the stressors in the client’s life and how he or she feels he or she is coping.
Interpretation: External stress is reflected by the amount and intensity of the rain. The client’s methods of defense are represented by the protective gear, or lack thereof. If no protective gear is drawn, the client may feel that he or she is not coping well with stress.
Strengths: The DAPR assessment offers useful information about the way in which an individual is coping with stressors. It also provides a great metaphor from which to dialogue.
Limitations: This assessment seems limited by its materials restrictions. The drawing also may be affected by the current weather outdoors. Again, this assessment needs more empirical research to support its reliability and validity.
Reflection: This was a fun drawing to complete, but I used color… watercolor pencils, to be exact. I think that this assessment/intervention needs color to further illustrate the emotional content of the pictures. It is really a wonderful metaphor for coping, though.
References:
Verinis, J.S., Lichtenberg, E.F. & Henrich, L. 1974. The Draw-A-Person in the rain technique: Its relationship to diagnostic category and other personality indicators. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 407-414.
Oster, G.D. & Crone, P.G. 2004. Using drawings in assessment and therapy: A guide for mental health professionals. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Purpose: The DAPR is an adapted form of Machover’s Draw-A-Person assessment (1948). The DAPR focuses on a person’s vulnerability, environmental stressors, supports, and coping strategies.
Materials: One 8.5 x 11 piece of blank, white paper, and two #2 graphite pencils with working erasers
Administration: The evaluator hands the paper to the client so that it is vertically-oriented. The evaluator then requests that that the client, “Draw a picture of a person in the rain.” There is no time limit, but the evaluator should remain cognizant of the amount of time the client uses to complete the drawing.
Inquiry: There is no specific post-drawing inquiry. The evaluator may ask the client about the person in the person in the drawing and how he or she is probably feeling. The evaluator could also ask the client to rate his or her stress level on a scale of 1- 10. The evaluator may use this metaphor to talk about the stressors in the client’s life and how he or she feels he or she is coping.
Interpretation: External stress is reflected by the amount and intensity of the rain. The client’s methods of defense are represented by the protective gear, or lack thereof. If no protective gear is drawn, the client may feel that he or she is not coping well with stress.
Strengths: The DAPR assessment offers useful information about the way in which an individual is coping with stressors. It also provides a great metaphor from which to dialogue.
Limitations: This assessment seems limited by its materials restrictions. The drawing also may be affected by the current weather outdoors. Again, this assessment needs more empirical research to support its reliability and validity.
Reflection: This was a fun drawing to complete, but I used color… watercolor pencils, to be exact. I think that this assessment/intervention needs color to further illustrate the emotional content of the pictures. It is really a wonderful metaphor for coping, though.
Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale
Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale
Reference:
Gantt, L., & Tabone, C. (1998). The Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale: The rating manual. Morgantown, WV: Gargoyle Press.
Gantt, L., & Tabone, C. (2003). The Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale and “Draw a Person Picking an Apple from a Tree.” In C. Malchiodi (Ed.), Handbook of Art Therapy (pp.420-427). New York: Guilford.
Purpose: FEATS focuses on how people draw, or the process of drawing, rather than the resulting content of the drawing.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Materials: several sheets of 12 x 18 blank, white drawing paper, “Mr. Sketch” markers (black, brown, yellow, orange, red, purple, magenta, hot pink, turquoise, blue, green, and dark green)
Administration:
There is no time limit. The evaluator hands the client one sheet of paper and instructs the client to, “Draw a person picking an apple from a tree.”
Inquiry: Inquiry is based on an inventory of observations based on the client’s drawing process. Did the client include such things as ladders, red apples, and a whole person? Were colors used? Where is the tree placed on the paper? What is the person’s balance like?
Interpretation:
FEATS is a compilation of 14 different scales including:
Prominence of color
Color fit
Applied energy focus
Space used
Integration: Do the objects fit together and relate to one another?
Logic: Does the picture make sense?
Realism: Is the picture realistic?
Problem-solving: How does the person get the apples?
Normal graphic development
Details
Line quality
Person
Rotation and base line locations: Are any figures existing on a rotated plane?
Perseveration: Does the person continue adding details beyond what is typically expected?
Strengths: This assessment provided a detailed rating manual and pictures illustrating the scales. The populations tested were categorized. The manual’s rating was clearly explained.
Limitations: This assessment needs additional and more complete empirical research, especially with children. Drawing a human figure is challenging and intimidating for some individuals.
Reflection: I enjoyed doing this assessment, but was a little concerned because my little apple-picking boy looked like he was about to fall off the ladder, so I wonder what that might suggest, according to the scoring manual. I liked this task, and would like to administer it to clients.
Reference:
Gantt, L., & Tabone, C. (1998). The Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale: The rating manual. Morgantown, WV: Gargoyle Press.
Gantt, L., & Tabone, C. (2003). The Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale and “Draw a Person Picking an Apple from a Tree.” In C. Malchiodi (Ed.), Handbook of Art Therapy (pp.420-427). New York: Guilford.
Purpose: FEATS focuses on how people draw, or the process of drawing, rather than the resulting content of the drawing.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Materials: several sheets of 12 x 18 blank, white drawing paper, “Mr. Sketch” markers (black, brown, yellow, orange, red, purple, magenta, hot pink, turquoise, blue, green, and dark green)
Administration:
There is no time limit. The evaluator hands the client one sheet of paper and instructs the client to, “Draw a person picking an apple from a tree.”
Inquiry: Inquiry is based on an inventory of observations based on the client’s drawing process. Did the client include such things as ladders, red apples, and a whole person? Were colors used? Where is the tree placed on the paper? What is the person’s balance like?
Interpretation:
FEATS is a compilation of 14 different scales including:
Prominence of color
Color fit
Applied energy focus
Space used
Integration: Do the objects fit together and relate to one another?
Logic: Does the picture make sense?
Realism: Is the picture realistic?
Problem-solving: How does the person get the apples?
Normal graphic development
Details
Line quality
Person
Rotation and base line locations: Are any figures existing on a rotated plane?
Perseveration: Does the person continue adding details beyond what is typically expected?
Strengths: This assessment provided a detailed rating manual and pictures illustrating the scales. The populations tested were categorized. The manual’s rating was clearly explained.
Limitations: This assessment needs additional and more complete empirical research, especially with children. Drawing a human figure is challenging and intimidating for some individuals.
Reflection: I enjoyed doing this assessment, but was a little concerned because my little apple-picking boy looked like he was about to fall off the ladder, so I wonder what that might suggest, according to the scoring manual. I liked this task, and would like to administer it to clients.
Family Centerd Circle Drawings
Family-Centered-Circle-Drawings
Reference:
Burns, R.C. (1990). A guide to family-centered circle drawings. Brunner/ Mazel Publishers: New York.
Brooke, S.L. (2004). Tools of the trade: a therapist’s guide to art therapy assessments. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD.
Purpose: This assessment uses the interpretative quality of mandalas to explore the parent-self relationship
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Materials: several 8 ½” x 11” white, sheets of paper with circles 7 ½” x 9” drawn, lead pencil, crayons, colored pencils, chalks, markers, etc.
Administration: The evaluator hands the client a piece of paper and drawing utensils, while stating, “Draw your mother in the center of the circle. Visually free associate with drawn symbols around the periphery of the circle. Try to draw a whole person, not just a stick figure or a cartoon.” These essential directions are repeated three more times, substituting “father,” “self,” and “parents,” for “mother.” These instructions should yield four separate drawings on four separate pieces of paper.
Inquiry: This assessment has no specific inquiry questions.
Interpretation:
The evaluator should look for size of the figures and omissions or overemphasis on body parts.
The evaluator should also take notice of the facial expressions, which may indicate the emotions of the figure or the client’s perception of his or her environment.
The evaluator should also consider the symbols depicted. Are they positive or negative?
Where are the symbols depicted in relation to concepts of mandala analysis?
Overall, the pictures should reflect the way in which a client perceives his or her mother, father, self, and parents.
Strengths: This assessment offers useful information about a client’s relationship to his parental figures. It capitalizes on the theories of mandala analysis to provide another element of interpretation.
Limitations: This assessment has limited empirical evidence, and the mandala component can be slightly confusing without a lot of knowledge on the subject. Drawing a human figure can be intimidating, and symbols may often appear as clichéd.
Reflection: This drawing was hard for me to draw because I didn’t want to accidentally depict my mother, who is the most dear person in the universe to me, unfavorably! There isn’t much metaphor here. Even a person with no knowledge of art therapy can predict the intended focus of this drawing exercise, which could almost be considered a confounding variable if the evaluator is attempting to get an accurate depiction of the client’s perception of his or her mother, father, self, or parents.
with parents.
Reference:
Burns, R.C. (1990). A guide to family-centered circle drawings. Brunner/ Mazel Publishers: New York.
Brooke, S.L. (2004). Tools of the trade: a therapist’s guide to art therapy assessments. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD.
Purpose: This assessment uses the interpretative quality of mandalas to explore the parent-self relationship
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Materials: several 8 ½” x 11” white, sheets of paper with circles 7 ½” x 9” drawn, lead pencil, crayons, colored pencils, chalks, markers, etc.
Administration: The evaluator hands the client a piece of paper and drawing utensils, while stating, “Draw your mother in the center of the circle. Visually free associate with drawn symbols around the periphery of the circle. Try to draw a whole person, not just a stick figure or a cartoon.” These essential directions are repeated three more times, substituting “father,” “self,” and “parents,” for “mother.” These instructions should yield four separate drawings on four separate pieces of paper.
Inquiry: This assessment has no specific inquiry questions.
Interpretation:
The evaluator should look for size of the figures and omissions or overemphasis on body parts.
The evaluator should also take notice of the facial expressions, which may indicate the emotions of the figure or the client’s perception of his or her environment.
The evaluator should also consider the symbols depicted. Are they positive or negative?
Where are the symbols depicted in relation to concepts of mandala analysis?
Overall, the pictures should reflect the way in which a client perceives his or her mother, father, self, and parents.
Strengths: This assessment offers useful information about a client’s relationship to his parental figures. It capitalizes on the theories of mandala analysis to provide another element of interpretation.
Limitations: This assessment has limited empirical evidence, and the mandala component can be slightly confusing without a lot of knowledge on the subject. Drawing a human figure can be intimidating, and symbols may often appear as clichéd.
Reflection: This drawing was hard for me to draw because I didn’t want to accidentally depict my mother, who is the most dear person in the universe to me, unfavorably! There isn’t much metaphor here. Even a person with no knowledge of art therapy can predict the intended focus of this drawing exercise, which could almost be considered a confounding variable if the evaluator is attempting to get an accurate depiction of the client’s perception of his or her mother, father, self, or parents.
with parents.
Stimulus Drawing
Stimulus Drawing
Reference: Silver, R. (1991). Stimulus Drawings and Techniques in Therapy, Development, and Assessment. Ablin Press Distributors.
Purpose: Stimulus Drawings were developed for use with deaf children, and were later expanded to include learning-disabled individuals, stroke survivors, and other communication difficulties. Stimulus drawings are used to gain insight into the emotions, cognitions, and developmental maturity of individuals. They may also give information regarding problem solving, fantasy, and access to imagination. The Stimulus Drawings include 50 line drawings of people, animals, places, and things presented on 3" x 5" cards. They may be used as a therapeutic technique, a developmental technique, or as an assessment technique.
Ages: Ages 5+
Materials: 8 ½ x 11 drawing paper, colored chalk, markers, crayons
Administration: The evaluator requests that the client pick out 2 or 3 stimulus cards. The client is then asked to tell and illustrate a story using those cards. After the initial story and drawing have been completed, the client is asked to do a free drawing, or a response drawing, that also tells a story.
Inquiry: No specific inquiry is included.
Interpretation: As an assessment, Stimulus Drawings looks at the cards chosen, the drawing, and the story that follows. The evaluator considers emotional content, developmental functioning, problem solving, and access to imagination.
Strengths: This assessment focuses on creative thinking, imagination, and ability to problem solve. It may be perceived as enjoyable and non-threatening. The cards are relatively poor artistic renderings, which may alleviate some of the pressure to create masterful images.
Limitations: Stimulus Drawings need additional empirical evidence. Some argue that the poor artistic rendering makes this assessment seem nonprofessional or invalid.
Reflection: This is my idea of a fun game night in my kitchen! I think it has more potential as an art therapy intervention than as an assessment, but that may be because I do not have the appropriate manual, which would elucidate some of my confusion about the assessment’s interpretation.
Reference: Silver, R. (1991). Stimulus Drawings and Techniques in Therapy, Development, and Assessment. Ablin Press Distributors.
Purpose: Stimulus Drawings were developed for use with deaf children, and were later expanded to include learning-disabled individuals, stroke survivors, and other communication difficulties. Stimulus drawings are used to gain insight into the emotions, cognitions, and developmental maturity of individuals. They may also give information regarding problem solving, fantasy, and access to imagination. The Stimulus Drawings include 50 line drawings of people, animals, places, and things presented on 3" x 5" cards. They may be used as a therapeutic technique, a developmental technique, or as an assessment technique.
Ages: Ages 5+
Materials: 8 ½ x 11 drawing paper, colored chalk, markers, crayons
Administration: The evaluator requests that the client pick out 2 or 3 stimulus cards. The client is then asked to tell and illustrate a story using those cards. After the initial story and drawing have been completed, the client is asked to do a free drawing, or a response drawing, that also tells a story.
Inquiry: No specific inquiry is included.
Interpretation: As an assessment, Stimulus Drawings looks at the cards chosen, the drawing, and the story that follows. The evaluator considers emotional content, developmental functioning, problem solving, and access to imagination.
Strengths: This assessment focuses on creative thinking, imagination, and ability to problem solve. It may be perceived as enjoyable and non-threatening. The cards are relatively poor artistic renderings, which may alleviate some of the pressure to create masterful images.
Limitations: Stimulus Drawings need additional empirical evidence. Some argue that the poor artistic rendering makes this assessment seem nonprofessional or invalid.
Reflection: This is my idea of a fun game night in my kitchen! I think it has more potential as an art therapy intervention than as an assessment, but that may be because I do not have the appropriate manual, which would elucidate some of my confusion about the assessment’s interpretation.
Magazine Photo Collage
Magazine Photo Collage (MPC)
Reference: Landgarten, H.B. (1993). Magazine Photo Collage. New York, NY: Brunner Mazel Publishers.
Purpose: This assessment is designed to unveil conflicts, defense mechanisms, and styles of functioning.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Materials: 4 sheets 16x20” paper, 2 boxes of precut images: one of people; one of miscellaneous items; liquid glue, glue stick, scissors, pencil, pen, black marker
Tips for creating image boxes: Use only images, no words. Avoid neatness of everything being cut out. Have a wide variety of images. It is ideal to have many images reflect the culture of the client. Look for realistic images (not too glam). Include male and female figures of all ages. Look for figures indicating movement. Try to find images representing all economic levels. Include single people, families, groups, and dyads. Have some images with eyes or ears cut away. Try to find black and white and color photos. In the miscellaneous box provide a large variety of images. The boxes may be “stacked” with images that may be relevant to person’s treatment goals, i.e. alcohol, suicide, abusive images, fire setting, divorce.
Administration: The administration of the MPC involves a four task protocol. It is helpful have all of the materials laying out when the client enters.
Task I: Task I has the least instructions, thus establishing few boundaries. “Look through the box of miscellaneous items and pick out pictures that catch your attention and paste them on the picture (liquid glue). Write directly on the page anything that you associate with the items.”
Task II. Second sheet of paper: “Pick out 4, 5, or 6 pictures of people, and glue (glue stick) them on the page. Write or tell me what you imagine each person is thinking and saying.”
Task III. Pick out 4, 5, or 6 images from the people or misc. box that stand for something good or something bad and glue (glue stick) them down. Write or tell me about these items.”
Task IV. Pick out only 1 picture from the people box and glue (glue stick) it down. Write down or tell me what is happening to that person. Do you think the situation will change? If yes, then find a picture that illustrates the change, or to tell you what will make it change.
Interpretation:
Task I considerations: How did person handle the images? Were the images torn, trimmed, or left in original state before being pasted down? How was the glue handled? How was the placement (carefully, haphazardly)? What was the overall gist of pictorial content (theme or scattered)? Was there a specific message that appeared?
Task II considerations: Is the person able to follow directions? How does the client perceive trust? The number of pictures selected is important only if the next two tasks produce the same response.
Task III considerations: What does the person consider good or bad? Does the person use only people? Only things? Combination?
Task IV considerations: Does the person’s outlook seem positive or negative? How do he/she problem solve?
Strengths: Client exercises control over the assessment because he/she selects his/her own collage images. This assessment is less-threatening than many other assessments because no artistic ability is needed. This assessment is not culturally bound if the image boxes come from a diverse selection of magazines. MPC can be a meaningful tool in revealing problem areas.
Limitations: The MPC is not empirically based. Also, the MPC requires a great amount of preparation time in order to keep image boxes appropriately stocked with diverse images. It would also be difficult to complete this assessment in one session.
Content, pictorial elements and thematic evidence,
Reflection: Despite this assessment appearing to be a lot of prep-work for the evaluator, it seems great. I understand why we didn’t try it in class, but I would be interested in experiencing this assessment as the artist. It is very creative and allows the artist a lot of control, even though it is highly structured. I anticipate using this assessment as an art therapist, and have already started on my image boxes!
Reference: Landgarten, H.B. (1993). Magazine Photo Collage. New York, NY: Brunner Mazel Publishers.
Purpose: This assessment is designed to unveil conflicts, defense mechanisms, and styles of functioning.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Materials: 4 sheets 16x20” paper, 2 boxes of precut images: one of people; one of miscellaneous items; liquid glue, glue stick, scissors, pencil, pen, black marker
Tips for creating image boxes: Use only images, no words. Avoid neatness of everything being cut out. Have a wide variety of images. It is ideal to have many images reflect the culture of the client. Look for realistic images (not too glam). Include male and female figures of all ages. Look for figures indicating movement. Try to find images representing all economic levels. Include single people, families, groups, and dyads. Have some images with eyes or ears cut away. Try to find black and white and color photos. In the miscellaneous box provide a large variety of images. The boxes may be “stacked” with images that may be relevant to person’s treatment goals, i.e. alcohol, suicide, abusive images, fire setting, divorce.
Administration: The administration of the MPC involves a four task protocol. It is helpful have all of the materials laying out when the client enters.
Task I: Task I has the least instructions, thus establishing few boundaries. “Look through the box of miscellaneous items and pick out pictures that catch your attention and paste them on the picture (liquid glue). Write directly on the page anything that you associate with the items.”
Task II. Second sheet of paper: “Pick out 4, 5, or 6 pictures of people, and glue (glue stick) them on the page. Write or tell me what you imagine each person is thinking and saying.”
Task III. Pick out 4, 5, or 6 images from the people or misc. box that stand for something good or something bad and glue (glue stick) them down. Write or tell me about these items.”
Task IV. Pick out only 1 picture from the people box and glue (glue stick) it down. Write down or tell me what is happening to that person. Do you think the situation will change? If yes, then find a picture that illustrates the change, or to tell you what will make it change.
Interpretation:
Task I considerations: How did person handle the images? Were the images torn, trimmed, or left in original state before being pasted down? How was the glue handled? How was the placement (carefully, haphazardly)? What was the overall gist of pictorial content (theme or scattered)? Was there a specific message that appeared?
Task II considerations: Is the person able to follow directions? How does the client perceive trust? The number of pictures selected is important only if the next two tasks produce the same response.
Task III considerations: What does the person consider good or bad? Does the person use only people? Only things? Combination?
Task IV considerations: Does the person’s outlook seem positive or negative? How do he/she problem solve?
Strengths: Client exercises control over the assessment because he/she selects his/her own collage images. This assessment is less-threatening than many other assessments because no artistic ability is needed. This assessment is not culturally bound if the image boxes come from a diverse selection of magazines. MPC can be a meaningful tool in revealing problem areas.
Limitations: The MPC is not empirically based. Also, the MPC requires a great amount of preparation time in order to keep image boxes appropriately stocked with diverse images. It would also be difficult to complete this assessment in one session.
Content, pictorial elements and thematic evidence,
Reflection: Despite this assessment appearing to be a lot of prep-work for the evaluator, it seems great. I understand why we didn’t try it in class, but I would be interested in experiencing this assessment as the artist. It is very creative and allows the artist a lot of control, even though it is highly structured. I anticipate using this assessment as an art therapist, and have already started on my image boxes!
Kramer Art Assessment
Kramer Art Assessment
Reference: Kramer, E.
Purpose: This assessment offers information about the person’s developmental level and personality.
Ages: No age limit noted.
Materials: First, paper, pencils/markers; Second, paper, paint; Third; clay
Administration: The Kramer Art Assessment is directed in three steps: First: “Draw whatever you like.” Second: “Use paint to make whatever you like.” Third: “Make something in clay and then paint the clay work.”
Inquiry: There is no specific inquiry.
Interpretation: The evaluator takes note of person’s interaction with the various materials. Does the person seem to work more easily or comfortably with pencils/markers, paints, or clay? Is the person confident, confused, or uncertain about how to handle the directives. Dialogue stems from these observations about the creative process and the resulting product.
Strengths: The three tasks are generally perceived as enjoyable and non-threatening. This assessment allows for the evaluator to take an active role in the creative process with the client.
Limitations: There are no observable or measurable goals, nor quantitative data by which to assess the findings. There are no established interpretation standards or structure to this assessment.
Reflection: I like how this assessment provides the opportunity to create 2D and 3D art pieces. I also like how the evaluator is encouraged to participate with the client because mutual artmaking can be a great way to build rapport with a client and establish a sense of a safe and creative space.
Reference: Kramer, E.
Purpose: This assessment offers information about the person’s developmental level and personality.
Ages: No age limit noted.
Materials: First, paper, pencils/markers; Second, paper, paint; Third; clay
Administration: The Kramer Art Assessment is directed in three steps: First: “Draw whatever you like.” Second: “Use paint to make whatever you like.” Third: “Make something in clay and then paint the clay work.”
Inquiry: There is no specific inquiry.
Interpretation: The evaluator takes note of person’s interaction with the various materials. Does the person seem to work more easily or comfortably with pencils/markers, paints, or clay? Is the person confident, confused, or uncertain about how to handle the directives. Dialogue stems from these observations about the creative process and the resulting product.
Strengths: The three tasks are generally perceived as enjoyable and non-threatening. This assessment allows for the evaluator to take an active role in the creative process with the client.
Limitations: There are no observable or measurable goals, nor quantitative data by which to assess the findings. There are no established interpretation standards or structure to this assessment.
Reflection: I like how this assessment provides the opportunity to create 2D and 3D art pieces. I also like how the evaluator is encouraged to participate with the client because mutual artmaking can be a great way to build rapport with a client and establish a sense of a safe and creative space.
Diagnostic Interview
Diagnostic Interview
Reference: Rubin, J.
Purpose: Offers information about the person’s developmental level and personality.
Ages: No age limit specified.
Materials: Choice between 2D and 3D
Administration: No specific directive; only encouragement to create something
Inquiry: No specific inquiry questions.
Interpretation: Examiner takes note of materials chosen and interaction with materials. Ideally, dialogue stems from process and product.
Strengths: Generally perceived as enjoyable and non-threatening
Limitations: No observable or measurable goals, nor quantitative data by which to assess. No set interpretation standards or structure to assessment.
Reflection: This assessment is like the non-assessment. It simply offers the client to create something of his or her choice, and the therapist watches, gathers information, and creates a dialogue.
Reference: Rubin, J.
Purpose: Offers information about the person’s developmental level and personality.
Ages: No age limit specified.
Materials: Choice between 2D and 3D
Administration: No specific directive; only encouragement to create something
Inquiry: No specific inquiry questions.
Interpretation: Examiner takes note of materials chosen and interaction with materials. Ideally, dialogue stems from process and product.
Strengths: Generally perceived as enjoyable and non-threatening
Limitations: No observable or measurable goals, nor quantitative data by which to assess. No set interpretation standards or structure to assessment.
Reflection: This assessment is like the non-assessment. It simply offers the client to create something of his or her choice, and the therapist watches, gathers information, and creates a dialogue.
Free Drawing (FD)
Reference: Naumburg M. (1966). Dynamically oriented art therapy: Its principles and practice. New York. NY: Grune & Stratton.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Purpose: The Free Drawing may offer insight into a client’s current level of functioning and emotional status. It offers the client a sense of control, as he or she is the authority on what is ultimately created. The Free Drawing is likely to yield information about the client’s interests, likes and dislikes, and his or her comfort with the creative process.
Materials: Any materials can be used, but it is important that the evaluator remain cognizant of the Media Dimension Variables (MDV) with regard to his or her client. Administration: The evaluator would lay out a variety of art materials on a table before the client enters the room. The evaluator would ask the client to draw whatever he or she would like to draw. Because of the unstructured nature of this assessment, the evaluator’s observations of the client’s participation in the creative process is crucial. For example, what materials did he or she choose? Was making a decision about what to draw an easy decision? Did he or she appear to comfortable with the blank sheet of paper? These observations often provide insight for the dialogue that follows the drawing.
Inquiry: There is no specific post-drawing inquiry. The evaluator might say, “Tell me about your drawing,” or “What would you title this drawing?” Other questions, may focus more on the emotional content of the picture. For example, “Does this picture represent an emotion?” or “What would this drawing say if it could speak?”
Interpretation: Again, there is no specific interpretation for a free drawing. The evaluator should draw upon knowledge from other assessments, graphic development, symbolism, graphomotor factors, color usage, etc. The most valuable interpretation will be reflected by the client during the post-drawing dialogue.
Strengths: The Free Drawing offers an element of control to clients. It also creates an opportunity for creative self-expression that other assessments may trample in their attempts to be scientific and clinical. The Free Drawing is likely to produce information leading to greater client-therapist rapport.
Limitations: Certain clients prefer structured interventions or will be negatively affected by fear of a blank page.
Reflections: Only in art therapy can an assessment such as Free Drawing being studied in a clinical course! I see the value in allowing a client to draw whatever he or she likes, but I do not understand how it can then be qualified as an assessment. I feel certain that such a technique will yield useful information, I just find it’s lack of clinical grace slightly frustrating.
Reference: Naumburg M. (1966). Dynamically oriented art therapy: Its principles and practice. New York. NY: Grune & Stratton.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Purpose: The Free Drawing may offer insight into a client’s current level of functioning and emotional status. It offers the client a sense of control, as he or she is the authority on what is ultimately created. The Free Drawing is likely to yield information about the client’s interests, likes and dislikes, and his or her comfort with the creative process.
Materials: Any materials can be used, but it is important that the evaluator remain cognizant of the Media Dimension Variables (MDV) with regard to his or her client. Administration: The evaluator would lay out a variety of art materials on a table before the client enters the room. The evaluator would ask the client to draw whatever he or she would like to draw. Because of the unstructured nature of this assessment, the evaluator’s observations of the client’s participation in the creative process is crucial. For example, what materials did he or she choose? Was making a decision about what to draw an easy decision? Did he or she appear to comfortable with the blank sheet of paper? These observations often provide insight for the dialogue that follows the drawing.
Inquiry: There is no specific post-drawing inquiry. The evaluator might say, “Tell me about your drawing,” or “What would you title this drawing?” Other questions, may focus more on the emotional content of the picture. For example, “Does this picture represent an emotion?” or “What would this drawing say if it could speak?”
Interpretation: Again, there is no specific interpretation for a free drawing. The evaluator should draw upon knowledge from other assessments, graphic development, symbolism, graphomotor factors, color usage, etc. The most valuable interpretation will be reflected by the client during the post-drawing dialogue.
Strengths: The Free Drawing offers an element of control to clients. It also creates an opportunity for creative self-expression that other assessments may trample in their attempts to be scientific and clinical. The Free Drawing is likely to produce information leading to greater client-therapist rapport.
Limitations: Certain clients prefer structured interventions or will be negatively affected by fear of a blank page.
Reflections: Only in art therapy can an assessment such as Free Drawing being studied in a clinical course! I see the value in allowing a client to draw whatever he or she likes, but I do not understand how it can then be qualified as an assessment. I feel certain that such a technique will yield useful information, I just find it’s lack of clinical grace slightly frustrating.
Bird's Nest Drawing
Bird’s Nest Drawing
References:
Francis, D.M., Kaiser, D. & Deaver, S. 2003. Representations of attachment security in Birds Nest Drawings of clients with substance abuse disorder. Art Therapy Journal of AATA, 20 (3), 125-137.
Kaiser, D. 1996. Indicators of attachment security in a drawing task. The Arts In Psychotherapy, 23,(4), 333-340.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Purpose: This assessment helps identify a person’s attachment style and may provide insight into the person’s past attachments. This assessment may be particularly suited for children with attachment disorders, who experience separation anxiety, or are living in a non-traditional living arrangement. The Draw a Nest assessment may also offer insight into a substance abusers likelihood to relapse.
Materials: One sheet of blank, white 8.5 x 11 paper, 10-color pack of fine-point markers
Administration: The evaluator hands the client a piece of paper and the pack of markers and asks him or her to, “Draw a picture of a bird’s nest.” There is no time limit, but the evaluator should remain cognizant of the amount of time used.
Inquiry: Once the drawing is completed, the evaluator asks the client the following inquiry questions.
Write (or tell) a short story with a short beginning, a short middle and a short end.
Create a title and write it on the drawing.
Is there anything else you’d like to add or change?
Interpretation: The Bird’s Nest drawing represents an unconscious metaphor for the client’s perception of his or her home and family life. The following features of Bird’s Nest drawing may suggest a secure home and positive familial attachments:
Birds are in the nest.
Four or more colors are used
The dominant color used is green.
The entire bird family is depicted.
The nest is drawn in a tree.
The nest scene is drawn in profile, not from a bird’s eye point of view.
The entire tree is drawn.
The main themes in Bird’s Nest assessments are:
Home and family
Hunger / need for food
Abandonment issues
The wonder of nature
Anecdotes of personal experiences
After the drawing and post-drawing inquiry have been completed, the therapist will evaluate the drawing by using the “Attachment Rating Scale” (ARS). The therapist will rate the below areas on a scale of 1 – 5 (1 = lowest/least, 5 = highest/most).
Are there contents within the nest?
Does the environment look supportive?
Does the story about the nest reflect a theme of security or attachment?
Is a parental nesting animal included?
How sturdy is the nest?
Strengths: The Bird’s Nest drawing can offer valuable information about a client’s familial relationships, security of home life, and the nature of his or her attachments.. This drawing allows the person to communicate about his or her family through the use of a non-threatening metaphor.
Limitations: The client may feel limited by the restriction on materials other than markers. Only one drawing is produced, which may provide a narrow view of the client’s reality. This assessment, like many art therapy assessments, needs additional empirical study.
Reflection: The Bird’s nest drawing is non-threatening and enjoyable, but I did not like being limited to markers only. I would use this assessment more as an intervention and jumping-off point to a metaphorical dialogue about the client’s home life.
References:
Francis, D.M., Kaiser, D. & Deaver, S. 2003. Representations of attachment security in Birds Nest Drawings of clients with substance abuse disorder. Art Therapy Journal of AATA, 20 (3), 125-137.
Kaiser, D. 1996. Indicators of attachment security in a drawing task. The Arts In Psychotherapy, 23,(4), 333-340.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Purpose: This assessment helps identify a person’s attachment style and may provide insight into the person’s past attachments. This assessment may be particularly suited for children with attachment disorders, who experience separation anxiety, or are living in a non-traditional living arrangement. The Draw a Nest assessment may also offer insight into a substance abusers likelihood to relapse.
Materials: One sheet of blank, white 8.5 x 11 paper, 10-color pack of fine-point markers
Administration: The evaluator hands the client a piece of paper and the pack of markers and asks him or her to, “Draw a picture of a bird’s nest.” There is no time limit, but the evaluator should remain cognizant of the amount of time used.
Inquiry: Once the drawing is completed, the evaluator asks the client the following inquiry questions.
Write (or tell) a short story with a short beginning, a short middle and a short end.
Create a title and write it on the drawing.
Is there anything else you’d like to add or change?
Interpretation: The Bird’s Nest drawing represents an unconscious metaphor for the client’s perception of his or her home and family life. The following features of Bird’s Nest drawing may suggest a secure home and positive familial attachments:
Birds are in the nest.
Four or more colors are used
The dominant color used is green.
The entire bird family is depicted.
The nest is drawn in a tree.
The nest scene is drawn in profile, not from a bird’s eye point of view.
The entire tree is drawn.
The main themes in Bird’s Nest assessments are:
Home and family
Hunger / need for food
Abandonment issues
The wonder of nature
Anecdotes of personal experiences
After the drawing and post-drawing inquiry have been completed, the therapist will evaluate the drawing by using the “Attachment Rating Scale” (ARS). The therapist will rate the below areas on a scale of 1 – 5 (1 = lowest/least, 5 = highest/most).
Are there contents within the nest?
Does the environment look supportive?
Does the story about the nest reflect a theme of security or attachment?
Is a parental nesting animal included?
How sturdy is the nest?
Strengths: The Bird’s Nest drawing can offer valuable information about a client’s familial relationships, security of home life, and the nature of his or her attachments.. This drawing allows the person to communicate about his or her family through the use of a non-threatening metaphor.
Limitations: The client may feel limited by the restriction on materials other than markers. Only one drawing is produced, which may provide a narrow view of the client’s reality. This assessment, like many art therapy assessments, needs additional empirical study.
Reflection: The Bird’s nest drawing is non-threatening and enjoyable, but I did not like being limited to markers only. I would use this assessment more as an intervention and jumping-off point to a metaphorical dialogue about the client’s home life.
Bridge Drawing
Bridge Drawing
Reference: Hays, R. & Lyons, S. (1981) The Bridge Drawing: A projective technique for assessment in art therapy. Arts in Psychotherapy. (8) pp. 207-217.
Purpose: Bridge Drawing is a projective assessment that may provide insight into a person’s functioning, perception of his/her environment as a stable place, and perception of movement or stagnancy.
Ages: No age limit specified.
Materials: 8 ½ X 11 blank, white paper; drawing utensils of choice
Administration: The evaluator hands the client a piece of paper and requests that he or she “Draw a bridge going from some place to some place.”
Inquiry:
Ask artist to draw an arrow representing directionality.
Ask the artist to identify his/her location on the bridge with a dot.
Ask the artist to write or speak a few short sentences about the bridge.
Interpretation: Examiner may look for the following indicators.
Directionality: The drawn arrow typically represents left to right travel.
Placement of self: The location of the person may be indicative of how that person is approaching problems/goals.
Places drawn on either side: These places may include named land masses, symbolic connections, and un-named land masses.
Solidness: It is common to see the right side (which may represent the future) depicted as less grounded than the left side (which may represent the past).
Emphasis by elaboration: Certain areas may be given greater emphasis than other areas. Which areas are emphasized?
Construction of bridge: The construction of the bridge may imply the stability and security of the bridge. For instance, what materials were used to build the bridge?
Type of bridge: Most people draw familiar bridges. In some cases, arch bridges represent femininity whereas suspension bridges represent masculinity.
Matter under bridge: What is under the bridge? It is typical to see water. If water is present, is it calm or turbulent?
Vantage point of viewer: If the bridge is seen from above, the person may wish for control. If the bridge is seen from a worm’s-eye view, feelings of insecurity/inferiority may be present.
Axis of paper: A horizontal page is more typical. A vertical page may indicate passivity.
Consistency of Gestalt: Are there indications that parts of the picture don’t fit? Incongruence is noted.
Written Associations: The evaluator reads or listens to the picture’s verbal caption, and asks questions where deemed appropriate.
Strengths: The Bridge drawing does not necessarily take much time to create, and in most cases, can be completed in one session. It is likely to stimulate a conversation about movement or stagnancy, and goals.
Limitations: The Bridge drawing has not been proven to be significantly valid or reliable. It only produces one picture, which does not provide a lot of information to make an accurate evaluation of how the person is functioning.
Reflection: I like the Bridge drawing even though it is not a precise and proven measurement tool. I perceive the Bridge drawing more as an intervention than as an assessment. The interpretation considerations would aid in observation and in processing.
Reference: Hays, R. & Lyons, S. (1981) The Bridge Drawing: A projective technique for assessment in art therapy. Arts in Psychotherapy. (8) pp. 207-217.
Purpose: Bridge Drawing is a projective assessment that may provide insight into a person’s functioning, perception of his/her environment as a stable place, and perception of movement or stagnancy.
Ages: No age limit specified.
Materials: 8 ½ X 11 blank, white paper; drawing utensils of choice
Administration: The evaluator hands the client a piece of paper and requests that he or she “Draw a bridge going from some place to some place.”
Inquiry:
Ask artist to draw an arrow representing directionality.
Ask the artist to identify his/her location on the bridge with a dot.
Ask the artist to write or speak a few short sentences about the bridge.
Interpretation: Examiner may look for the following indicators.
Directionality: The drawn arrow typically represents left to right travel.
Placement of self: The location of the person may be indicative of how that person is approaching problems/goals.
Places drawn on either side: These places may include named land masses, symbolic connections, and un-named land masses.
Solidness: It is common to see the right side (which may represent the future) depicted as less grounded than the left side (which may represent the past).
Emphasis by elaboration: Certain areas may be given greater emphasis than other areas. Which areas are emphasized?
Construction of bridge: The construction of the bridge may imply the stability and security of the bridge. For instance, what materials were used to build the bridge?
Type of bridge: Most people draw familiar bridges. In some cases, arch bridges represent femininity whereas suspension bridges represent masculinity.
Matter under bridge: What is under the bridge? It is typical to see water. If water is present, is it calm or turbulent?
Vantage point of viewer: If the bridge is seen from above, the person may wish for control. If the bridge is seen from a worm’s-eye view, feelings of insecurity/inferiority may be present.
Axis of paper: A horizontal page is more typical. A vertical page may indicate passivity.
Consistency of Gestalt: Are there indications that parts of the picture don’t fit? Incongruence is noted.
Written Associations: The evaluator reads or listens to the picture’s verbal caption, and asks questions where deemed appropriate.
Strengths: The Bridge drawing does not necessarily take much time to create, and in most cases, can be completed in one session. It is likely to stimulate a conversation about movement or stagnancy, and goals.
Limitations: The Bridge drawing has not been proven to be significantly valid or reliable. It only produces one picture, which does not provide a lot of information to make an accurate evaluation of how the person is functioning.
Reflection: I like the Bridge drawing even though it is not a precise and proven measurement tool. I perceive the Bridge drawing more as an intervention than as an assessment. The interpretation considerations would aid in observation and in processing.
Attachment Potential for Art Therapy Asssessment
Attachment Potential for Art Therapy Assessment (APATA)
References:
Francis, D.M., Kaiser, D. & Deaver, S. 2003. Representations of attachment security in Birds Nest Drawings of clients with substance abuse disorder. Art Therapy Journal of AATA, 20 (3), 125-137.
Hays, R. & Lyons, S. 1981. The Bridge Drawing: A projective technique for assessment in art therapy. The Arts In Psychotherapy, 8, 207-217.
Kaiser, D. 1996. Indicators of attachment security in a drawing task. The Arts In Psychotherapy, 23,(4), 333-340.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Purpose: This assessment helps identify a person’s attachment style and may provide insight into the person’s past attachments. This assessment may be particularly suited for children with attachment disorders, who experience separation anxiety, or are living in a non-traditional living arrangement.
Materials: two 8.5 x 11 sheets of white paper, 12-color pack of erasable color pencils, 10-color pack of fine-tip markers
Procedure/Administration: The evaluator hands the client on piece of paper and the pack of colored pencils. First the client is asked to “Draw a nest” with the color pencils. Once this drawing is complete, the evaluator asks the inquiry questions listed below, in the “Nest Inquiry” section.
The evaluator then hands the client another piece of paper and the pack of markers. The client is asked to “Draw a bridge going from some place to some place.” Once this drawing is completed, the evaluator asks the inquiry questions listed below in the “Bridge Inquiry” section.
Nest Inquiry: The “nest inquiry” questions are asked after the nest drawing.
Write (or tell) a short story with a short beginning, a short middle and a short end.
Create a title and write it on the drawing.
Is there anything else you’d like to add or change?
Bridge Inquiry: The “Bridge Inquiry” questions are asked after the bridge drawing.
Place a dot on the bridge with a color you like or dislike to indicate where you are on the bridge.
Indicate with an arrow the direction in which you would be going with a color you like or dislike.
From what materials is the bridge made?
Describe the places on either side of the bridge.
Tell me about what’s under the bridge.
Write a title on the picture.
Interpretation: The drawings are interpreted based on the following rating systems, which are based on a 1-5 Likert scale, with 1 being the lowest or the least, and 5 being the highest or the most. Secure and healthy attachments are indicated by higher scores, whereas unstable attachments are indicated by lower scores.
Nest Drawing:
Are there contents within the nest?
Does the environment look supportive?
Does the story about the nest reflect a theme of security or attachment?
Is a parental nesting animal included?
Bridge Drawing:
Which way is the arrow pointing? (An arrow pointing to the left generally represents the past or what has been left behind. An arrow pointing to the right generally represents the future. An arrow pointing downward generally represents falling, a lack of stability, hopelessness, or death.)
Is the self-dot securely placed on the bridge?
Are the verbalized places drawn on the sides of the bridge?
How solid is the land that supports the bridge?
How strong and stable is the bridge’s construction? Is it made of rope, steel, etc?
Strengths: This assessment produces 2 separate opportunities to discuss attachments, and the research for both the Draw a Nest and the Bridge Drawing may be used to explore the findings within these 2 drawings. These drawings are fairly non-threatening, and the inquiry and interpretation questions are thorough and insightful.
Limitations: This assessment is not supported by empirical research, and some may argue that there is no real advantage to combining Draw a Nest and the Bridge Drawing. The drawing materials are restricted to erasable colored pencils and fine tip markers, which seems slightly limiting.
Reflection: I like the fact that the APATA produces 2 drawings depicting the same theme. This creates more of an opportunity to see the emerging big picture than does one drawing alone.
References:
Francis, D.M., Kaiser, D. & Deaver, S. 2003. Representations of attachment security in Birds Nest Drawings of clients with substance abuse disorder. Art Therapy Journal of AATA, 20 (3), 125-137.
Hays, R. & Lyons, S. 1981. The Bridge Drawing: A projective technique for assessment in art therapy. The Arts In Psychotherapy, 8, 207-217.
Kaiser, D. 1996. Indicators of attachment security in a drawing task. The Arts In Psychotherapy, 23,(4), 333-340.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Purpose: This assessment helps identify a person’s attachment style and may provide insight into the person’s past attachments. This assessment may be particularly suited for children with attachment disorders, who experience separation anxiety, or are living in a non-traditional living arrangement.
Materials: two 8.5 x 11 sheets of white paper, 12-color pack of erasable color pencils, 10-color pack of fine-tip markers
Procedure/Administration: The evaluator hands the client on piece of paper and the pack of colored pencils. First the client is asked to “Draw a nest” with the color pencils. Once this drawing is complete, the evaluator asks the inquiry questions listed below, in the “Nest Inquiry” section.
The evaluator then hands the client another piece of paper and the pack of markers. The client is asked to “Draw a bridge going from some place to some place.” Once this drawing is completed, the evaluator asks the inquiry questions listed below in the “Bridge Inquiry” section.
Nest Inquiry: The “nest inquiry” questions are asked after the nest drawing.
Write (or tell) a short story with a short beginning, a short middle and a short end.
Create a title and write it on the drawing.
Is there anything else you’d like to add or change?
Bridge Inquiry: The “Bridge Inquiry” questions are asked after the bridge drawing.
Place a dot on the bridge with a color you like or dislike to indicate where you are on the bridge.
Indicate with an arrow the direction in which you would be going with a color you like or dislike.
From what materials is the bridge made?
Describe the places on either side of the bridge.
Tell me about what’s under the bridge.
Write a title on the picture.
Interpretation: The drawings are interpreted based on the following rating systems, which are based on a 1-5 Likert scale, with 1 being the lowest or the least, and 5 being the highest or the most. Secure and healthy attachments are indicated by higher scores, whereas unstable attachments are indicated by lower scores.
Nest Drawing:
Are there contents within the nest?
Does the environment look supportive?
Does the story about the nest reflect a theme of security or attachment?
Is a parental nesting animal included?
Bridge Drawing:
Which way is the arrow pointing? (An arrow pointing to the left generally represents the past or what has been left behind. An arrow pointing to the right generally represents the future. An arrow pointing downward generally represents falling, a lack of stability, hopelessness, or death.)
Is the self-dot securely placed on the bridge?
Are the verbalized places drawn on the sides of the bridge?
How solid is the land that supports the bridge?
How strong and stable is the bridge’s construction? Is it made of rope, steel, etc?
Strengths: This assessment produces 2 separate opportunities to discuss attachments, and the research for both the Draw a Nest and the Bridge Drawing may be used to explore the findings within these 2 drawings. These drawings are fairly non-threatening, and the inquiry and interpretation questions are thorough and insightful.
Limitations: This assessment is not supported by empirical research, and some may argue that there is no real advantage to combining Draw a Nest and the Bridge Drawing. The drawing materials are restricted to erasable colored pencils and fine tip markers, which seems slightly limiting.
Reflection: I like the fact that the APATA produces 2 drawings depicting the same theme. This creates more of an opportunity to see the emerging big picture than does one drawing alone.
Kinetic Family Drawing
Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD)
Reference: Burns & Kaufman. (1972). Actions, Styles, and Symbols in Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD): An Interpretative Manual. New York, New York: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.
Purpose: The KFD is a projective tool used to understand a client’s self-concept and interpersonal relationships.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Materials: plain white paper (8 ½ X 11); #2 pencil
Administration: The evaluator hands the client a piece of paper and a pencil and states, “Draw a picture of everyone in your family, including you, DOING something. Try to draw whole people, not cartoons or stick people. Remember, make everyone DOING something – some kind of action” (Burns & Kaufman, 1972, p.5). There is no time limit, but it a good idea for the evaluator to remain cognizant of the time used.
Inquiry: There is not specific post-drawing inquiry, but it would helpful for the evaluator to ask an open-ended question or request about the drawing.
Interpretation: The evaluator uses the dictionary-style interpretive manual to explore the drawing’s style, the symbols used, the actions of individuals, and the actions between individuals. The evaluator also considers the distance between figures, size of the figures (as measured on a grid provided in the interpretative manual), barriers, and juxtaposition of the figures. Depicted defense mechanisms and omitted body parts should also be explored.
Strengths: This assessment provides a lot of information about a person and his or her perception of the familial dynamic in a quick drawing. The interpretative manual provides illustrated examples of actions, styles, and symbols.
Limitations: This drawing may be perceived as artistically challenging and relatively threatening because it is necessary to draw human figures in action. The manual is kind of difficult to use because of its organization. This assessment is not supported by empirical research.
Reflection: Of the drawings that we collected for this class, this one seemed to be the most true to the family-situation of my “clients.” I will definitely use this assessment in my practice to learn more about my client’s home life.
Reference: Burns & Kaufman. (1972). Actions, Styles, and Symbols in Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD): An Interpretative Manual. New York, New York: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.
Purpose: The KFD is a projective tool used to understand a client’s self-concept and interpersonal relationships.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Materials: plain white paper (8 ½ X 11); #2 pencil
Administration: The evaluator hands the client a piece of paper and a pencil and states, “Draw a picture of everyone in your family, including you, DOING something. Try to draw whole people, not cartoons or stick people. Remember, make everyone DOING something – some kind of action” (Burns & Kaufman, 1972, p.5). There is no time limit, but it a good idea for the evaluator to remain cognizant of the time used.
Inquiry: There is not specific post-drawing inquiry, but it would helpful for the evaluator to ask an open-ended question or request about the drawing.
Interpretation: The evaluator uses the dictionary-style interpretive manual to explore the drawing’s style, the symbols used, the actions of individuals, and the actions between individuals. The evaluator also considers the distance between figures, size of the figures (as measured on a grid provided in the interpretative manual), barriers, and juxtaposition of the figures. Depicted defense mechanisms and omitted body parts should also be explored.
Strengths: This assessment provides a lot of information about a person and his or her perception of the familial dynamic in a quick drawing. The interpretative manual provides illustrated examples of actions, styles, and symbols.
Limitations: This drawing may be perceived as artistically challenging and relatively threatening because it is necessary to draw human figures in action. The manual is kind of difficult to use because of its organization. This assessment is not supported by empirical research.
Reflection: Of the drawings that we collected for this class, this one seemed to be the most true to the family-situation of my “clients.” I will definitely use this assessment in my practice to learn more about my client’s home life.
Kinetic House Tree Person
Kinetic House Tree Person (KHTP)
Reference:
Burns, R.C. (1987). Kinetic house-tree-person drawings: an interpretive manual. New York, NY: Brunner/ Mazel Publishers.
Brooke, S.L. (2004). Tools of the trade: a therapist’s guide to art therapy assessments. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD.
Purpose:
This assessment builds upon Buck’s House Tree Person Assessment by providing a more unified approach, which gives the evaluator more information about the client. The KHTP tells a story about the person in his or her environment.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Materials: One blank, white 8 ½ x 11 paper and a #2 lead pencil
Administration: The evaluator hands a sheet of paper and a pencil to the client, and instructs him/her to “Draw a house, tree, and person with some kind of action. Try to draw a whole person, not a cartoon or stick person.” There is no time limit for this drawing, but the evaluator should be cognizant of the amount of time used.
Inquiry:
What story does the picture tell?
What is your first impression?
Whom and what do you see?
What is happening?
How do you feel about what is happening?
Is the picture warm or cold?
What do you notice about the energy areas about the picture?
What activities are depicted in each drawing?
Interpretation:
Burns uses some of the same interpretative technique that is used in the Kinetic Family Drawing, such as the significance of attachment, distance, order, size of figures, actions, styles, and symbols. There is an added component based Maslow’s hierarchy of needs that may indicate a particular developmental stage. In the KHTP, the house represents the physical aspects of life. The tree represents the life and direction of energy. The person is the director of the energy.
Strengths:
The KHTP provides more information than the HTP alone because it visually demonstrates the interaction between the house, the tree, and the person. This assessment may take less time to complete and uses less paper.
Limitations:
Reliability and validity have not been proven for the KHTP. Interpretation may be difficult when a symbol, action, or style is not addressed within the interpretative manual.
Reflection: I have always been interested in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and would be interested in acquiring Burn’s manual so that I can better understand how the hierarchy is integrated into the KHTP. I can see myself using this assessment more than the original HTP because it probably wouldn’t take as much time and would theoretically offer more information about the client. It seems that trees and people often pop up in house drawings anyway, so this assessment capitalizes on a natural tendency.
Reference:
Burns, R.C. (1987). Kinetic house-tree-person drawings: an interpretive manual. New York, NY: Brunner/ Mazel Publishers.
Brooke, S.L. (2004). Tools of the trade: a therapist’s guide to art therapy assessments. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD.
Purpose:
This assessment builds upon Buck’s House Tree Person Assessment by providing a more unified approach, which gives the evaluator more information about the client. The KHTP tells a story about the person in his or her environment.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Materials: One blank, white 8 ½ x 11 paper and a #2 lead pencil
Administration: The evaluator hands a sheet of paper and a pencil to the client, and instructs him/her to “Draw a house, tree, and person with some kind of action. Try to draw a whole person, not a cartoon or stick person.” There is no time limit for this drawing, but the evaluator should be cognizant of the amount of time used.
Inquiry:
What story does the picture tell?
What is your first impression?
Whom and what do you see?
What is happening?
How do you feel about what is happening?
Is the picture warm or cold?
What do you notice about the energy areas about the picture?
What activities are depicted in each drawing?
Interpretation:
Burns uses some of the same interpretative technique that is used in the Kinetic Family Drawing, such as the significance of attachment, distance, order, size of figures, actions, styles, and symbols. There is an added component based Maslow’s hierarchy of needs that may indicate a particular developmental stage. In the KHTP, the house represents the physical aspects of life. The tree represents the life and direction of energy. The person is the director of the energy.
Strengths:
The KHTP provides more information than the HTP alone because it visually demonstrates the interaction between the house, the tree, and the person. This assessment may take less time to complete and uses less paper.
Limitations:
Reliability and validity have not been proven for the KHTP. Interpretation may be difficult when a symbol, action, or style is not addressed within the interpretative manual.
Reflection: I have always been interested in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and would be interested in acquiring Burn’s manual so that I can better understand how the hierarchy is integrated into the KHTP. I can see myself using this assessment more than the original HTP because it probably wouldn’t take as much time and would theoretically offer more information about the client. It seems that trees and people often pop up in house drawings anyway, so this assessment capitalizes on a natural tendency.
House Tree Person
House, Tree, Person (HTP)
Reference: Buck, John N. (1949). The H-T-P Technique. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 5, 37-74.
Purpose: This projective assessment may provide information on personality characteristics and interpersonal interactions.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Materials: (6) blank, white sheets of 7”x8 ½” paper, several #2 lead pencils, and set of crayons including red, green, blue yellow, brown, black, purple, and orange; a stopwatch is recommended
Administration: For the HOUSE drawing, the paper is placed horizontally, with the word, “HOUSE,” written at the top of the page. For the TREE and PERSON drawings, the paper is placed vertically and labeled accordingly. The directive goes as follows: “Take one of these pencils, please. I want you to draw me as good a picture of a house as you can. You may draw any kind of house you wish, it is entirely up to you. You may erase as much as you like, it will not be counted against you. In addition, you may take as long as you wish, just draw me as good a house as you can.”
The same essential directive is then given for the TREE drawing, and then again for the PERSON drawing.
The stopwatch is used to monitor the amount of time used by the client for each drawing. There is no time limit.
Inquiry: Post Drawing Inquiry consists of 22 questions and gives the artist an opportunity to discuss, describe, and explain the pictures drawn.
HOUSE
Is it real or imaginary?
Is it your house or someone else’s?
Is it positive or negative?
Would you like to own this house?
Who lives in this house?
Does the house look close or far away?
What’s the weather like in the picture?
What does the house need most?
Where is the house located?
TREE:
What kind of tree?
What is the age of the tree?
What season is it?
Where is the tree located?
What does it need most?
If you were in the picture, where would you be?
PERSON:
Is this person real or imaginary?
Is this person a male or female?
What is the age of person in drawing?
What is this person like? (personality characteristics)
What does the person in the drawing like most/least about himself/herself? (favorite things)
Would you like to know this person?
*Ask all questions for both persons drawn.
After 2nd drawing: If these two met, what would happen?
Interpretation: No one sign is conclusive of anything. Look at the whole picture that emerges from the HTP. Also, consider the answers to PDI questions. Presence or absence of emotional indicators will allude to maladaptive or healthy adjusting. The evaluator will get an overall impression of how the artist is coping. The evaluator will consider Graphomotor Factors, General Projective Drawing Factors, and the specific suggested findings regarding House, Tree, and Person Drawings.
Graphomotor Factors include erasing, placement, pressure, size, stroke, line, and shading.
General Projective Drawing Factors include detailing, distortions, disproportions, omissions, edge of paper, ground line treatment, midline emphasis, symmetry, transparencies, miscellaneous factors, such as clouds, spontaneously drawn sun, etc.
Considerations specific to House, Tree, and Person Drawings:
Generally, the house is thought of as a self-portrait representing how the artist perceives the quality of his/her relationships, especially the relationship with his/her mother. The house is representative of the person’s ego strength and ego boundaries. Furthermore, the top of the house is thought to represent the person’s fantasy life; the basement, the person’s unconscious; and the first floor, reality. Buck’s essential House features include 1 door, 1 window, a roof, and a chimney.
The tree is thought be a self-reflection and a representation of the artist’s intrapersonal relationship. Here, the roots are representative of the unconscious; the trunk, ego strength; the crown, fantasy; and the branches, how the person interacts with his/her environment. How satisfied one is with his/her environment is related to the whole depiction of the tree. Bucks’s essential Tree features include a trunk and at least 1 branch.
The person drawing (drawn twice) represents his/her interpersonal relationships, and may reflect transference to mother and father. Buck’s essential Person features include a head, a trunk, 2 legs, 2 arms, 2 eyes, a nose, a mouth, and 2 ears.
Strengths: The HTP is an in-depth projective assessment with many factors that combine to create an impression for the evaluator. As opposed to many assessments which only provide one drawing from which to draw conclusions, the HTP provides four drawings. An extensive PDI is also included, which provides greater depth and insight into the drawings.
Limitations: Because of the in-depth nature of this assessment, it may difficult to complete in one session. The evaluator must also consider the fatigue factor when requesting that a person complete the HTP, especially if the artist is a child, ill, or emotionally exhausted. If the evaluator uses a stopwatch as suggested, the client may feel rushed or anxious.
Completing a written HTP evaluation is also very time-consuming for the evaluator.
Reflection: This assessment provides a great amount of useful information about the artist. I especially like the PDI questions because a more realistic picture is likely to emerge. It is a little lengthy, so I might try completing the assessment in more than one session to lessen fatigue. I probably would not use a stopwatch and would change the administration language a bit to sound less intimidating to create a more caring, open, and comfortable environment.
Reference: Buck, John N. (1949). The H-T-P Technique. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 5, 37-74.
Purpose: This projective assessment may provide information on personality characteristics and interpersonal interactions.
Ages: No age limit is noted.
Materials: (6) blank, white sheets of 7”x8 ½” paper, several #2 lead pencils, and set of crayons including red, green, blue yellow, brown, black, purple, and orange; a stopwatch is recommended
Administration: For the HOUSE drawing, the paper is placed horizontally, with the word, “HOUSE,” written at the top of the page. For the TREE and PERSON drawings, the paper is placed vertically and labeled accordingly. The directive goes as follows: “Take one of these pencils, please. I want you to draw me as good a picture of a house as you can. You may draw any kind of house you wish, it is entirely up to you. You may erase as much as you like, it will not be counted against you. In addition, you may take as long as you wish, just draw me as good a house as you can.”
The same essential directive is then given for the TREE drawing, and then again for the PERSON drawing.
The stopwatch is used to monitor the amount of time used by the client for each drawing. There is no time limit.
Inquiry: Post Drawing Inquiry consists of 22 questions and gives the artist an opportunity to discuss, describe, and explain the pictures drawn.
HOUSE
Is it real or imaginary?
Is it your house or someone else’s?
Is it positive or negative?
Would you like to own this house?
Who lives in this house?
Does the house look close or far away?
What’s the weather like in the picture?
What does the house need most?
Where is the house located?
TREE:
What kind of tree?
What is the age of the tree?
What season is it?
Where is the tree located?
What does it need most?
If you were in the picture, where would you be?
PERSON:
Is this person real or imaginary?
Is this person a male or female?
What is the age of person in drawing?
What is this person like? (personality characteristics)
What does the person in the drawing like most/least about himself/herself? (favorite things)
Would you like to know this person?
*Ask all questions for both persons drawn.
After 2nd drawing: If these two met, what would happen?
Interpretation: No one sign is conclusive of anything. Look at the whole picture that emerges from the HTP. Also, consider the answers to PDI questions. Presence or absence of emotional indicators will allude to maladaptive or healthy adjusting. The evaluator will get an overall impression of how the artist is coping. The evaluator will consider Graphomotor Factors, General Projective Drawing Factors, and the specific suggested findings regarding House, Tree, and Person Drawings.
Graphomotor Factors include erasing, placement, pressure, size, stroke, line, and shading.
General Projective Drawing Factors include detailing, distortions, disproportions, omissions, edge of paper, ground line treatment, midline emphasis, symmetry, transparencies, miscellaneous factors, such as clouds, spontaneously drawn sun, etc.
Considerations specific to House, Tree, and Person Drawings:
Generally, the house is thought of as a self-portrait representing how the artist perceives the quality of his/her relationships, especially the relationship with his/her mother. The house is representative of the person’s ego strength and ego boundaries. Furthermore, the top of the house is thought to represent the person’s fantasy life; the basement, the person’s unconscious; and the first floor, reality. Buck’s essential House features include 1 door, 1 window, a roof, and a chimney.
The tree is thought be a self-reflection and a representation of the artist’s intrapersonal relationship. Here, the roots are representative of the unconscious; the trunk, ego strength; the crown, fantasy; and the branches, how the person interacts with his/her environment. How satisfied one is with his/her environment is related to the whole depiction of the tree. Bucks’s essential Tree features include a trunk and at least 1 branch.
The person drawing (drawn twice) represents his/her interpersonal relationships, and may reflect transference to mother and father. Buck’s essential Person features include a head, a trunk, 2 legs, 2 arms, 2 eyes, a nose, a mouth, and 2 ears.
Strengths: The HTP is an in-depth projective assessment with many factors that combine to create an impression for the evaluator. As opposed to many assessments which only provide one drawing from which to draw conclusions, the HTP provides four drawings. An extensive PDI is also included, which provides greater depth and insight into the drawings.
Limitations: Because of the in-depth nature of this assessment, it may difficult to complete in one session. The evaluator must also consider the fatigue factor when requesting that a person complete the HTP, especially if the artist is a child, ill, or emotionally exhausted. If the evaluator uses a stopwatch as suggested, the client may feel rushed or anxious.
Completing a written HTP evaluation is also very time-consuming for the evaluator.
Reflection: This assessment provides a great amount of useful information about the artist. I especially like the PDI questions because a more realistic picture is likely to emerge. It is a little lengthy, so I might try completing the assessment in more than one session to lessen fatigue. I probably would not use a stopwatch and would change the administration language a bit to sound less intimidating to create a more caring, open, and comfortable environment.
Human Figure Drawing
Human Figure Drawing (HFD)
Reference: Koppitz, E. (1968). “Psychological evaluation of children’s human figure drawings.” New York: Grune & Stratton.
Purpose: This projective drawing is used primarily to see indicators that may signify emotional problems in children. The assessment also has a developmental component, which supposedly indicates a child’s developmental level and intelligence, although this component is not empirically proven.
Ages: 5-11
Materials: one blank white piece of 8 ½ X 11 paper and a #2 pencil with an eraser.
Administration: The evaluator hands the child a piece of paper and a pencil. “Draw a whole person. It can be any kind of person you want to draw, just make sure it is a whole person and not a stick figure or a cartoon figure.” There is no time limit, but the evaluator should take notice of the amount of time used.
Inquiry: The evaluator should say something like, “Tell me about your drawing.” A child may be asked to clarify certain aspects of his/her HFD. One example is a girl who seemingly omitted feet in her drawing. When asked about the missing feet, the girl replied, “I don’t like my big feet, so I’m not going to include feet on my person.” This explanation provides useful information for the evaluator and would result in a more accurate assessment.
Interpretation: Interpreting the HFD is two-fold. The first is based on the Developmental Items. To score the Developmental Items, the evaluator would use the HFD scoring manual to see which items are Expected, and if any items are considered Exceptional. According to Koppitz, certain items are expected to be included in a child’s drawing at any given age. For example, typical 7 year-old males are expected to include a head, eyes, nose, mouth, body, legs, arms, feet, and 2-dimensional arms. If an expected item is not included, then one point would be deducted from the baseline score of 5. Exceptional items are items that are considered to be very advanced for a given age. One point is added to the developmental score for each exceptional item included. Koppitz posits that each number, 1-7, correlates with a general IQ score, therefore, indicating a level of intelligence.
The other interpretation of the HFD is based on Emotional Indicators. These emotional indicators are classified into 3 categories: Quality, which includes things such as poor integration of parts of the figure, asymmetry, shading, and size of the figure; Special Features, which includes features such as an oversized head, presence of teeth, genitals, arm length, etc; and Omissions, which includes the absence of features that one would expect to see, such as eyes, nose, mouth, arms, and other typical body parts. Taking these 3 categories into consideration, the evaluator notes “Salient Features,” and refers to the appendices of the HFD scoring manual to note “emotional indicators.” Two or more of these emotional indicators may suggest that the child is encountering emotional difficulty.
It is noted that the evaluator should consider the entirety of the produced picture in conjunction with the child’s background and behavior during the art-making task in his/her evaluation of the child.
Strengths: This assessment is typically completed in a short amount of time and requires only the most basic of art materials. It can be completed almost anywhere. Koppitz also presents clear instructions for interpretation of the drawings. This assessment, though not empirically based, does offer a baseline of information about a child in a non-threatening way.
Limitations: This assessment only produces one drawing, so the amount of information provided is minimal. Koppitz does not offer much insight into what may indicated by the drawings, other than a vague “emotional disturbance.” This assessment is not empirically based.
Reflection: I initially thought that the developmental scoring system was poorly constructed, but after conducting a few HFD’s, I recognize that it may be more accurate in predicting intellectual level than I thought. It seems like an HFD is a logical place to start a therapeutic relationship with a child, so I will probably use this assessment in my practice. I do understand that an HFD is only one small piece of a child’s overall “puzzle.”
Reference: Koppitz, E. (1968). “Psychological evaluation of children’s human figure drawings.” New York: Grune & Stratton.
Purpose: This projective drawing is used primarily to see indicators that may signify emotional problems in children. The assessment also has a developmental component, which supposedly indicates a child’s developmental level and intelligence, although this component is not empirically proven.
Ages: 5-11
Materials: one blank white piece of 8 ½ X 11 paper and a #2 pencil with an eraser.
Administration: The evaluator hands the child a piece of paper and a pencil. “Draw a whole person. It can be any kind of person you want to draw, just make sure it is a whole person and not a stick figure or a cartoon figure.” There is no time limit, but the evaluator should take notice of the amount of time used.
Inquiry: The evaluator should say something like, “Tell me about your drawing.” A child may be asked to clarify certain aspects of his/her HFD. One example is a girl who seemingly omitted feet in her drawing. When asked about the missing feet, the girl replied, “I don’t like my big feet, so I’m not going to include feet on my person.” This explanation provides useful information for the evaluator and would result in a more accurate assessment.
Interpretation: Interpreting the HFD is two-fold. The first is based on the Developmental Items. To score the Developmental Items, the evaluator would use the HFD scoring manual to see which items are Expected, and if any items are considered Exceptional. According to Koppitz, certain items are expected to be included in a child’s drawing at any given age. For example, typical 7 year-old males are expected to include a head, eyes, nose, mouth, body, legs, arms, feet, and 2-dimensional arms. If an expected item is not included, then one point would be deducted from the baseline score of 5. Exceptional items are items that are considered to be very advanced for a given age. One point is added to the developmental score for each exceptional item included. Koppitz posits that each number, 1-7, correlates with a general IQ score, therefore, indicating a level of intelligence.
The other interpretation of the HFD is based on Emotional Indicators. These emotional indicators are classified into 3 categories: Quality, which includes things such as poor integration of parts of the figure, asymmetry, shading, and size of the figure; Special Features, which includes features such as an oversized head, presence of teeth, genitals, arm length, etc; and Omissions, which includes the absence of features that one would expect to see, such as eyes, nose, mouth, arms, and other typical body parts. Taking these 3 categories into consideration, the evaluator notes “Salient Features,” and refers to the appendices of the HFD scoring manual to note “emotional indicators.” Two or more of these emotional indicators may suggest that the child is encountering emotional difficulty.
It is noted that the evaluator should consider the entirety of the produced picture in conjunction with the child’s background and behavior during the art-making task in his/her evaluation of the child.
Strengths: This assessment is typically completed in a short amount of time and requires only the most basic of art materials. It can be completed almost anywhere. Koppitz also presents clear instructions for interpretation of the drawings. This assessment, though not empirically based, does offer a baseline of information about a child in a non-threatening way.
Limitations: This assessment only produces one drawing, so the amount of information provided is minimal. Koppitz does not offer much insight into what may indicated by the drawings, other than a vague “emotional disturbance.” This assessment is not empirically based.
Reflection: I initially thought that the developmental scoring system was poorly constructed, but after conducting a few HFD’s, I recognize that it may be more accurate in predicting intellectual level than I thought. It seems like an HFD is a logical place to start a therapeutic relationship with a child, so I will probably use this assessment in my practice. I do understand that an HFD is only one small piece of a child’s overall “puzzle.”
Human Figure Drawing
Human Figure Drawing (HFD)
Reference: Koppitz, E. (1968). “Psychological evaluation of children’s human figure drawings.” New York: Grune & Stratton.
Purpose: This projective drawing is used primarily to see indicators that may signify emotional problems in children. The assessment also has a developmental component, which supposedly indicates a child’s developmental level and intelligence, although this component is not empirically proven.
Ages: 5-11
Materials: one blank white piece of 8 ½ X 11 paper and a #2 pencil with an eraser.
Administration: The evaluator hands the child a piece of paper and a pencil. “Draw a whole person. It can be any kind of person you want to draw, just make sure it is a whole person and not a stick figure or a cartoon figure.” There is no time limit, but the evaluator should take notice of the amount of time used.
Inquiry: The evaluator should say something like, “Tell me about your drawing.” A child may be asked to clarify certain aspects of his/her HFD. One example is a girl who seemingly omitted feet in her drawing. When asked about the missing feet, the girl replied, “I don’t like my big feet, so I’m not going to include feet on my person.” This explanation provides useful information for the evaluator and would result in a more accurate assessment.
Interpretation: Interpreting the HFD is two-fold. The first is based on the Developmental Items. To score the Developmental Items, the evaluator would use the HFD scoring manual to see which items are Expected, and if any items are considered Exceptional. According to Koppitz, certain items are expected to be included in a child’s drawing at any given age. For example, typical 7 year-old males are expected to include a head, eyes, nose, mouth, body, legs, arms, feet, and 2-dimensional arms. If an expected item is not included, then one point would be deducted from the baseline score of 5. Exceptional items are items that are considered to be very advanced for a given age. One point is added to the developmental score for each exceptional item included. Koppitz posits that each number, 1-7, correlates with a general IQ score, therefore, indicating a level of intelligence.
The other interpretation of the HFD is based on Emotional Indicators. These emotional indicators are classified into 3 categories: Quality, which includes things such as poor integration of parts of the figure, asymmetry, shading, and size of the figure; Special Features, which includes features such as an oversized head, presence of teeth, genitals, arm length, etc; and Omissions, which includes the absence of features that one would expect to see, such as eyes, nose, mouth, arms, and other typical body parts. Taking these 3 categories into consideration, the evaluator notes “Salient Features,” and refers to the appendices of the HFD scoring manual to note “emotional indicators.” Two or more of these emotional indicators may suggest that the child is encountering emotional difficulty.
It is noted that the evaluator should consider the entirety of the produced picture in conjunction with the child’s background and behavior during the art-making task in his/her evaluation of the child.
Strengths: This assessment is typically completed in a short amount of time and requires only the most basic of art materials. It can be completed almost anywhere. Koppitz also presents clear instructions for interpretation of the drawings. This assessment, though not empirically based, does offer a baseline of information about a child in a non-threatening way.
Limitations: This assessment only produces one drawing, so the amount of information provided is minimal. Koppitz does not offer much insight into what may indicated by the drawings, other than a vague “emotional disturbance.” This assessment is not empirically based.
Reflection: I initially thought that the developmental scoring system was poorly constructed, but after conducting a few HFD’s, I recognize that it may be more accurate in predicting intellectual level than I thought. It seems like an HFD is a logical place to start a therapeutic relationship with a child, so I will probably use this assessment in my practice. I do understand that an HFD is only one small piece of a child’s overall “puzzle.”
Reference: Koppitz, E. (1968). “Psychological evaluation of children’s human figure drawings.” New York: Grune & Stratton.
Purpose: This projective drawing is used primarily to see indicators that may signify emotional problems in children. The assessment also has a developmental component, which supposedly indicates a child’s developmental level and intelligence, although this component is not empirically proven.
Ages: 5-11
Materials: one blank white piece of 8 ½ X 11 paper and a #2 pencil with an eraser.
Administration: The evaluator hands the child a piece of paper and a pencil. “Draw a whole person. It can be any kind of person you want to draw, just make sure it is a whole person and not a stick figure or a cartoon figure.” There is no time limit, but the evaluator should take notice of the amount of time used.
Inquiry: The evaluator should say something like, “Tell me about your drawing.” A child may be asked to clarify certain aspects of his/her HFD. One example is a girl who seemingly omitted feet in her drawing. When asked about the missing feet, the girl replied, “I don’t like my big feet, so I’m not going to include feet on my person.” This explanation provides useful information for the evaluator and would result in a more accurate assessment.
Interpretation: Interpreting the HFD is two-fold. The first is based on the Developmental Items. To score the Developmental Items, the evaluator would use the HFD scoring manual to see which items are Expected, and if any items are considered Exceptional. According to Koppitz, certain items are expected to be included in a child’s drawing at any given age. For example, typical 7 year-old males are expected to include a head, eyes, nose, mouth, body, legs, arms, feet, and 2-dimensional arms. If an expected item is not included, then one point would be deducted from the baseline score of 5. Exceptional items are items that are considered to be very advanced for a given age. One point is added to the developmental score for each exceptional item included. Koppitz posits that each number, 1-7, correlates with a general IQ score, therefore, indicating a level of intelligence.
The other interpretation of the HFD is based on Emotional Indicators. These emotional indicators are classified into 3 categories: Quality, which includes things such as poor integration of parts of the figure, asymmetry, shading, and size of the figure; Special Features, which includes features such as an oversized head, presence of teeth, genitals, arm length, etc; and Omissions, which includes the absence of features that one would expect to see, such as eyes, nose, mouth, arms, and other typical body parts. Taking these 3 categories into consideration, the evaluator notes “Salient Features,” and refers to the appendices of the HFD scoring manual to note “emotional indicators.” Two or more of these emotional indicators may suggest that the child is encountering emotional difficulty.
It is noted that the evaluator should consider the entirety of the produced picture in conjunction with the child’s background and behavior during the art-making task in his/her evaluation of the child.
Strengths: This assessment is typically completed in a short amount of time and requires only the most basic of art materials. It can be completed almost anywhere. Koppitz also presents clear instructions for interpretation of the drawings. This assessment, though not empirically based, does offer a baseline of information about a child in a non-threatening way.
Limitations: This assessment only produces one drawing, so the amount of information provided is minimal. Koppitz does not offer much insight into what may indicated by the drawings, other than a vague “emotional disturbance.” This assessment is not empirically based.
Reflection: I initially thought that the developmental scoring system was poorly constructed, but after conducting a few HFD’s, I recognize that it may be more accurate in predicting intellectual level than I thought. It seems like an HFD is a logical place to start a therapeutic relationship with a child, so I will probably use this assessment in my practice. I do understand that an HFD is only one small piece of a child’s overall “puzzle.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)