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.
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.”
Tissue Paper Collage
Edith Wallace:
Jungian
Art as Psychotherapy
Look, Notice, See (to process artwork)
Tissue Paper Collage (lab card below)
“Play seriously and work playfully.” – edith wallace
Tissue Paper Collage: Edith Wallace
ETC: Cognitive, Symbolic, Affective
MDV: Fluid, Complex, Unstructured
Materials
30 colors of tissue paper, sheets of white tagboard, or other firm paper/cardboard product cut into 11”x14”pieces, liquid medium gloss varnish, and 1”paint brushes
Methods
1. Choose whatever colors of tissue paper you prefer.
2. Find a comfortable place to work.
3. Mix up your varnish and begin to tear and paste your tissue on the tagboard. *Do not use known forms. Do not scissors or other tools. Do not interpret your work as you create. Do work in silence. Do allow whatever arises to appear spontaneously. Do play like a child.
4. Once finished with one collage, label, number, and date the piece on the back. Also make an arrow to indicate the direction in which it was created.
5. Create up to twenty collages. It is not necessary to make twenty.
6. Let collage(s) dry.
7. Sit alone (processing images alone is necessary because we are highly impressionable beings) and listen to what your image is trying to tell you. Notice its color, form, pattern, etc. Dialogue with the image.
8. Reflect on what the image is telling you, with regard to relationship with self, family, and culture, from personal meaning to archetypal significance. Make notes. * If you are stuck, name each collage and attempt to proceed.
9. Show your collage(s) to your fellow group members. Group members are asked to listen, encourage, and question, without imposing their own interpretations of the collage’s meaning.
10. If a particular collage is ambiguous or confusing, represent it in movement or dance. The movement should reflect your perception of the lines in the collage.
11. Meditate on your image.
Rationale: Torn tissue paper collage is a non-threatening medium through which to explore the unconscious. Creating images in this spontaneous fashion encourages dialogue between the conscious and the unconscious. Once an image is manifested, many processing questions and considerations may follow. Once these questions are considered and the answers are articulated, then the message from the unconscious is made fully conscious, and the problematic behavior or thought can be modified.
Jungian
Art as Psychotherapy
Look, Notice, See (to process artwork)
Tissue Paper Collage (lab card below)
“Play seriously and work playfully.” – edith wallace
Tissue Paper Collage: Edith Wallace
ETC: Cognitive, Symbolic, Affective
MDV: Fluid, Complex, Unstructured
Materials
30 colors of tissue paper, sheets of white tagboard, or other firm paper/cardboard product cut into 11”x14”pieces, liquid medium gloss varnish, and 1”paint brushes
Methods
1. Choose whatever colors of tissue paper you prefer.
2. Find a comfortable place to work.
3. Mix up your varnish and begin to tear and paste your tissue on the tagboard. *Do not use known forms. Do not scissors or other tools. Do not interpret your work as you create. Do work in silence. Do allow whatever arises to appear spontaneously. Do play like a child.
4. Once finished with one collage, label, number, and date the piece on the back. Also make an arrow to indicate the direction in which it was created.
5. Create up to twenty collages. It is not necessary to make twenty.
6. Let collage(s) dry.
7. Sit alone (processing images alone is necessary because we are highly impressionable beings) and listen to what your image is trying to tell you. Notice its color, form, pattern, etc. Dialogue with the image.
8. Reflect on what the image is telling you, with regard to relationship with self, family, and culture, from personal meaning to archetypal significance. Make notes. * If you are stuck, name each collage and attempt to proceed.
9. Show your collage(s) to your fellow group members. Group members are asked to listen, encourage, and question, without imposing their own interpretations of the collage’s meaning.
10. If a particular collage is ambiguous or confusing, represent it in movement or dance. The movement should reflect your perception of the lines in the collage.
11. Meditate on your image.
Rationale: Torn tissue paper collage is a non-threatening medium through which to explore the unconscious. Creating images in this spontaneous fashion encourages dialogue between the conscious and the unconscious. Once an image is manifested, many processing questions and considerations may follow. Once these questions are considered and the answers are articulated, then the message from the unconscious is made fully conscious, and the problematic behavior or thought can be modified.
Who Am I?
Who Am I?: adapted from The Creative Journal for Children by Cathy Malchiodi
Materials: paper of any size and variety of drawing utensils
Procedure: Ask client to draw a picture of him/herself. If client feels threatened by the task of creating a realistic self-portrait, rephrase the directive to use only line, shape, and color. Once the drawing is completed, ask the client to write a short poem entitled "I am..." Encourage client to use descriptive words to explain who he/she is.
Rationale: This intervention helps the client solidify his/her perception of self. The therapist is able to increase an understanding of the client's perception of self and identify faulty cognitions. Often times, the client's perception of self is a reflection of his or her environment and supports.
Adaptations: If client is unable or unwilling to write the reflective poem, the client can list descriptors. This intervention may precede other interventions such as: How I see myself, How others see me or Affirmation dolls.
Materials: paper of any size and variety of drawing utensils
Procedure: Ask client to draw a picture of him/herself. If client feels threatened by the task of creating a realistic self-portrait, rephrase the directive to use only line, shape, and color. Once the drawing is completed, ask the client to write a short poem entitled "I am..." Encourage client to use descriptive words to explain who he/she is.
Rationale: This intervention helps the client solidify his/her perception of self. The therapist is able to increase an understanding of the client's perception of self and identify faulty cognitions. Often times, the client's perception of self is a reflection of his or her environment and supports.
Adaptations: If client is unable or unwilling to write the reflective poem, the client can list descriptors. This intervention may precede other interventions such as: How I see myself, How others see me or Affirmation dolls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)