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.
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)