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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)