You are on page 1of 71

THE DRAW-A-PERSON TEST AND PSYCHONEUROLOGICAL

LEARNING DISABILITY IN CHILDREN


by
CHARLES LOUIS PRATT, B.S.
A THESIS
IN
PSYCHOLOGY
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texaa Technological College
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirementa for
the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Approved
Auguat 1968
. " - )
r3
i<ik
tio.
' /
/6i>
Cci). ^
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am deeply indebted to Profeaaor Charlea H. Mahone for hia
direction on thia theaia and to Joe D. Garma, Ph.D. and Darrell
Canfield, M.S. for their helpful criticiam.
In addition, appreciation ia expreaaed to my wife, Carol,
for her assistance and encouragement in the preparation and execution
of this study.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose and Scope of the Thesis 1
Review of Pertinent Literature 2
Definitions of Terms 5
Statement of Problem 7
II. EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION 8
Method and Procedures 8
Scoring System Development 10
Resulta 25
III. PROCEDURE 25
Problem - 25
Subjecta 25
Procedure 26
IV. RESULTS 29
V. DISCUSSION 34
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 58
LIST OP REFERENCES .' 40
APPENDIX 43
111
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Comparison of the 19 Scoring Signa in the
Exploratory Inveatigation 57
2. Experimental Group Data 58
3. Control Group Data 61
4. Compariaon of the 19 Scoring Signa in the
Major Study 64
5. Compariaon of the I9 Scoring Signa by
Judge A for Three Seta of Drawinga 65
6. Compariaon of the 19 Scoring Signa by
Judge B for Three Seta of Drawinga 66
7. Reaulta of _t Teat in the Major Study by
Judge A 32
8. Reaulta of t^ Teat in the Major Study by
Judge B ;... 35
IV
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. Normal Drawing 43
2. Normal Drawing. 44
3 Normal Drawing 45
4. Normal Drawing 46
5 Normal Drawing 47
6 Handicapped Drawing 48
7. Handicapped Drawing 49
8. Handicapped Drawing 50
9. Handicapped Drawing 51
10. Handicapped Drawing 52
11. Poaitive Handa and Fingera 55
12. Negative Handa and Fingera 54
15. Poaitive Foot Conatruction 55
14. Negative Foot Conatruction 56
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Purpoae and Scope of the Theaia
One of the taaka given to clinical paychologiata ia to aid in
the diagnoaia of learning disturbances. A variety of psychological
techniquea have been uaed for this purpoae over the years with varying
degrees of success. A large amount of work has been done using the
drawing of the human figure aa an intelligence teat and as a projective
technique, but the literature containa only a few atudiea where thia
procedure waaydirectly uaed in diagnosing learning disability in
children. Even when drawinga are used in a diagnostic battery, clini-
cians occasionally make inferences from them concerning cerebral
dysfunction which are not based on the pictures themselvea but on data
from the caae hiatory, reaulta of other testa, .or from the behavior
and appearance of the child.
^Since the Draw-A-Peraon Test (D-A-P) is a brief and easily
adminiatered teat which requires little material, appeala to moat
children, and yielda both an eatimate of mental age and considerable
projective data, it ia extenaively uaed in paychological evaluation
of children. > Some time and effort could be saved if it could be
validly and reliably used as a screening device for learning diaability.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of the
D-A-P in the diagnosis of neurologically based learning disability.
2 2 2 2
It attempted to find any patterns and/or signa in the drawinga of the
human figure which could be ayatematically used to differentiate the
impaired child with a learning handicap from the non-impaired child.
Review of Pertinent Literature
Developmental and intellectual levels are reflected in the human
figure drawings of children and have been standardized as an intelli-
gence teat for children between the ages of three and 15 years by
Goodenough (1926). There was also recognition of the projective im-
lications of the drawings by Bender (1948), Goodenough (l950)> Machover
(1949) and others. They based the use of the human drawings as a
projective technique on the assumption that the child will project
his own self-image into his drawings (Bender, 1948).
Several authors (Abercrombie & Tyaon, I966; L. Centers & R.
Centers, I963; Silverstein & Robinson, 1956; Wysocki & Whitney,
1965) investigated the possibility of using the human figure drawings
as a measure of an individual's attitude towards his physical disability.
First grade achievement and adjustment have also been examined (Koppitz,
Sullivan, Blyth, Shelton, 1959; Shibb & Loudon, I964; Vane & Eisen,
1962). Relatively few studies refer to the use of human drawings in
the diagnosis of brain dysfunction. Thia literature is summarized
below.
Lauretta Bender (1940) found that children with chronic enceph-
alitis were not able to draw the human form at the level which would
be expected of them. She thought the drawings could be used as a
diagnostic measure in doubtful cases of encephalitis or similar organic
brain disturbances in children. She set limits on this technique by
stating that is was not reliable in the non-specific types of
3
encephalitis or traumatic conditiona of the brain, due probably to
localization problema. The children performed poorly on the Goodenough
teat, but their productions were not comparable to thoae of children
with a lower mental age. ^"In general, detail waa poorly handled,
motor execution waa poor, and the drawinga expreaaed their uncertainty
aa to hov to accomplish the desired results" (Bender, 1940, p. 285).
This may be looked upon as a specific disability. It
does not represent any difficulty in their technical ability
to draw as they can draw other subjects adequately. It
repreaenta an apperception of the postural model and pro-
bably arises from perceptual difficulty in relation to
their own body rather than optic perceptual difficulty.
It is probable that the capacity to draw the human form is
not related to a simple optic-Gestalt but a more complicated
Gestalt which is based upon sensory impressions of all types
coming from the surface, as well as the inside of the body.
Besides the sensory impressions of the present, the sensory con-
sciousness of the past are integrated into the present con-
cepts. However, it is a more important factor that motor
impulses give final shape to the body image, only to motility
do the various impressions of the senses approach the pre-
ceptual world. In these cases the motility disrupts the
body image as it is represented in the Goodenough drawing.
The child aware of his shortcomings, tries again and again
to consociate the picture of the body by renewed contacts.
Here we may find a hint aa to the importance of motility
in the perception of onea own body or the body image (Bender,
1940, p. 286).
Another study (Rosenaweig, 1949 p. 4l) auggeated that"...aaymmetry
and diatorted proportional relationahip...auggeat organic brain defect."
Karen Machover (1949) listed indicators "often seen" in organic
cases: empty, large, poorly proportioned figures; weakly synthe-
sized drawings; disproportionately large head; and simple, heavy
line quality.
A study be Vernier (1952), in agreement with Machover, listed
weak synthesis, emptiness, or lack of detail, poor proportions, and
largeness of head and whole figure. In addition she noticed "petal"
or scribbled fingers, oenter-of-page placement, shrunken arms and
legs, erasures in arm and hand area, and eyes drawn as slits. She
described the line quality as sketchy and/or broken, rather than
heavy and simple.
In a preliminary study of the drawings of the human figure by
brain injured children, Helen Blanchard (1952) noticed a strong
tendency to draw "Orphan Annie Type" eyes (composed of blank circlea
without pupila) and difficulty joining linea correctly. She did not
find other cluea to differentiate the drawinga of brain injured
children from thoae of younger normal children.
Michal-Smith (1955) compared the drawings of boya with normal
and abnormal EEGa. He found that H-T-P "line quality" waa a predictor
of brain damage.
Reznikoff and Tomblen (1956) inveatigated the degree to which
the indicatora auggeated by Machover (1949) and Vernier (1952) were
more characteriatic of the drawinga of adult organic aubjecta over the
drawinga of other groupa, and to what extent the indicatora could re-
liably be employed in the differential diagnoaia of organicity. They
found that five of theae indicatora were more prevalent among a
group of organic patienta than among achizophrenic or neurotic groupa.
Theae were: weak ayntheais, parts misplaced, shrunken arms and legs,
parts, other than head and extremities, distorted, and petal or
scribbled fingera. However, the groups overlapped to a conaiderable
degree, limiting the uaefulneaa of thia approach alone for individual
differential diagnoaia.
While not impreaaive, the cited atudiea aeem encouraging and
preaent a challenge to further effort. It ia apparent that neuro-
logically impaired individuala give evidence of their diaabilitiea in
the form of diatortiona, diaplacementa, omiaaiona, and other auch
errors in their drawinga. If aome of theae aigna exiat in the drawings
of neurologically damaged children, then a acoring syatem could be
developed whereby the D-A-P would aid in the diagnoaia of learning
diaorder.
Many of the drawinga in the literature were compared uaing
checkliata of aigns or phyaical meaaurement of the figurea in order
to be aa objective aa poaaible. Thia methodological point of view
appeared to be auperior to any aubjective claaaification method and
waa employed in the preaent atudy. It was utilized with the reali-
zation that it is not beyond criticism. It has been said that "the
checklist (of signs) violated that holistic, dynamically oriented
approach which competant clinicians use in making drawing analysis"
(Brown, 1952, p. 179).
Definitions of Terms
Following the thinking of Doris Johnson and Helmer Myklebust
(1967), the disorder studied was termed psycho-neurological learning
disability.
In seeking a term that might fulfill our needs, we
encountered psychoneurological (Benton, 1959> Luria, I961).
The root of the term, neurological, clearly discloses that
the basic condition is organic and involves the central
neirvous system. The prefix psycho appropriately emphasizes
that an important concomitant is behavioral. The desig-
nation psychoneurological, therefore, indicates that the
disorder is in behavior and the causation is neurological
...in those having a psychoneurological learning disability,
it is the fact of adequate motor ability, average to high
intelligence, adequate hearing and vision, and adequate
emotional adjustment together with a deficiency in learning
that constitutes the basis for homogeneity (Johnson &
Myklebust, 1967, pp. 7-8).
The learning process has been altered in these children and the
modification is due to neurological dysfunction. This results in a
disability in learning, no incapacity. They have the commonly recog-
nized deficits in learning that pertain to academic success such as
difficulty in reading, writing, and arithmetic.
The dysfunction causing the learning difficulty is not necessarily
due to structural damage, so the term "minimal brain damage" is mis-
leading, perhaps even inaccurate. There is also the problem of quanti-
fying the term "minimal" for proper evaluation and study. Measuring
the amount of dysfunction and locating the area of the brain it
influences is also not an easy task. The difficulty encountered in the
classroom by these children can result from perceptual disturbances,
but not necessarily from this alone, so the term "perceptually
handicapped" is erroneous for many children.
The use of the term psychoneurological learning disability was
applied to this exploration in order to arrive at as definitive and
objective criteria as possible, with the realization that there would
be overlapping between the groups under study. Minor motor incoordi-
nations and some degree of emotional disturbance were found with the
children who had a learning disability but they were not incapacitating.
Some multiple involvement occurred, but motor ability, hearing, vision,
intelligence, and emotional adjustment were considered average to
adequate.
The non-verbal aspects of learning were also involved. Teachers'
reports were reviewed by Johnson and Myklebust (I967) with some of the
following difficulties or their equivalent being mentioned about each
child.
Together with deficits in the learning of arithmetic, defi-
ciencies in acquiring spoken, read, and written language
constitute the primary areas under the category of disabilities
in verbal learning. Under the non-verbal are found dia-
turbancea in learning to tell time, direction (east and west),
body orientation (right and left), meaning of facial expressions
(happiness and anger), meaning of the behavior of others (learn-
ing to play games such as "cowboy"), music and rhythm, and
meaning as conveyed in art (Johnson & Myklebust, 1967 p.17).
Children with a learning disability have a discrepancy between
ability and achievement. Their level of learning, when measured by
their achievement teat acorea, ia below anticipated normal performance.^
Statement of Problem
Clinical practice auggeats that children with learning diaabilitiea
manifeat characteriatic modea of drawing human figurea which make it
poaaible to diatinguiah their productiona from thoae who were not ao
handicapped. The purpoae of thia atudy waa to make a preliminary in-
veatigation of the ability of a trained individual to differentiate
drawings produced by children with a learning disability from those
made by children without a neurological dysfunction. This was to be
done by developing a scoring system based upon the indicators of dys-
function found in the drawings of human figures.
CHAPTER II
EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION
Method and Procedures
The drawings of forty-four male children were selected from
the files of two child guidance centers on the basis of final diagnosis
which folowed the criteria and classifications described in Psycho-
pathological Disorders in Childhood: Theoretical Considerations and
a^ Proposed Classification, prepared by the Group for the Advancement
of Psychiatry (1966), and/or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders prepared by the American Psychiatric Association (1965)
The children had been diagnosed "chronic brain syndrome" and were
between the ages of 7 years, 7 months, and 12 years, 1 month, with a
mean age of 9 years, 5 months. All drawings were performed during
routine psychological testing.
Normal potential was a necessary prerequisite in order to
differentiate the neurogenic disorders of learning from mental retarda-
tion. This was difficult to evaluate because mental ability consists
of a number of factors, making any single measure misleading or faulty.
For the purpose of this study, adequate capacity was established as an
IQ of 85 or above on either a verbal or non-verbal measure of intelli-
gence. The total score on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
(wise), for example, was not the determining factor but that the child
Oklahoma State Health Department of Regional Guidance Centers
located in Muskogee and Okmulgee, Oklahoma
8
acored 85 or above on either the verbal or performance aection. A
total IQ acore of 85 or above waa required on the Stanford-Binet In-
telligence Scale, when it waa uaed in the evaluation of a child, as
well as on the Leiter International Performance Scale. This demarca-
tion waa not aa atringent aa deaired because of the limited sample
available and may have allowed a moderate degree of mental retarda-
tion to be present in some cases.
Sensory capacities were also within the normal range of function-
ing and did not cauae a detriment to learning. Defining motor ability,
hearing, and viaion aa adequate waa difficult either becauae of the
lack of well atandardized testa of ability or the different methoda
uaed by each child in manifeating hia aenaory capacitiea. Although
in aome caaea, aenaory and motor deficienciea were preaent, they were
not crippling and evaluated aa within adequate limita according to a
physician'a report or the achool nurae.
A group of 27 third and fourth grade elementary boya completed
81 peraon drawinga for compariaon with the impaired children (llluatra-
tiona 1-5 in the Appendix), theae atudenta had a mean age of 10 yeara,
2 montha and were given the D-A-P in a group aetting. Two teachera
were preaent in order to minimize copying and to aaaiat in identifying
and collecting the data.
Theae atudenta were aufficiently normal in development and
behavior ao that they had not come to the attention of a paychological
or neuro-psychiatric clinic, or, if they had been seen by a clinic,
had not been diagnosed as "chronic brain syndrome". They were selected
by their teachers on the basis of average and above average adjustment
and grades so it was assumed they were not psychotic. Their achievement
10
test scores were also average or above.
Scoring System Development
Similarities were noticed in many of the drawinga produced by
the impaired children (illustrations 6-10 in the Appendix). The
following observations were made about the drawings.
1. Asymmetry; especially in the neck and shoulder area
2. Features or detail more pronounced in the head with a lack
of detail in the body
3. Limbs "hand" or are short and stubby
4. Few erasures
5. Lack of angles present
6. Absence of separation of parts
7. Flaccid bodies
8. Poor directionality of continuous line
9. Blunted or poorly formed hands and feet
, 10. Poor perspective or depth
The following scoring categories resulted from an integration
of personal clinical experience with the observations of dysfunction
mentioned in the literature:
Diagnostic Scoring Outline
I. Line construction
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Type
Function;
Function;
Function;
Joining
Erasures
minimal
reasonable
additional
II. Body Unit: Assembly
A. Arm attachment
B. Hand formation
C. Finger construction
D. Foot construction
III. Body Unit: Detail
A. Minimal
B. Reasonable
C. Additional
11
IV. Symmetry
A. Bilateral division^
B. Head placement
C. Neck location
V. Body Unit: Proportion
A. , Minimal
B. Reasonable
C. Additional/
These nineteen categories were selected for use in this study
after testing numerous scoring items on the available drawinga. Each
category waa acored aa either plua or minua. In caae of doubt, an
item waa not acored. The categories are defined below with examples
given when necessary.
Type. A plus score was recorded when short sketchy lines were
used to form the basic portion of the figure. The lines, over most of
the body, had a stroking quality to them with overlapping, some mis-
fits, and occasional breaks where pencil movement stopped and a new
line began. The pressure, often comparatively light, resulted from
good motor control. In some instances the lines appeared to be con-
tinuous, but closer inspection found them to be a reinforcement over
light sketching. The drawing was scored positive when this occurred
in approximately half of the picture with the remainder being sketched.
A minus score was given if the lines were continuous and rather
shaky, as if the child did not wish to remove the pencil from the
paper because he would lose his place and not know where to begin again.
This usually resulted in an inaccurate body outline because the child
would draw slowly from one side of the head all the way around the
figure to the other side without removing the pencil. This often re-
sulted in the body being distorted as well as creating blunted, poorly
12
formed hands and feet.
A minus score was also recorded if the figure was composed of
extremely jagged, poorly formed lines. The lines seemed more continuous
than skethchy but the quality was very "saw-like" and uneven from pro-
jections and irregularities, as if the child's hand was trembling. The
controlled overlap found in the positive drawing was lacking. The lines
appeared to be the result of poor motor control and not sketched on
purpoae.
Function. Lines have more of a aophiaticated function for the
normal child than for the handicapped child. They begin to have mean-
ing for children between 9 to 11 yeara of age (lowenfeld, 1963).
Objecta and the apace between linea become meaningful for children at
theae agea. Linea begin to aid in the creation of perapective. The
plane ia being discovered and ateps undertaken towards the concept of
depth. The child has not developed a conscious visual percept of
depth but automatically begins to employ it in his drawings. Line
pressure is increased or decreased in selected areas, shading or
shadowe are uaed, and by grouping detaila or featurea towards the center
the child demonstrates an understanding of depth. These techniques are
often lacking in the human drawings of the perceptually impaired.
The drawings of the normal children expressed dimension and
spatial relations. There was a purpose to the lines used whereby areas
or features of the figure are emphasized, giving it depth. Parts of
the figure seemed closer to the viewer than others. This impression
was generated by producing heavier or darker lines in the center of
the figure or in body parts than were closer to the viewer while having
lighter lines elsewhere. A concentration of detail in center areas and
13
shading also caused depth. Areas near the viewer had more line weight
and emphasis, indicating a growing ability in the perception and repro-
duction of depth. Any or all of the above devices were utilized to
provide perspective in the pictures.
The handicapped child's drawings were usually flat and without
adequate depth. The figures were drawn mechanically and simply with
no constructive effort to go beyond a simple two dimensional plane.
He seldom added any creative emphasis to his production and often pro-
duced it as fast as possible. Few attempts were made to make prominent
features of the figure stand out in perspective and when they were
made there often was confusion and reversal of depth. Shading was
usually minimal or lacking with poor arrangement of details.
Function; minimal. A plus was given for minimal line function
when depth was seen in one area of the figure. This was usually the
head area but could be found in other areas of the figure. The feet
could be more prominent or, in a profile drawing, an arm or shoulder
could be the leading feature. Placement or concentration of the details,
line pressure, shading, and line direction were usually the contributing
factors. An emphasis for a portion of the figure caused that area to
have perspective while the remainder of the figure was flat.
In a profile drawing the side of the head nearest the viewer had
darker lines in the hair or the ear while the face had lighter lines.
A belt buckle and belt produced in detail or emphasized by shading or
line pressure created "roundness" to the middle of the body. An arm OP
leg positioned forward in the picture had shading or reworked lines
producing depth in that segment of the body.
A minus score was received for drawings that were flat, simply
14
drawn, without depth. The entire figure was drawn with even line
pressure, either heavy or light, features of the face limited and not
concentrated, and body detail lacking. Occasionally depth reversal
was found with the outline of the head much darker than the facial
features, creating the impression of a face peeking through a porthole.
This produced a false sense of depth and was scored minus.
Function; reasonable. This item received a plus score when
two areas or segments of the figure produced the impression of depth
in the viewer. This usually included the head and the trunk, but
other areas were involved. The quality of depth was perceived in a
larger area of the figure or in more features than in the preceding
scoring item. Subjectively the figure had more life to it than those
scored in the previous item.
A negative score was given for this item when it did not reach
satisfactory level. In other words, the drawing was limited to only
one area of depth being produced. A drawing was unscored for depth
reversal when two areas of depth were in opposition to each other. For
example, line direction and pressure would create the idea that a body
segment was in a leading position, in respect to the rest of the body,
while the shading placed it in the background.
Function; additional. This category was scored plus only in
the best drawings. The major portion of the figure was viewed in per-
spective. Three or more areas were drawn in a manner that produced
depth. Shading line direction, pressure, and arrangement of detail-
combined to produce a drawing that had life and depth to it. A
majority of the lines were drawn with meaning and purpose.
A minus was recorded if the child could not demonstrate the ability
15
to create depth or perspective in the major portion of the body. If
the child was unable to go beyond the scoring requirements of the pre-
vious item he was scored minus.
Joining. This scoring, adapted from Harris (I965), was plus
when the juncture points met cleanly, without a marked tendency to
cross, or overlap, or leave gaps between the ends. A drawing with few
lines was scored more strictly than one with frequent changes in
direction of line. A sketchy drawing was usually credited even though
the juncture of lines seemed uncertain, aince thia waa characteriatic
of a poaitive drawing. Some eraaurea were allowed.
When spacea were left between varioua body parte and linea
overlapped the acoring waa minua. The acoring waa alao negative when
parta of the body auch aa arma or lega did not join correctly to the
trunk. Some eraaurea were allowed and aketchineaa taken into conaidera-
tion.
Eraaurea. Any obaerved eraaurea were acored plua. Thia item
occaaionally required the placement of a white aheet of paper under-
neath the drawing being acored ao the eraaure points could be seen
more clearly and to lessen any confusion from other figures showing
through. The picture was scored plus if an erasure was indicated by
roughness on the surface of the paper or where lines could still be seen
from earlier attempts, either from indentation in the paper or because
they were only partially removed.
The scoring was minus if erasures were not found on the paper.
It was anticipated that this minus scoring would handicap some of the
normal subjecta but it was predicted that the majority of them would
make at least one erasure as they attempted to correct perceived errors
16
in their drawings.
Arm Attachment. A plua was scored when the arms were connected
to the top of the trunk at the location of the shoulder. When the neck
was missing, they had to be attached to the upper part of the trunk.
Credit was given for both arms, on the basis of the limb that was
shown in a profile drawing.
This category was scored minus when the arms were attached
elsewhere than to the trunk or more than one quarter of the chest length
down from the top (neck to waist). Where the crotch was not shown, as
in some profiles, the belt or waist was considered at about two-thirds
down the total trunk length. The item was not scored if the arms were
omitted from the drawing or if one was plus and the other minus.
Hand Formation. Reasonably formed hands were given a plus
score. The presence of an area at the end of the arm spreading out to
form the fingers was scored with the length of the hand being approxi-
mately equal to the length of the fingers and edge of sleeve or cuff
when fingers were shown. The fingers, even stubby in some cases,
were a continuation of the hand area and not looped on as if they were
an afterthought. A slight broadening of the arm was necessary when the
cuff did not exist to suggest palm or back of hand as distinct from
the wrist . A plus score was also given to hands that were of the
"mitten type", but with opposition of thumb shown and lines indicating
the separation of the fingers (illustration II in the Appendix). Credit
was given for both hands in profile drawings on the basis of the one
present and when they appeared clenched if finger separation was
evident by the lines used.
Blunted, poorly formed hands acquired a minus score on this
17
item. Sometimes this took the form of a curved stump at the end of
the arm without fingers. The arm line would start from the body and
go to the end of the limb, round the end, and return to the trunk. The
type of handa where the fingers appeared to be merely looped on the
end with no attempt at a hand area was also scored minus. No score was
given if the arms were placed behind the back, keeping the hands from
view, or when they emerged cut off at the end of the arm. A score
was also not given when one hand was positive and the other negative
making the decision difficult. If only one hand was intended in a
profile drawing, credit was given for both on the basis of the one
shown (illustration 12 in the Appendix).
Finger Construction. The way the fingers were formed was
another scoring item with credit given for both hands on the basis
of the one drawn in a profile picture. Positive scoring waa given to
adequately formed fingera where their length waa approximately equal
to the hand and they were a continuation of the hand area. They were
not added to a blunted or rounded arm but an integral part of the hand
unit. Well formed "mitten" handa with linea that indicated aeparation
of fingera were acored plua (llluatration 11 in the Appendix).
Petal, acribbled, or atick fingera added to blunted handa or
arma were acored minua. Blunted arma were acored minua as well as
fingers so poorly formed to be indistinguishable. Minus credit was
given for both hands when the only one shown in profile was minus.
No score was given when the fingers were out of view or missing and
when one hand was plus and the other minus (illustration 12 in the Ap-
pendix).
Foot Construction. Reasonably drawn feet received a plus score
18
(illustration 13 in the Appendix). Some attention was given to
detail in most of them. This was sometimes just shoelaces, rivet
holes, or shoe markings created by reinforced lines or purposeful
shading. Others lacked detail but an effort waa made to go beyond a
rounded stump or club foot. In the case of a profile figure credit
was given for both feet on the basis of the one presented.
Minus credit was recorded when the feet were poorly formed.
They were usually rounded stumps, musical notes, or looked like
badly constructed golf clubs or hockey sticks. Sometimes detail was
present but the shape of the foot dictated a minus score. The level
of production was quite low (illustration I4 in the Appendix). This
was scored for both feet in profile drawings on the basis of the foot
shown. No score was given for feet that were missing or when one foot
scored plus and the other minus.
Minimal Detail. A plus score was assigned for minimal body
detail if the drawing had indications of hair, eyes, nose, mouth,
lines across the body at the waist dividing the upper part of the trunk
from the lower, lines across the wrist where the arm or sleeve and
hand met, lines separating the leg from the foot. On occasion some of
these details were absent andany of the items listed in reasonable
detail were present substituted for the missing details. For examples,
a belt buckle was scored to replace a missing nose, buttons substituted
for missing arm/hand lines, and shoelaces replaced hair that was lack-
ing. A total of seven scoring items was necessary for a plus score.
The hem of a skirt on the female drawing was a scoring item when the
dress style did not suggest the need for the middle body line, but
this was usually just a means of closing the bottom of the figure
19
making the waist line a required scoring item.
Minus scores were given when the drawings had only hair, eyes,
nose, and mouth or less in the head area and usually no other details
or lines intersecting parts of the body except mediocre attempts at
either arm/hand or leg/foot separation. The female drawing had a
simple line closing the end of the skirt. These pictures did not re-
ceive the seven required scoring points even after substitution of
items. A minus score was also granted for the type of figure that
had the above minimal head detail or less along with "stick figure"
arms and legs attached to the trunk in a crude manner. The trunk in
this case was generally a poorly formed square or circle with the limbs
merely attached to it.
Reasonable Detail. A plus score was obtained for reasonable
amount of detail when the drawing acquired a positive score on the
previous category plus any three of the following items after substi-
tution: hat, eyebrows, eyelashes, eyeglasses, iris, teeth, beard,
freckles, collar detail, sleeve detail, elbows, cuff detail, buttons,
pockets, double or shaded lines at the waist for belt, buckle, shading
for shirt or pants, skirt pleats, knees, stockings (female), sock
detail, shoelaces or eyelets, heels, jewelry.
If the three things necessary for scoring reasonable detail
was not obtained it was then scored minus. The drawing received just
one point for minimal body unit detail.
Additional Detail. Additional detail was plus when the drawing
pasaed the prior categoriea and had two or more itema beyond what was
needed to pass reasonable detail. Any item not previously listed
was included in arriving at this score for a total of twelve items
20
such as meaningful shading, articles of clothing that go with a
particular type of costume, and realistic lines or points of expression
in the face, etc.
A minus score was given when the details were limited to the
three received in the previous category. If a total of twelve items
could not be found it was scored minus.
Bilateral Division. A large number of the drawings produced
by the children diagnosed as chronic brain syndrome were asymmetrical.
The bilateral division of the total figure was distorted when a center
line was established along the length of the body. A piece of 10x10
per inch transparent graph paper placed over the drawing was used to
evaluate the amount of distortion. A vertical mid-line was drawn in
ink on the graph paper. The graph paper was then placed over the draw-
ings and adjustments made until the left and right sides of the figure
were approximately equal to each other. This base line on a normal
drawing passed up through the middle of the crotch, the center of the
neck and the nose with little differences in body configuration on
either side. It would pass up through the center of the leg, trunk,
and shoulder in profile drawings providing motion was not intended.
This item was scored plus if the bilateral division had reason-
able symmetry excluding the outer limits of the arms and legs. Could
the figure be folded down the middle with the left and right sides
being nearly equal? This scoring was subjective, especially when
the figures were extremely small or in motion, but the picture could
still be adequately judged with the aid of the mid-line.
A minus was scored if a proper mid-line could not be established
in a drawing not in motion, or if the distortion was such that one side
21
of the body was noticeably different from the other side. Aesthetically
the drawings of the majority of the handicapped children did not reach
the level obtained by the normal child. The drawings were markedly
off-balance. The judgment was aesthetical in nature but could be
made by an intelligent and sensitive person who had experience with
the scoring technique.
Head Placement. Placement of the head used the same center
line employed while determining bilateral division. A plus score was
granted if the outline of the face or head excluding hair style, was
within reasonable deviation right or left from the mid-line of the
trunk.
This item was scored minus if the difference was such that a
distortion was evident. This also was judgmental especially with small
figures and those in motion.
Neck Location. The location of the neck was scored from the
mid-line provided while judging the symmetry of the total figure. A
slight variation to the left or right of the center line was scored
plus. When the neck was not present it was still scored plus when the
head placement was plus and negative when the head placement was nega-
tive.
Any pronounced deviation from center placement was scored
minus. This scoring was also subjective and relied on personal judg-
ment when an extremely small figure was encountered.
Body Proportion; minimal. The child was given a plus score
when his drawing resembled a person. The proportional configuration
was that of a human. The figure was not proportionally exact but the
child's effort resulted in a figure that had human qualities.
22
A minus was received for a drawing that could not be recognized
as a person. The figure was either crudely drawn or looked like a toy,
doll, puppet, cartoon figure, or a mythical character. It was distorted
proportionally to such an extent that it fell below the configuration
expected of a person.
Body Proportion; reasonable. A plus was given when the child
passed the previous item, an attempt to draw a human figure, and the
drawing was a reasonable representation of a person. The basic body
proportions were within acceptable limits. The trunk, arms, legs, and
head were combined into a reasonable facsimile of a human figure.
A negative score was presented when there was a distortion of
the figure great enough to be a distraction to the viewer. The drawing
was reasonable in most aspects of proportion except one or two segments
of the body. There were exaggerations auch aa the head ahaped like a
keyhole, and extremely distorted nose, very large feet and/or hands,
or the trunk shaped like a coke bottle. The picture was recognizable
as a human but minor configural distortions were not within acceptable
limits.
Body Proportion; additional. When the drawing of a man or
woman looked very much like the sex they were intended to be, the
score was plus for this item. The shoulders were usually broader for
the male than for the female. The waist, hips, and arms and legs
were different for the two sexes. All of the body proportions con-
tributed to the genuine impression of the sex designated. The draw-
ings of a girl or boy also looked their part.
A minus was given when the drawing was a reasonable representa-
tion of a person, no unusual distortions, but proportionally the sexual
23
qualities were missing. Adequate sexual differentiation was lacking.
Resulta
Forty drawinga were acored by the author for each of the 19
categoriea. Twenty were produced by the impaired children and 20 by
the non-impaired children. Each aign waa acored plua, minua, or un-
scorable. For example, a figure with poorly formed feet received a
minus score for that particular item, a drawing with feet judged to
be adequate was scored plus, and a picture with the feet cut off was
considered unscorable.
There were two undergraduate psychology students selected to
learn the scoring system. They were instructed in its use and prac-
ticed scoring a number of drawings. When they were proficient with
the system, they independently scored the forty pictures completed
earlier by the author. These were arranged in random order.
A correlation coefficient of .960 was obtained on the positive
scores recorded by the two judges. This correlation was significant
beyond the .05 level of confidence (one-tailed test). This indicated
that 92 percent of the scoring was common to the two judges. Scoring
disagreements were later reso-lved in conference. On the whole, the
obtained scoring reliability was considered acceptable.
Chi square was employed to compare the drawings of the two
subject groups on the 19 signs. For each comparison, the null hypo-
thesis was tested against the alternative that the handicapped group
contained a greater proportion of minus scores on a given indicator
(Table 1 in the Appendix presents a summary of the differences found
among the drawings used). In the 19 comparisons made for the two sets
of drawings the number of differences actually found to be significant
24
at the .05 level or better was 15 for judge A and 15 for judge B.
This suggested that the majority of the 19 signs reliably differentiated
the drawings of the impaired and control subjects.
A t^ test of the differences between the mean of Group A and B
was calculated on the positive scores given by the students. Both of
these (judge A: 7.437 judge B: 7.225) were significant beyond the
.001 level of confidence (one-tailed test). It was clear in this sample
that the drawings of the impaired and control subjects had been reliably
differentiated by the scoring system employed.
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURE
Problem
It was anticipated that the scoring system could be used to
distinguish the drawings produced by children with a learning disorder
from those of a matched group of normal children. It could perhaps be
used as a screening test.
Subjects
Two groups of children served as subjects in this study. Group
A consisted of 27 male children who were between 8 years, 4 months,
and 12 years, 10 months of age and were enrolled in the classes for
2
perceptually handicapped children in the Tulsa public school system.
The mean age for the group was 10 years, 7 months (See Table 2 in the
Appendix). All 27 subjects were determined to be in good general health
and to have normal vision, some with corrective glasses.
All subjects in Group A had been diagnosed as neurologically
impaired or perceptually handicapped either by the testing department
of the Tulsa school system or a private psychiatrist or psychologist.
The electoencephalographic findings were abnormal in five cases and 12
subjects were on medication. Results on the Bender Visual Motor Gestalt
Test were strongly indicative of impairment in 18 instances. Achievement
Permission granted by the Research Projects Screening Committee,
Office of the Superintendent, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
25
26
scores on the Stanford Achievement Test or the Wide Range Achievement
Test averaged 1.6 grades below expected level. Intellectual functioning
on the Wise, Stanford-Binet Scale, or Leiter Performance Scale ranged
from an IQ of 85 to 129 with a mean of 97.6. Variations in sub-scale
performance in the WISC and item difficulties in the other instruments
were also similar to those found in this form of handicap.
A group of 27 male children from an elementary school were
individually matched with the learning disorder group on the basis of
chronological age and intelligence. (See Table 5 in the Appendix).
Their ages were between 8 years, 2 months and 12 years, 5 months with
a mean of 10 years, 6 months. Their intelligence scores ranged from
88 to 119 with a mean of 105-6. Achievement levels were adequate or
above in order to control for the statistically known percentage of
children with learning disability in the average classroom. The
achievement scores averaged 1.4 grades above the class placement. An
attempt was made to approximate the socio-economic status of the subjects
by the location of the school. The children were in good general health,
had no physical disability, and possessed normal vision according to the
public school nurse.
Procedure
/
'Three figure drawings, a male, a female, and a self-picture,
were obtained from each child. They were acquired from individual
test administration with Group A and from group administration of no
more than seven students with Group B. The children were tested during
the school day in a quiet room reserved by school officials. All
drawings were made on 8^" by 11" white unlined paper with a No. 2
pencil having an eraser. A ten minute time limit was set for each
27
drawing: clinical experience has shown that this amount of time was
adequate for subjects to complete the figure. The children were pre-
sented with three sheets of paper with the following instructions:
Drawing I - "On this paper I would like you to draw a figure of
a whole person."
When the first drawing was completed, it was collected and the child
instructed to draw a figure of the opposite sex.
Drawing II - "If you drew a picture of a girl or woman last time,
draw one of a boy or man this time."
The paper was again collected leaving a third sheet.
Drawing III - "Now draw a picture of yourself."
If the child attempted to draw a "stick" figure on his first
drawing he was allowed to complete it. He was then told that "it was
a good picture but not what was really wanted." He was then asked to
"draw a picture of a whole person and not a stick man." If the child
continued on the next picture without correction he was then allowed
to complete all three pictures in the same manner. If correction was
made, another piece of paper was presented and he completed a total of
four pictures, one stick man and the three required for the study.
The drawings of all 54 subjects, identifying data removed, were
randomly arranged according to a table of random numbers (Hoel, I96O).
The 162 drawings were scored independently by the two students trained
in the scoring method.
In statistical analysis the two groups were compared and the
three sets of drawings (same sex, opposite sex, and self-figure) were
also treated separately. A correlation coeficient was obtained on all
the positive scored given by the two students and on the scores received
28
on the three seta of drawings. For both judges, Chi square waa employed
to compare the drawinga of the two aubject groupa on the 19 aigna and
a Jb test waa uaed to compare the total poaitive acorea of both groupa
(Ferguaon, 1959). Chi aquare and a ;t teat were alao used to compare
each of the three aeta of drawinga. Chi aquare waa utilized to compare
the 19 indicatora in each aet, and a jt teat waa employed to compare the
total poaitive acorea. For each compariaon, the null hypotheaia waa
teated againat the alternative that the impaired group contained a
greater proportion of subjecta receiving minua acorea on their drawinga.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The correlation between the poaitive acorea of Judge A and Judge
B waa .9099. Thia waa aignificant beyond the .01 level of confidence
(one-tailed teat). Thia poaitive coefficient waa anticipated from
the reaulta of the exploratory inveatigation and indicated that 85
percent of the acoring variance waa common to the two judgea. Good
agreement waa alao obtained on the three aeta of drawinga (aame sex,
opposite sex, and self-figure). A correlation of .9288 was received
on the same-sex drawing, .9064 was calculated on the opposite sex
drawing, and the self-figure received a coefficient of .8998. This
indicates that the common variance accounted for was 86, 82 and 81 per-
cent respectively. The judges thus demonstrated adequate reliability
of scoring.
Table 4 in the appendix shows that a number of the 19 indicators
were found to differentiate the two groups. The number of comparisons
found to be significantly different by Judge A was 19, and 17 by Judge
B. For Judge A, in 15 of the comparisons, the difference between the
two groups was significant beyond the .001 level. In four comparisons,
the difference was significant at the .01 level. The difference between
the two groups for Judge B was significant beyond the .001 level in 15
of the comparisons while two were significant at the .01 level. The
remaining indicators occurred with approximately equal frequency in
29
50
both groups, with any discrepancies attributable to chance factor.
These resulta constitute evidence for the rejection of the null hypo-
thesis.
A comparison of the 19 signs for each of the 5 sets is shown in
Tables 5 and 6 in the appendix. For the same sex drawing. Judge A
had 15 comparisons scored different at or beyond the .05 significance
level while Judge B had 10. For the opposite sex drawing Judge A had
15 significant comparisons and Judge B had 16. Both judges had 14
comparisons at or beyond the .05 level of confidence on the self-figure.
There was 100 per cent agreement between the judges on the
following scoring items in the three sets: Line Type, Minimal Line
Function, Hand Formation, Finger Construction, Foot Construction,
Minimal Detail, Minimal Proportion, and Reasonable Proportion. These
categories were significant and lower scores on them were indeed more
characteristic of impaired children. The judges had 85 per cent agree-
ment on Joining, Erasures, Head Placement, and Neck Location. Sixty-
seven per cent agreement was found on Reasonable Line Function, and
Reasonable Body Detail. Only 34 per cent agreement was obtained in
Additional Line Function, Arm Attachment, Additional Detail, and Bi-
lateral Division. Additional Body Proportion failed completely as a
diagnostic indicator.
The ^ test was applied between the means of the two groups.
Results of the comparisons are shown in Tables 7 and 8. It can be
seen that the scores of the psychoneurologically impaired differed
from those of the normal children at the .0005 level of confidence
for each judge on each drawing.
This is a highly significant differential and suggests that the
31
total score obtained from any one of the three types of drawings can
be used reliably to differentiate neurologically impaired and normal
children. If a cut-off score of 10 is used, the results in the proper
categorization of 20 out of 27 normal children, and 14 out of 27 impaired
children, using the 81 drawings.
TABLE 7
GROUP COMPARISONS OF DRAWING SCORES
OF HANDICAPPED AND NORMAL
CHILDREN FOR JUDGE A
Comparison df
32
Same-Sex Drawing
Opposite-Sex Drawing
Self-Figure Drawing
Total Drawings
52
52
52
160
5.15
6.10
4.77
4.95
.0005
.0005
.0005
.0005
*One-Tailed test.
55
TABLE 8
GROUP COMPARISONS OF DRAWING SCORES
OF HANDICAPPED AND NORMAL
CHILDREN FOR JUDGE B
Comparison df
Same-Sex Drawing
Opposite-Sex Drawing
Self-Figure Drawing
Total Drawings
52
52
52
160
4.78
6.45
4.66
4.10
.0005
.0005
.0005
.0005
*One-Tailed Test.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
From the results of the ^ tests cited in Tables 7 and 8 which
yielded significant results, it is evident that the psychoneurologically
handicapped child does characteristically draw poorer figures than the
normal child. The correlation results suggest good agreement between
the judges in their ability to learn the scoring system and reliably
use it. It could possibly be used as a screening technique by other
trained persons providing it is modified. The combined judgments
were adequate.
It is suggested that Additional Body Proportion failed as a
diagnostic indicator because it was too refined for the developmental
level of the children involved. Apparently it required perception
and drawing skills beyond the capability of the subjects studied. This
required level of refinement could also explain the poor results found
with Additional Line Function, Additional Body Detail, and Bilateral
Division. The scoring criterion was set too high and therefore was
unreliable. Reasonable Body Detail and Reasonable Line Function were
also slightly too selective.
The original 19 scoring categories should be reduced to a final
scoring system which includes only the 12 significant categories agreed
upon by the judges. A composite score should then be computed for each
subject by adding all his scoring points. The highest composite score
34
35
a subject could get would be 12. This final scoring system should
once more be tested with a final cross-validation of the scoring
system being carried out on a larger group of subjects. There is good
indication that a high degree of confidence can be obtained in the use
of this system as a screening device to differentiate between groups of
children with learning problems and those with satisfactory school
achievement.
Some limitations and observations regarding the study are in
order. The desire for direct applicability dictated the use of the
Chi square and ^ test over matched pairs design. The use of the latter
would have been a more precise comparison because of the age range of
the subjects relative to the size of the entire sample. The matched
pairs design, however, was considered so foreign to most clinical
settings that it would prevent direct application of the results. This
limitation would be alleviated when sufficient data are available to
permit the establishment of adequate age norms.
The outcome of the study has been influenced, positively or
negatively, by the definition and structure of the scoring categories.
The number, definitions, and the unexpected amount of overlap between
categories have created a bias through loading. The categories were
not as independent as desired. Adjustments should be made in any
future study such as an increase in the number of categories in order
to refine the system's ability to differentiate between groups. The
overlap and description of the categories should also be investigated
for the same purpose.
A thorough review of the data revealed that some of the handicapped
children who had relatively high scores on the drawings had very high
36
intellectual levels. This intellectual functioning apparently helped
them compensate for their handicap, while several of the normal children
lost scoring points because the arms, hands, or feet were either hidden
or missing from their figures. A difference in the time used to draw
the figure was also noticed. The handicapped children rushed to com-
plete their drawings apparently without noticing that the detail was
missing. The normal child took longer and evidenced more concentration
and effort. The results of having the three sheets of paper at one
time was also noticed. Strong pencil pressure on the top piece of
paper caused an indentation in the following piece of paper making
erasures difficult to judge, plus giving some of the children a guide
to follow in drawing their next picture. Single sheets of paper should
be presented to each child for each picture.
Group testing would not be advisable in any future study unless
strict controls could be established, such as individualized booths
and absolutely no talking. In the present study several children in
the control group saw what their neighbors were drawing and may have
copied. Occasionally, one child would make a spontaneous comment such
as "I'm going to make a clown", creating a set that the others followed.
One comical leader, by word or gesture, would cause the emergence of a
playful attitude that distracted the others from their task. Group
pressure concerning who finished first or last also influenced the
results. Some children rushed to complete their drawing before the
others, or the slower child, on finding he was the last to finish,
would leave his drawing incomplete to prevent embarassment. The
teacher's personality, method of teaching, and/or instructions con-
cerning the drawing test appeared to be an influence. The group
37
differed in behavior and production depending upon their particular
teacher.
Difficulties and inadequacies in present day diagnosis of psy-
choneurological learning disorders may have influenced the purity of
the experimental sample. Drawings produced by some of the impaired
children created concern about questionable diagnosis and placement.
Some pictures were more representative of emotional problems than per-
ceptual difficulty. This could explain why some of the handicapped
children did not score as anticipated. It is suggested that any pro-
posed follow-up study should be based on recent individual testing and
more exacting diagnostic standards.
The effect of remedial techniques on the figures drawn by the
handicapped children must also be considered in any follow-up study.
This was not controlled in the present study. Some of the impaired
children had two or more years of specialized education while others
were just finishing their first year. This uncontrolled factor possibly
had a negative effect on the results. It is recommended that any further
study have the child draw the figures as part of his initial testing
before remedial techniques have intervened.
The findings of this study must be regarded as preliminary ones.
Specifically, it has not yet been possible to compare sufficiently
large groups of children with learning disabilities to permit experi-
mental control over such components as lesion type, locus, severity,
and cause of dysfunction. It also remains to be determined how effec-
tively these indicators can be utilized in individual diagnosis even
if they can distinguish between groups.
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study attempted to evaluate and apply a number of drawing
indicators, cited in the literature as characteristic of organic
patienta, to the picture productiona of neurologically impaired children,
Thia waa accompliahed through the conatruction of a acoring ayatem that
utilized the child'a figure drawinga. Nineteen acoring categoriea were
developed in order to differentiate the drawinga of neurologically
impaired children from the drawinga of normal children. It was found
that the groupa could be aignificantly differentiated from each other
by the acorea the children received. Eight of the signs were very
reliably judged and significantly more prevalent among a group of
handicapped children than among a group of normal children. These
were poor production of Line Type, Minimal Line Function, Hand Forma-
tion, Finger Construction, Foot Construction, Minimal Body Detail,
Minimal Body Proportion, and Reasonable Body Proportion. Four other
scoring categories were significantly important and produced a reason-
able amount of agreement between the judges. These were Joining,
Erasures, Head Placement, and Neck Location. The remaining 7 signs
did not differentiate between the two groups.
It was found that the handicapped children had significantly
lower total scores than the normal children on each of the drawings.
This suggests that this scoring system for drawings would be useful
38
39
as a screening devise for detecting learning disabilities in children.
The limitations and observations regarding the study were discussed.
Some suggestions for further research were also made.
40
REFERENCES
1. Abercrombie, M. L. J., & Tyson, M. C. Body image and Draw-A-Man
Test in cerebral palsy. Develop. Med. Child Neurol.. I966, 8, 9-15.
2. Bender, Lauretta, The Goodenough Test in chronic encephalitis.
J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., I94O, 91, 277-286.
3. Bender, Lauretta, & Silver, A. Body image problems of the brain
injured children. J. Soc. Issues. 1948, 4, 84-89.
4. Blanchard, Helen M. A preliminary study of the drawing of the
human figure by brain injured children. Unpublished Master's
Thesis, Univ. of Denver, 1952.
5. Brown, F. House-Tree Person and human figure drawings, in D.
Brower & L. E. Abt (Eds.), Progr. in Clin. Psych. Vol. 1, Sec. 1,
New York: Grune & Stratton, 1952.
6. Centers, Louise, & Centers, R. A. Comparison of the body images
of amputee and non-amputee children as revealed in figure drawings.
J. Proj. Tech., 1963, 27, 158-165.
7. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Washington,
D. C : American Psychiatric Association, I965.
8. Ferguson, G. A. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
9. French, Viola. How to Draw and Paint Children. Tustin, Calif.:
(430 West Sixth Street) Walter T. Foster, No. 31.
10. Goodenough, Florence L. Measurement of Intelligence by Drawings.
Yonkers, New York: World, 1926.
41
11. Goodenough, Florence L., & Harris, D. D. Studies in the psychology
of children's drawings. Psychol. Bull., I95O, 47, 569-455.
12. Harris, D. B. Children's Drawings as Measures of Intellectual
Maturity. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, I965.
15. Hoel, P. G. Elementary Statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
i960.
14. Johnson, Doris, & Myklebust, H. Learning Disabilities: Educational
Principles and Practices. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1967.
15. Koppitz, Elizabeth M., Sullivan, J., Blyth, D. D., & Shelton, J.
Prediction of first grade school achievement with the Bender Gestalt
Test and human figure drawings. . Clin. Psychol., 1959, 15, I64-I68.
16. Lowenfeld, V. Creative and Mental Growth. New York: Macmillan,
1965.
17. Machover, Karen. Personality Projection in the Drawing of the
Human Figure. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1949.
18. Michal-Smith, H. The identification of pathological cerebral
function through the H-T-P technique. J,. Clin. Psychol., 1955, 9,
293-295.
19. Psychopathological Disorders in Childhood: Theoretical Considera-
tions and Proposed Classification. New York: Group for the
Advancement of Psychiatry, I966.
20. Reznikoff, M., Sc Tomblen, D. The use of human figure drawings in
the diagnosis of organic pathology. J.. Consult. Psychol.. 1956,
20 (6), 467-470.
21. Rozensweig, Z. Psychodiagnosis. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1949.
22. Shibb, D. E., & Loudon, Mary L. The Draw-A-Man Test and
achievement in the first grade. Educ. Res., I964, 57,(10)518-521.
42
23. Silverstein, A. B., & Robinson, H. A. The representation of
orthopedic disability in children's figure drawings. . Consult.
Psychol.. 1956, 20 (5), 555-541.
24. Vane, Julis R., & Eisen, Virginia W. The Goodenough Draw-A-Man
Test and signs of maladjustment in kindergarten children. .
Clin. Psychol.. 1962, 18, 276-279*
25. Vernier, Claire M. Projective test productions: 1. Projective
Drawings. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1952.
26. Wysocki, B. A., &, Whitney, Eleanor. Body image of crippled
children as seen in Draw-A-Person Test behavior. Percept. Mot.
Skills, 1965, 21, 499-504.
43
Fig. 1. Normal Drawing
Fig. 2. Normal Drawing
45
Fig. 5 Normal Drawing
46
Fig. 4 Normal Drawing
Fig. 5. - . Normal Drawing
Fig. 6. Handicapped Drawing
Fig. 7. Handicapped Drawing
50
Fig. 8. Handicapped Drawing
51
Fig. 9. Handicapped Drawing
52
Fi g. 10. Handicapped Drawing
53
: ^
c>^
tti ^
\
^ ^
Pig. 11. Positive Hands and Fingers
54
k
>
" ^ ^
L f ^
I
: = %
^ \ ^
Fig. 12. Negative Hands and Fingers
55
d7
W
lui \
s a
/
M\
M H
C*
Fig. 13. Positive Foot Construction
C(.
56
M
i lA
b^
U
e)
Fig. 14. Negative Foot Construction
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF THE 19 SIGNS BY JUDGES A AND B
BETWEEN CONTROL AND HANDICAPPED SUBJECTS
IN THE EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION
57
Sign
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Line
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Type
Function;
minimal
Function;
reasonable
Function;
additional
Joining
Erasures
Assembly
A.
B.
C.
D.
Arm
attachment
Hand
formation
Finger
construction
Foot
construction
Detail
A.
B.
C.
Minimal
Reasonable
Additional
Symmetry
A.
B.
C.
Bilateral
division
Head
placement
Neck
location
Proportion
A.
B.
C.
Minimal
Reasonable
Additional
Chi
square
2.58
18.05
15.00
1.97
17.14
17.14
11.84
21.05
21.05
17.47

17.14
12.58
9.72
8.69
1.81
5.58
24.00
8.15
0.00
Judge A
P
.20
.001
.001
.20
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.01
.01
.10
.02
.001
.01
..
Chi
square
10.42
22.56
6.89
5.58
15.00
19.26
6.15
19.05
19.05
15.14
18.05
19.26
5.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.00
11.90
1.97
Judge B
P
.01
.001
.01
.02
.001
.001
.02
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.05



.001
.001
.20
58
TABLE 2
DATA: GROUP A
No.
1.
2.
5.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
15.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
25.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Mean
Code
BC2
FMO
FGO
MCO
RGO
CWO
EKO
MKO
MPO
TKO
NMO
AMO
CMI
LNO
YPO
PRO
CKO
BJ5
JCO
DRO
SM5
MTO
PBO
ERO
HDO
MSO
LCO
CA
8-4
8-6
8-10
9-10
9-2
9-11
10-0
10-0
10-2
10-2
10-5
10-7
10-8
10-8
10-9
10-11
11-0
11-1
11-5
11-5
11-7
11-10
11-11
12-4
12-4
12-10
12-10
10-7
IQ
111
94
104
115
102
90
90
95
111
89
107
87
129
87
"97
88
92
102-
91
86
99
97
104
94
96
85
95
97.6
Estimated
Grade
2nd
2nd
5rd
3rd
3rd
4 th
4 th
4th
4 th
4 th
4 th
5 th
5 th
5 th
5 th
5 th
5 th
5th
5th
5th
5 th
6 th
6 th
6 th
6th
6 th
6th
4.6
(Table continued on next page)
59
TABLE 2 Continued
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Total^
...
...
...
...
11
3.2
...
...
...
5.8
3.4
3.5
5.5
3.2
5.2

5.4
...
...
4.0


4.6
...
5.8
...
...
Reading
1.4^
1.4
1.7
1.8
1.2
2.6
5.8^
5.7
2.8
5.3
3.2
^'h
1.8^
5-9^
^'^c
4.9^
4.0
2-9c
3.0
4.4
5.8
li'
5.9
Spelling
....
1.5
11
....
....
2.4
1.9
5.0
5.5
2.6
2.4
5.2
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.0
4.2
5.9
3.6
2.9
2.9
...
1.0
5.1
2.5
5.5
3.4
Arith.
.9^
11


2.2
^9b
3.6
5.1
3.4
4.0
3.7
5.5
5-5b
2.9
2-9c
^^c
5.0
^'h
^^c
5.0
4.7
4.6
^'h
4.1
5.6
Lang.
....
....
11
o r
* '6
5.2^

3:6

5.5
5.2
5.7
5.2
o - ^
2.0
^? c
5.1
. . .
^? o
^ic
5.0
4.1
2.5
I 'l-
2.5
5.5
^California Achievement Test
Wide Range Achievement Test
Stanford Achievement Test
(Table continued on next page)
60
No.
1.
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
15.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
25.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Mean
Hand
Used
RH
RH
LH
LH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
LH
RH
LH
RH
LH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
22RH
5LH
TABLE 2
Time
I
59
315
26
218
96
150
80
230
115
110
68
270
138
126
68
115
550
116
105
186
220
77
266
55
196
80
142.3
Continued
Time
II
55
180
58
140
129
105
160
263
124
105
78
216
208
157
95
55
196
165
27
165
258
70
175
50
140
68
127.5
Time
III
58
170
42
165
116
64
170
278
120
110
120
155
170
138
65
88
172
270
. 68
220
212
105
239
45
155
115
155.5
Average
Time
44
222
55
174
114
100
157
257
120
108
89
214
172
154
76
85
255
185
67
190
223
84
226
50
163
88
135.2
TABLE 5
DATA: GROUP B
^1
N o .
1.
2.
5.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
1 2.
15.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23 .
24.
25.
26.
27.
Mean
Code
DMI
ESO
MWO
MJO
SM2
PTO
WPO
RMO
ceo
MRO
MTO
RPO
WDO
PHO
MGO
HJ2
CJO
BD2
WJ2
CBO
MD2
DDO
SWO
CM2
LRO
FJO
DBO
CA
8-2
8-6
8-10
9-1
9-4
0-6
10-5
9-6
10-5
10-1
10-6
10-6
10-10
10-4
10-8
11-5
11-1
11-5
11-6
11-6
11-6
11-10
11-7
11-10
12-1
12-4
12-5
10-6
IQ
110
88
101
120
105
96
94
97
108
100
105
101
116
107
109
96
105
104
105 '
96
112
116
100
118
118
119
110
105.6
Grade
2nd
2nd
5rd
3rd
3rd
5rd
4 th
3rd
4 th
4 th
4 th
4 th
5th
4 th
5 th
5 th
5 th
5 th
5 th
5 th
5 th
6 th
5 th
6 th
6 th
6th
6th
4.4
(Table continued on next page)
TABLE 3 Continued
62
No. Total
a
Reading Arith. Lang,
1.
2.
5.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
25.
24.
25.
26.
27.
2. 4
2. 6
4. 4
4. 1
4. 1
5. 9
5. 6
5. 8
6. 0
5. 2
6. 1
6. 5
7. 5
6. 9
7. 9
7. 5
7. 2
6. 7
7. 7
7. 9
8. 1
7. 2
6. 8
7. 8
6. 9
7. 9
7. 5
2. 4
2. 4
2. 4
4. 6
4. 4
4. 0
5-7
4. 2
5.7
5. 4
6. 7
7. 2
7. 4
6. 5
7. 0
7. 6
7. 4
6. 3
7. 2
7. 2
8. 7
5. 9
6. 5
8. 3
7. 2
8. 5
8. 1
2. 3
2. 2
5. 4
4. 0
4. 1
5. 8
4. 6
5.5
4. 7
4. 5
5.6
5. 8
6. 1
5.1
6. 9
5.6
6. 5
5.7
6. 5
6. 5
7. 4
6. 0
7. 1
7. 2
7. 1
7. 6
7. 0
2. 8
2. 2
5.5
4. 2
4. 0
5. 8
6. 1
5.9
5.2
5.5
6. 1
6.7
5.9
6.5
6. 9
6. 9
6. 9
5.7
6. 5
6.5
7.9
6. 1
6.7
8. 9
6. 6
8.1
7. 2
Mean
6.1
6.2 5.5
^California Achievement Test
(Table continued on next page)
5.8
63
TABLE 3 Continued
No.
1.
2.
5.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9,
10.
11.
12.
15.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Mean
Hand
Used
LH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
26RH
ILH
Time
I
128
126
240
308
115
165
180
150
280
260
420
165
188
255
510
540
450
405
265
255
200
545
285
300
278-
201
345
272.5
Time
II
160
95
225
250
240
296
205
146
140
558
270
170
540
140
595
570
519
425
380
305
295
465
150
450
270
260
560
290.5
Time
III
. 165
90
200
290
210
165
150
170
122
290
405
255
450
215
504
400
410
585
450
505
415
580
105
480
550
278
550
286.4
Average
Time
151
105
221
276
188
209
178
155
181
515
565
183
386
205
556
570
593
405
556
516
505
597
160
405
295
246
545
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF THE 19 SIGNS BY JUDGES A AND B
BETWEEN CONTROL AND HANDICAPPED SUBJECTS
64
Sign
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Line
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
P.
Type
Function;
minimal
Function;
reasonable
Function;
additional
Joining
Erasures
Assembly
A.
B.
C.
D.
Arm
attachment
Hand
formation
Finger
construction
Foot
construction
Detail
A.
B.
C.
Minimal
Reasonable
Additional
Symmetry
A.
B.
C.
Bilateral
division
Head
placement
Neck
location
Proportion
A.
B.
C.
Minimal
Reasonable
Additional
Judge A
Chi
square
22.50
20.48
10.59
11.18
16.56
55.99
9.71
27.77
27.77
55.85
22.68
15.71
15.16
7 = 51
15.10
14.89
50.55
26.25
9.55
P
.001
.001
.01
.001
.001
.001
.01
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.01
.001
.001
.001
.001
.01
Judge B
Chi
square
20.88
21.86
25.52
15.58
18.85
41.77
14.74
. 51.52
27.46
51.09
23.15
11.84
7.90
14.00
9.51
2.49
25.00
29.88
0.12
P
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.01
.001
.01
.20
.001
.001
.80
65
TABLE 5
COMPARISON OF THE 19 SIGNS FOR THE THREE
SETS OF DRAWINGS BY JUDGE A BETWEEN
CONTROL AND HANDICAPPED SUBJECTS
o
Sign**
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
C.
A.
B.
C.
A.
B.
C.
DAM
Chi
square
6.51
10.80
4.21
0.55
4.42
15.89
2.15
8.80
10.56
8.22
11.44
5.20
2.55
2.82
4.96
4.96
10.71
10.71
2.57
P
.02
.01
.05
.70
.05
.001
.20
.01
.01
.01
.001
.10
.20
.10
.05
.05
.01
.01
.20
DAW
Chi
square
8.96
4.91
1.54
2.57
5.55
15.45e
5.60
10.90
10.90
15.71
6.95
6.17
6.18
2.55
8.21
7.85
5.09
7.52
.58
P
.01
.05
.50
.20
.10
.001
.10
.001
.001
.001
.01
.02
.02
.20
.02
.01
.05
.01
.80
DAS
Chi
square
7.50
5.68
6.03
5.59
9.25
6.17
5.60
7.05
7.05
10.68
4.96
4.91
4.96
1.05
3.00
2.85
13.81
5.09
1.51
P
.01
.01
.02
.02
.01
.02
.10
.01
.01
.01
.05
.05
.05
.50
.10
.20
.001
.05
.30
a
For descriptions of signs refer to Table 4
66
TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF THE 19 SIGNS FOR THE THREE
SETS OF DRAWINGS BY JUDGE B BETWEEN
CONTROL AND HANDICAPPED SUBJECTS
o
Sign^
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
C.
A.
B.
C.
A.
B.
C.
DAM
Chi
square
6.15
12.00
5.20
2.55
4.96
12.80
2.84
8.71
6.76
9.55
15.17
2.05
0.58
2.50
4.96
1.71
7.94
11.17
0.00
p
.02
.001
.10
.20
.05
.10
.10
.01
.02
.01
.001
.20
.50
.20
.05
.20
.01
.001
.00
DAW
Chi
square
7.42
10.59
15.05
12.27
6.18
22.74
5.94
16.55
14.91
11.10
5.55
4.96
0.55
7.48
4.96
0.85
8.88
9.25
1.51
P
.01
.01
.001
.001
.02
.001
.05
.001
.001
.001
.05
.05
.50
.01
.05
.50
.01
.01
.50
DAS
Chi
square
7.42
9.64
7.50
2.53
6.85
6.55
5.94
6.55
7.08
10.87
5.68
5.55
0.85
5.69
' 0.75
0.47
8.55
9.64
0.00
P
.01
.01
.01
.20
.01
.02
.05
.02
.01
.001
.02
.02
.50
.02
.50
.50
.01
.01
.00
V o r descriptions of signs refer to Table 4.

You might also like