CHILDetMALTREATMENT

Palmer
al. / HOUSE-TREE-PERSON
/ MAY 2000PROJECTIVE DRAWINGS

An Investigation of the Clinical Use

of the House-Tree-Person Projective
Drawings in the Psychological
Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse
Laura Palmer
Anne R. Farrar
Maria Valle
Nouriman Ghahary
Michael Panella
Donna DeGraw
Seton Hall University

Identification and evaluation of child sexual abuse is an integral task for clinicians. To aid these processes, it is necessary to
have reliable and valid psychological measures. This is an investigation of the clinical validity and use of the House-TreePerson (HTP) projective drawing, a widely used diagnostic
tool, in the assessment of child sexual abuse. HTP drawings
were collected archivally from a sample of sexually abused children (n = 47) and a nonabused comparison sample (n = 82).
The two samples were grossly matched for gender, ethnicity,
age, and socioeconomic status. The protocols were scored using
a quantitative scoring system. The data were analyzed using a
discriminant function analysis. Group membership could not
be predicted based on a total HTP score.

T
he National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect
(1988) estimates that approximately 1% of children
are sexually abused in the United States each year.
There is increasing awareness that children at risk for
all forms of maltreatment are underidentified and
underrated. Documentation of the actual prevalence
of sexual abuse has been difficult, because few victims
disclose about their experience for various reasons
such as fear, guilt, repression, and shame (Finkelhor,
1979). The difficulty inherent in defining child sexual
abuse, the age range considered, and survey measurement error also confounds estimates (Berliner &

Loftus, 1992). Furthermore, absence of standardized

assessment of child sexual abuse and childrens limited vocabulary and memories, which may be fragmented and less amenable to verbal description, are
other factors that make substantiating child sexual
abuse difficult to accurately ascertain.
Although the clinical interview remains the foundation of the evaluation, objective and projective
measures are of importance in documenting relevant
variables such as family functioning, the childs sexual
behavior, and psychological indicators of emotional
discord or trauma. One form of assessment that continues to be included in sexual abuse evaluation batteries is projective drawings. Those that have gained
wide acceptance and continuous clinical use include
the Draw-a-Person technique (Goodenough, 1926),
House-Tree-Person (HTP) technique (Buck, 1948),
Draw-A-Family, and Kinetic Family Drawings (Burns &
Kaufman, 1970).
ISSUES OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
IN PROJECTIVE DRAWINGS

Despite their popularity, projective drawing techniques have been the subject of constant controversy
CHILD MALTREATMENT, Vol. 5, No. 2, May 2000 169-175
2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

169

170

Palmer et al. / HOUSE-TREE-PERSON PROJECTIVE DRAWINGS

(Hagood, 1992). Drawings are rich and complex, and

therefore difficult to place into specific quantitative
categories. Furthermore, drawings lend themselves to
more global, qualitative interpretations (Van Hutton,
1994). As a consequence, a lack of objective scoring
procedures is evidenced in the literature. Human figure drawings, for example, can reflect attitudes and
values that are reinforced in a particular society and
culture rather than trauma associated with sexual
abuse (Koppitz, 1984).
Research on projective drawings has been of generally poor quality, which has prevented any conclusive statements about their clinical validity (Van Hutton, 1994). Several studies have attempted to establish
the effectiveness, reliability, and validity of projective
drawings in differentiating the drawings of sexually
abused children from those of emotionally disturbed
children with no history of sexual abuse (Cohen &
Phelps, 1985; Koppitz, 1966a; Sidun, Rosenthal, &
Rosenthal, 1987; Yates, Beutler, & Crago, 1985). Others have used children in a control sample with no
reported medical or psychological issues who were
assumed to not have been sexually abused (Feher, Vandecreek, & Teglasi, 1983; Hibbard & Hartman, 1990;
Hibbard, Roghmann, & Hoekelman, 1987; Lingren,
1971).
Issues of reliability and validity become common
and costly factors in these studies. Such issues include
low retest reliability resulting from wide variability
among drawings (Hammer & Kaplan, 1966), low
interrater reliability (Cohen & Phelps, 1985; King,
1960), and low or limited validity (Hibbard & Hartman,
1990; Koppitz, 1966a, 1966b, 1984; Lingren, 1971;
Prytula & Thompson, 1973; Sidun et al., 1987). Some
studies publish inappropriate statistics or fail to adequately report statistical methods (Elin & Nucho,
1979), while others link research objectives with
vague criteria (King, 1960).
Limitations related to sample groups include using
small samples that render statistically significant differences void of practical significance (Kelley, 1984),
using samples that are not randomly selected and may
therefore be biased (Neale, Rosal, & Rosal, 1993) and
providing limited descriptions of samples with educational, economic, and religious backgrounds not
cited (Black, 1976). Also, research designs are frequently poorly described, resulting in a low number
of replication studies to establish reliability and validity of previously studied projective drawing techniques (Neale et al., 1993).
It is important to revisit the expectations of assessment instruments. Efficacious assessment has to be
both valid and reliable. Reliability refers to a measures
ability to provide consistent, stable, and replicable

results (Walsh & Betz, 1995). The validity of a measure

refers to the extent to which a test actually measures
the target characteristic or function.
The aforementioned literature is offered as a basis
for this exploratory investigation, and therefore no a
priori hypotheses were assumed. Given the critical
importance of producing objective and clinically valid
evaluations for child sexual abuse, the contributions
of each assessment instrument must be empirically
supported. The present study is a psychometric
evaluation, attempting to investigate the clinical validity of the HTP drawings in the psychological assessment of child sexual abuse.
METHOD

Participants were 47 sexually abused and 82 non

sexually abused male and female children. The inclusion criteria for the clinical participants included children between the ages of 4 years 6 months and 17
years 5 months with a documented history of child
sexual abuse. The mean age of the clinical sample was
9 years 7 months (SD = 2.69). Data for the clinical sample were collected from archived files through the
Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) and Children of
Rape Trauma Syndrome Clinic (CORTS), two programs administered by the Childrens Hospital of
Newark, New Jersey. Both programs provided medical
and psychological assessments for children who were
suspected of being victims of child sexual abuse. The
comparative participants (n = 82) were recruited from
two local churches in Passaic and Essex counties (New
Jersey) and the noninvolved siblings of the clinical
sample. The mean age for the comparison sample was
8 years 2 months, with a range from 5 years 2 months
to 13 years 9 months (SD = 2.11). There was a 1.5 year
age difference between the comparison (younger)
and clinical (older) sample.
Clinical Sample
A total of 47 patients HTP drawings were selected
from archival data from Newark Beth Israel Medical
Center. These children had a confirmed history of
sexual abuse documented by the medical and/or psychological evaluations. HTP drawings were collected
during the childs evaluation at the medical center
and had no influence on the confirmation of child
sexual abuse. Additional data from the chart were
used to complete the History of Victimization Questionnaire and to identify gender, ethnicity, diagnosis,
income, grade, and age. The level of severity of
trauma was coded using Wolfes History of Victimization Form Coding Scheme (Wolfe, Gentile, & Bourdeau, 1986). The trauma score was coded as a cumulaCHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2000

Palmer et al. / HOUSE-TREE-PERSON PROJECTIVE DRAWINGS

tive score based on the following information: type of

sexual abuse (1 to 5, with a higher score for more
intrusive forms of abuse), type of force or coercion
used (1 to 4, again with the highest being the most
severe), relationship to perpetrator (1 to 4, with
increasing degrees of relatedness), and frequency
(which was a conservative estimate of the number of
sexual encounters). Of the participants, 72% (n = 34)
had one perpetrator, 19.1% (n = 9) had two perpetrators, 4.3% (n = 2) had 3 perpetrators, and 2.1% (n = 1)
had 5 perpetrators (M = 1.34, SD = .79). There were
36% (n = 17) who were abused by a mother, father, or
stepfather of more than 3 years; 23.4% (n = 11) were
abused by a neighbor, babysitter, acquaintance, or
family friend; 23.4% (n = 11) were abused by a relative
not living in home or relative living in home but not a
parental figure; and 14.9% (n = 7) were abused by a
stepfather or a mothers partner of less than 3 years
(M = 2.60, SD = 1.26). Of the children, 55% (n = 26)
had a documented frequency of a one-time sexual
abuse incident, 14.9% (n = 7) had two documented
incidents, 6.4% (n = 3) had three documented incidents, 6.4% (n = 3) had four documented cases, and
8.5% (n = 4) had five documented cases. The remaining had between 5 and 12 incidents of sexual abuse
(M = 2.70, SD = 1.42).
Of the children, 31% (n = 15) were forced or
coerced by status differential (implication that the
child should do what the older person tells him or her
to do), 15% (n = 7) were blackmailed to comply or
were offered a reward, 21.3% (n = 10) were threatened physically, and 25.5% (n = 12) were coerced by
physical force or threat of death (M = 2.40, SD = 1.39).
Of the clinical participants, 60% (n = 28) had vaginal
or anal intercourse; 4.3% (n = 2) who had invitation to
engage in sexual behavior with adults were exposed to
adult genitalia or were shown sexually explicit materials; 12.8% (n = 6) had been instructed to show their
own genitals, engage in open-mouth kissing, and
their sexual parts were fondled by the adult when
clothed; and 15% (n = 7) had adult oral contact with
their genitals, or were instructed to have oral contact
with adult genitals (M = 3.98, SD = 1.42).
Of the participants, 85% (n = 40) were female and
14.9% were male (n = 7); 68% (n = 32) were Black,
14.9% (n = 7) were Hispanic, and 4.3% (n = 2) were
White. The estimated income for this group of participants was based on known demographic data. The
estimated mean annual income was in the range of
$10,000 to $29,000. Approximately 25% of the sample
had an annual income of less than $10,000; 70% had
annual incomes of between $10,000 and $29,000,
whereas 5% of this sample had annual incomes of
more than $29,000.
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2000

171

Comparison Sample
HTP drawings were collected from comparison
participants at two local churches in suburban counties in New Jersey and the noninvolved siblings of the
clinical sample. The churches were selected based on
a gross match in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic
status demographics with that of the clinical sample.
There was a higher percentage of comparison participants in the higher income group. Participation was
on a voluntary basis. Assent and consent were sought
from the participants and their parents prior to data
collection. Participants were excluded from the study
if any of the following criteria, reported by parents,
were met: (a) history of abuse, (b) head injury, (c)
birth trauma, (d) seizures, (e) epilepsy, (f) full scale
IQ of 70 or less, (g) developmental delays, or (h)
other neurological insults or disease. Parents were
also asked to complete a data sheet, which included
the childs date of birth, gender, ethnicity, handedness, type of school attended, and household income.
Of the participants, 58% (n = 48) were female and
41.5% were male (n = 34). In terms of ethnicity, 17%
(n = 14) were Black, 56.1% (n = 46) were Hispanic,
7.3% (n = 6) were Asian American, and 11.0% (n = 9)
were White (M = 2.41, SD = 1.28). With regard to
household income, 17.1% (n = 14) earned less than
$10,000, 18.3% (n = 15) earned between $10,000 and
$25,000, 24.4% (n = 20) earned between $26,000 and
$50,000, and 19.5% (n = 16) earned more than
$50,000.
PROCEDURES

Researchers attended two churches to collect data

to comprise the comparison sample. The children
were given a brief introduction to the project,
explaining that the research seeks to better understand childrens drawings of a house, a tree, and a person. Children had full permission to withdraw from
participation if they requested.
When the class was ready to begin, the researchers
distributed four pieces of 8 in. 11 in. white paper, a
number two pencil, and a box of 24 generic crayons.
Children were asked to make drawings of a house, a
tree, and a person on separate pieces of paper. They
were not instructed with regard to choice of medium
and made that decision independently. Participants
were asked to raise their hand when they completed
their drawings. The drawings were then placed in a
folder identified only by a number. The folders were
checked against a master list to determine if parental
permission for using the drawings in the research was

172

Palmer et al. / HOUSE-TREE-PERSON PROJECTIVE DRAWINGS

received. Drawings obtained without consent were

left with the teacher.
The drawings were scored using the HTP/Draw-aPerson scoring booklet (Van Hutton, 1994). Two
raters were assigned to quantify each of the childrens
drawings.

who was also a rater in this study. Multiple scoring

training sessions were held to establish a consensus on
interpretation of ambiguous indicators before scoring the participants drawings. Two independent
raters scored each drawing, and the participants
group membership remained unknown throughout
this process.

ASSESSMENT AND MEASURES

History of Victimization
Questionnaire
Clinicians completed the History of Victimization
Questionnaire (Wolfe et al., 1986) for the participants
in the clinical group to document the history of sexual abuse. This comprehensive form documents all
types of victimization including the frequency, age of
onset, length of attenuation, and relationship of the
child to the perpetrator. This form also allows for the
identification of a history of severe physical abuse,
which is an exclusion criterion. The scoring of severity
of sexual abuse was based on a formula developed by
Wolfe et al. (1986). A cumulative score was produced
with higher scores indicating more severe sexual
abuse. The mean trauma score was 13.17 (SD = 5.08)
with a range of 5 to 33.
HTP/Draw-a-Person
Scoring Booklet
The HTP (Van Hutton, 1994) drawings were
scored for specific indicators using this scoring booklet. The scoring system has been empirically tested for
use with children in screening for possible child sexual abuse. The protocol contains four scales designed
to measure the following constructs: (a) Preoccupation With Sexually Relevant Concepts (SRC); (b)
Aggression and Hostility (AH); (c) Withdrawal and
Guarded Accessibility (WGA); and (d) Alertness for
Danger, Suspiciousness, and Lack of Trust (ADST).
Each item under each scale is scored as either present
(1) or absent (2), and a raw score is then obtained. A
total HTP score combining all scales is then calculated. Van Hutton reported interrater reliability
based on two clinicians scoring: SRC = .96, AH = .97,
WGA = .95, and ADST = .70.
To determine the level of interrater reliability, six
raters were trained in the use of Van Huttons (1994)
quantitative scoring method of the HTP drawings.
Raters were part of an established research team of
advanced graduate (doctoral and postmasters
degree) students operating under the training and
supervision of the first author, a licensed psychologist
with 16 years of clinical experience using the HTP,

RESULTS

Reliability
Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated between the two raters, presented as follows:
SRC, rs = 604, p < .01; AH, rs = .593, p < .01; WGA, rs =
.435, p < .01; and ADST, rs = .397, p < .01. Spearman
rank correlation coefficients, means, and standard
deviations for interrater reliability for individual
items under each scale are presented in Tables 1 to 4.
The results indicate that even with rigorous training,
interrater reliability was not established. Heiman
(1999) states that for results to be reliable, a coefficient of +.80 or better is required. Vass (1998) empirically demonstrated that there are serious reliability
problems with the empirical investigations of projective drawing tests (p. 611). He examined 153 drawings from 51 participants, documenting a scoring reliability of these scores ranging from .280 to .747 with a
mean of .530. These results are suggested to be a problem with quantifying specific features of drawings,
which are subjective in nature.
Discriminant Function Analysis
The nature of the variables and the history of the
participants precluded an experimental design of
determining cause and effect; thus, a causalcomparative design was used. This research method
seeks to compare individuals with whom a variable
is present or absent (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996).
Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (Version 8.0). The four HTP index
scores and the total HTP index score were entered
into a discriminant function analysis as predictors
of membership in two groups, clinical or comparison. No cases were deleted from the sample. None
of the predictors was significant: SRC, F(1, 127) = 1.668,
p = .199, M = 4.116, SD = 1.983; AH, F(1, 127) = 2.618,
p = .108, M = 4.248, SD = 2.764; WGA, F(1, 127) = 3.126,
p = .079, M = 3.186, SD = 1.595; and ADST, F(1, 127) =
1.102, p = .296, M = .992, SD = .980. The HTP total
score was also not significant: F(1, 127) = .683, p = .410,
M = 13.295, SD = 4.506.
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2000

Palmer et al. / HOUSE-TREE-PERSON PROJECTIVE DRAWINGS

TABLE 1:

Interrater Reliability of Sexually Relevant Concepts

Item on Rating Protocol

Emphasis on bedroom
Large open windows
Large or emphasized chimney
Broken or cut off branches
Palm tree
Legs or body below waist not drawn
Trunk of body not closed
Erasures, reinforcement, or
uncertainty drawing shoulders
(males only)
Figure drawn more mature than
childs age
Figure drawn less mature than
childs age
Unusually small head
Hair emphasized or elaborate
Hair on body
Nose emphasized
Cupid bow mouth (females only)
Hands covering genital region
Genitals
Breasts emphasized
Elongated feet
Underclothed or nude figure
Tie emphasized (males only)
Body part cut off or occluded by object
Shading of specific body part
Figure not obviously male or female
Figure not childs own gender
Unusual cosmetic emphasis
(females only)
Excessive adornment (females only)
Omission of hands
Legs drawn with sketchy lines
Long neck

Interrater Reliability of Aggression and Hostility

Spearmans
Rank
Correlation
Coefficient

SD

Item on Rating Protocol

.483**
.525**
.860**
.601**
1.000**
.831**
.209*

1.967
1.936
1.637
1.910
1.992
1.930
1.867

.177
.247
.483
.287
.001
.257
.341

.975**

1.739

.444

.337**

1.859

.349

.602**
.863**
.504**
1.000
.706**
.946**
.351**
.020
.648**
.510**
.386**
.980**
.121
.354**
.747**
.800**

1.609
1.969
1.617
2.000
1.875
1.804
1.992
1.976
1.945
1.867
1.836
1.951
1.876
1.719
1.712
1.936

.490
.175
.488
.000
.332
.399
.001
.152
.228
.341
.372
.218
.332
.451
.451
.246

Unusually heavy line pressure

Rigid straight line emphasis
Impulsive lines
Unusually large drawings
Large house
Sapling
Leaves sharply pointed
Scars
Gross asymmetry of limbs
Crossed eyes
Oversized figure
Teeth
Disproportionately large arms
Disproportionately large hands
Large or talon-like fingers
Omission of arms
Wide stance
Overemphasized or strong
reinforcement of facial features
Nostrils emphasized
Chin unusually emphasized
Unusually thick neck
Reinforced arms with emphasis
on muscles
Clenched fists
Fingers without hands
Squared shoulders
Massive shoulders (males only)
Short heavy line for mouth

.909**
.930**
.762**
.539**
.865**

1.873
1.862
1.555
1.914
1.734

.334
.347
.499
.281
.443

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

DISCUSSION

This investigation supports the caution given to clinicians regarding the clinical efficacy of the HTP
drawings in the evaluation of a history of child sexual
abuse. The scales on the Van Hutton (1994) scoring
system were found to have only fair to poor interscorer reliability. Furthermore, the scales were unable
to discriminate between the two groups of children.
The overall score of the HTP was not found to predict
group membership between participants with a
known history of child sexual abuse and the nonclinical comparison. These findings were similar to those
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2000

TABLE 2:

173

Spearmans
Rank
Correlation
Coefficient

SD

.113
.027
.363**
.621**
.618**
.299**
.464**
1.000**
.361**
.346**
.716**
.846**
.507**
.525**
.529**
.750**
.486**

1.806
1.889
1.814
1.651
1.581
1.951
1.902
2.000
1.789
1.922
1.850
1.922
1.836
1.867
1.867
1.930
1.469

.397
.302
.391
.479
.496
.216
.298
.000
.410
.269
.358
.269
.372
.341
.341
.257
.501

.406**
.400**
.173
.437**

1.711
1.852
1.977
1.773

.455
.357
.152
.420

.440**
.226*
.658**
.522**
.993**
.235**

1.883
1.969
1.805
1.750
1.810
1.977

.323
.175
.398
.435
.397
.152

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

documented by Vass (1998), underscoring the serious

reliability and validity limitations of previous empirical investigations of projective drawing measures. Vass
emphasizes the importance of rethinking how interpretations are made based on specific features of a
specific drawing, recommending instead further
investigation of interrelated patterns of features
across drawings. Vass concluded, interrelated patterns . . . are more clinically relevant than any individual sign (p. 618).
Limitations of the present study exist across several
aspects of the methodology. Regarding the assessment process and group constitution, there is a lack of
control for possible confounding factors such as
group differences including cultural/racial variables,
parents level of education, and previous artistic
instruction. Additionally, the documentation of the
previous history of victimization is based on the clinicians ability to accurately record the type, frequency,
and severity of abuse based on the chart review. The

174

Palmer et al. / HOUSE-TREE-PERSON PROJECTIVE DRAWINGS

TABLE 3:

Interrater Reliability of Withdrawal and Guarded Accessibility

Item on Rating Protocol

Unusually small drawings
Bilateral symmetry
Drawings very distant
Inanimate objects drawn bigger,
better, or with more emphasis
than people
Animals drawn bigger, better,
or with more emphasis than people
Absence of door
Door very small
Door on side of house
Long walkway or steps leading to house
Steps or walkway leading to blank wall
Windows absent
Windows small
Windows excessively curtained,
shuttered, or barred
Dim facial features
Unusually small or closed eyes
Small feet
Cartoon figure
Profile of person was drawn

Spearmans
Rank
Correlation
Coefficient

SD

.419**
.385**
.196*

1.810
1.737
1.915

.391
.442
.280

.494**

1.556

.499

1.000**
.900**
.670**
.528**
.867**
1.000**
.909**
.449**

1.857
1.911
1.694
1.855
1.903
1.992
1.960
1.805

.378
.286
.463
.354
.297
.000
.198
.398

.544**
.417**
.331**
.514**
.622**
.863**

1.195
1.882
1.844
1.776
1.883
1.977

.398
.323
.365
.419
.323
.152

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

TABLE 4:

Interrater Reliability of Alertness for Danger, Suspiciousness, and Lack of Trust

Item on Rating Protocol

Unusually light line pressure
Emphasis on barriers (fences,
lines, gates)
Door has peephole
Door is locked or heavily hinged
Unusually large eyes
Emphasis on outline of eyes
Picasso eye
Folded arms
Large or strongly reinforced ears

Spearmans
Rank
Correlation
Coefficient

SD

.268**

1.977

.152

.170
.643**
.028
.484**
.347**
.011
.397**
.849**

1.806
1.879
1.879
1.789
1.766
1.984
1.986
1.945

.397
.327
.327
.410
.425
.125
.153
.228

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

History of Victimization Questionnaire (Wolfe et al.,

1986) provides clear rating criteria, but is vulnerable
to rater bias and subjectivity. This may have resulted in
an under- or overestimation of severity, frequency,
and type of abuse. Another methodological consideration is that the interrater reliability documented in

the current study was considerably lower than that

documented by Van Hutton (1994). This likely
reflects the larger pool of raters employed by this
study as compared to Van Hutton, who used two
raters. A larger group of raters increases variability of
scores, decreasing interrater reliability even when the
raters have similar levels of training and professional
experience. This tends to underscore the concern
about the lack of reliability of scoring given the vast
range of experience, education, and training of professionals who may choose to incorporate projective
measures in assessment batteries.
Limitations also exist with regard to group composition. It is possible that the comparison sample is different from children in the general population due to
their church affiliation, in terms of the level of structure and support they receive. In addition, information provided by the parents was assumed to be accurate, and it is possible that the comparison sample
consisted of children who had been sexually abused.
Because the difference in childrens thinking, emotions, and performance across developmental milestones can vary greatly, the fact that the comparison
sample was 1.5 years younger than the clinical sample
may have affected the results. The comparison sample
consisted of more males and children from families
with higher incomes than the clinical sample. It is recommended that future studies attempt to match
groups for age, gender, and income more closely.
Future investigations should examine within group
differences, exploring the relationship between
effects of range and severity of abuse histories and
predictive indicators on psychological assessment
measures.
Variants in childrens drawings and rater variables
that may be due to factors such as (a) age, (b) cultural
background, (c) level of training, (d) gender, (e) personal history, (f) developmental accomplishments,
and (g) vocational standing need to be an area of
focus in future inquiries. Future studies may also
include the addition of a structured interview to the
collection of HTP drawings to determine the usefulness of clinically relevant information. Additionally,
other studies of HTP efficacy may be conducted with
neglected, emotionally abused, and physically abused
children in comparison with a control sample, using
an appropriate scoring method. Lastly, future
researchers may choose to consider a replication of
the above study with a sample including a larger
number of male participants.
The possible variants of drawings coupled with
rater bias likely defy a conclusive and predictive quantification process. This study suggests that the HTP
does not reliably contribute to the level of certainty in
CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2000

Palmer et al. / HOUSE-TREE-PERSON PROJECTIVE DRAWINGS

an abuse evaluation process. In the absence of more

rigorous support, HTP drawings should not be used
as means of identifying or confirming a history of
child sexual abuse.
REFERENCES
Berliner, L., & Loftus, E. (1992). Sexual abuse accusations. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 570-578.
Black, F. W. (1976). The size of human figure drawings of learning
disabled children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 736-741.
Buck, J. N. (1948). The HTP technique: A qualitative and quantitative scoring manual. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4, 317-396.
Burns, R. C., & Kaufman, S. M. (1970). Kinetic Family Drawing
(K-F-D): An introduction to understanding children through kinetic
drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Cohen, F. W., & Phelps, R. E. (1985). Incest markers in childrens
artwork. Arts in Psychotherapy, 12, 265-283.
Elin, N., & Nucho, A. O. (1979). The use of kinetic family drawing
as a diagnostic tool in assessing the childs self-concept. Art Psychotherapy, 6, 241-247.
Feher, E., Vandecreek, L., & Teglasi, H. (1983). The problem of art
quality in the human figure drawing tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 268-274.
Finkelhor, D. (1979). Sexually victimized children. New York: Free
Press.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An
introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Goodenough, F. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. New
York: World Book.
Hagood, M. H. (1992). Diagnosis or dilemma: Drawings of sexually
abused children. British Journal of Projective Psychology, 37, 22-33.
Hammer, M., & Kaplan, A. M. (1966). The reliability of childrens
human figure drawings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22,
316-319.
Heiman, G. W. (1999). Research methods in psychology (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hibbard, R. N., & Hartman, G. L. (1990). Emotional indicators in
human figure drawings of sexually victimized and nonabused
children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 211-218.
Hibbard, R. A., Roghmann, K., & Hoekelman, R. A. (1987). Genitalia in childrens drawings: An association with sexual abuse. Pediatrics, 79, 129-136.
King, G. F. (1960). Recent developments in the field of projective
drawings. In A. I. Rabin & M. R. Hayworth (Eds.), Projective techniques with children (pp. 364-375). New York: Gruner & Stratton.
Kelley, S. J. (1984). The use of art therapy with sexually abused children. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health Services, 22,
12-18.
Koppitz, E. M. (1966a). Emotional indicators on human figure
drawings of children: A validation study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 313-315.
Koppitz, E. M. (1966b). Emotional indicators on human figure
drawings of shy and aggressive children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 466-467.
Koppitz, E. M. (1984). Psychological evaluation of human figure drawings by middle school pupils. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Lingren, R. H. (1971). An attempted replication of emotional indicators in human drawings by shy and aggressive children. Psychological Reports, 29, 35-38.
National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1988). Study of
national incidents and prevalence of child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: GPO.
Neale, E. L., Rosal, M., & Rosal, M. L. (1993). What can art therapists learn from the research on projective drawing techniques
for children?: A review of the literature. Arts in Psychotherapy, 20,
37-49.

CHILD MALTREATMENT / MAY 2000

175

Prytula, R. E., & Thompson, N. D. (1973). Analysis of emotional

indicators in human figure drawings as related to self-esteem.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 37, 795-802.
Sidun, N. M., Rosenthal, A., & Rosenthal, R. H. (1987). Graphic
indicators of sexual abuse in Draw-a-Person tests of psychiatrically hospitalized adolescents. Arts in Psychotherapy, 14, 25-33.
Van Hutton, V. (1994). House-Tree-Person and Draw-a-Person as measures of abuse in children: A quantitative scoring system. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Vass, Z. (1998). The inner formal structure of the H-T-P drawings:
An exploratory study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(5),
611-619.
Walsh, W. B., & Betz, N. E. (1995). Tests and assessment (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wolfe, V., Gentile, C., & Bourdeau, P. (1986). History of victimization
questionnaire. (Available from Vicky Veitch Wolfe, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Childrens Hospital of Western Ontario,
800 Commissioners Rd., London, Ont. N6A4G5)
Yates, A., Beutler, L. E., & Crago, M. (1985). Drawings of child victims of incest. Child Abuse and Neglect, 9, 183-189.

Laura Palmer, a licensed psychologist, is an assistant professor

and co-director of training in the Counseling Psychology Program at
Seton Hall University, S. Orange, New Jersey. She received her Ph.D.
from the University of Houston in 1995 with a major in Counseling
Psychology. She was appointed as a tenure-track faculty member of
Seton Hall University in 1996 and holds an affiliation at Newark
Beth Israel Hospital in Newark, New Jersey. She has worked in the
field of pediatric mental health services since 1980. Her many years
of direct service with children who have experienced various forms of
emotional and physical trauma have fostered her research activities
in the investigation of emotional and neurocognitive sequelae of
trauma, as well as the efficacy of current evaluation procedures.
Anne R. Farrar received her M.A. in Counselor Preparation
from Seton Hall University, where she is currently an advanced doctoral student in Counseling Psychology. Her research interests
include the investigation of the psychological factors involved in
adult adoptees decision to search for their biological parents.
Maria Valle received her M.A. in Counselor Preparation from
Seton Hall University, where she is currently a doctoral student in
Counseling Psychology. Her research interests include the determinants of parenting style specifically related to the impact of emotional abuse experienced during childhood.
Nouriman Ghahary is a licensed professional counselor. She
received her M.A. in counseling from Jersey City State University,
Jersey City, New Jersey, and is currently a doctoral student in Counseling Psychology at Seton Hall University. Her research interests include the impact of biculturalism on the development of self-concept.
Michael Panella received his M.A. in Counselor Preparation
from Seton Hall University, where he is currently a doctoral student
in Counseling Psychology. His research interests include the measurement of resiliency and organizational racism within law
enforcement.
Donna DeGraw received her M.A. in Psychological Studies from
Seton Hall University, where she is currently a doctoral student in
Clinical Psychology. Her research interests include the effects of prenatal substance abuse and infant-mother attachment.