Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Draw-A-Person Test PDF
The Draw-A-Person Test PDF
by
A THESIS
IN
PSYCHOLOGY
MASTER OF ARTS
Approved
Auguat 1968
."-)
r3
i<ik ' /
tio. /6i>
Cci). ^
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
of this study.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v
I. INTRODUCTION 1
III. PROCEDURE 25
Problem - 25
Subjecta 25
Procedure 26
IV. RESULTS 29
V. DISCUSSION 34
APPENDIX 43
111
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Exploratory Inveatigation 57
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
INTRODUCTION
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
technique, but the literature containa only a few atudiea where thia
dysfunction which are not based on the pictures themselvea but on data
from the caae hiatory, reaulta of other testa, .or from the behavior
gence teat for children between the ages of three and 15 years by
(1949)» and others. They based the use of the human drawings as a
First grade achievement and adjustment have also been examined (Koppitz,
Sullivan, Blyth, Shelton, 1959; Shibb & Loudon, I964; Vane & Eisen,
below.
alitis were not able to draw the human form at the level which would
with a lower mental age. ^"In general, detail waa poorly handled,
motor execution waa poor, and the drawinga expreaaed their uncertainty
line quality.
without pupila) and difficulty joining linea correctly. She did not
and abnormal EEGa. He found that H-T-P "line quality" waa a predictor
of brain damage.
drawinga of other groupa, and to what extent the indicatora could re-
Theae were: weak ayntheais, parts misplaced, shrunken arms and legs,
differential diagnoaia.
diaorder.
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
Definitions of Terms
disability.
The learning process has been altered in these children and the
modification is due to neurological dysfunction. This results in a
fying the term "minimal" for proper evaluation and study. Measuring
nations and some degree of emotional disturbance were found with the
children who had a learning disability but they were not incapacitating.
adequate.
reports were reviewed by Johnson and Myklebust (I967) with some of the
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).
Statement of Problem
EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION
the files of two child guidance centers on the basis of final diagnosis
The children had been diagnosed "chronic brain syndrome" and were
gence. The total score on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
(wise), for example, was not the determining factor but that the child
8
acored 85 or above on either the verbal or performance aection. A
ing and did not cauae a detriment to learning. Defining motor ability,
in aome caaea, aenaory and motor deficienciea were preaent, they were
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
had not been diagnosed as "chronic brain syndrome". They were selected
and grades so it was assumed they were not psychotic. Their achievement
10
I. Line construction
A. Type
B. Function; minimal
C. Function; reasonable
D. Function; additional
E. Joining
F. Erasures
A. Arm attachment
B. Hand formation
C. Finger construction
D. Foot construction
A. Minimal
B. Reasonable
C. Additional
11
IV. Symmetry
A. Bilateral division^
B. Head placement
C. Neck location
A. , Minimal
B. Reasonable
C. Additional/
item waa not acored. The categories are defined below with examples
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
light sketching. The drawing was scored positive when this occurred
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.
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-
extremely jagged, poorly formed lines. The lines seemed more continuous
than skethchy but the quality was very "saw-like" and uneven from pro-
controlled overlap found in the positive drawing was lacking. The lines
purpoae.
normal child than for the handicapped child. They begin to have mean-
Objecta and the apace between linea become meaningful for children at
shadowe are uaed, and by grouping detaila or featurea towards the center
spatial relations. There was a purpose to the lines used whereby areas
the figure seemed closer to the viewer than others. This impression
the figure or in body parts than were closer to the viewer while having
adequate depth. The figures were drawn mechanically and simply with
He seldom added any creative emphasis to his production and often pro-
features of the figure stand out in perspective and when they were
made there often was confusion and reversal of depth. Shading was
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
line pressure, shading, and line direction were usually the contributing
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 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
was found with the outline of the head much darker than the facial
in the viewer. This usually included the head and the trunk, but
scoring item. Subjectively the figure had more life to it than those
A negative score was given for this item when it did not reach
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
the best drawings. The major portion of the figure was viewed in per-
A minus was recorded if the child could not demonstrate the ability
15
the child was unable to go beyond the scoring requirements of the pre-
cross, or overlap, or leave gaps between the ends. A drawing with few
lines was scored more strictly than one with frequent changes in
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.
neath the drawing being acored ao the eraaure points could be seen
more clearly and to lessen any confusion from other figures showing
roughness on the surface of the paper or where lines could still be seen
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
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
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
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.
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
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
was given for both hands in profile drawings on the basis of the one
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
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
profile drawing, credit was given for both on the basis of the one
another scoring item with credit given for both hands on the basis
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
arma were acored minua. Blunted arma were acored minua as well as
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).
was given for both feet on the basis of the one presented.
Minus credit was recorded when the feet were poorly formed.
present but the shape of the foot dictated a minus score. The level
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
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
detail were present substituted for the missing details. For examples,
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
simple line closing the end of the skirt. These pictures did not re-
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
previous category plus any three of the following items after substi-
pockets, double or shaded lines at the waist for belt, buckle, shading
was not obtained it was then scored minus. The drawing received just
pasaed the prior categoriea and had two or more itema beyond what was
A minus score was given when the details were limited to the
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
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
drawing passed up through the middle of the crotch, the center of the
either side. It would pass up through the center of the leg, trunk,
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
the figures were extremely small or in motion, but the picture could
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
granted if the outline of the face or head excluding hair style, was
trunk.
This item was scored minus if the difference was such that a
distortion was evident. This also was judgmental especially with small
Neck Location. The location of the neck was scored from the
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.
minus. This scoring was also subjective and relied on personal judg-
was that of a human. The figure was not proportionally exact but the
as a person. The figure was either crudely drawn or looked like a toy,
expected of a person.
passed the previous item, an attempt to draw a human figure, and the
proportions were within acceptable limits. The trunk, arms, legs, and
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
limits.
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-
Resulta
the non-impaired children. Each aign waa acored plua, minua, or un-
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.
learn the scoring system. They were instructed in its use and prac-
that 92 percent of the scoring was common to the two judges. Scoring
subject groups on the 19 signs. For each comparison, the null hypo-
thesis was tested against the alternative that the handicapped group
among the drawings used). In the 19 comparisons made for the two sets
at the .05 level or better was 15 for judge A and 15 for judge B.
that the drawings of the impaired and control subjects had been reliably
PROCEDURE
Problem
Subjects
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
25
26
Their ages were between 8 years, 2 months and 12 years, 5 months with
by the location of the school. The children were in good general health,
Procedure
/
were obtained from each child. They were acquired from individual
more than seven students with Group B. The children were tested during
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-
a whole person."
When the first drawing was completed, it was collected and the child
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
four pictures, one stick man and the three required for the study.
The 162 drawings were scored independently by the two students trained
three sets of drawings (same sex, opposite sex, and self-figure) were
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
RESULTS
B waa .9099. Thia waa aignificant beyond the .01 level of confidence
percent of the acoring variance waa common to the two judgea. Good
agreement waa alao obtained on the three aeta of drawinga (aame sex,
indicates that the common variance accounted for was 86, 82 and 81 per-
of scoring.
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
29
50
These resulta constitute evidence for the rejection of the null hypo-
thesis.
Tables 5 and 6 in the appendix. For the same sex drawing. Judge A
level while Judge B had 10. For the opposite sex drawing Judge A had
There was 100 per cent agreement between the judges on the
following scoring items in the three sets: Line Type, Minimal Line
categories were significant and lower scores on them were indeed more
seven per cent agreement was found on Reasonable Line Function, and
diagnostic indicator.
The ^ test was applied between the means of the two groups.
total score obtained from any one of the three types of drawings can
TABLE 7
Comparison df
*One-Tailed test.
55
TABLE 8
Comparison df
*One-Tailed Test.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
the judges in their ability to learn the scoring system and reliably
were adequate.
and drawing skills beyond the capability of the subjects studied. This
required level of refinement could also explain the poor results found
Division. The scoring criterion was set too high and therefore was
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
achievement.
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
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
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
the control group saw what their neighbors were drawing and may have
as "I'm going to make a clown", creating a set that the others followed.
playful attitude that distracted the others from their task. Group
teacher.
This was not controlled in the present study. Some of the impaired
were just finishing their first year. This uncontrolled factor possibly
study have the child draw the figures as part of his initial testing
by the acorea the children received. Eight of the signs were very
were poor production of Line Type, Minimal Line Function, Hand Forma-
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.
REFERENCES
15. Hoel, P. G. Elementary Statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
i960.
15. Koppitz, Elizabeth M., Sullivan, J., Blyth, D. D., & Shelton, J.
Test and human figure drawings. £. Clin. Psychol., 1959, 15, I64-I68.
1965.
293-295.
20. Reznikoff, M., «Sc Tomblen, D. The use of human figure drawings in
20 (6), 467-470.
22. Shibb, D. E., & Loudon, Mary L. The Draw-A-Man Test and
24. Vane, Julis R., & Eisen, Virginia W. The Goodenough Draw-A-Man
: ^
c>^
tti ^
\
^ ^
k
>
" ^ • ^
Lf ^
I : = %
^ \ ^
lui \
W
d7
s a
/
M\ M H C*
M i lA b^
e)
TABLE 1
Judge A Judge B
Chi Chi
Sign square P square P
I. Line
A. Type 2.58 .20 10.42 .01
B. Function;
minimal 18.05 .001 22.56 .001
C. Function;
reasonable 15.00 .001 6.89 .01
D. Function;
additional 1.97 .20 5.58 .02
E. Joining 17.14 .001 15.00 .001
F. Erasures 17.14 .001 19.26 .001
II. Assembly
A. Arm
attachment 11.84 .001 6.15 .02
B. Hand
formation 21.05 .001 • 19.05 .001
C. Finger
construction 21.05 .001 19.05 .001
D. Foot
construction 17.47 .001 15.14 .001
III. Detail •
A. Minimal 17.14 .001 18.05 .001
B. Reasonable 12.58 .001 19.26 .001
C. Additional 9.72 .01 5.91 .05
IV. Symmetry
A. Bilateral
8.69 .01 0.00 ••
division
B. Head
placement 1.81 .10 0.00 ••
C. Neck
location 5.58 .02 0.00 ••
V. Proportion
A. Minimal 24.00 .001 14.00 .001
B. Reasonable 8.15 .01 11.90 .001
C. Additional 0.00 .. 1.97 .20
58
TABLE 2
DATA: GROUP A
Estimated
No. Code CA IQ Grade
TABLE 2 — Continued
5. 11 1.8 .... •• • •
•* '6
6. 3.2 1.2 2.4 2.2 5.2^
7. ... 2.6° 1.9 ^•9b
•• • •
8. ... 5.0
9. ... 5.5 3.6° 3:6°
10. 5.8 5.8^ 2.6 5.1 •• •
11. 3.4 5.7 2.4 3.4 5.5
12. 3.5 2.8 5.2 4.0 5.2
13. 5.5 5.3 2.1 3.7 5.7
14. 3.2 3.2 2.0 5.5 5.2
2.2
15.
16.
5.2
• «•
^'h
1.8^ 2.0
5-5b
2.9 o-^
2.0
17. 5.4 5-9^ 4.2 2-9c ^?c
18. ...
^•'^c 5.9 ^•^c 5.1
19. ... 4.9^ 3.6 5.0° ...
TABLE 2 — Continued
1. RH 59 55 58 44
2. RH 315 180 170 222
3. LH 26 58 42 55
5. LH 218 140 165 174
6. RH 96 129 116 114
7. RH 150 105 64 100
8. RH 80 160 170 157
9. RH 230 263 278 257
10. RH 115 124 120 120
11. RH 110 105 110 108
12. RH 68 78 120 89
15. RH 270 216 155 214
14. LH 138 208 170 172
15. RH 126 157 138 154
16. LH 68 95 65 76
17. RH 115 55 88 85
18. LH 550 196 172 255
19. RH 116 165 270 185
20. RH 105 27 . 68 67
21. RH 186 165 220 190
22. RH 220 258 212 223
25. RH 77 70 105 84
24. RH 266 175 239 226
25. RH 55 50 45 50
26. RH 196 140 155 163
27. RH 80 68 115 88
TABLE 5
DATA: GROUP B
TABLE 3 — Continued
TABLE 3 — Continued
TABLE 4
Judge A Judge B
Chi Chi
Sign square P square P
I. Line
A. Type 22.50 .001 20.88 .001
B. Function;
minimal 20.48 .001 21.86 .001
C. Function;
reasonable 10.59 .01 25.52 .001
D. Function;
additional 11.18 .001 15.58 .001
E. Joining 16.56 .001 18.85 .001
P. Erasures 55.99 .001 41.77 .001
II. Assembly
A. Arm
attachment 9.71 .01 14.74 .001
B. Hand
formation 27.77 .001 .• 51.52 .001
C. Finger
construction 27.77 .001 27.46 .001
D. Foot
construction 55.85 .001 51.09 .001
III. Detail
A. Minimal 22.68 .001 23.15 .001
B. Reasonable 15.71 .001 11.84 .001
C. Additional 15.16 .001 7.90 .01
IV. Symmetry
A. Bilateral
division 7 = 51 .01 14.00 .001
B. Head
placement 15.10 .001 9.51 .01
C. Neck
location 14.89 .001 2.49 .20
V. Proportion
A. Minimal 50.55 .001 25.00 .001
B. Reasonable 26.25 .001 29.88 .001
C. Additional 9.55 .01 0.12 .80
65
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
o
Chi Chi Chi
Sign^ square p square P square P