Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in

Page Discussion Read View source View history Search Pin Eight

Draw-A-Person test
The Draw-A-Person test, first conceived by Dr. Florence Goodenough in
Pin Eight
Wiki main page 1926, is a skill test to measure a child's mental age through a figure
Site news
Recent changes drawing task. It estimates the progress of learning visual, cognitive, and
Random page
Help motor skills by having the candidate draw a human figure, scoring the
Donate
drawing for presence and quality of figure features, and comparing the
Tools

What links here

score to children's typical rate of acquisition of figure features. Its cultural
Related changes
Special pages
bias is smaller than that of more verbal intelligence tests but still present
Printable version
Permanent link
to an extent, especially with respect to clothing, and many editions'
Page information
scoring criteria fail to account for disabilities or other natural variations of
the human form, as a test case shows. It has a few clear opportunities for
improvement.
Contents [hide]
1 Advantages
2 Instructions
3 Criteria
3.1 University of Washington
3.2 Harris scale
3.3 Use in Ghana
3.4 Other scales
3.5 Projective test
4 Sample
4.1 University of Washington
4.2 Use in Ghana
5 Limits
5.1 Culture dependency
6 Further study directions
7 References
8 External links

Advantages
Compared to some other, more verbal intelligence tests, Draw-A-Person
(DAP) avoids biases associated with speech, hearing, or language
difficulties. Figure drawing is "culture-reduced" in the sense that it does
not suffer from cultural biases to nearly the same extent, so long as
instructions are given in the local language.[1] It also helps the candidate
feel at ease before starting another, more formal test.[2]
The subject of a person was chosen for several reasons. It's something all
children know, it's fairly standard, it can be drawn at coarse or fine detail.
And if candidates were allowed to choose their own subject, more clever
ones would choose something easier, and it would be hard to separate
faults related to the difficulty of the subject from faults caused by lack of
ability. [3]:15-16
In children under ten years old, figure drawing age is somewhat
correlated with other measures of mental age, such as the Stanford–Binet
Intelligence Scales and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children.
[citation needed: try "Validity" sections in Harris, Hasan, or DHEW] Though this
correlation is not strong enough for DAP to be used alone to test
intelligence,[4] the correlation is stable enough that a DAP score at age 4
predicts intelligence test performance at age 14. Identical twins were also
found to have more similar scores than fraternal twins.[5][6]
Developing countries have limited resources to educate their children.
Wise use of these resources includes placing students in the most
appropriate school track for the student's intellectual capability. For
example, when there are not enough spaces in university, some students
would benefit more from a trade school than from a prep school. But
where literacy is low and not everyone speaks the same language, a
traditional verbal intelligence test is more difficult to administer. DAP was
found useful in Pakistan, as it correlated well with scholastic success.[7]
On adults, it would primarily be used to evaluate candidates for a course
or job in graphic design.

Instructions
Instruct the candidate to make a picture of a person that shows the whole
body, and to try hard, work carefully, and use as much time as needed to
make the best picture. Earlier editions give a cute motivation for quality
based on the tribalism of organized schooling: "I want to see whether the
boys and girls in ____ School can do as well as those in other
schools."[3]:85[8]:240
A one-drawing test gives no instruction on age, sex, location, time period,
or medical condition. A longer test uses a man–woman–self sequence or
a same sex–opposite sex sequence, with a couple minutes of rest
between drawings.[8]:240 Even if a candidate asks for clarification, the
instructor must refuse any and all suggestion: "Do it whatever way you
think is best."[8]:241
The original protocol gives no time limit. Some methods give a soft limit of
five minutes and stop the drawing after seven because candidates
continue to make changes that do not improve the score. A time limit was
found to decrease scores by 3 to 6 points across the board, requiring
renorming, but the timed test remained a valid test.[2]

Criteria
Each revision of the examiner's manual for Draw-A-Person includes a
checklist of features, each worth one point. This is followed by a formula
to translate a score into an approximate mental age.
The following descriptions have been reworded. They do not substitute for
the official manual in a formal test situation. "Thickness" means that a
feature is two-dimensional as opposed to a single line or dot. "Opaque"
means that the area of a feature occludes the lines of features behind it.
"Correct number" of bilateral features usually means two for a front
drawing or one for a profile.

University of Washington
After the candidate completes the illustration, count one point for each of
the following features that is complete and correct. A checklist for
Goodenough's test distributed by the University of Washington listed the
following features:[9]
Gross detail (6)
1 for each of head, legs, arms, and trunk; trunk has thickness but longer
than width; top of trunk broadens to suggest shoulders
Attachment to trunk (4)
Both arms and legs attached to trunk; arms and legs attached at correct
points; neck present; neck outline continuous with head or trunk
Head detail (7)
1 for each of eye, nose, nostril, mouth, and hair; nose and mouth have
thickness, including two lips; hairline present: hair has shape to it other
than just a scribble around the circumference of the head
Clothing (5)
At least one identifiable article; a second article, such as a hat or
trousers, both articles opaque; all clothing opaque, including sleeves
and trousers; four articles; fully dressed with an identifiable role, such
as business suit or a soldier's uniform, including sleeves, trousers, and
shoes
Fingers (5)
Some indication of fingers; correct number of fingers; fingers thick and
longer than width, and differing in angle by no more than 180 degrees;
thumb appears distinct and opposable; identifiable "hand" section from
MCP to wrist separate from fingers
Joints in limbs (2)
Elbow or shoulder identifiable; knee or hip identifiable
Proportion (5)
Trunk area is 2 to 10 heads; arms roughly as long as trunk and do not
reach knee; legs between 1 and 2 trunks long; feet with thickness and
between 1/10 and 1/3 of leg; arms and legs have thickness
Motor coordination (6)
Lines are firm and do not leave marked gaps or overlaps where they
join (except for "sketchy" short strokes in more mature drawings);[3]:104
all lines are firm and joined correctly (extremely strict, bordering on
professional quality, credited for fewer than three of Goodenough's 95
sample drawings); head is more shaped than a circle or ellipse and not
obviously irregular; trunk is more shaped than a circle or ellipse and not
obviously irregular; arms and legs have thickness, not obviously
irregular, and not narrowing near trunk; features symmetrical to the
extent applicable
Fine head detail (7)
Correct number of ears for angle; ears positioned correctly; eye hair
(brow or lashes); eye has pupil; eye longer than height; pupils pointing
same direction in front or forward in profile; chin and forehead present
Profile bonus points (4)
Chin projects; heel visible; head, trunk, and feet without error; straight-
on side view with all features opaque and none doubled (sorry, Picasso)
Goodenough explained why she excluded some features, such as teeth,
shading, movement, pupils facing forward, and three-quarter view. Some
were too difficult to score, some were not monotonic (that is, they
increased and decreased with age), and some depended more on the
circumstances of the test (such as pencil hardness) than intellectual
maturity.[3]:20-21
Top score for front is 46; top score for side view is 51. The standard
deviation at a given age is around 7 to 8 points.[2] If your illustration
scores 40 or more, your skills are Goodenough to illustrate a children's
book. Otherwise, your figure drawing age is 3 years, plus 3 months for
each point.

Harris scale
In 1963, Dale B. Harris presented a revised version of DAP resulting from
his collaboration with Dr. Goodenough. It describes the research that led
to a 73-point scale for male and 71-point scale for female drawings.[8]
Harris's woman scale corrects for a long skirt, giving all leg points but no
foot points. [8]:87 It begins to phase out profile bonus points in
Goodenough's scale, which Harris found to be too generous.[8]:87-88

Use in Ghana
The 1988 edition of the test by Naglieri includes a more systematic
scoring system, grading specific aspects (presence, proportion, and
detail) of 14 features (arms, attachment, clothing, ears, eyes, feet, fingers,
hair, head, legs, mouth, neck, nose, and trunk).
Presence: a feature is visible, even down to one line.
Proportion: length to width ratio of features other than hair fall within
realistic bounds.
Detail: other aspects of the feature. For example, detail in clothing gives
additional points for additional articles of clothing and correct opacity.
Bonus: award an additional point if presence, proportion, and detail for
a feature are perfect
There are 50 points, plus 14 bonus points for perfect sections.
Arms
At least one arm; thickness and correct number of arms; thickness and
longer than width; all arms pointing downward or in action.
Attachment
Head attached to neck or trunk; correct number of arms attached to
trunk and not head; correct number of arms and legs (more than just
feet) attached to trunk; arms attached to top half of trunk and legs
attached to bottom half.
Clothing
1 for each of up to three identifiable articles identifiable by shape,
shading, or fastener; clothing is opaque. (Eyeglasses and earrings are
not clothing; they are ear and eye details.)
Ears
At least one ear; correct number of ears; taller than width in all ears;
earring or earlobe in at least one ear.
Eyes
At least one eye; more than a line or dot; details such as pupil, eye hair,
or glasses; wider than height.
Feet
At least one foot distinct from leg; thickness; correct number of feet, all
with detail such as toes, heel, or shoelace; at least one foot wider than
height.
Fingers
Hand distinct from arm; five fingers; correct number of hands all with
five fingers; thumb has distinct shape or position; all fingers have
thickness; those fingers that have thickness are longer than width.
Hair
Presence; hair on sides of head or facial hair; distinct style such as part,
braids, or decs, more than just a squiggle around the top half.
Head
Presence; bounding box including hair and ears is taller than width.
Legs
At least one leg distinct from foot; indication of knee or crotch; thickness
and longer than width in both legs.
Mouth
Presence; thickness (lips, teeth, or open); thickness and wider than
height.
Neck
Neck distinct from trunk; thickness; tangent to head or trunk or
separated at bottom by a collar.
Nose
Present; indication of nostrils or bridge; taller than width.
Trunk
Piece other than head, arms, and legs; indication of waist, belt, chest,
or shoulder; taller than width.
The Ghanaian manual shows an illustration of each feature in order to
clarify what counts as a point.[1]

Other scales
Some scales for scoring DAP attempt to correct for deficiencies in the
original test.
An excerpt from the 2004 edition of the Draw-A-Person test by Reynolds
and Hickman was briefly made available to us. Like the Naglieri edition, it
rearranges the criteria into features for which 1 to 5 quality grades are
given, and it includes a sample illustration for each quality grade. It
introduces the additional instruction to draw a picture of yourself from the
front, which may reduce the temptation for especially bright people to
draw an "edge case" character. Some criteria have been made less
discriminatory, such as not counting fingers, judging fasteners and other
clothing detail instead of counting pieces, and showing distinct toes in lieu
of shoes. Others have not changed, such as the bias against mittens,
long hair, or a skirted garment that covers fingers, ears, or legs. One of
the example figures for "0" on waist through ankles resembles a man
wearing an ankle-length shirt or a long trenchcoat.[10]

Other scales have varying amounts of clothing and ableist bias. The 5-
Minute Pediatric Consult makes no mention of shoes, knees, crotch, or
leg length, which means it doesn't penalize for bare feet or a skirt. But on
its 28-point, 3-point-per-year scale, it deducts 3 points for missing legs, 1
for missing ears, and 3 points for mittens. [11]
DAP has been adapted as a "personal neglect test" for stroke patients in
their 60s. The scoring gave ten points, one each for presence of head,
torso, left arm, left hand, left leg, left foot, right arm, right hand, right leg,
and right foot. A character showing unilateral features (difference in
scores between left and right side) showed hemineglect in the candidate,
and bilateral features were noticeably correlated with performance in the
candidate's activities of daily living (ADLs).[12]
At times, the test has been modified to use subjects other than the human
figure. John Buck created the House-Tree-Person test in 1948. Rebecca
Lawson adapted some of the methodology of DAP to test awareness of
the parts of a bicycle in 2006, along with a multiple-choice follow-up to
illustrate the difference between recall and recognition.[13]

Projective test
Some variants of Draw-A-Person are intended as a projective test to
measure emotional disturbance rather than figure drawing age. The
Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance
(DAP:SPED) test, for instance, requires the candidate to make drawings
of man, woman, and self, and grades them based on inclusion and
omission of features that correlate with emotional disturbance, even if this
disturbance is over- or underreported by the candidate's parent.[14]
Much of the Machover interpretation is based on the size of various
features. It treats a large head as representing "a large ego", a paranoid
or narcissistic personality, and drawing it last shows "disturbances with
interpersonal relationships." A disconnected neck could mean
schizophrenia, and eyelashes or high-heel shoes drawn by a man mean
gay.[15] Stereotypical Freudian theories abound. I smell what RationalWiki
calls woo. So did Harris, who found no validity in personality testing
through human figure drawing. He rejected the use of "an elaborate
theory of symbolism" to interpret the stylization of features, instead
preferring to let the child lead with a simple "Tell me about it" after the
drawing.[8]:148-152

Sample
I'll grade a drawing of a girl based on these criteria.

University of Washington
"Bidge" scores 28/47, for a figure drawing
age of 10 years.
Gross detail: 5/6 (legs not present)
Attachment to trunk: 2/4 (legs not
attached, legs not attached at correct
points)
Head detail: 5/7 (no nostrils, no mouth
Bidge from the front. She is wearing a short-sleeved
thickness) shirt, a sleeveless dress, a hooded, lined cape, and a
basket clipped on her belt. Both hands have typical poli
Clothing: 4/5 (no trousers) mittens, and one hand is raised.

Fingers: 2/5 (fingers not visible, finger

count not visible, finger width not visible)
Joints in limbs: 1/2 (no knee)
Proportion: 2/5 (legs have no length, feet have no length, legs have no
thickness)
Motor coordination: 3/6 (lines not perfect especially in hem of cape,
head is too close to a circle, no leg thickness)
Fine head detail: 4/7 (ears hidden by hood, no eyebrows, eyes are
round)
Breakdown of missed points:
Expected to miss: 1 (lines not perfect)
Actual mistake: 1 (lack of eyebrows)
Clothing: 4 (hood and mittens covering ears and fingers)
Stylization: 4 (head shape, eye shape, nose, mouth). Though stylization
can be evidence of an inexperienced or lazy artist, the instructions don't
mention realism at this point.
Anatomy: a full 9 points

Use in Ghana
"Bidge" scores 32/64 based on the Naglieri criteria from the Ghanaian
manual.
Arms: 4/4
Attachment: 2/4 (legs not attached to trunk, legs not attached to bottom
half)
Clothing: 4/4
Ears: 0/4 (hood covers ears)
Eyes: 3/4 (round, not wide)
Feet: 0/4
Fingers: 4/6 (mittens cover fingers)
Hair: 2/3 (hood covers side hair)
Head: 1/2 (round head)
Legs: 0/3
Mouth: 1/3 (no thickness)
Neck: 3/3
Nose: 1/3 (round button)
Trunk: 3/3
Perfect sections: 4/14
Breakdown of missed points:
Clothing: 7 (hood and mittens covering ears and fingers), plus 3 perfect
sections
Stylization: 6 (round eyes, round head, no lips, button nose), plus 4
perfect sections
Anatomy: 9 (no legs, feet, or attachment thereof), plus 3 perfect
sections

Limits
No intelligence test is perfect. There are good reasons, unrelated to the
candidate's skill, for an illustration to lack some of the above features.
Figure drawing age is not intended to estimate mental age in older
candidates for several reasons. One is that the correlation starts to
become weaker after age ten, especially in teens without intellectual
disability. Scores hit a noticeable ceiling after age 12,[2] despite attempts
to find new items that target adolescents.[8]:99 A second is that older
candidates are likely to have taken drawing lessons. A study at an
elementary school in Pennsylvania showed that incorporating two hours
of figure drawing into a kindergarten anatomy curriculum noticeably
improved the detail of the students' drawings, even though it didn't
significantly improve scores in the protocol used.[16] Finally, an especially
bright candidate may recognize the psychological test and attempt to
confuse the investigator. One eleven-year-old boy drew a collection of
weapons as well as a pet dropping bombs onto a second figure labeled
"Father". Later he revealed that he was trying to break the test,[8]:148-149
possibly to feign warning signs associated with antisocial personality
disorder. Another may "show off" her skill and sense of inclusivity by
drawing a character whose appearance differs from that of an "average"
illustration for a good reason, and DAP is not intended to handle cases
like this.
One cause of difference is sex. The United States Department of Health
conducted a study in the 1970s, based on the Harris test with its separate
woman scale. Boys and girls drew male figures equally well, but girls ten
years old or older tended to be six points better at drawing the female
figure than boys of the same age. This can complicate analysis using test
protocols that ask for one drawing of each sex.[2] Some protocols use
only one drawing, and for these, boys prefer to draw boys and girls
girls.[1] This tendency is so strong that projective versions of the test treat
drawing the opposite sex first as transgender tendency.[15]
Another is art style. Early editions failed to instruct the candidate that
"good" and "best" mean "detailed realism", as opposed to intentional
stylization. Certain eye and nose styles associated with illustration and
animation may cost fine head detail points. Children were found more
likely to apply cartoon stylization to a self-portrait than to a drawing of a
generic man or woman.[8]:151 Since the first edition of the test, illustration
convention in children's entertainment shifted from the relative realism of
Gray and Sharp's Dick and Jane to the extreme stylization of 21st century
cartoons such as South Park and The Amazing World of Gumball, not to
mention manga and anime. This art style shift can be seen even within a
single long-running serial work, especially the comic strip "Goofus &
Gallant" in Highlights for Children. And it may be part of what led newer
editions of the test to add explicit instructions against "a cartoon or stick
figure."[10][7]
Some claim that DAP misses the intelligence of a candidate knowing his
own limits. A hand in a pocket, for instance, is often graded as failure to
draw a hand.[16] Placing hands in pockets to avoid drawing them may
show that a candidate is "clever enough to hide their inability in a clever
manner", or in other words that the candidate is averting the Dunning–
Kruger effect. It still costs points,[7] though not significantly many among
13 to 15-year-olds.[8]:86-87
A few choices of subject matter may not only reduce the estimation of