Bender Gestalt Test BGT Pascal

I
i_
...
THE
1
' BENDER-GESTALT TEST
1
.. . ANTIFICATION AND VALIDITY FOR ADULTS
By
GERALD R. PASCAL, Ph.D.

Research Psychologist, Western Psychiatric
Institute and Clinic; Associate Professor of
Psychology, University of Pittsburgh
BARBARA J. SUTTELL, M.S.

Associate Research Ps,ychologist, Western··.
Psychiatric Institute and Clinic
Foreword by David G. Wright, M.D.
GRUNE & STRATTON

'e,w York 1951
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 51-3749
Copyright 1951
GRUNE & STRATTON, lNc.
381 Fourth Avenue
New York 16, N.Y. tes
WH
First Printing, May 1951
Second Printing, September 1955
Third Printing, June 1958 the
tio
to
ity
pn:
the
bet
ha~
tho
Ont
wh:
of 1
"wt
Kai
(I~
"of
of<
Printed for Grune & Stratton, Inc. in the U.S.A.

\d No. 51-3749
FOREWORD
The studies, of which this text is the exposition, are of unusual interest from
.several points of view. They make it quite cll:'ar, I believe, that a test and
a quantified system for scoring responses to it have been devised by which the.
presence and the immediate severity of psychiatric disorder in a person of
adult years frequently can be discovered, with rapidity and with a surprising
measure of dependability. The potential scope of useful application of such a
test and scoring method, if used only for rough "screening" purposes, is very
wide.
But if this is so, these studies must also provoke one to explore further into
1955 those most rich and unmapped areas of human psychology-those of the func-
~ !
I.
tions and the structuring of the ego. If this is so, the responses of each person
I'
to a single test situation must be definitively determined, indeed, by the total-
ity of psychic activity at that time; and the ego, as we conceive it, is t~e inter-
preter and actively working intermediator between inner psychic pressures and
the circumstances of external reality .
. A satisfying definition of me~tal or nervous illness or' disorder has never
been made; nor have "wellness" or "normality" been adequately defined. It
has been said many times, in more or,)ess earnestness, and with more or less
thoughtfulness, that the only workable definition of a psychosis. is that which
one has if he is behind locked doors in an asylum; and of a neurosis, that
which one has if he goes to see a psyel,iatr1r.t
All efforts at classification of such ·6~_,=.._.._1t:,.:s thus far have showri ~hemselves
~ inadequate frameworks into which the living material does not fit ~!J a
·. .::aningful pattern ( strikingly unlike the Periodic Table, or even large portions
of the "evolutionary tree"); and this too applies for the varieties of psychic
"wellness," although I think a most valuable beginning has been made here by
Karl Abraham in his "Psychoanalytische Studien zur Charakterbildung"
( 1925). In 1806, Arnold, in his "Observations on the Nature of Insanity," said
"of causes, we know too little to make them a foundation of the arrangement
of diseases"; and Tuke, in 1879, said:
"Could we determine, with certainty, distinctly separated faculties of

the liltp.d, we might then, and only then, hope to possess a detailed and
f.S.A.
symptomatic nomenclature, according as one or more of them are involved.
V
vi FOREWORD FOR'
Did we possess a perfect knowledge of the physiology of the organ of the Tht
mind, we should naturally, as in other diseases, endeavour to adapt our du1
terms to the structure affected-assuming that there are different parts of eXJ
w
i
this organ correlated with different psychical powers; but in the absence
of this knowledge, it would seem reasonable to adapt them to the affected an
functions." cc
f a4
These observations seem equally valid as applied to our level of •knowledge \{
today. It is necessary, then, to inquire into the "affected functions" in psychic
disorders.
Many of the great observers and clinicians in psychiatry, before the present
century ( including Isaac Ray, at Butler Hospital), whatever their speculative
'Ig
•>
}
biases, and perhaps in spite of believing that they occasionally saw "healthy "I.'l
and diseased mental manifestations in combination," agreed generally that
"usually the intellect, the emotions, and volition, are all in disorder," whether
the illn.ess were basically classed as "amentia," "melancholia," "mania," "onei-
rodynia:,' or whatever. These conclusions are thoroughly confirmed, I take it,
and to a very considerable measure have been made m1derstandable, by the
intensive explorations of the dynamics of personality development which have
been made by psychoanalytic and other clinical studies through the present {
century.
t
i
Are, then, all psychic functions affected when a person suffers from a i~
i
~
"mental" or "nervous" or "emotional" disorder? I beHeve that we can psstu- fi;
late that at least those are which are controlled by the ego, that is to say those w~~
through which the person deals with external reality and with the interaction
t
of instinctive pressure with external reality. I think that it is this, in addition
to our simply knowing too little, that has led to our continuing inability to de-
JI
fine psychic disorders satisfactorily and' to classify them very usefully, as well
-~ ,.:
w
~1
as our inability to understand their meanings and the meanings of therapy.
The ego must begin its growth in infancy ( or perhaps before) by evolving I ":;
the differe~tiatiQn of the indivldual from all ~;,eternal objects and influences. ~
T4e.€go's prototypical, continuous, necessary, and defining function is "reality-
-testing." Beginning life with biological needs, instinctual energies, and some
receptor and ~ffector apparatus, the infant person is satisfied and is frustrated;
and through these experiences he comes to feel emotions, to recognize himself,
to differentiate himself from the rest of the world, to relate to others persons,
and to learn ways and means of dealing with himself, his feelings, the world,
and other persons. The person becomes aware of parts of his ego functions,
hut certainly the greater part of the ego's work is kept unconscious. The ego
strives to arrange to gratify instinctual desires, directly and indirectly, and to
arrange to avoid pain and anxiety. In avoiding pain and anxiety particularly,
it may use patterns of action and feeling that are defensive and self-i~strictive.
':-::;-,-,':
f
i
t
l
f
i
FOREWORD FOREWORD vii
fof the organ of the

These patterns it tends to use when threatened, again and again in later life,
ieav?ur to adapt our
:e di!erent parts of during which period these patterns may by no means he fitting to new sets of
! but
in the absence existing realities, and may no longer succeed in defending and protecting.
'
rem to the a:ffected When this occurs, as it does in the neuroses, both immediate and very old
anxieties are aroused, which fur.ther militates against the ego's ability to deal
comprehensively with reality. In psychotic states feeling is withdrawn from
ilr level of •k , actual external objects hack into the self-a situation which recapitulates
now1edge ,
functions'' ·
in psychic M.I levels of ego development of early infancy, and is therefore truly "regressive."
Ii At such levels the ego's reality-testing is at best very fragmentary.
:ry, before th · ,~ But if all this is a reasonably valid conceptual formulation, and if it does
- e present
ever
•
their speculat·1ve . ": in fact indicate that the results of Dr. Pascal's studies are fundamentally con-
.s10na1ly saw ''heat 1hy 1 sistent with century-old clinical experience, it re-emphasizes, I hope, all that we
1
fgre~d- generally that I do not know about the ego. We do not know enough about the sources of its
In disorder, " whet . her ./· strengths, inherent or derived from external endowment. We do not know
.. . ,,
-.,'11a , " mania • " "
, one1~. I enough about its growth .-and evolution, and about its critical stages of vulner-
.' confirmed ' I ta ke It
.'derstandable b h'
, Yt e ·
.
I
,
ability and crystallization. We do not know how changeable its structure is
toward positively adaptive ends, nor by what means such changes can he pro-
1
.e opment wh·1ch h ave t,, moted, tlfrough the vicissitudes of growing and living.
.·through th j
e present f
. J
s.· DAVID G. WRIGHT,~ M. D.
!rson suffers f t Superintendent, Butler Hospital,
, h rom a
et at w Providence, Rhode Island.
, e can pestu-
!, that is to say th
.h ose
.":It the interaction
it IS this in add't•
I ' • ' I Ion
:u1ng .Inability to de-
·er
, . y usefully, as well
~Ings of therapy.
before) b .
. , Y evolving
ects and infl
. ;f . . uences.
•·· unction is "rea11ty- •
energies and
•d . ' some
: and IS frustrated.
o recognize himself'
eto . 0 th ers persons '
f 1
• eeings, t he world '
. h'18 ,
· :go functions,
,conscious Th
:1 . • e ego
·. l?directly, and to
n:x:1ety •
particularly
and self-r;~strictiv/
I\
\
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Most of the work described in this hook was accomplished while the au-
thors were employed by Butler Hospital, the senior author as chief psychol-
ogist and the junior author as research assistant. To Dr. Arthur H. Ruggles,
former superintendlnt, under whom the work was started, and to the staff of
the hospital, we express our gratitude for help and encouragement. · Special
thanks are due to Dr. David G. Wright, present superintendent, for his con-
stant support during the course of the project and for his critical reading of
the manuscript. Mr. Herbert Ruesch, psychologist at Butler Hospital, has f
helped in the gathering of data from ho,.nital patients. Miss Vera Toppi. depart- f 3. l
~
mental secretary at Butler Hospital, has by her loyalty, hard work and cheer-
ful interest aided us greatly.
At the University of Pittsburgh the authors wish to acknowledge the timely 4..
and kindly assistance of Dean Herbert Longenecker of the Graduate Scho~l,
and Professor Wayne Dennis, Head of the Department of Psychology.
Acknowledgment is made to the· American Journal. of Orthopsychiatry and 5.
to Dr. Lauretta Bender for permission to reproduce the Bender-Gestalt designs
and to quote from Dr. Bender's monograph. Permission was granted by the
Ronald Press and Dr. J. McV. Hunt to reproduce figure 2.
Permission was granted by the Journal ()J Abnormal and Social Psychol-
ogy to reproduce figures 6, 7 and 8.
.,
tGMENTS
CONTENTS
1ile the au- FOREWORD by David G. Wright, MJJ . ............................... . V
ef psychol-
PART I: QUANTIFICATION
f._ Ruggles,
~e Staff of 1. Introduction 3
tt. Special Historical review; theoretical approach.
r
(
his con- 2. Administration and Scoring .................................... . 10
'.eading of Test administration; directions, precautions; scoring; develop-
?ital, has " ment of scoring system, item analyses, weighting.
,i. depart- 3. Reliability .................................................. . 15
hd cheer- Scorer reliability, validity coefficients for two independent
scorers; test reliability; effect of practice
1e timely 4. Test Standardization .......................................... . 19
1 Scho_ol, Description of population; scores as a function of sex, drawing
ability, I.Q., age, and education; standard (Z) scores.
(ltry,-and 5. Test Validhy .......... -...................................... . 27
,designs Validity studies on matched groups, using raw scores; validity,
. by the using standard scores-population 474 normal adults and 356
adult psychiatric patients; study of test scores and Wechsler-
Bellevue scatter; study of prognostic indication from test scores;
'sychol- use of the Bender-Gestalt in following the course of electrocon-
vulsive therapy; use of the Bender-Gestalt as a screening device.
PART II: CLINICAL USE OF THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST

6: Introduction .............................................. ; .. . 39
7. The Records of Children and Those with Cortical Deficit ............ . 41
Records of children, discussion of the deviations in each of the
designs; comparison of records of mental defectives and of
individuals with cortical damage with the records of children.
8. The Bender-Gestalt Test and Psychogenic ·Disorders ................ . 67
Use of the Bender-Gestalt in clinical practice, discussion of
high-scoring records, of low-scoring records, and of fluctuation
of score on repetition of the test; some deviations as character-
istic of diagnostic category.
ix
II
X CONTENTS
APPENDIX
Tables 97
References 102
SCORING MANUAL
Introduction 107
Definitions and Evaluations of Scoring Deviations ..................... . ll0
Design 1 .................................................. . ll0
Design 2 ............. , ..................................... . ll7
Design 3 .................................................. . 126
Design 4 .................................................. . 134
Design 5 .................................................. . 148
Design 6 .................................................. . 159
Design 7 .................................................. . 179
Design 8 .................................................. . 193
" Configuration .............................................. . 202
Score Sheets .................................................... . 209
Atlas of Scored Records ........................................... . 221
INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
CONTENTS
..... 97
····· 102
· · ·.. 107
· · .. 110
.... 110
· · · · 117
.... 126
· · • · 134 LIST OF GRAPHS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
.... 148 .
· 159
_ .. 179 I. Designs of Bender-Gestalt test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
193 2. Differences in reaction times between normal controls and schizophrenics
202 related to complexity of task. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
20p 3. Bar graphs suggesting relationship between age and B-G score . . . . . . . . 23
221 4. Distribution of Z scores for normative population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
273 5. Ogives of nonpatients and patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6. Contrasting performance on two matched cases, with and without ECT . 33
7. B-G test scores and ECT ( case C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8. B-G test scores and ECT (case D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9. Desi~ I. Examples of children's drawings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
10. Desigri 2. Examples of children's drawings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
11. Design 3. Examples of children's drawings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
17. Record of mental defective: CA 17.--10; W-B I.Q. 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
18. Record of mental defective: CA 13-11; W-B I.Q. 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
19. Record of mental defective: CA 13-3; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
20. Record of mental defective: CA 32; W-B Performance l.Q. 80 . . . . . 59
21. Record of organic: CA 22; W-B I.Q. 99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
22. Record of same patient as in figure 21, after retraining . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
23. Record of organic: CA 22; W-B I.Q. 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
24. Record of patient as in figure 23, after retraining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
25. Record of organic: CA 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
26. Record of same patient, after clinical recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
27. Record of organic: CA 24; W-B I.Q. 94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
28. Record of patient before ECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
29. Record of same patient as in figure 28 after ECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
30. Record of manic-depressive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
31, Record of manic-depressive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
32. Record of schizophrenic (mixed type) .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. 73
I 33. Record of schizophrenic (unclassified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34. Record of schizophrenic (unclassified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
75
35. Record of psychotic, involutional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
36. Record of psychoneurotic (outpatient) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
xi
xii GRAPHS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
37. Record of psychoneurotic (outpatient) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

38. Record of nonpatient (high scoring) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
41. Record of schizophrenic, catatonic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
42. Record of same patient as in figure 41, second testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
43. Record of schizophrenic, catatonic, "improved" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
44. Record of manic-depressive, "improved" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
45. Record of psychotic, involutional, "improved" .................... , 85
46. Record of psychoneuroti-c (inpatient) , "improved" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4 7. Record of schizophrenic (unclassified) , "improved" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
48. Record of psychoneurotic (inpatient) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
49. Record of manic-depressive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
50. Record of same patient as in figure 49, at peight of manic excitement . . 88
51. Part of record of schizophrenic, paranoid ................ : . . . . . . . 88
52. Part of record of schizophrenic, paranoid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
53. Record of psychoneurotic (outpatient) with pronounced paranoid fea-
tures ........................................ ·........... 89
54. Record of psychoneurotic (outpatient) with paranoid features . . . . . . . . 90
55. Record of schizophrenic, paranoid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
56. a. Part of record of psycho neurotic (outpatient) with marked paranoid
features. b. Part of record of same patient, after psychotherapy 91
'. 57. Record of schizophrenic, paranoid, chronic, "well adjusted" to hospital 91
~
i
.
4--
1
LIST OF TABLES
. ..
Jfr: Frequency of deviations in item analysis population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Reliability of the scoring system . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. Sex, age, education, and mean raw score for nonpatient population . . . . . 19
4. Age and education and raw score means of patient population . . . . . . . . 27
5. Cumulative frequencies of patient and nonpatient population . . . . . . . . . 30
6. Children's raw B-G scores by design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7. Age norms fo"'r essential accuracy of reproduction (after Bender~ p.132). 43
8. Certain deviations of normal children, normal adults, and psychotics con-
trasted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9. Mean rank order of unpleasantness and mean number of deviations 68
APPENDIX TABI.ES
I. Item frequencies, weights, and phi~coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

II. Conversion table for those with high school education .... , . . . . . . . . . . 100
III. Conversion table for those with college education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
xiii
1J
,,
'.~
I
\
\t
PART I:
QUANTIFICATION
~\\e
\: ~
\r-_,,.·
..
)-;,·
tr
\ . -J/J'
.-,,,£~·~-~~J/i
·,
\
\
\ . ,(
C;j:_
{
~"'- ~""''\,.. , -c~--
1: INTRODUCTION
The Bend.er-Gestalt test consists of nine simple designs, each of which is

presented to a subject for him to copy on a sheet of paper. These designs,
a,long with several others, were originally used by Wertheim~r ( 51) in his
studies of visual perception. Dr. Lauretta Bender selected from Wertheimer's
I .dei,igns the nine shown in fig~-1;~-J'~cor~;;;iecr·these into ~ test for
I\
clinical use. 1 The results of her stud_ies. with the nine designs are presented
by her in a monograph, A Visual Motor Gestalt Test and Its Clinical Use,
i:~l~:::o~e
'-;·~-~-;-~_;':·i··•;.·
,·
\~!:
~~~-sp:~:; ;:: !su:l!~::::1 ~!s!:::~{ir~~:•b!:n!:~:.
to estimate m~~uration, intelligence, psychological disturba;;;-i~ ·and the ef-
fects -Qf _injury t~
''th~ c~rt;i:-,;ncl to fo1lowjlii ~«~_cts of ~.():r!yulsive t\ier-
~ ( 9, 11, 30, 39: 46). At least two manuals hav~ Been issued by the
armed services ( 4, 30). In 1946 in response to demand, Bender published
a separate manual of instructions ( 10). The test has come to be called
the Bender-Gestalt (B-G) or simply the Bender, and we shall adhere to that
usage.
Although the Bender-Gestalt test has, as we have indicated been exten-
sively used, the history of attempts at quantification is surprisingly meager.
S :cJ3ender, in her original monograph made some effort to quantify the records
4~f children, but her very suggestive approach was not carried on by other
. '~investigators. Hutt's study ( 30) presents several factors which, according to
·him, differentiate between the records of psychoneurotics and "normals."
,·/ Glueck (21 ), on the other hand, was unable to find differences between the
r records of normals and psychotics. Recently, in a fairly exhaustive study,
Billingslea attempted a rigidly objective approach to the measurement of
Bender-Gestalt performance ( 12). The variables used by Billingslea, how-
ever, indicated little validity when the records of normals and psychoneu-
rotics were compared. And except for a preliminary report of the work to
f 1
The test cards may be obtained from the American Orthopsychi;tric As-
~;sociation, New York.
if
~J 3
/r
4 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATION INTR1
be presented in this book ( 37), we know of no other published attempts to patie:

· quantify the Bender-Gestalt test. ,·
·: detai
The test has a considerable literature with respect to its use as a repetitive in th1
visuo-motor test. This literature is systematically reviewed by Bender ( 9) and differ
Billingslea ( 12), and we shall not consider it in any great detail here. Very . psycl
little published literature is available, however, about the use of the test as ; strurr
a diagnostic clinical instrument. A ml_meogra~~ed_E:J:~nu~__!>yJ!':!.!!.,, (30) sug- as a
1
gests some aspects of performance which are said by hi.pi to be of diagnostic
significance. Bender ( 9) illustrates the kinds of reproductions obtained from
1 tion
~one,
this t
Fie. I. Designs of the Bender-Gestalt test. 0
inflm
Scho1
A. rich i
it. w
tinue
tient~
1.
and 1
of d{
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 feasi]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 i
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i£: ~
while
0 0 0
it w~
2.
accm
betw,
lacke
the r
. p
3. appli
psyd
work
on tl
clinic
binec
mam
an at
L
.. devel
.... ·•- .
like
◊
~~
from
.
...
.:•
..
.• Cl
1
5 ••.
•' ' . 8• follo,
of th
~T: QUANTIFICATION INTRODUCTION 5
tblished attempts to patients of various diagnostic categories, but she does not, in any . great
~
i detail, discuss the drawings of adults with psychogenic disorders. Nowhere
~ use as a repetitive in the literature, as far as we know, is there a systematic presen~ation of the
;by Bender (9) and
differences in performance between the rec~rds of psychiatric patients with
lt
f,
detail
•
here.
.
Very psychogenic disorders and nonpatients. Use of this potentially valuable in-
~ use. of the test as
strument has, therefore, been handicapped by the lack of a backlog of data
t~iJ!~!!.,. (3oJ sug- as ·a basis for clinical experience. An important deterrent to _the accumula-
tito be of diagnostic ;, I tion of data has been the absence of a feasible method of scoring the test,
~r,,~
;3· t.
}}
obtained from
. ,~{;
1 one valid and not too time consuming. It was the necessity of accomplishing
k: this task which prompted the present research. ,
~k,Bender-Gestalt test. Our interest in the test began some years back under the enthusiastic
influence of Dr. Max Hutt who was then teaching at the Adjutant General
. t·
School, where the senior author was a student. For Dr. Hutt the test was
rich in interpretative value and he instilled in his students a deep interest in
it. With increasing· experience the test became a valuable clinical tool. Con.I/
tinned use of the test suggested that reproductions made by p_sychiatric pa-
tients tended to deviate more from the stimuli than those of nonpatients,
'
I,_,
and the more psychologically disturbed the patient the greater the number
of deviations. A quantitative approach along these lines, therefore, seemed .
fea~ible. A study accomplished in collaboration with Dr. Arthur Irion ( 5) /'/
while the sen'ior author was a member of the· armed services indicated that
it was possible to grade the B-G reproductions in terms of neatness and
accuracy of execution, and that such a grading distinguished significantly
between the reproductions of patients and nonpatients. Although this study
lacked some obvious controls the results were encouraging and suggested
the possibility of a method of scoring the test, hitherto lacking.
Presentation of the scoring method developed and results obtained by its
application to the re~ords of normal adults ( nonpatients) and adults with
psychogenic disorders . ( psychiatric patients) is the primary purpose of this
work. The book is divided into three parts. Part I presents quantitative data
on the reliability, validity, and standardization of the test. Part II is a
clinical section in which the quantitative and qualitative approaches are com-
bined in the consideration of the individual case. Part III contains the
manual proper, where methods of scoring each deviation are presented, and
an atlas of scored records.
In the course of administering several hundred B-G tests we naturally

developed some ideas about the functions measured by the test. We should
like to present these for what they are worth and relate them to evidence
from other sources.
The theoretical assumptions which guided Bender are stated by her as J l
follows ( 9; p. 3): "The Gestalt function may be defined as that function
of the integrated organism whereby it responds to a given constellation of
t '-~;:_;:t~·: ·<~~~r~·-
,,.
6 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATION
stimuli as a whole; the response itself being a constellation, a pattern, or

Gestalt." Later, in the same volume, she writes (p. 4): "The whole setting
of the stimulus and the whole integrative state of the organism determine
\ \ the pattern of the response,"
We would, in general, agree with this formulation. The overwhelming
mass of clinical evidence gathered with the Rorschach test has served to
fashion current opinion regarding the positive effects of experience on re-
sponses to perceived stimuli ( 36 I. To substantiate this view a good deal of
experimental evidence. has been forthcoming ( 13, 32, 33, 40). Study of the
drawings of psychiatric patients has a considerable history, and the evidence
available suggests that when these are compared with those of norrpal con- .
r ~ trols discriminating differences can be found ( 2, 3, 22). Thus, one would
expect that o~. ,./!. task such as copying 8-::.G..~eg@§..,. . p.etlormaii.iie,~liould:~<:>t
~f
on1y-,;~~-·, t·r~~cti'7:~ the .. individual's c_apacity to pe~ceive correctly and
"!..;· '
:?, .
·'
L
;~·~~~"i~' the figures p11t -also. of the indiy{ef~!~~:i~1~!pr~t~ti~n of them, i.;. /

-f f w~atJhey .an.q the t~§k mean to him· in th~ Hght of_ his own experience.
If we accept as given the ability to perceive and execute the designs,
deviant performance should, then, be a function of the interpretative fac-
tors which obtrude between perception and execution. It is this aspect of
perf~mance that we wish to consider.
>'Prolonged psychological stress often results in a disturbed organism. This_
disturbanc~, measured in term~• of deviations from normative .data, is re- · ·'f:i
fleeted at several levels of organismic functioning. Hoskins ( 26) and Gellhorn .'.I.I•··
. .~.
( 20) discuss this subject at the physiological level. More specifically, and ..
representative of studies in this area, Hoagland et al ( 25) have shown a '?'
I
, ! disturbed lymphocyte reaction in psychotics. At a different level of organ- J Fie.
ismic functioning there is evidence to indicate disturbed reaction time in ~1·.,..
psychogenic as well as so-called organic disorders ( 29). Deviations from the

number of popular responses on the Rorschach and Word Association tests :' We~
----..........-__.,
::;o:t:;n:o:~::~;n:!i:s~ce~::;~c;::::~:.~:~;:v~:~;a~::e::dW:~~:;it~a:~ ii! longing c
of compl
psychological disturbances ( 38, 42). It seems, therefore, that when the or- j on them,
ganism is disturbed by psychogenic factors the disturbance can often be if in wheth,
measured at various levels of the response mechanism. We shall postulate, j complexi
however, that where syµiptoms are predominatly psychological, disturbances { executio11
in cortical functioning tend to be more prominent than disturbances at other, plexity, i
lower levels of functioning. produced
To illustrate our point we present a figure prepared by Hunt and Cofer di scrim in
(27) from data in papers by Huston, Shakov, and Riggs (28,29). In figure 2, out in ac
the origin of the ordinate is the average time for the normal reaction. The in their ,
bars represent the differences in milliseconds between the mean times of Bend
schizophrenics and controls for reactivity at three levels of complexity. We of the ef
PANTIFICATION
7
la pattern, or ' , here, that as complexity of reaction increases from latency of patellar
i whole setting don reflex to visual discrimination the difference in response time between
lism determine rmal controls and schizophrenics becomes increasingly greater. Unfortu-
ely for niceness of representation, data on strictly comparable populations
' overwhelming not available for more complex responses so that, for instance, we could
:has served to along the same abscissa differences on the word association test. Available
.erience on re- ence (27), however, indicates that extrapolation from the trend indicated
l good deal of ·gure 2 is warranted if the baseline is accepted as representihg a con-
~·- \udy of the of increasing complexity of task.
. .il trie evidence
?f normal con-
1:us, one would
nc.i:,-.:w~uild~.uQt
- !o correctly and 400
i. of them, i.;:
300_
~ experience.
ie the ?esigns, I I 200
:rpretahve fac- ,, .§
·this aspect of :1 100
'~
o.___..___
prganism. This I IC Q)
.!? E
c,j Q)
r,e ·data, is re- ~·- -~ E

-
1
"CJ·-
Cl)-
a: Ji
) and Gellhorn >
>ecifically, and f
:have shown a
level of organ:·
Fie. 2. Differences in reaction times· between normal controls and
action time in
schizophrenics related to complexity of task.
~tions from the
ssociation tests
We would suggest that execution of the B-G test is a complex task be-
il writers have longing out to the right on the baseline of a theoretical figure 2 in terms
nd se_verity of
of complexity of task. Its position on the baseline, however, would depend
t when the or-
on the measures used to estimate the response. Thus, if we- are only interested
. can often be
in whether or not the essential Gestalten are reproduced. then the level of
shall postulate,
complexity of the task is not as high as it would be if finer nuances of
l, disturbances execution were taken into consideration. At this relatively low level of com-
,ances at other
' plexity, i.e. measurement of whether or not the essential Gestalten are re-
produced, the test would, according to our theoretical figure 2, have less
[unt and Cofer
discriminating power for psychogenic disorders. This expectation is borne
;) ) • In figure 2, out in actual practice" All of the designs of the test are correctly reproduced,
l reaction. The
in their essential aspects, by the age of eleven years ( 9).
mean times of
Bender ( 9), in her original monograph, gives several clinical examples
:omplexity. We
of the effect of cortical damage on the reproduction of the Gestalt designs.
f With increasing damage to the cortex there seems to be greater disturbance ,'.beviat
(' in reproductive capacity resulting in primitivation of forms and destruction i;ducti
\ of the Gestalten. She also presents data showing the effect of maturation on ti score
\ the reproduction of the designs. Stainbrook and Lowenback ( 46) admi.~ (1;,er Pf
) istered the test at various intervals after convulsive therapy and have shown l0)iine
~r:,
t,
/ that reproductions parallel the postconvulsive reintegration of the organis•JO.• Ff to
/ Pascal and Zeaman ( 39) administered the test to several patients 24 hm '.~s ?/we I
/ after shock and were able to demonstrate that mounting confusion durin{ \; a i' of
~ series of electroconvulsive. treatments was paralleled by deviant performa: :nee ~ 1 is :
\ on the test. Orenstein and Schilder ( 35), and Schilder ( 44) used the r~s\ ,_ 'i?ses •
) immediately after insulin reaction, and after Metrazol convulsion, and foun~. ·;i ____ jti•&~Y to
I dis_turbances as follows: persev~ra.tion, substitut~on of circles and loops. or j. •.\·. s·a.y. t.h·.. at.... c
f.
pomts, curves for angles, rotation and separation of parts of the Gestalt. t ,~ ~cores. Tl
In the light of this evidence, we believe that an essential aspect of cortical s •r, thought o
functioning is reflected in performance on the B-G test. Reproductions re- ':': ego--streni
~
Y suiting in £rl:lg!Ilentation, destruction or primitiv~tion of the Gestalten are :~"'1~":''·sig~i
I regularly-~btain~d-from· ·children below the ~g~ of six, from patients im:.. to get lo,
--~ediately after convulsive therapy, fr~m brain-damaged individuals, paret- :~~ patients 1
, ics, and seniles; in other words, ~herever there is .. cort.ical defich QI; dl!II1ag~::~~1 We rr
Thus, measurement at the level of complexity indicated by estimation of j ciently cl
whethe: _or no~ t~e ~sse~tial Gestalten _ar~ re~roduced does not seem to be
of suff1c1ent d1scnmmatmg power to d1stmgmsh between normal adults and ti etc., the
I to the coi
those with psychogenic disorders. Adults of normal intelligence without known ~,,;. the hight
cortical damage do not, in our experience, fail to reproduce the essential •: viations 1
Gestalten. Deviations from the stimuli in these latter individuals do not" ' to believ
seem to be a function of ability to perceive or execute the designs. We data will
believe, therefore, that what is being measured by us in the scoring of the indicated
B-G of individuals of normal intelligence is some factor other than the normal i
ability to perceive or execute the designs. (We shall show later that scores ual's atti
are not a function of drawing ability.) integrafr
" We may think of B-G performance as a work sample, which involves
f
/ . ,,certainly the cortical
"-'· -. •
capacity
.
to perceive the designs as ·presented and the
{ V ,,. psychomotor capacity to reproduce them; but it involves also, and most
\ \ important!! with subjec~s of normal int~llige~ce, a facto~ t~a_t seems to be
\ best described as __ an attlmde._ The test situation for the md1v1dual, once he
/ is subjected to it, becomes a hit of reality with which. he has to cope. We
/ would expect, therefore, that in those persons in whom the attitude toward
\ reality is most disturbed, we will find greater deviations from the stimuli.
Our findings corroborate this expectation. In the populations tested by us,
of normal intelligence and free from brain damage, the greatest number of
deviations were found in psychotic subjects, fewer in psychoneurotic sub-
jects, and least in nonpatients.
f
i
tfEST: QUANTIFICATION /JDUCTION 9
~e greater disturbance Jeviations from B-G stimuli in our scoring system run from faithful
!forms and destruction J,ductions with low scores to extremely deviant reproductions with very
(Hect of maturation on (; scores. This continuum is correlated with a progression from less to
renbac_k ( 46) admi?-- \l,'\' ;Ler psychol~gical disturbance. Clinical observation and objective tests
~rapy and have shown -- '"'{':/ ?iine to suggest that this progression is, in turn, correlated with decreasing
ttion of the organis· tu• / f \Y to respond adequately to stimuli _in the environment. ( By adequately
~ral paftients 24 ho1 lfS .)we mean withi.n the confines of statistical norms.) !his enabling ,ca-
·-•-.'·-f_-·_:::·; ,•·,_;~
\g con usion durinr ·; a. -~ 1 '-t of the organism, i.e. t6 respond adequately to stimuli in the environ-
\ :.?eviant performa, nee \,;{ ;;~i is sometimes referred to tl~~~~ f~.11~ti()n_ <?L"~~~~~~o ( 1). If, for the y,,.,
i•, \l 44) used the test -X \,jses of this discussion, we limit our definition of ego functioning to the
0
( nvulsion, and foun-..'. ·, ,jl' ~,•J:i:<>~Y to reproduce faithfully the B-G drawings as presented, then we may
circles and loops for ' say that ego strength· lies on,,, a continuum from very low to very high B-G
parts of the Gestalt. scores. This quantitative continuum may, then, in ~ .x~ry limited. way,"'"be 11·-.
~al aspect of cortical :t thought of as an ~spect .of ~g<:> strengflJ,=-~he Io;~; t~~-,~~?re the greater the
!.t. Reproductions re- \ _eg<f:~tferigtfj~-To substantiate this hypothesis we
find, for instance, thaCtliere"'
~f the Gestalten are l i,"It;· ; i g ~ t tendency for those patients who improved with hospital care
~~ from patients im~ f to get lower B-G scores when tested on admission to the hospital than those
~ __ in~ividuals, paret- I patients who seem not to have improved.
d deficit or da,m,age. ~~ We may, for the moment, recapitulate. The evidence is, we think, suffi- ''t
ted by estimation of - "i ciently clear so that we may make the statement that the greater the damage :
loes not sedem}tto he ~ to the cortex through convulsive theraphy, amen tia, lackd of maturati~n, trauma, r_':_>r
1 1
norma a u s and it etc., the greater the deviations from t e stimu1us, an on our scormg system ?
;ence without known i the higher the score on the B-G test. What may not he so clear is that de- \
'oduce the essential
,individuals do not~
f
, viations resulting in high scores are also a function of what we have reason Ji
'to believe is attitude toward the task. These latter deviations are, as our
te, the designs. We
I the scoring of the
tor other than the
(w later that scores
1
Ii
data will show, a function of the severity of psychological disturbance as
: indicated by diagnostic category (We believe that deviations in individuals of''
normal intelligence without demonstrable brain damage refiect the individ-
ual's attitude toward reality. This attitude we believe to be a function of the
,I integrative capacity of the organism, the ego. · _
,le, which involves ~ : ~
i{'
:presented and the ,-·:i
es also, and most Y1
· that seems to be
ndividual, once he
1 has to cope. We
ie attitude toward
· from the stimuli.
tons tested by us,
· reatest number of
ychoneurotic sub-
-·l , rim
lbeen
\:Jop:
~; of
f
'-'~/ .iun~·.· it t
'
.:\. ibject
·er' ...-r
·,:c ·0;,,_···&:xpla11
2: ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING :i :t:.:

·t.,.,JJ~bject
with some
Test Administration about eras
are handle
In order to reproduce the results to be reported in this book it is neces- on request
sary, insofar as possible, to adhere to the same general setting as well as as a guide
The ni1
instructions used by us. If, as we suspect, the test is measuring, among other
things, the subject's attitud~ toward the task, then the general situation under presented·
which the test is administered becomes an important variable to control. have been
The test is administered to each subject individually in a room free the other
from distr;~-ting stimuli. The general tone of the setting is such as to imply subject is
Since time
a serious test of the subject's capacity. This caution is important because th~
' very ease with which the test is administered and accepted, i.e., the fac~ the time c
take aboul
· that it is so innocent appearing, may easily induce a careless ''i.t doesn't
10 minute
mean anything" attitude. One worker, for instance, attempted to gather re-
ings.
cords from individuals in a waiting ro·om, asking them for help in this simple
DurinE
task. The designs were reproduced with so little care that they had to be
in which
discarded as obviously not representative.
deviations
The, methpd of administration, in general, follows that proposed by Bender
( 10) and Hutt ( 30), ·but with some important :moclific~tforis. The s~bject is !f Usually o
seated at a table, given a blank white piece of paper, 8½ X 11, ancfa- sh~rp ':I the same
jects will
pointed pencil with an eraser. T~_e table top should be hard-surfaced and ·ij
-smooth, free from indentations or scratches which will be reflected in the f an arrow
drawings. The subject is told that he is to copy nine designs or figures. It J rotating t]
is important to- tell the subject the number of designs he is to copy so that_ :I made afte
he may plan the size and arrangement; deviations in ordering the designs i ',)
ft
on the page are scored. o;\ Scoring
Subjects should also be told not to sketch the designs, but to make -
1 The r,
\ , ~ing!e-line drawings. This instruction is· obviously important for people with j tors: ~a)
training in drawing. Thus, if a skilled artist is told to reproduce the designs
reliability
he may, without this instruction, and with painstaking care, exactly reproduce
making£,
the stimuli.
IO
i
I
isTRA TION AND SCORING 11
'{ \-:,) u! instructions are not rigid. Something like the following has gen-
\ Jbeen-used: ''l have here nine. simple designs ( or figures )which you
f copy, free hand, without sketching-on this paper. Each design is
·tf of these cards which I will show you one at a tim~. There is no
'l '.~it to this test."
,. <\ ibjects will frequently ask the examiner what he means by "sketching."
·~-fi ': t,::xplanation here has been that sketching refers to the little lines that
~ 's sometimes use to outline a drawing before making solid lines, .or
.r \J ·7thing on that order. In general,· however, ·questions about actual per-

t {\ 1ance are referred back to the subject for his own judgment. Thus, if
.-h·"'~bject asks, "Do I have t. o count the dots?" the examiner should counter
with something like, "It's up to you," or "Just as you please." Questions1
about erasing, using both sides of the paper or additional sheets of pape~ .,.
f· are handled in the same way, the subject being provided with more pape~ V
i book it is neces- J on request. The subject is not allowed to use a ruler or any such objecd
setting as well as j as a guide for his drawing. ·
rring, among other l,;, The nine designs are numbered as shown in figure 1. Designs are always
,ral situation under i presented to the subject oriented as shown in figure 1. After the instructions
iable to control. i have been given, and the· subj~ct's questions answered, he is given design A,
r. in a room free ;f the other cards being held face down. Upon completion of design A, the
~ such· as to imply ~ subject is given design 1 and sq on until he has copied all nine designs.
i:>rtant because the .1_· Since time is not a factor in scoring we have not systematically recorded
fact
. ited, i.e., ·the J the time on all our subjects, but our experience has been that_no~patients
~eless ''it doesn't· ~ ._ take about five minutes or less to complete the test. Patients average about
Jted to gather re- J 10 minutes, some patients taking as long as one-half hour to copy the draw-
l
ielp in this simple mgs.
t they had to he During the administration of the test it is important to note the direction
ii in which the paper is held. Orientation of designs o;n the page as well as
,t
oposed by Bender
I deviations are scored. The top of the page is usually indicated by an arrow.
is. The s~bject is
;): Usually one arrow suffices since most subjects keep the paper oriented in, _,
~;
i'· .- ._,.-?
£11, and a· sharp the same direction for all nine drawings. Occasionally, however, some sub . . '~/
.ard-surfaced and
: reflected in the
;ns or figures. It
I -~
... ~
jects will turn the paper to fit in a drawing. This fact should be :Qoted by:
a~ arrow as suggested. Subjects will sometimes rotate the card or without
rotating tne card invert their drawing. This fact is noted. Such xiotations are
; to copy so that made after the subject completes the test.
. :ring the designs,
Scoring
!8, hut to make
: for people with The reproducibility of our results depends primarily on two broad fac-
duce the designs tors: ~a) the testing situation which we have already disscused, and ( b I the
xactly reproduce reliability of the scoring system. We shall, in this section, consider factors
making for reliability in scoring.
,
--- -- ~- -~- ~ ~ :~. ., .
12 !HE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATION
The scoring procedure is simple, perhaps even deceptively simple. With

the exception of design A which is not scored, each design is inspected to
determine whether or not scorable deviation;- occur. Scorable deviations are
defined in the scoring manual. The deviations to be scored are given on the pm
score sheet with their assigned weights. Scores are accumulated by designs, e S(
plus the scores which have to do with the test as a whole, called Con/iguratwn , fin
Scores, and a final raw score obtained. The raw score is then taken to the of p
appropriate conversion table ( depending on the subject's education) and a Z ·. and
score obtained. With practice it takes about two or three minutes to score :d to
a record. ,ose c
The Score sheet or some such device is important. ( See page 209 for a-,~ - "' · r,~. Jy 201
copy of the score sheet). It has_ been found that with increasing famff ., ity · .· been retai
with the scoring manual it becomes progressively easier to overlook sco1, '..'.ile occurred t
deviations without having at hand a check list such as is provided by the on the ba:
score sheet. We have, typically, had at hand when doing a great amount of practically
scoring, a transparent combination ruler, a protractor, and a six-power mag- abac pres•
nifying glass. These were occasionally used to check on questionable angular modificati1
rotation or fine tremor. They were not, however, necessary for reasonably ac- deviation
curate scoring, assuming normal eyesight. peared for
The term "reasonably accurate" is used deliberately. We do not claim given the
our scori;ng method to be entirely objective. It depends, as a matter of fact, A fina·
a good deal upon judgment; but judgment, which we have found can easily records of
... be selftaught with the aid of the manual provided. Each scorable deviation from first
is defined in the manual accompanied by appropriate illustrations. These age, educ1:
should be studied until thoroughly understood. The beginner should then whom wer
attempt to score the several illustrative records given in the manual and shows the
compare his scores with those given. Where Judgment is a factor in scoring, weights as
subjective certainty is emphasized, i.e., when in doubt do not score. Thus, Perhaf
for instance, design 1 which consists of a horizontal line of 12 dots is scored In weighti
for wavy line ( item 1). We might have defined this in terms of angular occurred r
deviation from the straight edge of a ruler. We did not. We scored by only in th
inspection in a small fraction of the time it would take to make the necessary ought to l:
measurements ( a fine discrimination, indeed, considering the grossness of our nonpatient
criteria! ) . When, then, does a line become a wavy line and scored? We aim ing has th
for a communality of , judgment by the use of illustrations, and for safety roughly p
add the caution when in doubt do not score. satisfied tl
The scoring system is practical. It is not, however, as we have stated~ the diagno
entirely objective or rigidly accurate in measurement. It is most certainly
not foolproof. Training, therefore, is essential. It is necessary to understand
what is meant by each deviation. It is necessary to study the manual thor- Table
oughly and to work through the sample records before attempting to use the simple
the scoring system in actual practice. Investigation has shown that thorough calculated
. ---- '
\
~
r. . .-r-~--,-:-
t
!
I'
r
f;
l.!
&
~t
[: QUANTIFICATION
f . RATION AND SCORING 13
' ',
~vely simple. With i

i i the manual leads to reasonable reliability m scoring when score
gn is inspected to !
• ue used.
thle deviations are
~ are given on the 1 J .J pment of Scoring System
plated by designs,
I e scoring methods described in the manual are based entirely on em-
fHed Configuration
['.then taken to the { , findings. The reproductions of psychiatric patients were compared to
.. ; i of presumably normal individuals. In thus comparing records of "nor- \
~ucation) and a Z
_i' i__ and "abnormals" it was found that the -~~normal individuals generally !'
ij minutes to score
// !d t~ __devtate from the stimu_h1!5_ more than __pgrmals. A list was made 1
t\ ' . 1
,, ' 7 iose deviations which seemed to discriminate between the two groups.
;;e' page
209 for . l). ••. -
r~sirtg famiH' ,, hy · ··w-.. -.i!Y 200 deviations were tried at one time or another. Of these 105 have
;:overlook scoL 0le been ·retained either on the basis of an item analysis, or, if a deviation
i provided by the
occurred too infrequently for q~antitative estimate of its discriminating power,
l great amount of on the basis of the fact that the deviation occurred only with patients and
practically never with nonpatients. Phi coefficients were calculated from an
,a six-power mag-
[stionable angular abac presented by Guilford ( 23). Weights were given on the basis of a
tor reasonably ac- modification of an . abac for weights given by Guilford ( 23). Where the
deviation occurred too infrequently to •calculate the phi coefficient, and ap•
We do not claim peared for our population only in the records of patients, this deviation was
a matter of fact given the maximum weight.
' ' A final item analysis ( the third) was accomplished on the basis of the
:found can e~ily
;:orable deviation records of 260 nonpatients varying in age from 15 to 50 and in education
µstrations. These from first year high school to college graduate. These were matched for
iner should then age, education, and sex by the records of 260 psychiatric patients,· 110 of
ithe manual and whom were psychotics and 150 psychoneurotics. Table I in the Appendix
;actor in scoring, shows the frequency ~f occurrence, phi coefficient ( where calculated) and
pot score. Thus, weights assigned to the items.
· ~2 dots is scored Perhaps a word should be said here in defense of the practice of weighting.
frms of angular In weighting items we were guided by the fact that so many deviations
. We scored by occurred rather infrequently, yet when they did they were invariably found
~e the necessary only in the records of patients. It seemed to us, then, that such deviations
grossness of our ought to have more weight than those which occurred both in patients and
scored? We aim nonpatients although occurring less frequently in the latter group. Weight-
•· and for safety ing has the spreading effect of multiplying by a constant, the weight being
roughly proportionate to the discriminating power of the item. We are
we have stated, satisfied that for our population weighting has had the effect of increasing
'most certainly the diagnostic validity of our scores for the individual case.
Y to understand
le manual thor-
Table 1 summarizes the findings of our item validity study. It shows
empting to use
the simple frequency of scored deviations for each design. Chi-square was
n that thorough
calculated on the assumption of a 50-50 hypothesis, i.e., that there is no
\
14 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATbN
difference between the patient and nonpatient populations with resr With
frequency of deviations. For each design, and for the total test, this red to
esis is rejected, based on the significance of chi-square. s are
n the
igns,
1tion
the
aZ
Table 1 wre
Frequency of Deviations in Item Anal'}'sis Populations
(260 Nonpatients, 260 Psychiatric Patients)
Freque11cy
Design Non-pt. Pt. x2 p
1 126 251 42.22 < .01

2 165 321 50.07 < .01 to
3 199 323 118.90 <.01
4 224 410 54.57
je•
<.01
5 237 414 48.74 <.01 lil
6 189 424 89.17 <.01 SC
7 219 485 100.50 <.01
8 195 404 73.75 <.01
n
Whole 63 136 27.66 <.01
Total 1617 3168 501.98 <.01
s
I
Table 2
Reliability of the Scoring Systems
(r= .90, N= 120) (40 nonpatients,
40 neurotics and 40 psychotics)
Scorer A Scorer B
q
"if-i Mean Total 33.1 29.3
-T!
t·J
rI s. D. Total 20.3 19.2
il rbis
!~1
~~j
normal versus psychotic .79 .76
:•-,!.
~-'.!
l1 rbis
:;•J
;,~ normal versus neurotic .71 .70
r bis
neurotic versus psychotic .39 .32
3: RELIABILITI
In encountering the problem of reliability we were faced with the net

to estimate not only the reliability of the test, but also, because of its s1;
jective nature, the reliability of the scoring system-the two being, of cour
interdependent. We shall deal with the relatively simple task of estimati
scorer reliability first, and then take up the more difficult problem of f
reliability.
Scorer Reliability
To get some estimate of the reliability of the scoring system 120 reco
not previously used in any study, were collected. These consisted of
nonpatients, 40 patients diagnosed neurotic, and 40 diagnosed psychotic
identifying markings were removed from the test records a~d they
shuffied. The records were then scored by each of the authors in tur
reliability coefficient of .90 was obtained with a mean raw score of 33.
scorer A and 29.3 for scorer B. In order to ascertain whether or no
difference between means reflected an important difference in the dis,
nating power of the scoring system, biserial correlation coefficients we1
culated for · both scorers between normal and psychotic, normal anc
rotic, and neurotic and psychotic. There were no significant differenc
tween the validity coefficients. Table 2 shows these data.
These resul_ts s11ggest that although there were minor deviations
sco~i~g for the two scorers,' these did not, in general, affect the :
· validity for the population tested. The re~ults, also, confirm those o'
in previous studies, elsewhere described (31 ). On the basis of three d
studies of scorer reliability involving three different pairs of sco:
believe that a reliability coefficient of .90 represents a fair estimatf
scorer reliability which can be attained with practice. Experience ha
that in order to achieve scoring reliability, careful study of the
Manual is required with special attention being paid to illustrative
15
-----~---------------------------- --------
We have found that when this is done and the 25 completed records provided
in the Manual are scored in agreement with the given scores the beginning
scorer can attain reasonable reliability. By reasonable, here, we mean re-
liability such that there is no significant difference between the validity co-
efficients-- of two independent scorers.
Test Reliability
The problem of the reliability of a test which purports to be a measure
of -something which is correlated with whether a -person is a psychiatric
patient or not is a difficult one. It depends on what variables are being
measured. Billingslea ( 12), in a very detailed objective approach to measure-
ment of Bender performance, found little test reliability. If we measure only
the aspects of performance which have to do with whether or not the subject
reproduces the essential Gestalt ( e.g., makes twelve dots for design l, produces
_two crossed hexagons for design 7, etc.) then test-retest reliab_ility is perfect.
But, if we include in our score all the deviations which we have found to
be related to the patient-nonpatient dichotomy, then our reliability coeffi-
cients seem to fluctuate with a number of variables, some of which we know
about.
_The test seems to be measuring some aspect of behavior which is related
to the dichotomy, psychiatric patient vs. nonpatient, which we assume to be
a continuum. That there is intra-individual variation on this continuum is
obvious; psychiatric patients were not always thus. Various experiences can
affect a given person's position on this continuum, such as, threat of loss of
position, family strife-in fact, all the things which make for psychiatric
illness. Scored performance, then, is affected by experiences, which may
intervene between test and retest, if we use the test-retest method of esti-
mating reliability.
_ If this test is measuring adjustment, attitude toward reality, or what
have you ( we only know that scores are correlated with a patient-nonpatient
dichotomy), then the more stable the individual, presumably, the more apt
he is to score the same from day to day. This expectation is, in general,
borne out by our findings. If we give the test daily over a period of several
days to two patients, one of whom is excited and fluctuating in his adjust-
ment and during his course in the hospital undergoes a series of electro-
convulsive treatments, and the other of whom although somewhat excited
upon admission soon settles down to the hospital routine and is fairly stable
in his adjustment, -we obtain from the first a fluctuating graph of perform-
ance, and from the second, a fairly stable graph ( see Chapter 4). We have
found, in general, that subjects who score low on the test tend to give the
i
same performance ( same score) on successive testing. Thus, for instance,
\:\
i
I
RELIABILITY · 17
test-crete~!. ~~iWy)s high~~ f~OIJ-B,,,at~~!}tS~ !ha~ ~.!., is for :uati~nts} tiigh_ei: ...,
-for low- scoring normals than for high scorin_g normals. _ -
-..Most of the "methods -of ~stimatingtest ~eliability have" been tried by us.
Thus, several splittings of odd-even design comparisons were tried resulting-
in generally unsatisfactory reliability coefficients. For in~tance, desigry.; 1, 3, 5,
and 7 were correlated against designs 2, 4, 6, and 8 ~h-~9._'.Lc.ollege students
yielding a coefficient of .51. The difficulty here, of course, is that the subjects'
tend to react differently to each design. (We shall have something to say
about this in a later section.) ·This same difficulty argues against the use of
methods advocated_ by Richardson & Kuder ( 43). Therefore, in spite of its
obvious drawbacks we have decided--upon the test-retesf method for report-
ing reliability. We selected a ~oup of normals (nonpatients) with a wide
:range of test scores, covering, in fact, the entire range of normal scores.
This_ emphasis upon range is necessary i£ the reliability coefficient is to have
any meaning in actual practice, for, as we have noted, the reliability coeffi-
cient can be made to vary with the "adjustment" of the subjects of th~
population. Forty-four subjects ranging in raw scores on initial test from
3 to 42 and in education from first year high school to graduate school
were given the test twice with an interval of 24 hours elapsing between
tests. When these test scores were correlated a reliability coefficient of .71 was
obtained with a raw score mean of 17.3 for test one and 17.5 for test two.
We report this particular study as representative of several attempJs ;it test-
refest reliability which we have made.
As one would expect, of course, testLetest reliability decreases with an
increasing time interval between test and retest. As an extreme in time interval
we retested 23 normal subjects after 18 months, correlated their scores and
obtained a reliability coefficient of .63.
As test reliabilities go our reliability coefficient is not high. It is attenuated,
of course, by the fact that scorer reliability is not perfect. Consideration,
however, of the factors that can intervene between test and retest and what,
in actual fact, our test is measuring, leads one to a new view of the sig-
nificance of the testLetest reliability coefficient obtained. Although as a
reliability coefficient, per se, it is not high, we suggest that it indicates a
remarkable consistency of individual adjustment. As users of the test we
have not been primarily concerned with reliability as long as validity has
been maintained. We do not, in reporting this data on reliability, £eel that
we have arrived at an accurate estimate of the reliability of the test.
The Effect of Practice.

We find it diffi~ult to make any positive statements about the effect of
practice. The same factors influencing test reliability are also, of course,
. ·:~ f ';,/" 7. ~ . m .
(
important here. Thus, we have found, as we have noted, no practice effect

with low scoring normals. With a subject with a raw scoreoT 3, fo~ i~stance,
"I
..::
~thefe-ls a surprisiri.g·~-;~;i;tency of pei-formanc~ over several days. Yet, some
n~~.a. Js., d... ep~ndii:ig_ upgr~ JheiE ~tthude to t~~ t11s~,
will fluctuate ~daily ,
:e,~~r~an~e. Thus, one normal scored 30 on the first test and 16 on the
retest, another scored 18 on test and 20 on retest. When, for instance, we
compare mean scores for our test-retest population we find no effect of
practice.
Since our scores, as we shall show, are not a function of drawing ability
one would not expect on logical grounds that score would be affected by
practice. Scores depend on essential duplication of the stimuli, not on nicety
of drawing~ Within the limits of ou1/ scoring, therefore, it is difficult to see
how practice of the psychomotor functions involved, of themselves, could
affect the individual's score. On these and other grounds we believ~ .that
changes in perfonnance as reflected in scores are a function of something
other than practice, except, of course, insofar as practice in the testing situa-
tion is a factor. We would recommend the use of the test wherever_ repeated
performances on a psychomotor task are required. We shall show, in a later
section, such use of the test.
-t
:es-
,ex.
4: TEST STANDARDIZATION
Having set up a fairly reliable method of scoring B-G records, with some
notion of the validity and reliability of the scoring method, we now set about
collecting normal records. With the exception of 84 records obtained from
college undergraduates and 56 from a graduating high school class, all of the
records were obtained either from Butler Hospital employees or from stu-
dents attending adult evening classes in various schools and universities in
Providence. 1 Four hundred and seventy-four individually administered records
were thus obtained. We were fortunate in being able to obtain one hundred
percent samples for all the evening classes tested. Table 3 shows our norma-
tive population, giving sex, age, education, and mean raw B-G scores.
Table 3
Sex, Age, Education and Mean Raw Score For Nonpatient Population
High School College

Women Men Age Total Women Men Age Total
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Age N N N N N N
Score Score Score Score Score Score
15-19 50 18.5 34 19.8 84 19.0 9 12.3 12 11.3 21 11.7

20-24 51 17.7 32 18.2 83 17.9 21 15.9 81 12.7 102 13.3
25-29 16 14.9 24 15.8 40 15.5 6 6.2 38 12.9 44 12.0
30-34 11 16.1 19 17.4 30 16.9 4 12.3 14 12.9 18 11.5
35-39 10 17.3 5 27.6 15 20.7 4 18.0 12 13.2 16 14.6
40-44 6 19.0 5 20.6 11 19.7 1 12.0 1 1.0 2 12.5
45-50 4 17.5 4 17.7 8 17.6 - - - - , - -
Totals 148 17.6 123 18.5 271 18.0 45 13.7 158 12.5 203 12.7
S. D. 9.4 8.8
Median 15.0 10.0

Q1-Q.1 11 - 24 6 - 18
1Thanks are due to Mr. Balch, Dean of the R.I. School of Design; Y.M.C.A.;
Dr. Wood, Principal of Hope High School; and various instructors of the Brown
University Extension Division.
19
•
We are unable to state, whether or not our population is representative

of a larger population for the Providence area. We know that we have sam-
pled a wide range of vocations, religious backgrounds, and nationality groups
in obtaining records from night classes of various kinds. Strictly speaking, of
course, our results are only applicable to our population, but then they would
be of little practical use. Credence in the applicability of our results derives
from two s~f,)ositions. On the one hand, previous studies suggest a fairly siz-
able proportion of the "normal" population to be in need of psychiatric .assist-
ance and therefore possible psychiatric patients, the very dichotomy on which
our· estimate of validity is based ( 17). {This fact may, in part, a_ccount for
the positive skewness of the frequency curve shown in figure 4.) On the
I
J
:::,::!~.... other hand, we have reason to believe that the selective process making for
attendance at some night school classes tested by us, and included in our
normal population, has as a characteristic an increased B-G score. Thus, for a
.·'f:
night cla!,S in "personality" consisting of 34 individuals, the mean raw score
was considerably above the average· for a comparable group not attending the
"personality" class or other night classes in psychology. We believe, in other
words, that our population may underestimate the larger population of com-
parable age and "education. This point is, however, debatable, and, in the end,
...
the representativeness of our sample must await confirmation. It is for this
reason that we have presented our normative data in raw score form hoping
that it· may serve as a basis for comparison for other workers with other
populations.
A glance at table 3 wi1l show that our data is particularly lacking in re-
cords for the age groups 40-50. {We have a few records of individuals of
ov€_:r 50 which we shall discuss later.)· There are, in all, only 21 cases for this
age group. Another lack in our normative population is that of data on people
of only grammar school education. We were able to obtain a few records but
not enough to include in our population; most were above the age of 50. For
eight subjects of only grammar school education with a mean age of 37 we
obtained a mean B-G score of 19.6, with scores ranging from three to 27.
Table 3 includes all the records we were able to obtain of normal subjects
( not psychiatric. patients) between the ages of 15 and 50 and with at least
some high school education. We have tabulated under "High School" all sub-
jects with some high school education, i.e., from one year of high school to
high school graduate. Under "College" we have tabulated all subjects with one
year or more of college including all persons with graduate training.
Sex Differences
In order to combine the scores of men and women it was obviously neces-
sary to ascertain whether or not there was a difference in score due to sex.
· T STANDARDIZATION 21
With this study we took, at random, from our files the records of 87 women,
\ t~ed to of whom were high school educated and 32 college educated. These re-
' '
1 t.S are ds were then matched with· the records of 87 males of similar age and edu-
in the tl,)on. No significant difference between means was found when the "t" test
,: figns, r \ applied. -~~~~ca!!YJ !her~ ~~e~_s. to be little basis for the expectation of a
J difference. In addition, this study confirmed a smaller, previous study. We J
rn the ln?lud -,~, t~erefo:~-'. ~at the B-~ scores we.~~ not a function _?f sex of "th-~] ·:•"'
~
i
~
i
aZ
. ~ore
!-a~.
I
i
' t b1ect, ~ 1d comomecl thcr records of our male and female sub1ects.
rawing Ability
A serious obstacle to the use of the B-G test in clinical practice would have
been a differential effect of drawing ability. To check on this very obvious
1
,
I{ 1ly
possibility we compared the records of a ~l_!!.; gf 34- adv?nced fine arts stu-
t~ ~ dents, attending an art school, with those of a group of college undergradu-
ct
ltte~ niatched for age and sex.__ The_ undergraduates, no! art students, obtained
es
r a significantly lower mean score than the art students with score means of ,~
t.
,• 11.1 and 18.3, respectively. \We c~;.~lud~d, therefore, that drawing ability has
0
l, little effect on B-_G score) Thf;1rrtcting'·~aycom·~-;~ a surprise to some readers
1-
lS blli'-1t;lioulct''n(tre~~~b-ered that the instructions are specific about not sketch-
'v
,g ing. In fact, our early experience with subjects of some drawing ability lead
...
~r to the inclusion of the "no sketching" in junction. .
What the significantly higher scores for the art students mean is a matter
'.e- of conjecture. The art school was one of high scholastic standards, comparable
of to those of the college from which the matched undergraduates were ob-
1is tained. Is there a process with respect to what the B-G is measuring making
ple for the selection of art as a vocation? At any rate the higher scores for the
)Ut art students, rather than the reverse finding, gave us greater confidence in
~or our results.
we
The Effect of l.Q.
ects
Ther.~ is little doubt in our minds that B-G performance is correlated with
east
I.Q. In f~~_t, the records of mental defectives show marked deviations in per-
sub-
f~~J?anc_{' ( 9) . There was reason to believe, however, considering the develop-
,1 to
ment of the scoring system, that given normal intelligence, and normal ability
one
to perceive and execute the designs, scores should be little affected by I.Q.,
within the age range of our normative population.
We collected records from a class of fourth year high school students and
one aduh evening class on whom Otis S.A. I.Q. 's were available ( 36). The
leces- age range of the subjects was from 17 to 27, the I.Q. range from 90 to 128, the
, sex. number of subjects 64. Correlation of raw B-G scores with I.Q. yielded a cor-
relation coefficient of -.16, which is not significant at the five per cent level of
confidence.
22
An interesting confirmation of this relationship between I.Q. and B-G scor correlation
for adults of 1.Q. within normal limits is found in a study of the records o (Undoubtt
' above average children. We had at hand. the records of 46 children attendin coefficient.
· private school. Their age range was from 6 years 3 months to 9 years
months. Their Binet I.Q. ranged from 101 to 142-. The correlation betwee · 100
B-G score and I.Q. was minus _:P.~- We shall have more to say about th .
records of children later, but for the moment we wish to point out the simi
larity c · relationship between I.Q. and B-G score both for adults and children 80
These results are, we feel, in line with expectation based on the results o
previous investigations ( 15, 47). Thus, we know that copying a circle and dia7 w
mond drop out very early in the Stanford-Binet tests. Although the copyin •· a::
of simple designs may he an important index of maturation warranting its use g0 60
(!)
as an item in an intelligence test for young children, it is not, and we would • I
ID
not expect it to be, a discriminating test of intelligence for normal adults. 3:
These considerations plus our finding, and those of Bender ( 9), lead us to <t 40
a::
the conclusion that for our population scores on the B-G are not a function:·
of I.Q. "' ·
. The Effect of Age
20
Previous studies ( 37) had suggested that a relationship exists between age
and B-G score for an adult population of wide age range, but that, within 0
limits, there was little effect of age, more specifically, that the range within;t,
which age had little effect on score seemed to be between the ages of 15 and;~ .
50. For our normal population of 271 subjects with high school education w~lt ·•
obtained a correlation of .02 between age and B-G score, and for our normal}: -.
population of 203 subjects of college education, a correlation coefficient of .03.:,~
Qualitatively, we feel certain of a definite relationship between age an&~
B-G score_ for the old_e:r age g:rqups although we do not have sufficient data t9~~,-
-p;~-;;·i~;-E~i~t~-We have, £~~ -instance, four records of subjects with highl Fie. 3.
;~ho~l education as follows: ~\11
For wha
,_· '};',·,_
__
-½.~-
Age 55, B-G score 13 ':\f' figure 3 wl
_-.-Y.
B-G score a;
Age 63, "
Age 65, "
Age 68, "
" 36
" 24
" 47
I of the matm
this out for
also suggest
or not there
These, and the records of other older age subjects with only grammar schooL~li~ the age of E
education indicate that our scoring system penalizes the subject for some {the nature c
aspects of performance common to old age, e. g., tremor. );Would score
For the 46 children's records previously mentioned in connection with I.Q., \ 15-50. This
ranging in age from 6 years 3 months to 9 years 3 months, we obtained a iinot unreaso1
ST: QUANTIFICATIONJ. TEST STANDARDIZATION 23
r1 I.Q. and B-G score . ' correlation coefficient of minus .58 between B-G score and age in months.
ly of the records of ;~ (Undoubtedly the restricted range in age attenuated the obtained correlation
5 children attending I
coefficient. )
onths to 9 years 3 f
correlation between f 100 -
e to say_ about the
point out the simi-
I
i
-
adults and children. j
ed on the results of I 80 -
.
ing a circle and dia-
lr
i w - .
though the copying ii a:
0 .._
1 warranting its use i ~ 60
·not, and we would
,for normal adults ..J
I ~
• I
CD
0
(\J
II
--
3 z
ler ( 9 ) , lead us to ,il <l 40 .... --t
-
are not a function I
. I
a:
z
II
-
(\J
II
-
... z
,'&,
_,7'::
f:Z
-t
exists between age l.',-r£
20
--
0
CJ)
II
...--
CJ)
(\J
II
-IC>
II
I')
II
z
z z z
~, but that, within :t
t the range within {{
0
in ,ii iii . ... •~--:
. .
.;
:he
'
ages of 15 and tf I
0
E
<D
0
E
CX)
0
E .......
en
>, •
ct?
en
>,--
--t
.
en IC> en•
>-.-
Oen
CJ) ..:t- • I() r---•
:hool education w~ J CX) CJ)
I I
(\J:J: I :I:
_, I :J: I :J:
-i,. I I .._,
o-
I
CJ) in.._,
IC> I'- IC> 0
I'- CX) CJ) I') ,q- co
;;o!;c~:t :~r~;~
AGE
. between age and tj
~ sufficient data to i
I Fie. 3. Bar graphs suggesting relationship between age and B-G scores.
. ,ubjects with high I
<}
i
. :(
For what it is worth, in the light of our rather meager data~ we present
·.,
figure 3 which is suggestive of the relationship which may exist between
B-G score and age. There seems to be- little doubt, on a qualitative basis ( 9),
of the maturational factor involved in reproducing the designs. Our data bear
this out for the age ranges 6 years 3 months to 9 years 3 months. Our data
also suggest that there is a leveling off between the ages of 15 and 50. Whether
Y grammar school ii or not there is a decline in functions measured by us on the B-G test beyond
subject for som~ the age of 50 is not known positively, but, as we have indicated, because of
the nature of our scoring system it is very probable that the old age group
nection with I.Q., . would score higher than the means we have presented for the age group
is, we obtained a 15-50. This combination of data, qualitative and quantitative, leads us to the
not unreasonable expectation that the reciprocal of B-G scores would, if we
24 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATIONt: TEST STANDA
:t
-.~
had sufficient data, make a function similar to that obtained for mental growth, t:
with a decline in the curve for the old age groups ( 48). ·
We have taken the trouble to speculate somewhat on this point because of · Fortunatt
its theoretical interest. The test, as we score it, is measuring something which school and c
has to do with whether or not a subject is the patient of a psychiatrist, some- best scheme ·
thing which could be, perhaps, the ability to get along in the world without each group s,
becoming psychologically ill. To put this in the terms we used in the first of 10. This ·
chapter, we might call it ego strength. It would be of some interest to be able population. '
to demonstrate that this is a lawful development. skewed. We
mar (34) ar
The Effect of Education
Previous study with a smaller population had led us to hope that we might 1
1
/ safely ~ount on a lack of relationship between education and B-G score once"'' 80
we were past the first year 9fhigh sc~oQJ. In fact, this expectation influenced I
--ui so-~~;h~t in the data we .gathered and the information we obtained as we :I
gathered the data. Thus for a good many of our records we merely noted )\
whether or not a person had been to college and whether or not he had J 60
one or more years of high school training. This unfortunate circumstance ...?:f :I
makes it impossible for us to calculate anything but a biserial correlation •I >-
coefficient between education and B-G score. This we did for our entire normal Jl (.)
z
p~p~lation, obtaining a biserial correlation coefficient o:!._.38, which is clearly ,f w
::, 40
0
s1gmficant. •1:; w
~--~ Th~ data in table 3 bear out the estimate of relationship suggested by ' ' a:
LL
t~e correlation c~efficient. ~- r~~~-~-~~~es of subjects with some college e~uca-•"·:\:

hon are lower m every age groupmg than those of comparable subjects ;-t.
~~!~!~~,1'!!=::;t~~~:~::~~Ob~:e::1:~c~;;~es:i::::•::d•::11::r;;: t
lations. In addition, when we plotted our total distribution of raw scores we ·C'1~
20
were confronted, much to our surprise, with a bimodal curve. It was this last, t·
the plotting of ~he distribution, which gave us our first inkling of the_ difference ·
between the high school and the college groups. It took some hme and a 1f
good deal of statistical maneuvering before we came to accept the fact that :.;J
there is a real difference between the groups. .. ;J
We are at a loss to explain why this difference should be there, especially ·'j FIG.
in the light of the relationship between B-G score and I.Q., and can only ::;
speculate upon its significance. It may be that the college group was generally :f Tables
more test-wise and thus less disturbed by the testing situation. It may he, a? 1
·.. \
school and
suggested by a psychiatrist friend of ours, that going on to college in our I raw scores
competitive society is, in general, an adaptive act related in some way to what l encounterec
we are measuring. Anyhow, the fact remains that we had two different popu- 1 dix for con
lations based on education. ·
't
Since 01
t dra'\\ ing ab
1
"
-...--
--= - - : -
- ..11111111
.. 11!1'!',.,. . . . . .- - - - - ~ - - - - - , , - - - - - - - ~ - · - · - - -
·: QUANTIFICATION hEsT STANDARDIZATION 25

z~ 'a
for mental growthl .

.,:·:,..
,',,,,,
:.""·
ts point because
. : of!
J: FortunateIy, th e sh apes of t h e d.1stn'b uhons
· an d variances
· for th e h'1gh
., somethmg which' ·
' h' . ( . school and college populations were similar. It seemed, therefore, that the
'osyc
h iatnst ' .some-.·;, · best scheme f or com b'mmg
· our popu1ahons· was to convert t h e raw scores f or
d . without X;• each group separate1y mto
t e world · z scores wit· h mean of 50 an d a stan d ar d d eviahon
· ·
. use m th e first{~ of 10. This we did and figure 4 shows the distribution of the total normal
mterest to be able c:" · popuIatlon.
. Th e smooth e d frequency curve sh own m· f'igure 4 1s
· somewh at
skewed. We calculated skewness ( g1 ) according to a formula given by McNe-
mar ( 34) and found it to be .6, which is considered moderate.
>pe that we might , .

PB-G score ·once ·
· ~tation influenced"., :
·e obtained as we 1i
we
r orI\lerely
not henoted
had .·.··'~.·
ate circumstance ii
,erial correlation ,I
>Ur entire normal I >-
0
z
which is clearly JI w
~ 40t----+--t---+----+----+~----+----+----~
. ![·'
,·11 0
w
tip suggested by j a::
Ie college educa- J LL.
parabl~ subjects '.:.~.-.'.'!it••·

s and mterquar- ti ·
'ld college popu- {
f raw scores we cl
It was ~his last, :
~:~;~ff:;c: I
pt the fact that
1
·~
33.5 41,5 49.5
Z SCORES
57.5 65.5 73.5 81,5
i!.l:<
here, especially
, and can only
.
1~ Fie. 4. Distribution of Z scores for normative population. N = 474.
*
P was generally ~
Tables II and III in the Appendix give raw and Z scores for the high
· It may he, as school and college populations, respectively. We have computed Z scores for
college in ou~
raw scores up to 150, which, we feel, should take care of all scores apt to be
ne way to what
encountered in practice. The necessary formulae are given in the Appen-
different popu-
dix for converting ra~ scores higher than 150 to Z scores.
Since our data have indieated that the B-G score is not a function of sex,
drawing ability, and within limits, l.Q. and age, it is only necessary to know
,
26 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATIO
that an individual is between the ages of 15 and 50 and has at least one yea
of high school education to use our Z scores for comparative purposes. T ·.·
get the corresponding Z score for an individual within these limits the app~o-
priate table ( in the Appendix), depending on whether the subject has a high
school or college education, is consulted wit~ the raw score and the Z scor
· read off.
'
Records we
. outpatient cli
and mean ra,
to diagnostic
For inpatien1
of a confere
whom were:
spite of the
important fai
(a) they we1
obtained ps:
tients ( prim.
so few inpa1
that we fot
rather than
· gest that in1
patients. Th
Age
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Tc
M,
Ra
Sc
s.:
·.
QUANTIFICATION{
at least one year I

:ive purposes. To.i
limits the app~o- .•
!lbject has a high i
. and the Z score fr·
5: TEST VALIDITY
'
Records were obtained of psychiatric patients from various institutions and
. outpatient clinics in and about Providence. Table 4;;r_ shows the age, education,
and mean raw score for the records of 323 patients thus obtained. With respect
to diagnostic category patients were classified according to clinical diagnosis.
For inpatients, most of whom were psychotic, clinical diagnosis was the result
of a conference of two or more psychiatrists. For the outpatients, most of
whom were neurotic, the diagnosis was usually made by one psychiatrist. In
spite of the known unreliability of psychiatric diagnosis ( 6) there are two
important facts about the patient population which we wish to emphasize:
(a) they were patients of psychiatrists and had either voluntarily or otherwise
obtained psychiatric care, and ( b) they could be classified as either inpa-
tients ( primarily psychotic) and outpatients ( primarily neurotic). There were
so few inpatients who were not psychotic and so · few outpatients who were,
that we found it just as valid to retain the psychotic-neurotic dichotomy
rather than to change to an in-versus-outpatient dichotomy. We would sug-
gest that, inpatients are generally in greater need of psychiatric care than out-
patients. This consideration becomes important in the light of the increasingly
Table 4
Age and Education and Raw Score Means of Patient Population
High.School College
H.S. Psychotic Tot. Coll.
PN Psychotic Tot. Mean PN Mean
f f f f f f Score
Score
15-19 15 11 26 41.6 2 0 2 49.0
20-24 30 13 43 38.6 16 11 27 36.0
25-29 51 21 72 37.8 5 11 16 31.3
30-34 17 i9 36 38.3 8 7 15 32.9
35-39 9 7 16 40.8 10 6 16 36.5
40-44 7 5 12 37.3 5 6 11 39.5
45-50 8 13 21 47.0 4 6 10 46.5
Totals 137 89 226 50 47 97
Mean
Raw B-G 34.5 47.2 39.5 31.5 42.0 36.6
Score
S.D. 21.3 20.5
27
28 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATION'
greater scores from nonpatient though neurotic and psychotic. Of chief im-· to our dep
portance, however, for our validity study is the reliable fact that all our pa.. lation coeff
tients were patients of psychiatrists, and it is upon this dichotomy, patient '; conducted
versus nonpatient, that we primarily base our tests of validity. · education.
No individuals with known organic involvement were included in our pa- A third!
tient population. The chief fact influencing selection of cases was availability. the authore
For the outpatients the records are for the most part from consecutive cases, nosed psyc
and constitute, with few exceptions, a hundred per cent sample of cases re- and sex, yi
ferred for treatment over the period during which we collected records. With ·
regard to the inpatient population, we were somewhat selective in that we ·
refrained from including the records of chronic, deteriorated cases. Thus, we
only collected records from the intensive treatment wards of the State. Hos- •.
Sco1
pital. 1 At Butler Hospital we began by testing all but the chronic and deteri-
ScoI
orated patients in the hospital and then routinely obtained records from all ·
new admissions to the hospital. In this stu
All the records of patients were scored by the authors. Some were scored blocked 01
with knowledge of the fact that they were the records of patients. We were, used in th
in scoring, aware of probable bias and attempted, insofar as possible, to main- ~a in each ca
tain the same objective attitude as in scoring the records of nonpatients. Our .•.;.•.:.;If
..•..•
They :repr
scoring system is, however, partly subjective in the sense that the scoring of ~ ·.
some items is a matter of judgment. We do n,ot doubt, therefore, that it is .; · Validity w
possible the r~cords of some patients may have received a higher score than We no
they might have had we not known that they were patients. Our studies of our normi
validity with smaller groups in which all identifying data on the records was 73.6,
wei-e either removed or blocked out and the records of patients shuffied in neurotics,
with the records of nonpatients indicate, however, that such was not the case. populatior
Table 4 should be compared with table 3. The mean scores for patients neurotics ,
are higher in every age and educational category than the mean scores for ics .35. A
the nonpatients. It should be noted that the standard deviation for the patients previous ~
is about twice that for the nonpatients. When the two populations are tested and psych
for homogeneity of variance a significant F ratio is obtained, precluding the . "f few psych
psychotic
:::::::::~£;;::;i:=i~;;:::::;::~~~ed for two diffu~t I

tion coeffi
the score:
confidenc,
samples of matched patients and· non patients. In the first study, 23 patients ,J) test may
were matched for age, sex, and education with hospital employees. All identify- ., . :1 to cope w
ing information was removed from the 46 records. They were shuffied and given ! as we su1
themselve
Thanks are due to Dr. J. Regan, Superintendent and Dr. H. Cronick, Chief
1
2
of Intensive Treatment, for permission to test the patients of that institution. Mis
~
: QUANTIFICATION:
TEST VALIDITY 29
>tic. Of chief im- i to our departmental secretary to score. 2 From her scoring a biserial corre-
:i: that all our pa- lation coefficient of .83 was obtained. In a similar manner a second study was
ichotomy, patient \ . conducted with 126 normals matched against 71 patients for mean age and
ity. education. This study yielded a biserial correlation coefficient of .77.
,::luded in our pa- t
1 A third study, previously mentioned in connection with reliability, in which
; was availability. the authors, separately, scored the records of 40 nonpatients, 40 patients diag-
ionsecutive cases, nosed psychotic, and 40 diagnosed neurotic, all matched for age, education,
tnple of cases re- and sex, yielded the following biserial correlation coefficients:
ted records. With
~ctive in that we Nonpt. Nonpt. Psychotic
1cases. Thus, we vs. vs. vs.
Psychotic Neurotic Neurotic
,f the State Hos-
ronic and deteri- Scorer A .76 .70 .32
Scorer B .· .79 .71 .39
records from all "
·l
~
:!C-
In this study, as in the previous ones, all identifying marks were removed or
ome were scored
Ltient~. We were, If blocked out on the records which were then shuffied. None of the subjects
used in these validity studies were included in the item analysis. They were,
fossible, to main- J in each case, separate groups not used by us in any other study of validity.
nonpatients. Our l They represent three separate population samples.
at the scoring of J
_1 refore, that it is 'j Validity using Z Scores
dgher score than J
We now converted the raw scores of all the patients to Z scores based on
• Our studies of
our normative population. The mean Z score of the total patient population
• on the records
was 73.6 with a standard deviation of 22.4. The mean scores of psychotics and
:ients shuffied in
neurotics was 81.l and 68.2, respectively. Total nonpatient versus total patient
ras not the .case.
population yielded a biserial correlation coefficient of .74, nonpatients versus
~res for patients
neurotics .73, nonpatients versus psychotics .91, and neurotics versus psychot-
,mean scores for
1 for the patients
ics .35. All of these coefficients are comparable to those obtained from the
previous studies of validity using raw scores, except that between nonpatient
itions are tested
and psychotic, which we feel has been markedly influenced by the fact that a
,, precluding the
few psychotic patients obtained very high scores; this raised the mean of the
psychotic population which, in turn, influenced the size of the biserial correla-
tion coefficient. The fact that the test scores discriminate significantly between
the scores of psychotics and' neurotics contributes, in our estimation, to
Jor two different confidence in the validity of the scoring, and bears on the supposition that the
idy, 23 patients test may be measuring something which has to do with the subject's ability
ees. AU identify- to cope with his environment, as suggested in the first chapter. This follows if,
mffied and given as we suppose, psychotics (mostly inpatients) are less able to take care of
themselves than neurotics ( mostly outpatients).
•· Cronick, Chief
'. institution. 2
Miss Vera Toppi
,,.---~--~
~··=
-=.~ - -
30 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATIQ
Table 5
Cumulative Fr;quencies of Patient and Nonpatient Populations
Nonpts. All Pts. PN Psychotic

N = 474 N = 323 N = 187 N = 136
z f % Cum. f % Cum. f % Cum. f % Cum.

Total % Total % Total % Total %
32-35 11 2.3 100.0 1 .3 100.0 1 .5 100.0 0 0
38-39 53 11.2 97.7 3 .9 99.7 3 1.6 99.5 0 0
40-43 83 17.5 86.7 8 2.5 98.7 5 2.7 97.8 3 2.2 100.0 ~ 60 1---i-
44-47 79 16.7 69.2. 10 3.1 96.2 7 3.7 95.1 3 2.2 97.8 <t
48-51 64 13.5 52.5 16 5.0 93.1 10 5.3 91.4 6 4.4 95.0 1-
52-55 64 13.5 39.0 20 6.2 88.1 14 7.5 86.1 6 4.4 90.6 z
56-59 35 7.4 25.5 23 7.1 81.9 16 8.6 78.6 7 5.1 86.2
60-63 37 7.8 18.1 40 12.4 74.8 26 13.9 70.0 14 10.3 81.1 llJ
64-67 16 3.4 10.3 34 10.5 62.4 24 12.8 56.1 10 7.4 70.8 0
68-71
72-75
20
10
4.2
2.1
6.9 24
2.7 32
7.4
9.9
51.9 15
44.5 17
8.0
9.1
43.3
35.3
9
15
6.2
11.0
63.4
57.2
ffia.. 40
76-79 3 .6 .6 14 4.3 34.6 10 5.3 26.2 4 2.9 46.2
80-83 10 3.1 30.3 8 4.3 20.9 2 1.5 43.3
84-87 18 5.6 27.2 7 3.7 16.6 11 8.1 41.8
88-91 9 2.8 21.6 3 1.6 12.9 6 4.4 33.7
92-95 8 2.5 18.8 . 3 1.6 11.3 5 3.7 29.3
96-99 12 3.7 16.3 7 3.7 9.7 5 3.7 25.6
100-103 6 1.9 12.6 2 p 6.0 4 2.9 21.9 20
104-107 8 2.5 10.7 5 2.7 4.9 3 2.2 19.0
108-111 9 2.8 8.2 2 1.1 2.2 7 5.1 16.8
112-115 5 1.5 5.4 0 0 1.1 5 3.7 11.7
116-119 2 .6 3.9 0 0 1.1 2 1.5 8.0
120-123 1 .3 3.3 0 0 1.1 1 .7 6.5
124-127 1 .3 3.0 0 0 1.1 1 .7 5.8
128-131 1 .3 ~-7 0 0 1.1 1 .7 5.1 0
132-135 2 .6 2.4 2 1.1 1.1 0 0 4.4 4
136-139 2 .6 1.8 2 1.5 4.4
140-143 0 0 1.2 0 0 2.9
144-147 1 .3 1.2 1 .7 2.9
148-151 1 .3 .9 1 .7 2.2
152-155 2 .6 .6 2 1.5 1.5
Table 5 shows the Z score frequencies of the patients and nonpatients.

Figure 5 shows ogives plotted from this table. The ogives were smoothed by .· scores and a ·
inspection .. Since we are unable to write regression equations from biserial equals .05). V
correlation coefficients these ogives are the best we can offer as to the predictive against B-G ,
power of the test, but we shall have more to say about this matter in a later obtained.
section about the test as a screening device.
Z Scores and
Z Scores and Wechsler-Bellevue Scatter
We were·
Several studies ( 38, 41, 42, 49) have shown that Wechsler-Bellevue scatter of 65 inpatie:
is correlated with extent of psychological disturbance. Two commonly used It is cust
measures of Wechsler-Bellevue scatter are: ( 1) the difference between verbal· to indicate o
and performance I.Q.'s, and ( 2) vo~abulary I.Q. minus full-scale I.Q. recovered frc
There were, in our files, the B-G records of 26 psychotics on whom we which he ha!
also had complete Wechsler-Bellevues. The records for this study were selected fected what i
on the basis of availability and no other. We do not feel, therefore, that our and it is so i
findings with respect to the relationship between B-G scores and Wechsler• this social ir
Bellevue scatter can stand as representative for the relationship, but we do befor coping "'
lieve that these findings contribute to confidence in the validity of our method sidered unin
of scoring the B-G. By the t
Verbal and performance I.Q. differences were calculated for each of the tioned, accu
26 psychotic patients of thi.s study. These WP.re then correlated with B-G Z had been di
iT: QUANTIFICATION! TEST VALIDITY 31
%, .
P~pulations
a> Non-Potie_ats, N =474
Psychotic • All Patients, N =323
N = 136
o Psychotics, N = 136
% Cum.
Total %
I 0
I 0
2.2
2.2
100.0
97.8
~ so1---11---1--+-4-=+-¼----+---+----t-----1
4.4 95.0 ct
4.4 90.6 1-
5.1 86.2 z
10.3 81.1 LIJ
7.4 70.8 0
6.2
11.0
63.4
57.2 f5
Q.
40 L-1---l....-:1---....\-l---31P-----lf-----l----,----i
2.9 46.2
1.5 43.3
8.1 41.8
4.4 33.7
3.7 29.3
3.7 25.6
2.9 21.9
2.2,. 19.0
5.1 16.8
3.7 11.7
1.5 8.0
.7 6.5
.7 5.8
.7 5.1
0 4.4
0~-4JO_i__L..1._6L0...1-~~8lO.LL:..J_l~OO-L...L...L12~o~!Y~l~4~0~~,~60
1.5 4.4
0 2.9
.7 2.9 Z SCORES
.7 2.2
1.5 1.5
Fie. 5. Ogives of nonpatients and patients.
scores and a product moment correlation· coefficient of .37 was obtained (P

equals .05). When vocabulary I.Q. minus full-scale I.Q. scores were correlated
against B-G Z scores a correlation coefficitmt of .55 (P less than .01) was
obtained.
Z Scores and Prognosis

We were fortunate in being able to follow the course, through the hospital,
iler-Bellevue scatter
of 65 inpatients to whom we had administered the B-G on admission.
~o commonly used It is customary at Butler Hospital when a patient is formally discharged
nee between verbal
to indicate on his record whether or not he has improved. If the patient has
I-scale I.Q.
recovered from symptoms and 'Seems capable of facing the problems of living
iotics on whom we
which he has to encounter on leaving the hospital, or in other words, has af-
study were selected fected what is usually called "social improvement," he is considered improved
therefore, that our and it is so indicated on his record. If~ on the other hand, he has not affected
>res and Wechsler- this social improvement and in the judgment of the psychiatrist his prognosis
ship, but we do he-
for coping with problems of living outside the hospital is poor, then he is con-
.dity of our method sidered unimproved, and it is so indicated on his record.
By the time we were ready to write this report we had, as we have men-
:ed for each of the tioned, accumulated 65 records of inpatients tested by us on admission, who
·elated with B-G z
had been discharged from the hospital. The average stay of the patients was
32 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATION·,
"~ .
TEST VALl
about three months. No attempt was made to control what happened to th~: ·
patients during their stay in the hospital. Some had electroconvulsive therapyi · 80
0
others psychotherapy, some both and still others very little but routin~
hospital care. As far as we could determine no systematic factors with respe~'~ '
to treatment were operative within this population of 65 patients. ,., soi----
•
Of the 65 patients 43 were discharged "improved" and 22 discharged "u~l~
improved." The mean Z scores of B-G's administered on admission were 61.~,E
for the improved and 81.8 for the unimproved, a mean difference of 20.8, signi11'.
ficant at the one per cent level of confidence when the "t'; test was appliedf •
These records had been scored routinely as part of the total patient popula'~'
tion. Scorers had no knowledge of whether or not a patient was to be di¾f
charged as improved or unimproved at the time of scoring. f:l 201----
The plain fact seems to be that the patient who, upon admission, gave fl'
low scoring B-G record, had a better chance to improve as the result of host
pitalization than the ~ati~nt who produced a high ~cor~ng record. The sig~l~.
ficance of such a findmg 1s a matter of some theoretical mterest. We recogmze;
the oversimplification involved· in the concept of "ego strength" at this timetl
but for want of better terminol?gy, we should suggest that those patients witlij
low scoring records have greater ego strength than those with high scoring
FIG.
records, if, as we have indicated, ego strength is one factor making for sue-; _
cessful coping with the problems of living iq. our society. ( By successful, herel ·
we mean without becoming psychiatrically ill.) every otl
Our criteria in this study leave us open to criticism and, rigorously speak{ shock du
ing, we are defenseless. Very practically, however, we have little doubt about ' patients
the significance of our results. Anyone who has seen an acutely· ill, confuse# · chotic. C
hallucinated patient change, during the course of hospitalization, to one fre~t . hospital
from symptoms, with some awareness of how ill he has been, and grateful a~} ward. Tl
being once more restored to sanity, will understand what it means to discharg€~ admissio
twelve e]
a patient as improved. We might add, also that the designation "improved'~{
clinicall)
is not given lightly.
suited ir
The B-G and Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT). B-G sco:
more tn:
Several investigators ( 35, 44, 45) have used the B-G to follow the effec~,;j · ing of B
of ECT and have been able to show marked impairment of performance'f · Figu
with mounting psychological confusion as result of shock treatment. At Butlel!11 a series
•--·'",~
Hospital we have used the B-G as scored by us along with other tests to estl7)'.i cases A
mate the effects of ECT ( 39). We shall present some of our findings in a series:! improve
~~~~ l with co1
Figures 6, 7, and 8 show B-G raw scores before~ during, and after a series '.~ is showi
of electroshock treatments for three cases. Figure 6 contrasts B-G scores on i ings wh
two matched patients, case A undergoing an ECT series and case B with no -~ ability ,
particular therapy other than routine hospital care. The B-G was administered ; confide1
·,;}
·ri
i'
,T: QUANTIFICATI0,1' . TEST VALIDITY 33
tat happened to th' :

>convulsive therapyit · 80 1----ll---__Jl----+----1----+----:t-__::"r--+----+----+-----I
o----o Case A, 12 ECT's
\J'
' little hut routine'. I
~actors with respe~r;;
'
. . . - Case B, No ECT ,/
, ·\
-s..
>atients. Al
60 I
Y
:22 _di~charged "unk I
I
flm1ss10n were 61.QE

rence of 20.8, signil .
,, • ~y .•
test was apphe<t: .
ital patient populaf
ent was to be dist
'g·. :f
;admission, gave .~
; the result of hoJi
·record. The signiil 10 12 14 16 18 20
2 4 6 8
rest. we recognize;~
t t
1gtli" at this time,I Begin ECT End ECT
:hose patients withi SUCCESSIVE TESTING DAYS
with high scoring•j
r making for sue] FIG. 6. Contrasting performance on two matched cases, with and with-
out ECT.
Y successful, here/ ·
every other day before and after the ECT series ~nd twenty-four hours post-
rigorously speak•; . shock during the ECT series to case A, and to case B at the same time. Both
ilittle doubt aboutf • patients were admitted to the hospital about the same time. Both were psy-
\tely. ill, confused,' . chotic. Case B, the nonshock patient, :made a fairly rapid adjustment to the
~tion, to one freei ·. hospital and a few days after admission was transferred to a convalescent
h, and grateful at ;
1 ward. This improvement is reflected in lowered B-G score. Two months after
teans to discharge ;~ admission the patient was discharged improved. Case A received a series of
ition "improved" ' · twelve electroshocks. The B-G score reflected the initial improvement observed
clinically after the first three treatments. Thereafter continued treatment re-
sulted in mounting confusion, observed clinically and reflected in increasing
B-G scores. Some days after the cessation of treatment the patient became
more tractable, showing clinical improvement, which was reflected in a lower-
follow the e:ffects .·.,
ing of B-G score.
of performance i
Figures 7 and 8 show the raw B-G scor~s of two other patients, each given
Ltment. At Butlet !.·, a series of 12 electroshocks. In each case the B-G was administered as for
ther tests to esti- i
cases A and B. For all three shock patients, cases A, C, and D, intial clinical
idings in a series ]
I
improvement as a result of ECT is shoJvn in lowered B-G. Mounting confusion
)~
with continued ECT is shown in increased B-G score. lmprovem~nt after ECT
nd after a series I
5 B-G scores on I is shown in lowered B-G score. These graphs are representative of our find-
ings when using the B-G test to follow the effects of ECT. We feel that this
ability of B-G scores to reflect the patient's reaction· to ECT contributes to
ras administered
confidence in the validity of the method of scoring.
34 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATIO
LLI
0::
0
0
(/)
40
(.!)
m
.
LLI
0::
0
0
Cl)
. 30
.
(.!)
m
3:
c(
0:: 20
10 ~ - - - - + - - - - - + - - - - - - + - - - - - - - , 1 - - - - - - - 1
5 10 15 20 25 a Z score o
t t
Begin ECT End ECT can see, fr,
SUCCESSIVE TESTING DAYS total patier.
have scree1
Fie. 7. B-G test scores and ECT (case C) . One su
· to he a rea:
cent of the
#The B-G as a Screening Device is known a
1;r/· ,A The B-G test as we score it is a fallible instrument whose validity is based · population.
actually scr
on fallible, very gross criteria. The best that we can say for it is that i~ seems;
f very crudely to he estimating some. aspect of behavior which has to do witht;:1· 16 per cent
\,, ~hether or not an individual is apt ro be the patient of a psychiatrist. Th~iJ, ·.• on our nor
\ test should, it seems to us, he used in conjunction with other estimates of?t. · • nonpatien~
/ proneness to psychiatric illness. lt}~~8-sily administered and easily scored and}~: the total pa
/ could profitably be used as a rough check of other procedures. In the absenc«, ,i~ fact, a Z sc
;.: of other procedures the test does considerably better than chance in its ability iJ of the pati
\ to screen out individuals who are, apt to be psychiatrically ~IL We do, ·•1 Wema
the normal
therefore, recommend its use as a screening device, providing its limitations I
/~~~ i based on o
V 1 of 72 the c
A glance at the ogives of figure 5 will show that no matter how low a cutoff 'i\
·" chances a1
score is set it. is hound. for our p()pulatioPs, to inc1ude some patients. On the ~
~ST: QUANTIFICATIO ·~ ~TEST VALIDITY 35
J
eo..-----r----~----r----_,_,
60
llJ
a::
0
0
(/)
<.!? 4 0 1--t"~-½---+--=--+--+--V--+1---+---=------+11----4
CD
3:
<(
a::
5 10 15 20
'
Begin ECT End ECT
t
I SUCCESSIVE TESTING DAYS
I
1. FIG. 8. B-G test scores and ECT ( case D) .
f
20 25
'1 other hand, none of our nonpatients obtained a Z score over 79. If we select
' a Z score of 50, the ~~an ol the nonpatient population, as a cutoff score, we
CT
s can see, from figure 5, that we would have screened out 94 per cent of the
total patient paj>ulation and 96 percent of the psychotics, but also, we would
have screened out about 50 per cent of the nonpatients.
One standard deviation above the mean, or a Z score of 60 would seem
to be a reasonable cutoff score since theoretically that should include 84 per
cent of the nonpatient population, which seems about right in view of what
is known about the incidence of psychiatric illness in the so-called normal
. hose validity is based population. Erecting a vertical from this score on figure 4 we see that it would
:for it is that it seems .. actually screen out about 20 per cent of the nonpatients instead of the expected
~hi.ch has to do with ( 16 per cent. This discrepancy is due to the fact that the distribution of scores
. i.f a psychiatrist. The on our nonpatients is somewhat skewed. In addition to the 20 per cent of
:h other estimates of :J nonpatients a cutoff score of 60 would also have screened out 82 per cent of
!md easily scored and i the total patient population, 86 per cent psychotic and 79 per cent neurotic. In
clures. In the absence j fact, a Z score of 60 is just about the point of crossing for frequency polygons
1
chance in its ability ~ of the patient and nonpatient populations, plotted on the same baseline.
:1.trically ill. We do, J We may look at cutoff scores in terms of theoretical probabilities based on
,vi.ding it~ limitations·i the normal curve. 1£, for instance, a subject receives a Z score of 80 the chances,
i{ based on our data, are about 1 in 1000 that he will be normal. With a Z score
alter how low a cutoff j; of 72 the chances are 1 in 100 that he will be normal. With a Z score of 67 the
;ome patients. On the f; chances are 5 in 100 that he will be normal. It should he borne in mind,
ff;·
36
~
Ji, •
however, that in thus considering cutoff scores the fact of skewness in tif •
distribution of the nonnative population will reveal discrepancies betwe~ :,
theoretical expectancy and our data. The extent of this discrepancy c!~.
easily be ascertained from figure 5 or table 5. Thus table 5 shows that, f •.
tually, no nonpatient received a Z score of over 79 and that 2.7 per cent of :"'
nonpatients, rather than one per cent, received a Z score of 72 or higher. Ev,t.
so, based on our data, we would feel fairly safe in betting that a subject wi ·
a Z score of 72 or over was in need of psychiatric help. The other side of ~'.,
picture is that such a high Z score as a cutoff would also admit many subjeri1
in need of psychiatric help. A Z score below 72 does not mean a subject does n'.f~
need psychiatric help. About 48 per cent of our patients obtained Z scor,~' ,.'!..,
below 72. ';ii;

·t
1£ the purpose is to screen out as,nany subjects as possible who may ij,'.:
in need of psychiatric help without too much regard for the number of ll)i •
dividuals not in need of psychiatric help who are also screened out, then ·i...
cutoff score should be found which will screen out the maximum number <f \'
patients, and compatible with that, admit the maximum number of nonp{ ·
tients. A Z score ~f 50 would be such tt cutoff point.. It would screen out, foj
our pop'ul~~~.- 94 -~e~ ce~t 0£ .aU-pati~nts-=96 per cent of psychotics and.I
0
OF
91 per cent of neurotics. · <JI
Z ~~ores between 50 a11d 72 ~~mld seeII:l, therefore, to be sµ_sp~ct. With Z!
scores of ,50 3:~d below w~ ~~n be_ fq}!lyconfidep.t tha~ the subject does notJ
need psychi~tric help, and ~ith Z ~~~~5..of 72 an<!._3:~ovewe can be fairly C01-};J
. . . be .beautifully true if we presented a per-I.,.
fident
•.·,-··:· -
·.
that.
. .
he__dp~s.
. .
All this would
fectly rehable method of scormg, which we do not. The authors found an. ·
average raw score difference of four points between themselves. It is probahl~ ~•
that other scorers will vary as much as that, if not more. We suggest, there~ . ·
fore, on very practical grounds, that cutoff scores slide between 60 and aoJ •·
with the latter as a limiting score.
~EST: QUANTIFICATIQ
i
(ct of skewness in :
[discrepancies betwe:
( this discrepancy c:
:able 5 shows that, i ·
that 2.7 per cent of ~-~:
~ of 72 or higher. Evt .
ing that a subject wC ·•
i The other side of tf ·
: _;5-
? admit many subje~

~ean a subject does n@
p.ts obtained Z sco/i'
·. -\-i
, possible who may I: PART II:
for the number of iri1 •
•· .:is·,
:: screened out, then a.
. maximum number 6J. CLINICAL USE
im number of nonpa\
would screen out, fcf ·
:mt of psychotics and : OF THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST
!o be SUSJ:l~Ct. With i ·;
. Lthe subject does n~( ·
. \;We can be fairly con~ ,.
a
f we presented p~ri '
'he authors found an ;
~selves. It is probablet '.
'.~· We suggest, there:~, :·
\ between 60 and 80,J,
findin@
/' ? our nonnativ
·{ f li.mits. Test i
>p8lient of a J
?severity of p:
C:heyond the a
;,With age helo
itlie effects of
·1i~~fusion re!
f;(Jllalitative fr
>Ihental defici,
Clinical 1
Pcwantitative I
;:p,~ssihle effec
. IIieans. Even
· }''Is he psych(
extreme case:
'Jdis:.~.t..it ::::::~
··••··'.'·.'··•.•.···.n
--------···
make the be~
\;i· Ben de~, clini,
iJ pose, m the :
J; clinical judg
~i. . "
ffl. tive score w1!
.,."". case
~ o·
~
r~
ur first
ij of six, childr
::I look like the
6: INTRODUCTION
Jjdings have suggested that the deviations scored by us are not, for
2
::tinative population, measuring drawing ability or I.Q. within average

2Test scores are correlated with whether or not an individual is the
':~fa psychiatrist. There is some indication that they correlate with the
"\pf psychiatric illness. What little data we have been able to present
' ,e age norms of our standardizing population suggest a correlation
J:,elow the age of 15 and above the age of 50. Using the test to follow
· of ECT also suggests that scores are correlated with psychological
resulting from ECT. We have a little data, which added , to the
,e :findings of Bender, suggest that scores are also correlated with
ficiency and damage to the cortex.
j:al use of the test, therefore, becomes extremely complicated. The
iifrf~JHe score is, we feel, helpful in diagnosis when such things as the
1.;}fictfiects of cortical damage or mental deficiency are ruled out by other
· - {~yen so, the burning question often put to psychological examiners-
•· 2/,if~ychotic?"-is not very well answered by quantitative score except in
i ,,',F,f>lw~:c~s. When the test is used as an instrument of clinical diagnosis, as
:,t },~~hed from its mechanical use as a screening device, the examiner is
\j }~~t~~9~ent with the probabilities based on quantitative score. He needs to
,1¥ \)Hj~~~ best prediction possible for the individual case. To do this with the
ll' 'M'Jj~er,,clinical judgment must be added to quantitative score. It is our pur-
i)P.~~flll ~e sections that follow, to supply knowledge of the test upon which
tf
i·
b:
~~ic,al JU~~ent can based; this judgment, wh~n. ad~ed to. ~a~tita-
hve score ·will, we hope, mcrease the accuracy of pred1ct1on m the md1v1dual
-I case.
·.. .
\ . Our first approach will be to examine the records of children. At the age
§ of six, children of normal I.Q. begin to make drawings of the designs which
~:x look like the stimuli. We have found it possible to score the records of chil-
i
}·
M
ii
40 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL U
dren of this age although we do not feel that the scoring is as reliable as ·
is for adults. With children below age six, our method of scoring is not fe .·
ible. The age six, therefore, will be our baseline of judgment for drawin
of individuals beyond that age. Knowledge of the performance of children ·
we feel, a necessary basis for intelligent use of the test as a clinical instrume
Psychotics, for instance, are "regressive" on this test in the sense that th··•
reproduce the designs in a manner similar to children. Adults with cortic;
damage produce drawings similar in some respects to very young children, ·.
do mental defectives. To use these facts one needs to be well grounded •
the scorable deviations common to children of various ages. We shall, ther
fore, devote considerable space to the records of normal children.
A persistent problem facing the psychological examiner is the question
so-called " organicity." "Does the psychological record show signs indicativ .~•..,•• u..,~ in l
of damage to the cortex?" is a frequent and reasonable question often aske three to eleve
of the examiner. The answer to such a question involves the difficult and pla ihg and illust
guing task of attempting to differentiate between deviations in performanc were drawn i
due to psychogenic and histogenic, genogenic or chemogenic factors ( 14 ). T :1ient departm
B-G test cannot, in the absence of olher data, answer that question, excep( mative data :
o_ccasionally in extreme_ cases ~hich are also clinically appa_rent. There arJ; .~f t~e ~gure:
times, however, when 1t provides valuable confirmatory evidence to otheri c···Jkidd only a c
procedures. In order to understand how it is possible to use the test in thi~J { 1~?c~s." Wh:
manner it is necessary to know, insofar as possible, ~hat deviations are pr\f '· cussion of tl
marily due to psychogenic factors, and what are due to actual c·ortical deficj~t '._ findings with
[Our use of the teifu "cortical deficit" implies malfunctioning of, and actuah > clrawings is «
damage to, the cortex owing to either genogenic, histogenic or chemogenic'' da,ta, therefo
factors (12).] swnmanze a
Our data for cortical deficit and the differential diagnosis of psychogenic T:i¢a,ding of I
disorders has not been gathered systematicaliy. Although we shall, within thei. ;,lllance on t~
limits of our data, present quantitative evidence for our discussion, we shall; · In the ch
not hesitate to employ qualitative observations where these seem reasonable/
and illustrate with the single case where this seems logical. · scores. We !
discussion o
> normal chilc
·. to 9 years 3
· in a private
able excepti
the classes. 1
1
For tht
in the study ,
Pendleton Bl
also collectec
Child Guida1
1g is as reliable as ( '
(f scoring is not fea$ ·
pgment for drawin
'.itiance of children i;
1
a clinical instrumen
ii the sense that th
, Adults with corti 7: THE RECORDS OF CHILDREN
jry young children, AND THOSE WITH CORTICAL DEFICIT
ibe weU grounded
~ges. We shall, ther
l children.
per is the question
ishow signs indicati . . Bender, in her original monograph, reports findings on 800 children, ages
! question often ask~ three to eleven, inclusive, and presents normative data for these ages, descrih-
~ the difficult and pli · ing and illustrating representative productions for the different ages. Her data
~tions in performanc: · • were drawn from nursery schools, public schools, hospital wards and outpa-
~nic factors ( 14 ). Th tient departments of pediatric and?psychiatric services. Presumably, her nor 0
;that question, excep ,. , mative data are based on all of these samples. She writes (9, p. 112): ,_"AU
f apparent. There ar¢ &~ the :figures are satisfacorily produced at the age of eleven years. Adults
•.ry evidence to othef·l·; . ladd on!; a certain motor perfection, ?r perf~~ti~n in detaH in siz_es and d!s-
1
~o use the test in this;: ·.•. tances. What Ben,der means by satisfactory will be presented m our d1s-
~at deviations are pri~- ·. cussion of the ind1vidual designs, at which time we shall present our own
Lactual c-ortical deficit\
k :
. findings with a limited population. The fact that children make satisfactory
._;;.;, ->
[tioning of, and actualc •·• drawings is of first importance in considering the records of adults. Bender's
igenic or chemogenil data, therefore, are basic to the discussion which follows; Although we shall
·. · summarize and build upon her work in this chapter, we recommend a careful
~gnosis of psychogenic reading of her mongraph for a thorough knowledge of children;s perfor-
;h we shall, within the · mance on this test.
Lir discussion, we shat In the chapters on standardization and validity, scores on children's re-
µtese seem reasonable, cords were reported to illustrate the effect of age and intelligence on B-G
lgical. ;i scores. We shall report that study in greater detail here, preparatory to our
f · discussion of children's records. These B-G records were obtained from 46
;:l ·• nonn.al children (not patients) who ranged, in age, from 6 years 3 months
. ;; · to 9 years 3 months. The children were first, second, and third grade students
1:~•c"::::!:,o;;,:w:f1:e:'.1'1:.:~•:;;~~:ia::a::\~~~w:r:::~:'n!:::.
l;(' · in a private school. They were equally divided for sex. With a few unavoid-
••j .
1
For these records and those of the psychologically disturbed children used
j ;e!~~e::ud1 ofdflid~ty, we a~e ~nd;bted to ~iss Janet Young~, interne a~ the Emma
.}j l ·un ra ey ome an ut er Hospital. Records of disturbed children were
i a 8? co e_cted for us by Mr. Kennison Bosquet, Psychologist for the Providence
J Child Gmdance Clinic, to whom we wish to express our thanks.
~
f M
1
42 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL u'
1
Binet I.Q. (Form L) of 120, ranging from 101 to 142. Mean raw B-G sco
for these records, divided into three groups are given below. ,
~
Age Range B-G
in months N Scores
Mean Raw
75-82 20 95
..,:-98 14 70
99-111 12 52
Correlation of age, in months, with raw B-G score yielded a product ni.
ment coefficient of -.58, which is significant at the one per cent level of co
fidence. (P equals .01 when r equals .37.) Our mean scores show a faif
regular progression downward with increasing age. The results~ therefor
suggest that, in contradistinction to the scores of adults of the normativ,
population, age is an important determinant of scores for children. This fin
ing is, of course, merely corroborative of what is knwon of the developmen
of drawing ability in children. This topic is reviewed by Bender ( 9). ·
The product moment correlation coefficient between I.Q. and age, for thi
population, is +.12, and between B-G score and I.Q., -.05. For what it i
worth we partialled out the effect of age and obtained a partial r of .0 +
between B-G score and l.Q. We conclude, therefore, that for-this superior po -
ulation the B-G score is not a function of I.Q. This finding enabled us to grou
our data by age without regard for I.Q. . -.
.
Since the significance of our data depends on the validity of the deviations
··-
scored by us, an attempt was made to obtain some estimate of the validity of\
our method of scoring for children. We were able to match 12 of our non-/
patient children with 12 patients suffering from psychogenic disorders from
the Emma Pendleton Bradley Home. This data on the matched groups is
summarized below.
Age in Mos. Stanford Mean
Binet I.Q. Raw
B-G Score
Mean Range Mean Range
Normals 100.0 80-111 117 104--137 56.8
Patients 100.0 80-113 114 98-139 90.8 •<{ •.·.·
For the mean difference of 34 score points a "t" of 4.29 was obtained, inl~l · _
dicating a significant difference between the groups. Although certainly noLl ··
conclusive, our finding suggests that in addition to measuring maturation, our l
method of scoring the B-G records is measuring in children something similar 'l
to that which it measures for adults. This latter measurement is, however, com· t
plicated by the important effect of age and cannot be quantitatively useful
without age norms, which are not, at present, available. Our purpose, at this
TEST: CLINICAL U · CHILDREN AND THOSE WITH CORTICAL DEFICIT 43
[ean raw B-G scor point, however, is not to standardize the test for children, but rather, to use
IW. knowledge of the deviations made by children as a basis for qualitative clini-
cal judgment of adult records.
B-G
Scores
Mean Raw
95
70
52 ~·
;elded a product m •· Table 6
Children's Raw B-G Scores by Design
ier cent level of co
Mean Raw B-G Score by Designs
$cores show a fairl •t
le results, therefor Age·Group
N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Its of the normativ i • in Months
i- children. This find1! 75-86 20 11.6 14.9 11.7 8.7 9.0 12.5 13.2 9.4
t of the developmen{f .
87-98 14 7.9 6.4 8.5 8.4 8.7 10.1 10.0 6.5
:Bender (9). ·•
99-111 12 4.2 5.8 10.3 5.4 4.4 7.5 6.5 4.4
[.Q. and age, for this 1 ,
:-.05. For what it is~ .
a partial r of .03~ +
!or• this superior pop1J '
~ enabled us to groupt
!dity of the deviationsf

!ate of the validity of' Table 7
~atch 12 of our non- Age Norms for Essential Accuracy* of Reproduction.
igenic disorders from : · (After Bender 9, p. 132)
.e matched groups is • ·
Designs
Mean Age at which
Raw design reproduced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
B-G Score
lange 6 X X X
4--137 56.8 7 X X X X
s::..139 90.8 8 X X X X X
9 X X X X X
:~9 was obtained, in-
.lthough certainly not 10 X X X X X X X
uring maturation, our 11 X X X X X X X X

ren something similar
*See text for definition of this term.
nent is, however com-
quantitatively 'useful
· Our purpose, at this
44 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL US·•
CHILDREN,
For the population of 46 normal children mean scores were calculate4f

-. - Design 1.
by designs for each age group. Table 6 shows this data. Table 6 shows a fairlyi _
regular decrease in scores on all designs with increasing ~ge, except for de{i Table 7
sign three. We have prepared table 7 based on Bender's findings which showf , by six year
that design three is the most difficult for children, not being correctly repn:i~; "Very smal
duced until the age eleven. Bender's data, table 7, indicated that by the agJf;, our popula1
of seven designs one, four, five, and eight-are correctly reproduced. Table ~; ( dency for t:
based on our population of 46 normal children of superior intelligence show~f .- the line of
that these are the same designs receiving the lowest mean scores for the ag~t, population.
group 6-7. Except for design 6 similar agreement will be found for the other:~•. wavy direc·
age groups of our popuation. Bender shows design 6 correctly reproduce4j stimulus. 0
at the age of eight, with the criterion that they be simply two wavy lines,~ dots which
crossing at right an?les. Our scoring system on the other hand demands closer- blob of pen,_._·_:_~i:-_·
··_
adherence to the stimulus. { __ dots. althtn

Having indicated a good deal of agreement between our findings based on i , deviations ~
46 children of superior intelligence with those _of Bender based on a much j - devia,tions 1
larger population we shall consider each design and the deviations found in · . among chi]
children's drawings. We shall then use this knowledge in the appraisal of aduld · should not l
records. runmng ac1
Above the
Table 8. large circle
Certain Deviations of Normal Children,
Normal Adults, and Psychotics Contrasted
-~-
Children (Ages in yrs. and mos.) Adults
6-3 7-3 8-3 6-3
7-2 8-2 9-2 9-2 Psychotics Normals
N = 20 N = 14 N = 12 N = 46 N =46 N =46
Distortion
(All Designs)
Rotation
(All Designs)
32
40
7
16
5
11
44
67
7
25
0
0
. ,
Workover
(All Designs) 21 15 12 48 88 15 AGl
Fig. Missing
(All Designs) 3 2 1 6 3 0
Confused Order 5 0 2 7 3 0
Overlapping Designs 7 3 0 10 16 4
Compression 2 2 2 6 5 1
2nd Attempt
(All Designs) 2 4 2 8 36 5 AGE
Circles for Dots
(Designs 1, 3, 5) 4 2 0 6 2 0
Perseveration
(Designs 1, 2, 6) 18 6 2 1 0
Wavy Line
26
, ,.
(Designs 1, 2) 35 34 19 88 54 37
Sh(Ie Circle
Design 2) 13 3 1 17 12 0
.Deviation in Slant
(Design 2) 5 6 2 13 18 5
AGE
Dashes or Dots
/. (Design 2) 2 0 0 2 8 2
Blunting
(Design 3)
No. Dots
(Design 3)
1 1 0 2 0 , . "'
14 6 5 25 5 3
Sq. and Curve Not
Joined (Design 4) 4 2 0 6 1 0
Angles
(Design 6) 16 9 5 30 15 8
Fig. Not Crossed
(Designs 6, 7) 0 2 0 0
Angles Ext. or Miss.
(Designs 7, 8) 31 14 12 57 38 15
CHILDREN AND THOSE WITH CORTICAL DEFICIT 45
~res were calculate•
able 6 shows a fairl''
1 ' Design 1.
! ~ge, except for d < Table 7 shows that, according to Bender, this design is correctly reproduced
~ndings ~hich shoi by six year olds. She defines an acceptable reproduction as follows ( 9, p.116) :
~ing correctly repr<f "Very small loops or dots; length of series resembles that of test form." For
~ted that by the al (, our population of superior children 6-7 years of age we found a definite ten-
1
reprodliced. Table f,. dency for them to perseverate the dots, often going clear across the page with
~r ii 'Jelligence showi. the line of dots. This tendency seems to be rare for children over eight in our
r st·bres for the ag:~., population. Another common deviation foµnd in our children was a definitely
:
,found for the othert:>
:it
wavy direction of movement rather than the straight line demanded by the
:orrectly reproduced},'. stimulus. Our 6-7 year old children also displayed a tendency to work over
[ply ·two wavy line~J dots which resulted in something that looked like a filled circle, or a thickened
iand demands close;f .• blob of pencil markings of peculiar shape. The substitution of large circles for
dots. although it occurred, was rare even for our 6-7 year olds. All of these
1r findings based on;{ deviations seem to show decreasing incidence with age. The incidence of these
r based on a much 1 deviaJions for our population of children is shown in table 8. For this design,
'deviations found in i• among children of normal I.Q., age 6-7, without psychogenic illness, we
ie appraisal of adult': i should not. be surprised to obtain in a given record, a wavy line of large circles
' :,":. running across the entire page. Figure 9 shows several typical reproductions.
J
J'
-~-t
Above the age of 9 we should look with some suspicion on the presence of
r::
large circles, or the perseveration of the line of dots.
ed
~dults
'
µcs Normals
16 N=46
t-- .---.. c!)
u·
0
~~
0
0
0 '
15 AGE 6-11, IQ 101
0
0 . '
.
4
1
5
AGE 6-4, IQ 107
0
I r I ~ I
0 I • I /
37 f ' • I I I " r
0
5 AGE 6-5, IQ 135

2
0
3
0
AGE 7-0, IQ 126
8
0
15
FIG. 9. DESIGN 1. Examples of children's drawings.
46 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL US . - CHILDREN AND
Design 2 1) Wavy r
2) Perseve
Table 7 indicates that this design is satisfactorily produced by Bender'~.,· way across the
population at ten years of age in a manner defined by her as follows ( 9f{ • 3) Deviati,
p.118): "Small good loops in a horizontal series of vertical rows of three;;' from that of 1
plus an attempt to slant the first row and add the others so that the whol~, · slant, whateve1
figure slants." Sixty per cent of her six year olds, however, performed acft,~ in slant is di~
cording to the following criterion ( p. 118) : "Vertical rows of three small~· slant was not
loops; the rows are perseverated two or more times in the horizontal direc-'.[f incidence of tl
tion; figure is likely to be uneven, but there is no attempt to slant the rows.'!;~ 4) Distort
Table 6 shows th~t desi~n. 2 is rhe. most dif:1icblt for ~ur ~opulation ofj\~ of irregular sl
6-7 year olds. The chief deviations makmg for high scores m this group are:;"-~J_ age. .
£! 5) RotatI<
d 8 s,;·:_•.·1; v~rs_ion _of the
~ <9 -> ; ·- viat10n is extr
9
~ • common with
- -_,__··1·.-.•
,; latter ages.
0
0 .·... In summa
;I 6-7 year old·
'l !I of threes, wit
0
•
AGE 6-11, IQ 101
I hood that the
rare, _that dot:
. •~_-_I
.
Oc, !drawmgs obt
AGE 7-1, IQ 122 _j picious of de
· tion, irregula
changes in d
., Design 3
AGE 7 -0, IQ 126
I
j Accordir
l until the age
I series of do·
• •,. •
•
,,_1?!
fi angle may t
'<t1 indicated co
1
;. i' ( See table
AGE 6-3, IQ 115 i reproduced
year olds p:
' dot with a
; more dots. '
but in the ]
tend to be(
instead of ,
,·
t
ST: CLINICAL US'', CHILDREN AND THOSE WITH CORTICAL DEFICIT 47
1) Wavy rather than straight horizontal line of circles, as in design 1.

2) Perseveration of columns with a tendency to make columns all the
1eed by Bender's~ way across the page, as in design 1.
?r as follows ( 9r? 3) Deviations in vertical slant. We have not found that a slant differing
al rows of three,,i ·· from that of the stimulus is a discriminating deviation, provided that the
· 1.0 th:>.~ the wholi:
slant, whatever it is, is maintained. We have found, however, that variability
ir, performed ac_.:;; in slant is discriminating. ( See Appendix for item analysis.) Deviation in
V'S of three smauit ' shmt was not uncommon in our population of children. Table 8 shows the
horizontal direc-t' · incidence of this deviation. It tends to decrease with increasing age.
> slant the rows."X' 4) Distorted shape of the circle. Our 6-7 year olds tended to make circles
>Ur population of { of irregular shapes. There is a marked drop in this tendency with increasing
in this group are: i\ . age.
~\1
5) Rotation of the design either by turning the stimulus card or by in-
.tb C
(9
(11
sv f version of the reproduction from a properly oriented stimulus card. This de-
viation is extremely common in our population of 6-7 year olds, and not un-
0 ~
d ~ ,e)
common with our 8-9 year olds; there is some decrease in incidence at the
latter ages.
In summary for this design, we should say that normal expectation for a
6-7 year old would be a reproduction of irregularly shaped circles in columns
of threes, with variable slant, in a wavy line across the page, with the likeli-
·1·· hood that the entire test design will he rotated, and the possibility, although
.· :, ·. rare, that dots or dashes will he substituted for circles. Figure 10 shows typical
drawings obtained. For individuals above the age of nine we should he sus-
•..
1
picious of dots or dashes substituted for circles, the presence of persevera-
tion, irregularly shaped circles, marked deviations in vertical slant, and sharp
changes in direction of movement.
I Design 3
I According to Bender successful reproduction, not attained on this design
t until the age of 11, is defined as follows ( 9; p.120): "Single dot with a dextrad
'j series of dotted angles of progressively larger size, with more dots. The last
f angle may tend to become arc-shaped." In agreement with Bender our data
§ indicated continuing difficulty with this design for all of our normal children.
,~ (See table 6.) A recognizable representation of an arrowhead is, however,
F reproduced hy the age of six. Eighty per cent of Bender's population of six
~ year olds produced a drawing defined by her as follows (9, p.120): "Single
,1
:%
dot with a dextrad series of dotted arcs of progressively larger size with
'' more dots. The first two arcs in the series contain the correct number of dots,
hut in the last two the number is only approximated. The last two arcs may
tend to become straight lines. ( In a very few cases small loops are made
.ngs. instead of dots.) The number of arcs is the same as the test form."
48 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL u; CHILDREN AND '
Our data indicate the following deviations primarily responsible for his
scores in our 6-7 year olds.
1) Rotation, as in design 2. Successful re:
2) Number of dots incorrect. There may be more or less dots than in der's populatioIJ
stimulus. The incidence of this deviation tends to decrease with increasing a "The first figure
3) Distortion of stimulus so the reproduction, merely a conglomerati oblique relation
of dots, does not look at all like the stimulus. (See manual for definition. . · 6-7 year old chi
this deviation.) This deviation is rarely encountered in children above the a;, :; lus was rare. A
of eight. ;~· · was not uncom
4) Blunting of t1.z arrowhead, i.e., obliteration of point of arrowhe~~ •· tabulating. The
This deviation, although encountered, is rare even for our 6-7 year olds.}i tion of 6-7 yea1
is not found in our population above the age of eight. 1) Rotation
5) Substitution of circles for dots, as in design 1. 2) Failure t
In summary, normal expectation for this design from a 6-7 year old seven year old
average intelligence without psychogenic illness, might be characterized , .· Normal exp
follows: a rotated reproduction consisting of circles, dashes, or dots, or{ .· seem to be an o:
combination of all three, in which the point of the arrowhead is blunted, arif. lus, not necess;
the number of dots in the reproduction may be more or less than those ·; ends of the sq1
the stimulus. There is a rough resemblance to the stimulus; complete disto.: ; tated. ( See fig1
tion is rare after the age of seven. Figure 11 shows typical drawings obtaine ·: : nine years of a
For subjects above the age of nine reproductions which include blunting, thj · square and the
substitution of all large circles for dots, or distortions, would deviate serious(
from expectancy. Less serious, but probably significant, would be an incorr~
~
number of dots and rotation. ·
•.
.,
-#"
,
~
'. it-
0
0
,• • AGE 6-3,
• ') 0
AGE 6-11, IQ 101

AGE 6-8, IQ 106
•••
•• I 'I
AGE 7-2, IQ 137 AGE 7-lC

AGE 7-1, IQ 122
Fie. 11. DESIGN 3. Examples of children's drawings.

r . •. ~
r, .•
~ TEST:. CLINICAL U CHILDREN AND THOSE WITH CORTICAL DEFICIT 49
~
~ responsible for hi ·
r
(-·
Design 4
t
f Successful reproduction of this design, accomplished by 75 per cent of Ben-
Ir less dots than in t der's population of six year olds, is defined by her as follows (9, p. 122):
[se with increasing a . "The first figure is a good open square. There is an indication of an actual
~ely a conglomerati -~ ·
~
oblique relationship." Table, 6 indicates that this design is the easiest for our
~nual for definition (lfi
;: ~
f:r-7 year old children. Failure to make a reasonable reproduction of the stimu-
phildren above the agl . lus was rare. Although asymmetry of the curve was a common deviation, it
~.
[.
]~
._,,,
.
was not uncommon with normal adults, and we did not feel it worthwhile
f point of arrowhead; · tabulating. The factors primarily responsible for high scores in our popula-
!; our f:r-7 year olds., f: tion of f:r-7 year old children were the following:
1) Rotation, either of the whole design, or of the curve on the square.
!'
I
;
,,.
2) Failure to join the square and the circle. This deviation is rare in our
rom a· f:r-7 year old o seven year old children, and did not occur in the records of eight year olds.
h be characterized
j• '
Normal expectation for this design among children 6-7 years old would
!dashes, or dots, or : seem to be an open end square with a curve roughly similar to that of the stimu-
►whead is blunted, an lus, not necessarily joined but oriented approximately to one of the closed
: or less than those i~ ends of the square. The whole design may be correctly reproduced but ro-
mlus; complete disto:r, tated. ( See figure 12.) Marked deviations from expectancy for subjects over
lCal drawings obtained} . nine years of age would be distortion of the stimulus, and failme to join the
~ include blunting, the square and the curve. ·
¥ould deviate seriously · ·. .::-'-~-
. would be an incorrect ' ~ --~:ci~
,/)':,~
.
·.
'>t?/' .
'J ~ ,
'
I'\
C
0
C) AGE 6-8, IQ 111
C AGE 6-3, IQ 128 AGE 7-1, IQ 122
a
Q
. :-8, IQ 106
LJ
AGE 6-5, IQ 135 AGE 7-2, IQ 137
E 7-1, IQ 122 AGE 7 -10, IQ 122
rawings,
50 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL U~ tHILDREN AND TH
Design 5 1 1 ) The substit

. d esign
Th IS . . repro d uce d JlY 60 per cent of Ben d er' s popu 1at10n
Is . } for the 6-7 year
o f st.~
year old children in a manner defined by her as follows ( 9, p. 124): "Dott{ eight. Th b til
2
arc resembling the test form in size. The dotted dash goes in the right-handedi . ) R e s~ s
. ·
upwar d d 1rect10n.
Th b d' . . . h l k
ere may e some 1sonentat10n m t e c oc -wise Ir .
. 3) a· ·
W otation
h Id ex
o
lion." Table 6 indicates that this design was second to design 4 in ease e s ou
roduction simila
reproduction for the 6-7 year olds. All of them were able to draw rouo- P
des, or a combin
approximations of the stimulus. There were no extreme distortions, a.
rotated, or the eJ
though solid lines substituted for dots (scored as "distortion") did occur. Th l
the design shou '
deviations chiefly contributing to high scores for our population of 6-7 ye··
dots are not an
olds follow:
i;ubjects over nin
;iof solid lines for
'.l O dots in the a:
the records of cl
·Design 6
According to
· · racy until the ag
: uniform curves
AGE 6-11, IQ 101
AGE 6-4, IQ 107
•0 , however, that 6(
dt
I /her (9, ·p. 126) ,
:: ·that this design
0
bl::>
~ sign 3. the mos
, '0 """ ... . reproductions r<
.. • • ,.-~ i) ~
0 r viations which I
"
~
The deviatic
.,
• ~
"
~
;
,6-7 year olds fc
l) Extra c1
I.reproduction ra
AGE 7-2, IQ 104 AGE 7-1, IQ 122 •_le. alled "per_s.eve1
f the age of ~ighl
,J 2) Rotation
AGE 6-7, IQ 142
i,I not infrequent i
:; 3 l Angles '
( year olds. The
} they have a ten
'I whereas in the
1sinusoidal curv
AGE 7 -9, IQ 121
~ 4) Distorti
~ When found i'
each other are
~
,.----
!
r
!TALT TEST: CLINICAL u' ~•HILDREN AND THOSE WITH CORTICAL DEFICIT 51
r 4 "
,i 1) The substitution of solid lines for dots. This deviation, not uncommon
~nder's population of s ffor the 6-7 year olds, was not encountered in the records of children over
~
pws (9, p. 124): "Dott eight.

· 2) The substitution of large circles for dots, as in designs 1 and 3.
f goes in the right-hand
~ in the clock-wise dir · 3) Rotation of the entire design, or the extension, as in design 4.
. We should expect, in the records of normal children 6-7 years old, a re-
~ to design 4 in ease
rere able to draw rou ,production similar in shape to the stimulus, made with solid lines, large cir-
rextreme distortions, des, or a combination of dashes, dots and circles. The whole design may be
~tortion") did occur. T · !rotated, or the extension may be rotated on the arc. The number of dots in
t population of 6-7 ye· {the design should approximate the number in the stimulus although fewer
·:dots are not an unexpected finding. ( See figure 13.) For the records of
!subjects over nine years of age, we should not expect to find the substitution
!9f solid lines for dots, the substitution of large circles for dots, or fewer than
10 dots in the arc. Rotation of the extension or the entire design is rare in
the records of children over nine years of age.
According to Bender this design is not produced with any degree of accu-
: racy until the age of eight ( see table 7), and it is not until the age of 11 that
:uniform curves crossing at an ohlique angle are produced. Her data show,
\however, that 60 per cent of her six year olds produced drawings defined by
her (9, p. 126) as "two wavy lines crossing at right angles." Table 6 indicates
-that this design remains a difficult one for our population, being, next to de-
sign 3. the most difficult for our 8-9 year olds. By the age of six, however,
reproductions roughly similar to that of the stimulus are obtained, with de-
: viations which are on a continuum with older age groups.
• The deviations primarily responsible for high scores in our population of
-6-7 vear
. olds follow·.
'
l) Extra curves, i.e., five or more curves, or angles, are found in the
. reproduction rather than the four of the stimulus. This tendency we have
• .called "perseveration," as in designs 1 and 2. It is rare in our children above
· the age of ~ght.
AGE 6-7, IQ 142 .. 2) Rotation of the entire design or of the vertical curve. This deviation is
I not infrequent in our eight year olds. -
:f 3 1 Angles instead of curves. This tendency is also encountered in eight
i year olds. The incidence of angles in six year olds derives from the fact that
i they have a tendency to make a series of arches rather than sinusoidal curves,
j whereas in the eight year olds an occasional angle may be substituted for a
~ sinusoidai curve.
"'. 4 ) Distortion. This tendency is not common even with the 6-7 year olds.
{i 'When found it arises from the fact that although two wavy lines crossing
lrawings. -~ each other are reproduced there is little resemblance to the stimulu~.
-·,,· '
52 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL U . CHILDREN AND TH 1
5) Part of the design missing. This deviation is noted when there are I \:
·t .•·
than three curves in a line. Only two of the 6-7 year olds were scored
,_
t •·
This design is 1
this deviation. ,, .
•;·1 · Bender. Productio
6) Failure to cross t h e lines. None of our 6-7 year olds failed to prod( '. . " I
· W h' d · · h f • • 'fi .
crossmg curves. e note t 1s ev1ahon ere or its s1gm cance m ater . ·. ,:l d"t ·. More or ess goc
d d'ff
. Jt ' laro-er an 1 eren
CUSSIOn. .\$; ;; O , d'
• d es1gn,
I n summary of tJus · we sh ouId expect,
· f rom a norma I ch'ld 1
1 ~t. , this design
. I1s a 1
. .h . . h . Th;;• ·· most d1fficu t at ea,
years o Id , two crosse d wavy Imes wit two or more curves m eac 1me. ~i:e ,
may be many more than two curves, e.g., seven or eight. The curves may:~ : th ere are no gross
· of minor deviatior
roughly sinusoidal or a series of arches. The whole design may be rotatt .
, 'h · 1 h h · I 1 l ( S F' ,r; . Ch1eflv
e vertica curve may cross t e onzonta at a most any ang e. ee 1g ;.,.•. '. responi
d .
· · · ·,~ the followmg evu
14.) We should expect, m a sub1ect of over mne years of age that the curv,,
· 'd I h h Id b h fi f 1) Angles ext.I
wou Id b e ro~g11 1 y smusot a , t at t ere wou e not more t an 1ve or 8,,t . usuall resulted fr
curves to cJ. hne and not less than three, and that there would not be a co. . . Y k
· · • failure to ma e a
sistent substitution of angles for curves.
deviation in our 8·
2) Rotation, ei
· Thus, instead of f<
be at right angles
hexagon being sirr.
3) Distortion.
AGE 6-11, IQ 101

AGE 6-11, IQ
AGE 6-9, IQ 118
AGE 6-5, IQ:
AGE 7-1, IQ 122 AGE 6-3, IQ 128
FIG. 14. DESIGN 6. Examples of children's drawings. Fie.

icHILDREN .AND THOSE WITH CORTICAL DEFICIT 53
noted when there are f

rear olds were scored /·
This design is not satisfactorily produced until the age of 10, according to
ear olds failed to prodfl Bender. Prod~ctions at this age are defined by her as follows (9, p. 126):
significance in later :: "More or less good hexagonal forms which overlap. One figure is usually
_ ' larger and differently shaped than the other." Our data ( table 7) suggest that
From a ·normal child :, ' this design is a difficult one for our population of children, being one of the
mrves in each line. Th,r. . most difficult at each age group. We find that even at the age of nine, although
~ight. The curves may{ . there are no gross deviations from the stimulus, there are a sufficient number
; design may be rotae"; of minor deviations so that high scores on this design are common.
it any angle. (See Fi ff Chiefly responsible for high scores in our population of 6-7 year olds are
rrs of age that the curi the following deviations:
ot more than five or s} . 1) Angles extra or missing. This deviation was common. "Angles extra"
iere would not be a cf , usually resulted from a straight line with kinks in it, "angles missing," from
· failure to make a proper hexagon. There is a fairly high incidence of this
deviation in our 8-9 year olds.
f) Rotation, either of the entire design, or of one hexagon upon the other.
Thus, instead of forming an acute angle between them, the two hexagons may
be at right angles to each other, or there may not be any angle at all, one
hexagon being simply placed on top of the other.
3) Distortion. This deviation is common in 6-7 year olds, rare in 8-9
AGE 6-11, IQ 101

AGE 6-5, IQ 135 AGE 6-5, IQ 122
:....9, IQ 118
AGE 6-5, IQ 119 AGE 7-2, IQ 137

-3, IQ 128
drawings.
54 THE BENDER-f.ESTALT TEST: CLINICAL u,; ~'CHILDREN AND THOSI
year olds. It arises out of the fact that although two overlapping figures at
reproduced, one or both of them bear little resemblance to a hexagon. '
4) Part of design missing. This deviation is rare in our 6-7 year olds. Certain deviation:
··~~;
list it because of its significance for later discussion. :;,t; designs on the paper,
5) Failure to cross hexagons. This deviation, also, is very rare in 6-7 ye,i} to high scores for our
olds. Bender's data indicate it to be more common for five year olds. ~'. 1) Order. Failur,
For this design then, we would expect the reproductions of 6-7 year ol~ haphazard as to be ,
to consist of two overlapping figures which may or may not lcok very mu{. our 6-7 year olds.
· like hexagons. Angles are, however, present in the reproduction, althoug~ 2) Overlapping d
there may be more or less than six angles to a figure. The figures may 1):: was not uncommon
joined at almost any angle. ( See figure 15.) From subjects over nine yearj year olds.
of age we should not expect marked deviations from the stimulus. We shouW 3) Compression
expect overlapping figures resembling hexagons. There may be angles extfi deviation occurs but
or missing, but not to the extent that part of the design is missing. '.1 4) Second attemr
this occurs more th~
Design B , cThis latter aspect, p
According to Bender this design is satisfactorily produced by the age o With respect to
seven in a manner defined by her as follows ( 9, p. 130) : "More or less cat· expect for normal c
fully formed hexameter with inside figure a fairly good diamond." Her da' placed in a logical <
indicate that her six year olds do only slightly less well on this design tha' compressed into one
her seven year olds. Our data suggest this to be one of the easiest figures fcf more than once. Fo
our population of children, with deviations similar to that of design 7. confused order. We:
We should expect normal 6-7 year olds to reproduce a design roughr' tion. ( See Appendix
similar to the stimulus, with an outside figure containing angles, more or le , ·•· In discussing ea<
than six; and an inside figure, smaller, with more or less than four angle .cause at that age w,
( See figure 16). The entire design may be rotated. The inside figure ma'. ,viations scored by u
overlap the boundaries of the outside figure, or it may not touch them. .records of adults. W
age children are ab
writes (9, p. 133):
rovement of obliq1
Thus by taking the
· suggesting that the
AGE 6-11, IQ 101 ·not common for aE
normal maturation.
Our data has s
AGE 6-4, IQ 107
psychogenic illness.
() kinds of deviations,
from failure in mat1
tions common to c
AGE 7-2, IQ 137
adults, are indicati-v
I.Q., and ( bl that t:
nine, and also com:
F1G. 16. DESIGN 8. Examples of children's drawings.
STALT TEST: CLINICAL
tHILDREN AND THOSE WITH CORTICAL DEFICIT
~
55
{
yo overlapping figures
lance to a hexagon.
~ in our 6-7 year olds.
Certain deviations scored by us have to do with the arrangement of the
).
designs on the paper, called whole configuration score. Deviations contributing
10, is very rare in 6-7 y lo high scores for our 6-7 year olds in this aspt>ct of the test follow:
or fi~e year olds. ! · 1) Order. Failure to follow a logical order was common, but order so
ductions of 6-7 year ot, haphazard as to be considered confused was relatively uncommon even for
may no.t lc_ok very mu{~ :our 6-7 year olds.
~ reproctuction, althougm 2) Overlapping designs, i.e., designs 3 and 4 overlapping. This deviation
;ure. The figures may ~;.: was not uncommon for 6-7 year olds. We should say it is rare for 8-9
subjec_ts over nine year,~ year olds.
· the stimulus. We shoul,, 3) Compression of all designs into one half of the alloted space. This
:ere may be angles .deviation occurs but is not common in our population of children.
sign is missing. 4) Second attempt, i.e., the execution of the designs more than once. Where
this occurs more than twice it may take on the character of perseveration.
· ·• .This latter aspect, perseveration, was very rare even for our 6-7 year olds.
produced by the ' With respect to the arrangement of the designs on the page, we should
30): "More or less car·, expect for normal children, 6-7 years old, that reproduction might not be
>od diamond." Her dat,' 'placed_ in a logical order, that designs might overlap, that they might all he
well on this design thari compressed into one half of the page, or that a design might be reproduced
of the easiest figures fo• more than once. For subjects over nine years of age we should not expect
that of design 7. : 'confused order. We should not expect second attempt amounting to persevera-
oduce a design rough! tion. ( See Appendix for examples of children's drawings.)
ing angles, more or les, · In discussing each design we have taken the ages 6-7 as our base a:ge he-
r less than four angle. · cause at that age we first obtain reproductions in which the majority of de-
:The inside figure ma' _viations scored by us are continuous with the scorable deviations found in the
1y not touch them. · : records of adults. We have contrasted these with the age nine because by that
•age children are able to make reasonable facsimiles of the stimulus. Bender
.. writes (9, p. 133): "The ages Qver seven add very little more than an im-
: provement of obliquity, and an increase in the numbers of combinations."
; Thus by taking the age of nine as our contrasting age we feel fairly safe in
r,. suggesting that the incidence of deviations common to 6-7 year olds, and
, not common for ages of nine or above, is indicative of at least failure in
I normal maturation. .
! 107 ·I Our data has shown that deviations scored by us are correlated with
J p~ychogenic illness. We would postulate, now, that it is possible there are two
AGE 6- 3 , IQ 128 I kmds of deviations, one kind resulting from psychogenic illness and one kind
,f_ from failure in maturation, or organic causes. We suggest, (a) that the devia-
J tions common to children below age nine, and not common to psychotic
~ ~dults, are indicative of damage to the cortex when found in adults of average
t LQ., and ( b) that the deviations common in the records of children below age
rawings. Dnine, and also common in the records of psychiatric patients of average I.Q.
56 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL U"
O Oa oo 6 Oo
without damage to cortex, are indicative of psychogenic disorders when fou . 0 0 (} 0
in the records of adults. o O O 0
In an attempt to distinguish between these two kinds of deviations
o v o C)
have prepared table 8, which summarizes what we feel to be the import -.
deviations discussed in connection with each design. In order to prepare t ·
table we selected at random from our files, 46 adult normals and 46 ad ·_.
: c~ .
-r. {
psychotics, without regard to age or education. We simply counted the devff

lions shown for each of the groups of children and for the adult normals an[i ·.
psychotics. Table 8 shows that some of the deviations common in children ar{
also common in psychotics, and, in some instances, not uncommon in thi: .·
records of adult normals. These deviations, obviously, are not indicative Q{ ·.
lack of maturation on an organic basis. We have not calculated confidenc~j '.;
levels for the difference in occurrence -of the deviations because we do no(. ·
believe that the findings shown in the table represent anything conclusive,'.
We present the table merely to show that it is possible from our data to get: -
results similar to opinions we might have advanced based on clinical experi;; ·
ence with the test. We have not made a quantitative study of the records of
mental defectives, or of individuals suffering from damage to the cortexf ',
We are now, at this point in our discussion, merely in the process of adding- ·..
to the clinician's experience with the test so that he may, to the quantitativ~ ·
method of scoring the test, add qualitative observations which may increase~:•!!,..,...------
the possibility of accurate diagnosis. We should not, therefore, be happy iE ·•- ·
table 8 be considered a table of "signs." _
The interested clinician should, however, examine table 8 carefully. The.)
findings suggested there accord well with what we have found to be true i~
clinical practice. Take, for instance, perseveration in designs 1, 2, and 6. Th(;
deviation occurs 18 times in the 6-7 year olds (90% ), 14 times in the 7-&
year olds ( 43 % ) and twice in the 8-9 year olds ( 17 % ) , a total of 26 times:
for all 46 children. It occurs only once in the records of the 46 adult psycho~;
tics and not at all in the records of the norma. adults. This deviation should
now be contrasted with wavy lines in designs 1 and 2, which is fairly common
in the records of children, psychotics, and normal adults. Wavy line,. obviously,
is not the kind of deviation we are interested in at this point. We a:r:e, however,
interested in perseveration, and other deviations with a similar frequency dis- ·
tribution, e.g., square and curve not joined in design 4, figures not crossed in~
designs 6 and 7, several attempts at the same design amounting to persevera•:
tion, circles substituted for dots on designs 1, 3, and 5. Deviations of this ,
sort suggest primitivation of reproduction similar to those found in the draw-> :
ings of individuals suffering from discernible, structural damage to the cortex. !-13-11, W-B I.Q. i
They are also found, to some extent, however, in the reproductions of indivu- f· Cornell Coxe M..
. dl y. In a dd'It10n,
blrn . · £ormation
unless some ot.h er rn · IS · IS
· d"ffi
I cuIt }I
~,
!
als suffering from psychogenic illnesses, and cannot, therefore, be applied nuthmbered and lin1
· avai·1 a ble It t,-,-
i:;,l;.
~.
~ff~
e aulbors ·)
I ,
I .
~ : A.
PA.LT TEST: CLINICAL u·
~ -,.¢5· 0 0 00 6 0 0 0 (5' 0 ""0 0 0
r . ~ o occ
~ic disorders when fouf ) · o O (j o D C) GO Fie. 17. C.A. 17-10, W-B I.Q. 34. (D
i kinds of deviations h ! J'cdl g ~ g ~ ~ ggt~nLJ..

feel to be the importap. i o 8
numbered by the authors.)
bn order to prepare t '.l j : AS. ln-1 Q

!t normals and 46 ad~-,
imply counted the dev1 ; :;
li 4.
r~
_
66. u .1
1
7_
6r the adult normals a .·

!Jcommon in children a
!~ noJ uncommon in t _
tY, are not indicative
rot calculated confiden
fons because we do n
. ~nt anything conclusiv~; ,;
ble from our data to ge1 ..
based on clinical experi; ·
\ study of the records ot
; damage to the corte)9
~n the process of addin ~
!may, to the quantitativ:
lons which may increasfa:e-,-------------..----------'----------------
i,therefore, be happy if
re table 8 carefully. Th~

-
•••
iave found to be true i~ ~
pesigns 1, 2, and 6. Th~

••
b), 14 times in the 7-·:'
'% ), a total of 26 times
••~
; of the 46 adult psycho: .•• -
~
~- This deviation should 0
; which is fairly common
\ts. Wavy line,. obviously,{-
; point. We are, however,;
-
•
I.
••
-
.• A.
••
••••• Q. · " ·
1 fat TRIAL
; a similar frequency disi; •
'4, figures not crossed iii}
amounting to persever~f}; ..
-
1d 5. Deviations of thit_ ··
:hose found in the draw·i;.. _.·_
·al damag~ to the ~or~ex, 113-11, W-B I.Q. 32, S.B. I.Q.
~r
reproductions of md1vu• f~· Cornell Coxe M.A. 5-3, I.Q.
t, therefore, be applied I numbered and lines drawn by
.s available it is difficult ~ 1he authors.)
\
\
\
CHILDREN AND THOSE WITH CORTICAL DEFICIT 57
to distinguish between the records of mental defectives and of individuals

suffering from organic brain diseases or traumatic injury to the brain.
Bender writes (9, p.75): "It seems that the gestalt function is more in-
volved the nearer the lesion comes to the occipital region." Later, in the
same paragraph she writes (p. 75): "Thus, in a general way, we may conclude
that the area most probably involved in disturbances of the visual motor
gestalt function, as exemplified by these copied test forms, is that between
the temporal, parietal and occipital lobes of the dominant hemisphere." The
area of the lesion, therefore, is also important in the type of deviation ob-
served. Our experience is in agreement with Bender's observation. Lesions in
the occipital lobe are apt to he reflected in the more primitive deviations such
as the inability to cross the curves of design 6 or the hexagons of design 7.
On the other hand, we have observed very little disturbance in the ability
to reproduce the Bender design in individuals with frontal lobotomy or lohec-
tomy. Circumscribed lesions, especially in the nondominant hemisphere, result
in less disturbance in the ability to reproduce the design than pervasive lesions
and acute, confusional states following trauma to the cortex. It would he dif-
ficult indeed to apply "signs" to such complex phenomena!
In general, where the I.Q. is within average limits and indications of primi-
tivation are found in the record, damage to the cortex may he suspected. This
criterion should, however, he used with caution. The same type of clinical
reasoning needs to he applied to the B-G as to other kinds of psychological
tests. Thus, for instance, although some kinds of perseverat,ion are found in
the records of psychotics, extreme instances of perseveration are usually found
only in the records of individuals suffering from d_amage to the cortex or
mental deficiency. If, for example, we were given the record shown in figure
17, we should with little hesitation categorize it as "organic." It shows per-
severation in designs 1 and 2, blunting in design 3, substitution of circles for
dots in designs 1, 3, and 5, inability to cross over in designs 6 and 7, and
distortion of several designs. We should be right, of course, because it is the
record of a mental defective, 18 years of age with a Wechsler-Bellevue I.Q.
of 34. It is not the record of an individual suffering from trauma to the cortex
or acute organic brain disease. It could he the record of an individual in
advanced stages of a vascular disorder like cerebral arteriosclerosis, hut his
illness would be far advanced. It is our guess that any individual of normal
intelligence giving a B-G like that shown in figure 17 would exhibit very prom-
inent indications of acute cerebral disorder.
Figure 18 shows the record of another mental defective, age 14, with a
Wechsler-Bellevue I.Q. of 32. In addition to other indications of primitive re-
productions this record shows rotation in almost every design. Now, according
te> table 8, rotation is not uncommon in psychotics, hut note, twenty-five rota-
tions for 46 subjects suggests an average of less than one rotation per record.
r oo •'
,. .'.
•• . . .• 0. • 0 ... •
I
57
if .individuals :i C.A.13-3, S.B. M.A. 9-8, l.Q.

g o•
o o O 00 00 O
C o O o O O oo
0600000°00
he brain. :mell Coxe M.A. 7-11, I.Q. 60.
/n is more in-
/Later, in the .
. ..
.....
.
0
;may conclude
i visual · motor ~ . .,
/ that between
&isphere." The
: deviation oh-
ion. Lesions in
Jeviations such
is of design 7.
· in the ability
itomy or lobec-
nisphere, result
ervasive lesions
:t would he di£-
:ations of primi-
.suspected. This
type of clinical
?f psychological
~n are found in
re usually found
!ol the cortex or
;shown in figure
.•
(." It shows per-
ion of circles for . .. . .. -
c:.
t,
'
..
..
' •
c,, •
o8
•
•
a(J
• •
O o (.:) u
0
0
.
• .. G • •
ils 6 and 7, and . . "

•
C,
C, 0
0
;because it is the •• ,. . " c:, G
;ler-Bellevue I.Q.
n:na to the cortex
!an individual in
(sclerosis, but his
ividual of normal
ixhihit very prom-
e, age 14, with a

[lS of primitive re-
n. Now, according
:!, twenty-five rota-
-~. Fie. 20. C.A. · 32. 1!! 1?. ..~ t {..,..,!J
Aphasic-expandir ·23, se-ven months
l<-LY
Jtation per record. one mer retraining.
.::;;.
r,L'l1
Fie. 21. C.A. 22, Estimated ·
Right hemiparesis, receptiv
t.A. 22, W-B
c1;_ left temporal
aphasia, alexia, and convulsf
wound left temporal-parie\"
'
'
I,·
.• .
i
I
.. ... ' .... •
' ,
Fie. 22. Same patient whose record is

to table ti, •1even months later
tions for 46 Sling. '
, I /I
'
i
I
1
~
a:
I
N
i~
ii. C.A. 22, Estimated

fit hemiparesis, recepti
~- 22 , W-B I.Q. 90, encephalo-
,,.
•Ieft temporal-parietal area.
la, · alexia, and convuls ·
&und left temporal-parie
[_
If
I
,, . ,, '
,I'
I
(
J
I
,
' '
1 \ " ·1 I I I
, ··',, .,,
, ,
J
' '
'. ,. . . . . . ..... 0 c:, Cl C:.

Ci ()0 ~ o u
(J CJ c., (J u'O CJ
bi:, {)olJ
Ob O o o b o a 6 b-<1 o
.. -...
.. '•
-- 24. Same J?atient whose rec

FIG.
shown in figure 23, seven monti
after retraining.
(:.61]
62 · THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL
All the designs of figure 18 are rotated. Such a finding is far beyond expecta~
. 46, college
even for a confused psychotic, it is much more in line with expectancy hemmorrhage
very young children.
Figure 19 shows the record of an individual of borderline I.Q., age
years 3 months, Stanford Binet I.Q. 73. Note that with increasing I.Q, t
number of indications of primitivation of forms is less. The square and c _
of design 4, are not joined; and the curves of design 6, not crossed. Less serio~
deviations are the second attempt of design 5, and the tendency to distorti<l'
on designs 7 and 8. Compare these, now, with the record shown in figure 2Q·
which was obtained from an individual of 32 with a Wechsler-Bellevue p ·_·
formance I.Q. of 80. Note. the extreme perseveration exhibited in design"
1, 2, 3, and 4, the distortion of design 5, and the inability to overlap t
v hexagons in design 7. The arrangement of the de:".igns on the page, the siz~'
and the order are good. We should guess that the occipital lobe is involve"
but we should also guess that the lesion is not circumscribed, i.e., that 0th¢
parts of the brnin are affected owing to the extent of primitive deviation'
_This patient died of an expanding lesion one month after being tested.
Figure 21 is that of a 22 year old patient, estimated I.Q. 99, At the ti ·
of testing he was suffering from a right hemiparesis, receptive and expressi.
aphasia, complete agraphia and alexia and convulsions-the result of a g _
shot wound in the left temporal-parietal region. The test was executed wi.i
the left hand since the patient did not have the use of his right hand, althou ··
he had been right-handed prior to injury. All the designs are rotated. T
order is confused. There are a number of columns missing in design 2. T
execution of the individual designs is in general good, allowing for the f
that the patient had to use an unaccustomed hand in drawing. The square a,
curve of designs 4 are joined. The curv<>.s of design 6 are crossed and t:
hexagons of design 7 overlap. We should ,~uess that the occipital lobe is n_'
involved. If that be so then the effect of the lesion is not pervasive enough \ C
...
be generalized in its effect on cortical functioning, and we should consid
it a circumscribed lesion. This record should be compared with that of tlf
expanding lesion shown in figure 11. Figure 22 shows the record of the sait
individual as in figure 21 eleven months later, after r~training in the use ~
the left hand and in speech. Figure 22 shows good order and absence &
rotation, but perseveration in design 2 suggests the continuing effect of dami ·
to the cortex. .
1·••:;,
Performance on the B-G test can indicate damage to the cortex only wMJ,11.-r,/t'f<:->
the damage shows its effect by pronounced disturbance of the ability t-:> e~.
cute the test. We know that nine year old children can repr~duce the design _
without marked deviation from the stimuli. When, therefore, an individual i ,. _-
functioning at a maturational level of nine years with respect to his abili .- .:
<i- ,:, . -·<
.~
"i,
iT TEST: CLINICAL U,
~ far beyond expect
~e whh expectancy
. 46, college graduate, sub•
hemmorrhage, acute stage.
• • -. •
.. .
-.
c; (. C. b
0 • • 0 •. C
~
. • 0 C) G
-
, C, <l.
,orderline I.Q., age l.
.
C. 0 0
g
1th increasing I.Q. tW:, .· C. ' • "

. The square and cunt' .
iot crossed. Less serio ;
e tendency to distortio::
•
s ..-.
••
prd shown in figure 2 : ,·
-.. •
; Wechsler-Bellevue pef '
fn exhibited in desig?
tnability to overlap tfr
• .,
-·
;s on the page, the siz:
;cipital lobe is involve,
1scribed, i.e., that oth,:,
~f primitive deviation";
1 after being tested. ;.:
ted I.Q. 99. At the tinf'.' i
•
receptive and expressiy
,ns-the result of a gu
test was executed wi
;his right hand, althoug•----------------1--------y----------------
lesigns are rotated. Th. '
nissing in design 2. Tij'
?d, allowing for the fl
~rawing. The square art, I
,
I
1 6 are crossed and t :~
;the occipital lobe is n 0
"
. 0 0
'b 0 (a ~
6
C,
; not pervasive enough t ~ •() 0 0 00 0 0 Cl

0 0 Cl
0 0
·and we should consid

Q
'
;mpared with that of t~
#
rs the record of the sam, ,

: r~training in the use 9, '
,d order and absence ~, ,
•
ntinuing effect of damai ,
e to the cortex only whe~

nee of t~e ability t'J exe
:an reproduce the desi .· .·
herefore, an individual ii FIG. 26. Same patient whose reco1
rith respect to his abilitJI, shown in figure 25, several month
after clinical recovery.
t \
~.i.·
Fie. 27. C.A. 24, W-~ I.
dominant, encephalopathy h .
parietal area.
.... ..
QJ .!) 0 0 0 <:> 0 0 0
I ,
0
'
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 C, 0
C, 0 C 0
0 0 0 0
<:, 0 0 C) 0 Ii 0
I •I
,I ,
, I I
, I •
F IG. 28, Record taken before bes!'.inning

....,
ECT.
t
oO I
C> C ~
C,
0 G C, C G 0
0
0
a, 0 0 0
!1c. 27. C.A. 24, W-JJ I.gJ: ·. Same patient as in figure
28. 0 e 0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0
[JJ.ant, encephalopathy fr ,d taken 24 hours after ECT. C C

' parietal - '
\
' '
'
I
•
• .1 • •• N '-,
, • le
I
''
'I -
◊
I
/"'
I I
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 b Cl 0
a 0 0 0 0 0
Fig. 29 (cont.) . Second sheet usE

patient to complete test.
66 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL
to reproduce the designs, so to speak, we cannot distinguish between his de.··.

tions and those of individuals suffering froin psychogenic disorders. This f
suggests that damage to the ·cortex has to be rather severe in it3 effect on ;
functioning efficiency of an adult of normal I.Q. before it can be detected-
means of performance on the B-G test. This fact also suggests that act~i
lesions may exist which cannot, on the basis of the deviations noted by us, 11,'
detected in performance on this test. ·.•
Figure 23 shows the record of a 22 year old patient, I.Q. 90, right domina~.
with encephalopathy left temporal parietal area. Note the deviations in shap
of the circles in design 2, distortion of the hexagon of design 7, rotation.~
designs 7 and 8, second attempts on designs 4 and 8, and the tendency J'.
perseverate on design 6. Although the patient had a partial paralysis of t¥
right hand the drawings were excuted with that hand. The patient was aJ..
c,6£. adults of
aphasic. After several months of intensive training in the use of the rig:
hand, and in speech, the patient produced the drawings shown in figure 2
}itk school ed
. ]{populatior
which show little in the way of deviations attributable to brain damage
,~,e/They are,
cording to the deviations noted by us.
1/p~rson is th
Figure 25 shows part of the record of a college graduate 46 years .
age in the acute stages following the effects of a subarachnoid hemmorrhag
i~ support the
)JJµess, i.e., ps
Figure 26 shows the record of the same individual taken several months lat \iierits are the
after clinical recovery. It would be difficult to distinguish between the reco . ?:f}iiiical use oi
shown in figure 26 and that of a patient suffering from psychogenic illne'. .C'¢se fundam«
without other information. ;' )(rfl?e ·of use
On the other hand, figure 27 shows the record of a 24 year old patie~ t/(he B-G \I
I.Q. 94, right dominant, with encephalopthy right temporal parietal ar "'
This record shows tendencies toward perseveration in designs 3 and 6, <listg'
tion and second attempt in designs 3, and part of design missing in design~ :re it, it
obviously an "organic" record. Where the lesion is on the same side of t · dtoo mt
cortex that is dominant, it is usually difficult to detect with the B-G, unless, · a defi
in this case, the lesion is rather extensive. ipistered.
For the sake of completion we present the test records of a patient befor
and during a series of electroshock treatments. Figure 28 shows the B-G r
cord taken before the onset of ECT; figure 29, 24 hours after the tenth treat
,~,y~:;:;
J:f[;f]tis not o
tE~=i~:
ment. The patient was a psychotic, depressed. Note that in figure 29, take]J
24 hours after ECT, indications of damage to the cortex are found in the r ,;
•i
;
cord, perseveration and blunting in design 3, and rotation in design 7. Confu;
sion is suggested in the overlapping of designs and distortion in size. · :itp~:yehologist J
Performance on the B-G •P,st, then, is not always able to suggest damage-to_ i@~nce, in an
the cortex, but when it does, it seems to indicate damage of a serious nature,, ~(test Her fine
It may, in some cases, indicate the locus of the lesion and whether it is cir· tairied in a 1
cumscribed or pervasive. gorized. She
With respect
r
~
~ TEST: CLINICAL ti
[ -.
Hsh between his devi
= ';')
/1c disorders. This fJ~ _

CJ '.·
he in its effect on tf
Jit can be detected !•
~- suggests that actu:
rations noted by us, I/
•; - l
8: THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST

;.Q. 90, right dominat{
ie deviations· in shap:\ AND PSYCHOGENIC DISORDERS
f design 7, rotation ~
(, and the tendency t:
?artial paralysis of t~
; The patient was als';
l~For adults of nonnal I.Q., ages 15 to 50, and with one year or more of
~ the use of the rig::
ii}µgh school education, scores on the B-G test are not correlated with I.Q. ~or
gs shown in figure 2.;,
•.[Qur population. Within the age range 15 to 50 scores are not correlated with
:.e to brain damage a,''
•~1 lrage. They are, however, for these populations, correlated with whether or not
]\a
-~;
person is the patient of a psychiatrist. In addition, there is some evi~en~e i

:,graduate 46 years :"
&f_t:o support the belief that they are co:related with seriousnes~ of psychiatric - /
·achnoid hemmorrha
jllness, i.e., psychotics tend to ~_ake h1ghe.r. sce>res than neurotic~. These state- /
)ments are the substance of our research with the B-G test. In discussing the
-· iish between the reco\ 3:clinical use of the test with psychogenic disorders we can add very little to
·om psychogenic illne tthese fundamental facts. We shall, however, attempt to show how these facts
r a 24 year old patie1f

it~~n
be of use in clinical practice.
t}. - The B-G will, we assume, be a part of other tests and procedures aimed at
temporal parietal areJ
{assisting psychiatric diagnosis, and prognosis for recommended treatment. For
B.esigns 3 and 6, -distoj
Xthe ten minutes it takes to administer the test and for the five minutes it takes
!gn missing in design 1 ~to score it, it need not give much to be worthy of a place in a battery, nor
!P the same side of tli: :~·should too much be expected of it. But it should not be used at all if it cannot
'with the B-G, unless, ;:}supply a definite piece of information about every patient to whom it is
(;~dministered. Very often we have seen clinicians· put the B-G record aside
brds of a patient befor ttwith the remark: "The Bender shows nothing." We assert that the Bender is
e 28 shows the B-G r -!"a.lways of significance as part of a battery of psychological tests.
?rs after the tenth tre,::: :tf .
It is not our purpose, in this section, to discuss the B-G test as a projective
fhat in figure 29, takeffl itechnique in t:he sense that the Rorschach is a projective technique. If pa-
1ex are found in the rei r\ients are asked to free associate to the design, content is sometimes obtained
:~ion in design 7. Confui \which is diagnostic of the patient's mental illness. Miss Margaret Carter,
st0
h rtion in size. ·,_ psychologist for the Veteran's Administration Mental Hygiene Clinic in Provi-
:>le to suggest damage· to - dence, in an as yet unpul-ilished study, is using this technique with the B-G
_tage of a serious nature: _: test. Her findings suggest ,hat it is possible to categorize responses thus ob-
l
in and whether it is cir~·•' tained in a manner similar to that in which Rorschach responses are cate-
j gorized. She found, for instance, that vista responses were not uncommon.
With respect to content, her results in:;cated a tendency for individuals with
t
[ 68 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL US·

I
\'I ij
paranoid ideation to see the dots of design 1 as fence posts. That such resu{ -
\! should be forthcoming is not unexpected in the light of previous investig1
lil
tions ( 52). However theoretically interesting it may be, such an approat
needs a great deal more research before it can be of practical use. ..
Without the method of eliciting associational content tu the designs, tK;
B-G test is, nevertheless, a projective technique in another way. We sugge·,
1il1 111I that the subject's feelings about the designs may influence his execution o
i '_,:_,~. . r:_1. them. Wolff's work ( 52) has demonstrated that graphic movement can ~,
~
r, Lf
~:1
influenced in this way. If the subject associates the design with somethir{
. , I\
lt{··_i·.·!d_.
nI"rf
rr unpleasant then he may render a poor drawing of it. On the other han'
! :~
~I· :, I
he also may, because of this fact, be all the more meticulous in his executic}'f
lWhl- of the design. Eyesenck ( 17) has suggested that subjects .may differ in aptituif
11ir,r11 for ideomotor activity. This factor, too, may participate in performance on··
/ftff :ll given design. s a t;
l~l::W, i
:r/f :/'ti\
'i On our suggestion, :Miss Carter, in connection with the study previousl' ·s ca~
mentioned, asked 22 patients and 22 matched nonpatients, adults, to ra · . he g
ru1IH
t~ju;
! order the designs in terms of unpleasantness, collecting records from th ,t oring
,ffli,:
same individuals. She then counted the number of deviations made by ea ·of tl
subject for each design. This procedure resulted in two sets of ranks f
each subject for each design. The results, calculating rho for each design, we
generally inconclusive; about half the designs showing some relations .
between the rank order of unpleasantness and deviations; and the otlf'
half, none. Designs 1, 4, 7, and 8 suggest some relationship, but desi '.:
2, 3. 5, and 6 show none. Table 9 summarizes the data by design. N~
that for both patients and nonpatients designs 6 and 7 are the most ~-
pleasant, in that order; but, whereas design 7 shows fairly good agreeme~;
I· 1t\li between unpleasantness and deviation ranks, design 6 does not. Design 3 :
in terms of number of deviations, the most difficult, which is in ·
llttr1
,J.1, Table 9
Mean Rank Orders of Unpleasantness
and Mean Numbers of Deviations
Mean Rank of Rank of Mean

Unpleasantness* No. of Deviations*
Test Figure
Pts. Nonpts. Pts. Nonpts.
t::1,
F' :: '~t,
f:}f ;~ Li 4.
/.i.~ . •\.>,~,.· i . :1 \·
· l ii;
.,,
: -t i
~
1
2
3
4
1
6
2
5
3
2
5
2
1
8
4.5
3
1
8
4.5
!l!·;tta::
~'i((]/or an
; lj 5 4
6 8
6
8
6
4.5
7
4.5 .;:U~i§hh we
7 7 7 7 6 >,mornentar
8 3 l 3 2
?altitudes
*From least unpleasant and least no. of deviations, Rank Order l,
to most unpleasant and most no. of deviations, Rank Order 8.
I
!LT TEST: CLINICAL :(>SYCHOGENIC DISORDERS 69
~o-sts. That such res with what we f~und to be true for our 8-9 year old children. It is, however,
t of previous investi ;gne of the least unpleasant for both normals and patients. This finding
f be, such an appro, ~suggests that the difficulty of the design is an important, uncontrolled variable
['practical use. /in this study of relationship between affective tone of the design and per-
'tent tQ the designs, ~formance. In our method of scoring, the designs are not equated for difficulty.
iother way. We sugg :~In any case, Miss Carter's study, preliminary in nature, does not preclude
luence his execution 'o fthe possibility that the affect with which an individual approaches a design
;phic movement can j kfmay influence his execution of that design. Other studies of a similar nature
f design with somethij ff7, 13, 40, 52) would lead us to believe that such would be the case.
tit. On the other hart: f In addition to the possibility that performance may be a function of
i [iculous in his executi~ itlie affective tone of the individual design for the subject ( which may also
(ts may differ in aptitJr lpe a function of ideomotor aptitude) we need to consider, as a possible
~te in performance o~I· lfactor influencing performance, the subject's attitude to the test as a whole,
· ; ll~e., as a· task, any task, of work under. the given circumstances of testing.
ith the study previou~ tlii this case the effect of attitude, if it influenced behavior on the test,
?atients, adults, to ra_: ffiwould be general, applying equally to all designs. Obviously, in our method
!ting records from the. }~f ·scoring we do not know to what extent scores are influenced by the
J~viations made by ei( S:e'ffect of the individual design on the subject, and to what extent by the
~ two sets of ranks f t~ubject's attitude toward the task of taking the test. If both are being measured
~ho for each design, w '•:, f'.then the effect on scores must be additive.
~wing some relationslt'' ., .. _· Jn the ordinary administration of the B-G test the subject is asked to
iviations; and the otli {{opy the designs. He does this with greater or less compliance. He may
~elationship, but desi :: !¢sent the idea of being asked to do such a silly task, and regardless of
le data by design. Nq [i~'.fact of a testing situation, hastily and in ill humor, do a poor job of
~nd 7 arc the most , ~f9Pying the designs; or, being ,suspicious he may copy them meticulously,
~s fairly good agreemi. ¼~~i11g guide lines and taking a good deal of time to ~ake exact reproductions; .1
,:6 does not. Design 3 . i~i,·heing superior and good-humored and thinking the whole thing is of
! t, which is in agreem~ 1
'.p.J>t much importance, he may sloppily dash off the test in jig time; or,
l~f~g fearful and doubtful of his ability to execute the drawings properly,
;Ji;e~:m.ay make poorly controlled and tremulous movements with many cor-
.
~tness
ions
;!~rti,ons. Attitudes and performance like the above result in high scores by
!';~, method of scoring. On the other hand, the subject may approach the
i Rank of Mean
~- of Deviations*
:;~r
r!1tf 1
as most of our nonpatients did, without particular comment, keeping
deas of the test to himself, and execute reasonable reproductions, ohtain-
Nonpts. ,,n~ a Z score of about 50.
}'/We know that adults of average I.Q., between the ages of 15 and 50,
3
1 }Y'~tbout damage to the cortex, have the capacity to execute drawings resulting,
8 ,~~- the average, in a Z score of 50. When they reproduce the designs poorly
:.5 4.5
i 7 .and /or arrange the:m in a confused manner on the page, resulting in a high
,l.5 4.5 score, we have to ask ourselves why they do this. Is it because they are
6
2 :m 0
_mentarily bored, resentful, fearful, superior, or suspicious, and are these "
:ions, Rank Order l · attitudes specific to the testing situation? We do not doubt that attitudes
tank Order 8. '
70 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL USE] PSYCHOGEN
of the moment specific to the testing situation may influence performance, )

in certain instances, but we do doubt that this was true for the majority off High Scorin
cases tested by us. We believe that the same sor~ · • factor enters into! Ash, in
·"
performance on the B-G test as, say, makes for "functional impairment" oni of psychiatr
the Wechsler-Bellevue, resulting in "significant scatter.'; We believe ·thisE · reporting th
factor to be attitude towards the task as a whole. Performance on the B-G} The variom
test seems, however, perhaps because of the abstractness of the stimuli, tof facts, obser
be more affected by attitudes than the Wechsler-Bellevue, just as the Ror~~ state, nor ar
schach seems to be more affected by them. 1 ; to psychoar
If, then, not capacity, but attitudes make for greater deviations from thei mental psyc
stimuli, our results suggest the possibility of generalizing from attitudes to· reliable tho1
the B-G test to attitudes towards other stimuli in the environment. Unfori; rotics {prin
tunately, our research has not revealed in any systematic fashion th~ psychiatric
particular kinds of attitudes which are behind high scoring records. All w:
do not, ther,
know is that certain attitudes if held over a period of time tend to resu \ they are mt
in a person becoming the patient of a psychiatrist and that these attitud . no adequat1
as reflected in B-G performance are correlated with above average scores o·.. lie along so
the test. The suspiciousness of the paranoid, the guilt of the depressed, thJ; '' our scores.
resistance and negativism of the catatonic, the ambivalence of the obsesse~ High SC•
these are attitudes toward people, things and the self. To the extent tha: some truth
they affect behavior they contribute to psychiatric illness which, in turn,· ~ extremely l
related to performance on the B-G. Attitudes, therefore, making for behavfof) : age 36, hig
which takes on the nature of psychiatric illness are related to B-G score,] with such l
Not all attitudes, however, make for consequent behavior. For the exteu,f ::!8
JiJ
poor contac
to which attitudes of the type indicated do affect behavior leading to psyj _if-<an excited ·
chiatric illness, we have previously suggested, for the purposes of this df; j/;ii,32 is the r1
cussion, the term ego strength, which we shall use in the practi
considerations to follow. ii\ ;: ~~:~:r:
/; t>f the reco1
l>ehavior so
1
We would speculate that deviations on the Bender may, in a sense, be mo : ' vnder const
significant than those on the Rorschach; for when a person in our culture writ A z SC(
down his deviation, as it were, for the whole world to see, we would guess that ~,
is "sticking his ueck out farther" than merely saying a deviation, i.e., that the a1\
of writing involves a greater commitment than the act of saying. Freud (18, 19}
on the other hand, has characterized this situation as one in which, in the nonnW
,. )>se error:
individual, unconscious wishes leading to motor behavior are inhibited by ego
,,,,, '.~j,stem, the
defenses. He points out, however, that when there is pathological enfeeblement o
ego defenses or pathological enforcement of unconscious excitations, "forbidden
unconscious impulses and potential motor expression may coexist. Freud forth
suggests that the coexistence of unconscious impulse and potential motor expres: :iii~;:
sion may be true of psychosis. Presumably this implied tendency to express ideatiorl . case. We sl
by gross deviant behavior is on a continuum, some aspect of which is being meaf of such jud
ured by our method of scoring the B-G test.
!ST: CLINiCAL US i PSYCHOGENIC DISORDERS 71
'. '
; ·,
1erice
,. performancJ ..,
High Scoring Records
pr the majority o:
:factor enters into Ash, in a recent article ( 6) has reported a study of the reliability
.
,al impa1rment
; '"·.' o , of psychiatric diagnoses, which is in essential agreement with previous studies
' We believe this · reporting the difficulty of achieving reliable diagnoses in psychogenic illnesses.
n1ance ·on the B- The various symptoms which form the bases for psychiatric diagnoses are
i of the stimuli, tcr
: :'t;
facts, observable by anyone, but unfortunately, they do not exist in a pure
~. just as the Rori state, nor are they always consistent in a given individual. Tliey are, according
to psychoanalytic views ( 1 ) surface phenomena indicative of more funda-
deviations from th~ mental psychic disturbances. By categorizing patients on the basis of a more
;g from attitudes t : reliable though cruder criterion-psychotics ( primarily inpatients) and neu-
h1vironmertt. Unfo:r;,i rotics ( primarily outpatients )-we have attempted to avoid the problem of
:ematic fashion thi psychiatric diagnoses. Our scores and the deviations on which they are based
fing records. All w,' do not, therefore, indicate particular psychiatric diagnosis. We have suggested
time tend to resuf they are measuring some aspect of ego strength, a term for which we have
that these attitud" no adequate definition except to say that, among other things, it seems to
ve average scores o_i lie along some continuum with the extent to which reality is distorted, as do ·
Jl the depressed, t~§ our scores.
ence of the obsessed'.'. High scores are, therefore, indicative of little ego strength. That there is
~ To the extent thiJ some truth to this statement is evident when we look at records receiving
rss which, in turn,· ij extremely high scores. Figure 30 shows the record of a confused manic,
; making for behaviof age 36, high school education, Z score 190. Little difficulty is encountered
~elated to B-G scorl
:. • • .J
with such records. They are easily spotted as extremely ill individuals in
~vior. For the extent poor contact. Figure 31 shows the record of a 32 year old college graduate,
iavior leading to psy;: t: ·an excited inpatient, diagnosed manic-depressive, manic, Z score 92. Figure
; purposes of this di,; ;32 is the record of a 15 year old girl, one year of high school, diagnosed
:use in the practic ;; schizophrenic, mixed type, Z score 95. In both of these records, as in the
;i}previous one ( figure 30), the very high scores and the qualitative aspects
rl' ()i the records are fairly conclusive for severe psychological illness, i.e., with
:- :
}t l;>ehavior so deviant that the patients need to be confined to a mental hospital
hay, in a sense, be mo;: !funder constant supervision.
~on in our culture writ' :ff•· A Z score of 75 is two and one half standard deviations from the mean
1• we would guess that h:: ".;\ 9f a normal distribution. The chances are about 1 in 100 that a record
,eviation, i.e., that the at;_ f··,S~th such Z score would be normal, i.e., that of a nonpatient. Increasing
l saying. Freud ( 18, 19J: ?(the probability that a Z score of 75 would be that of a normal record are
~ in which, in the norma!
those errors of measurement stemming from the unreliability of the scoring
'ior are inhibited by egd
:hological enfeeblement o. sr stem, the fact of a somewhat skewed distribution in the normative popula-
s excitations, "forbidden'.: !10n, and other uncontrolled factors contributing to errors of measurement
1ay coexist. Freud furthet .... ·. ~ ~he individual case. Thus, even with Z scores as high as 75 clinical judgment
1d potential motor expres ·
18
unportant in estimating the extent of psychological illness in the individual
mdency to express ideation
case. We shall, by the use of illustrative cases, attempt to indicate the nature
:ct of which is being meas·
.··. of SUC'h. judgment.
t
3 '
. .
' @)
1- 0 v
D 06
'
FIG. 30. Manic-depressive (manic), male,

age 36, high school education, Z score 190.
(Two sheets used by patient.)
8
~~ic-depressive (manic) , male,
.., ~ollege graduate, Z score 92.
f_::
~
(:)
0 0
"D "
0 0 0 0
0
t:,
t>
0
"0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
C,
0"
0 0 0 0
"
• •,
•• I
•.
• •
• • I
,.
' . ..
,
.
I
~
...
FIG.32. Schizophrenia, mixed type, f

age 15, flrst year high school, Z sco
•. ,-..,.,,
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
0 0 0 (:) 0 0 0 0
0 0
u 0 0 Q 0 C e 0
FIG. 33. Schizophrenia, unt
0 0
Ci e, 0 0 C 0 0 (!) <:)
0
female, age 25, high school '
• score 74.
4
•
- •
• ••
••
•' . . ••
.... "'•• ••
••
• ••
•• •• • • • ••
• ••
Fig. 33 (cont.) • Second sheet used by

f7d.l
00
.
t; 33. Schizophrenia, uJ, ~ophrenia, unclassified, male, •
1e, age 25, high school
0 6 0 0 0 0 0 • •
''school graduate, Z score 74. 0
0
II
0 0 0 0 0
• 0 0
0 0
score 74. 0
0 0
• 6 • 0 0 0
0
e,
••
0 0
0
0 0
0 e,
0
0 0
0
0
• •
••
~
•
• • •• •
0
••
•• •
• •
•• • 0
<: ~ >
<-_,.M;◊->
. .
...
•
• .. a
..
"' Ill 0 Q
.
0
...
0
0
Q
. 'lo
0 0
Cl
0
:,:;----~
••
. ;,
:;:,r
.•
•
.
• 0 - •
Fie. 35. Involutional psychosis, ferr

4,5, second year high school, Z sc,
76 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL US"
.&
Figures 33, 34, and 35 show the records of psychotics with Z scores ~- ,Jlie record
the seventies. Figure 33 is the record of a 25 year old woman, a high sch~i -)~~hool edu,
graduate, an inpatient diagnosed schizophrenic, Z score 74. The desigij'_ thbne show
are fairly well executed, placed in logical order. Note, however, that ti g\iriguish th
major deviations ( with score of 8) occur, i.e., designs 3 and 5 rotated. Havin:; ln<>rmals art
noted this fact we may also take cognizance of the formation of the dots ·c It·fedure, obj
designs 2, 3, and 5. They are so worked over that they become filled circles! Jhsm 100 th:
a common practice in children. , ' ate not in I
Major deviations in an otherwise fairly good record constitute a "break,~ A gooc
just as an extreme distortion of the stimulus in an otherwise fair record o~ q.eviations
the Rorschach constitutes a "break." By "break," in clinical jargon, we me:
the possibility of a break with reality, i.e., the possibility of behavior whic )ics, and
might be characterized as psychotic. 'i the nc
Figure 3-4 shows the record of a 25 year old high school graduate, ma ~sign 7)
::s:;::t~::~ :~a~::s:!:1:~i~:rr~;e~:i1 ~o~~:~:· ~:~ !~:;it::i~:· ~lt:i:~t: i~ })~~~~:r:,,

~:: :~~:; :;~:~: l: :r7!~:;i~:~~;~ :~~[d~~ii;:r: :~I~:~•: tf::i:f
record of a 45 year old female, two years high school, an inpatient diagnos
involutional, Z score 73. Note one major deviation, the substitution of circf'
for dots in design 3, and add to this the marked deviation in slant, design·
rirltrr;:~~~
~f~dtice. ~
and the unerased first attempt on design 7. Each of these three records sho' HI'gli scorir
major deviations of one sort or another, which is typical of high scor·;;; "J,retest
inpatient psychotics. :! {effect
Figure 36 is the record of an outpatient, a neurotic male, age 22, h( 'ate re
school graduate, Z score 81. Here we see that, in spite of the fact that ined £1
patient's score is higher than that of the inpatient psychotics just discus · ined 0
"'
no major deviations occur. The record is heavily penalized for the presei: ediatel
of tremor in nearly all of the line drawings. The record, however, is :"
of a seriously incapacitated psychasthenic, according to the psychiatrist. Fi :
37 shows the record of another neurotic outpatient, male, age 30, one y~ t·''testi,.
of college, Z score 71. Here, again, although the score is about as high;; ~ sum
that of the psychotics, no major deviation occurs; a number of minor de_:, h,igh ~
ations contribute to the high score. ,~ ~y~hiai
We present, now, the records of three high scoring normals, (that . i~ Jly ha·
they were not, as far as we know, patients of a psychiatrist), all atten · hiatris
night school, and all gainfully employed. Figure 38 is the record of a , \ychi~
year old male, a color matcher in a chemical plant, a high school gradua, iiier tl
Z score 71. Figure 39 shows the record of a 35 year old male, a wash ten . liiatric
in a chemical plant with one year of high school, Z score 70. Figure 40 : aver
/EST: CLINICAL U~ 77
cs with Z scores ~ "jthe record of a 29 year old male, a dyer in a chemical plant with a high
iman, a high schcf /~ehool education, Z score 70. All of the records show poor execution but
;e 74. The desi · none show major deviations. One would be hard pressed, of course, to dis-
: however, that t~ l tin~uish these records from those of the neurotics but, then, some so-called
id- 5 rotated. Havi .•·, § normals are difficult to distinguish from some neurotic patients by any pro-
ation of the dots • 1,. cedure, objective or subjective. Based on our findings the chances are about
come filled circles l s in 100 that the three "normal" individuals, whose records we have presented,
~ l are not in need of psychiatric assistance.
~onstitute a "brea~ t A good deal of emphasis has been placed on the incidence of major
rwise fair record q tf deviations in the records of inpatient psychotics. We selected, at random
ical jargon, we me' J{from our files, the records of 46 inpatients, psychotics, 46 outpatients, neu-
- cy of behavior whi~ {krotics, and 46 nonpatients, and counted the incidence of major deviations.
~1For the nonpatients one major deviation was found (lines not joined on
~hool graduate, mali ~{design 7); for the neurotic outpatients, 17; and for the psychotic
, again, ·although t,, . '.f:''inpatients, 52.
titution of circles {§. :::· There are times when high scoring records are obtained under circum-
psychological illnf: '.,l·~t~nces which make it reasonable to suspect that some factors incidental to
deviation in slant ·ij ~'.\the testing situation contribute to high scores. In such cases we have not,
1 3. Figure 35 is ~: :tm
'}"
clinical practice, hesitated to retest, either on the same day, other tests
in inpatient diagnos ~ ;lintervening, or on the following day. If the test has in the first instance,
-'t · substitution of circl.:: }Cbeen properly accepted by the subject there is surprisingly little effect of
ion in slant, design: };"practice. We have found the greatest difference on retest in the records of
se three records sho · {'high scoring nonpatients. Most patients show little difference between test
_;•
rpical of high scor ' .'. ~t~nd retest when the test is repeated the same day. In an attempt to push
.1.:,
1r-the effect of retest to an extreme we have urged some patients, on im-

tic male, age 22, hi }?mediate retest, to do their very best. Figures 41 and 42 show two records
ite of the fact that . J·~htained from a 30 year old female catatonic. Figure 41 shows the record
ychotics just discuss:~ ~~;·optained on first testing, Z score 89. Figure 42 shows the record obtained
~lized for the preser( ~1:;Jpunediately following the first test with instructions to "take your time and
:cord, however, is f1# your very best," Z score 83. We suggest that results with retesting on
;the psychiatrist. Fi , ~ij,;:9.te B-G may be interpreted in a manner similar to that in which results
male, age 30, one y : ·;}I,Wtb "testing the limits" on the Rorschach are interpreted.
t
>re is about as high Hf,.> In summarizing our discussion of high scoring records we should say
number of minor dt· i-m~i high scores would generally he interpreted in terms of the probability
-J:.,<>f psychiatric illness based on our normative data. In clinical practice we
>ring normals, ( that ·; \mll.ally have the advantage of knowing that the subject is a patient of a
rchiatrist), all atten · _ ._ .p~ychiatrist, which helps in considering the individual case, i.e., the need
l is the record of a 3. for psychiatric assistance is a "given." In the records of patients we should
a high school graduate consider the presence of major deviations as indicating a greater degree of
old male, a wash tend ; psychiatric illness than where these deviations are absent; providing, of course,
~ score 70. Figure 40 · we have ruled out the possibility of mental defect or cortical damage.
, , . . . . .. . .. .
0 0 a0 0 0 ., ~ eC) oc,
"
C, 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 (!> """" ~ C 0
C, 0
""
,
I
.,
C
I
C
Fig. 36 (cont.) • Second sheet used by

OS
' . .. 0 . 0 . . .. -
0 0 0 0 a, a
0 Cl 0 0
0 0 0
0 a,
0 (:>
• 0 0 0
. ' .....,
C, C, t:I
" 0 0
Psychoneurosis ( outp~ (outpatient) , male, \
year college, Z score 71. •

•· high school graduat~1
~ /
,
, , /
.. . ,. .
I I
I
0 0
(; ~
6 a e
0
0 • 0
Q
0
G
(3
0
'
0 0
> \o 6
0
0 6 0
~ (l
, , ,
Fie. 38. Nonpatient ' male' ao-e

t
35 hio-]
~
school graduate, Z score 71.
FIG.39. Nonpatient, male, agi
year high school, Z J,$hrenia ( cat.
;lh:igh school
00 • • I •
. ,.
Z score ;
0
II>
C!)
0 •
0 0
0 «) 0
0 e, •
"0 0
0
• •• • • •.
.
, ••
,'
d I •I
,·
'I
•
•
I
t
.... . . . . . . -
0
0
.. .. 0
•• :
FIG. 40. Nonpatient, male. age 29, high

school graduate, Z s~ore 70.
. .
\
..
/9. Nonpatient, male, a e G C 0 e G a
0 0
)>phrenia (catatonic type), 0
0 Q 0 6 6 e, 0
t,ar high school, Z sco· 0 0
0 0
6
0 (3 6
; 'ligh school graduate, first 0 0
0 6 0 0 0
C>
'- ting, Z score 89.
. .. • • I
... . . . . . . -
,
" e ,. • o
C, 0 c, • 0
, eoec.o
. .
..•
. p
o G 0 0 0 0
,· ......·. 0 (5 C ~ 0 C
: .. 0 C) 0 0 0 "
.
•
:
,...
...• ·" .
.
I
FIG. 42. Same patient as in figure 1
second testing, Z score 83.
,,,----x-----
-~~~~~~~~~--""""-""""·~....,.-·--·--------,;,iiii•~'-"-~-=-•--•·;o,=a• ............~~~=-·.-".,
~....... - - c ___
ex> . .
... rapy. Fig1
.
. . .. . .
0
0
• 0 0 0 ... "'
43. Schizophrenia (catato"'
FIG.
f
0
C, 0
0 0 e 0 0 0 female, age 20, college student, ·cation, di
0 0 0 0 0 0 c:, Q
"improved." '."- T and se,
Not all of
0
. ,iecords and
. . Jatients disch
.
dJ
•
. 0
figure 46 is
~fter several
.• ;;G:!lte, diagnos
fiµd displayec
i:fi'.evertheless,
'_;)iy employ«:
~it:~ollege grac
Jfllevue I.Q.
"iiite of its :
ii~ed." Thu:
i!~S~mg she d:
. . 2F
1
very distu
. ...... }hute conditi
. /The presc
.. j~ijicating se,
{(i:otj. Figure 4
:-Z(score 56 '
•~·:::\:-·-, . • I
· Low Scoring Records

If, as we hypothesize, the B-G test is measuring some aspect of ego
strength, then it is not surprising that low scoring records should be obtained
from some patients. L6w B-G scores should, according to our notion, indicate
relatively greater ego strength. Is this possible in psychotic patients? A great
many psychotics do recover. Our data suggest that low B-G scores in psy-
chotics may be related to tendency to recover.
In the study previously cited ( Chapter 5) where the B-G scores of the
patients who improved as a result of hospitalization were compared to th~se
unimproved, the mean Z score of the improved (N equals 43) was 61, a;d
the mean Z score of the unimproved ( N equals 22) was 82. We should, ... class
therefore, say that a Z score of about 60 constituted a low score for an epres:
inpatient psychotic. Figures 43, 44, and 45 are records of three of the pllege
improved patients. Figure 43 shows the record of a 20 year old female, a t He i
college student, diagnosed catatonic schizophrenic, Z score 56. After about the in
__ Y nor
four months of hospitalization with psychotherapy she was discharged
ed-fuU l
markedly improved. When seen a year later she was doing well in her
studies and was, she said, well and happy. Figure 44 is the record of a ese per:
t of ma1
female manic-depressive, depressed, college education, age 28, Z score 60;
she improved after several months of routine hospital care, with no definitive
83
rapy. Figure 45 is the record of a 46 year old female, high school

:chizophrenia (catat~ ication, diagnosed involutional psychosis, Z score 66. After a series of
I 20, college student,;, · ~nd several months hospitalization, she was discharged "improved."
' "improvedo"
Not all of the improved inpatient psychotics of our study gave low scoring
cords and not all the unimproved gave high scoring records. Of the 43
lJ~nts discharged improved, 11, or 25 per cent, had records scoring over 65.
t·. e 46 is the record of a low scoring, unimproved female, discharged
_er several months of hospitalization, with psychotherapy-a college grad-
1re, diagnosed neurotic, Z score 63. The patient was an attempted suicide
. displayed compulsive symptoms during her _entire stay at the hospital.
/ertheless, when last heard of, 18 months after discharge, she was gain-
.•._ employed. Figure 47 is the record of a high scoring improved patient,
liege graduate, female, diagnosed schizophrenic, Z score 81. A Wechsler-
vue I.Q. indicated severe functional impairment. The B-G record, in
- of its high scores, shows no major deviation other than "ends not
d." Thus, although this patient was extremely disturbed at the time of
fog-. she did not, in performance on the B-G test, show deviations typical
.~/v~ry disturbed inpatients. We should say that, considering the patient's
l\'¼it condition, the B-G record indicated unexpected strength.
f
?I'h~ ._ presence of a low scoring B-G record in a matrix of test results
'!,;,••"·
~,•. ,!eating severe disturbance may sometimes serve to season test interpreta-
<:.figure 48 is the record of an inpatient, female, college graduate, age 45:

::re 56. She obtained a Wechsler-Bellevue 1.Q. of 121. Her Rorschach
JI a tendency to bizarre associations with a great many frank sex re-
.), the over-all Rorschach picture being similar to that often obtained
:me aspect of ego ,
·ct-Jiaranoid schizophrenics. At medical staff conference she was considered
~hould be obtained -
i~r notion, indicate
J§~ contact, free of psychotic manifestations, and diagnosed psycho-
-~tic, mixed type. When heard from one year later she was "doing well"
ppatients? A great _-~casional visits to a psychiatrist. It turned out that she had been four
B-G scores in psy- t,,;');~~e-half years under analysis before coming to the hospital, which per-
:•,f~{/t.Ccounted for the extremely "loose" Rorschach .
.· B-G scores of the - .''.[;.~::,:y:·;:,'·,:·
• compared to tho,se}: ;_~~;~nag Scores
ls 43) was 61, and <t,
ras 82. We should, J
.~}'~~-:classical example of the fluctuating record is, of course, that of the
a low score for an "t i'.$1'epressive. Figure 49 is the record of a 55 year old manic-depressive,
1
ds of three of the }, :~ft:i•~!'.I:~,ollege graduate, Z score 96, an inpatient of long residence in the
year old female, a ; :Jffi-L He is well preserved, and actively occupied with intellectual pursuits
bre 56. After about !: i'.8"Jhe intervals between manic attacks. He may go for months, seemingly
:he was dischargea' ,;;,~;f~Y normal, quiet, unobtrusive, pleasant During these periods he is
doing well in her · - 'j}~w,~ ·full privileges. The record shown in :figure 49 was taken during one
is the record of a 'itt~e periods. Figure 50 shows the record of the same patient at the
eig t of manic excitement.
1ge 28, Z score 60;
re, with no definitive .
J.Sbi@t JL ,., .
• • . . • 0
• • .
0 0 C, c:::, ,::,.
C, 0 0 C)
a
C, C!)
F1c. 44. Manic-depressive}
0 0 0 0 C> 0 C, 0 0 0 ilutional psy,
0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 female, age 28, college gra' ·
0
60, "improved;, ~hool gradu
• . '.;i ·"improve,
• . I
. .
-....
•• •I
"
f
L,
Fig. 44 (cont.) . Second sheet used by

00
Manic-depressive ( · volutional psychosis, female, age .. . . . . .
...
• 0 0
ge 28, college gra: - · school graduate, Z score 66, • e ~ o

0
A
O
o ~ 0 0
• 0
· 60, "improved' "improved."

"
0
0
•
0
0
•
•
D • • • o 0
•'
• • t '
• I •
I
. .. -. . . -. -. .. . . .., . . ... .
"'
01\.-. ••• -- ... --
..
.. . . .•..
.- ·..
.
_______Q_>
Fie. 46. Psychoneurosis ( inpat
suicidal, compulsive, female, ag
..:ollege graduate, Z score 63, "imJ
I
0 0 0 0 c:, (:) Q O O
C
.t 0
0
0
0
a 0 0
0
0 0 O O O
C3 0 0 0 0 0,
~
FIG. 4 7. Schizophrenia ( un~;

3 • .. .-.
•,. •
,, ,
female, age 37, college gradu';
81, "improved." I
• .ii
,.,,,,,
• . - .
"
0
0
0 0 Cl 0 C Cl • 0
0 0 0 0 0
-
0 ~ 0 C)
0 0 0 Cl
" 0
• • a
••
• •
•
• . • • •
•
•
FIG. 48. Psychoneurosis (inpatient),

female, age 45, college graduate, Z score
56.
0()
•
. . ,. -
Schizophrenia ( un .~· Manic-depressive (manic) , male,
~ 37, college gradu: :Fcollege graduate, Z· score 96. •
-
0 0 0 Q, IC,
81, "improved." t :--~, • • 0 0

C
:} • 0 0 0 • 0 0 IZ
• 0
.
0 0 0 t/1 41:1
0
'
Cl
0 0
0
C,
0 • •
,. • 0
0
0
. • •
-
/i', \/
0
0
Cl
C
~
• 0
~ Q
0
• • ·O
/\
'' >
_j
.· .
. ..... ' Fig. 49 (cont.) . Second sheet us
patient to complete test .
•
• 1,
rn..,,
Fie. 50. Same patient as in' ·
record taken at height of mani~
tenic, male, a
-~ y Note guide c
.•
0 <,,",;Jy light line ,

·. · workover
-,
< 0 >
• t t I •
• ••
• • • •
• • •
•
••
• • I I
I I
•
•
••
••
•• • • • •• •.
•
Fie. 51. Part of record of paranoid

schizophrenic, male, age 45, college
graduate. Note workover of drawings,
guide dots and sketching.
''
.
jjame patient as in;_
o. at height of mani
.
'\ Part of record of paranoid

renic, male, age 49, college
u~
Note guide dots, sketching,
. ely Hght line and arbitrary
· workover .
• I I ♦
t I I I I ~ 1 i
I , , I I
I 1 1 I • I I I
•
•
••
••
•• • • • •• •
••
Fie. 53. Outpatient (PN) with pro1

paranoid features, male age 26, g
school. Note workover in designs ~
''
rnn'l
..
FIG. 54. Outpatient (PN) w Designs 7 ar
features, male, age 27, seco marked par
school. Note workover in desi ~ths later after
••• • • • • • • • • •
0 ~ e, & 0 0 0 0 0 o. 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 o. 0 Q
0 0 0 C 0
. '0 0 0 C, 0., 0 ()
•
• . ,
•
• .
• • • •
• • •
• •
•• . .•
' •
.'•
4
•
.
•
•
..
. _t'
..... ........
. ··.·~
.·•.•.·.•.; ~.../\
CX)' ~; ·,
• • . • . . . 0
0
I:)
()
'
.,.
0
-
• •
0
•• •• ••
• 0 0
Q
Q
•
0
e
Q
• • 0
,·j
., ..
• •.
• •
• • •• ••
•
.
• •
•
FIG.55. Paranoid schizophrenia, male, age

18, high school graduate--40 minutes to
execute drawings.
~nt (PN) w a. ·Designs 7 and 8 by outpatient
.ge 27, secon ·'th marked paranoid features~ h.
kover in desi '·nths later after psychotherapy.
".
"-co
..
.··
.... ........
)'
.
. . .•
cY ,, , .
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 e 0 0 0 0
0 0 d 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
• Q O 0
• Q .. ~
• •
.• •. •
•
•
"
•
•
Fie. 57. Paranoid schizophrenia (c

"well adjusted" to hospital), fema
29, college graduate.
rn.,,
92 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL us~
\t>i
If the test is used to follow the course of a patient's progress during,~
hospitalization or as the result of some specific therapy, scores seem to va 'I:
,'¥.<
with the patient's reaction to treatment. We have already indicated the u~I
• _,S)· Figure ;
of the test to follow the patient's reaction to convulsive therapy. Excitel .,,_.,Ii been in
patients tested on admission will generally score higher than if tested wheqi 'utine and
the acute condition has subsided. Thus, one rather excited manic, tested soo~ patient
after admission, scored 115. Two weeks after admission when the acute excit~j of the :
ment had subsided, he scored 89. :) that rea
Patients who exhibit variable behavior will show fluctuating scores. "WeTul es not fet::
adjusted" patients will, on the other hand, show a remarkable consistency ot% 9ch-up th
scores over several testings. We have not, as previously mentioned, ( Chapt~j Jd; but ,
4) been able to show any regular effect of practice, other factors seemingf iisiderablt
to be of more importance in determining score than the effect of practic~:f
Cc;,).
The test, therefore, should prove useful, where repeated measures of psycho~g.
motor performances are desired. ,.,
· ewhat s1
Specific Attitudes and Deviations ;~ uted. Wt
'-'.ff
As we have suggested, the B-G test does not, by our method of scoring~ .:hle 8 (Cl
indicate psychiatric diagnoses. We have not, for reasons mentioned previously) 31verage,
attempted, in any systematic fashion, to relate specific deviations to diagnosti; tcommon
categories. In the course of administering several hundred tests we could no~j i,anoids ti
however, fail to note the incidence of certain deviations with certain diagnosti~ \~None of
categories and !o develop some notions about the relationship. ll
There seems, for instance, to be a tendency, according to our observations,}}
for paranoid indivuals to work over and "touch-up" their drawings. W.m
shall present parts of the records of several paranoid individuals showirij
the sort of performance we mean. Figure 51 shows part of the record of~ ,,,1,
paranoid schizophrenic of long standing, excitable, dangerous, and with po~)
prognosis, age 45, male, college graduate. The drawings are carefully exl
cuted, very heavily pe:qcilled, with line drawings and dots showing conside~!
able thickening due to workover. Figure 52 shows part of the record ~j
another paranoid schizophrenic, an eloper, secretive, who, as a last resoi
was subjected to frontal lobotomy. Figure 53 is the record of an outpatienJ
with pronounced paranoid features. Note the workover on designs 4 and 1
Figure 54 is the record of another outpatient with marked paranoid tren~
Note designs 7 and 8. Figure 55 is the record of an 18 year old inpatienf
a paranoid schizophrenic. He took 40 minutes to copy the designs. Fig~
56 shows two executions of designs 7 and 8 by an outpatient with pr1
nounced paranoid features. Figure 56 (a) is before psychotherapy; figur~ ' 1.(
.· · ob:
56(b) was taken 18 months later after fairly successful psychotherapY ··,,w
with a marked qiminution but not entire absence of paranoid ideation. We
iT: CLINICAL us_ YCHOGENIC DISORDERS 93
progress durin ,, ·.. ve, in our files, the record of one paranoid patient who very carefully
,res seem t9 va . sketched each design, one to a page.
indicated the u , ·•· Figure 57 is the record of a 29 year old paranoid schizophrenic who
therapy. Excit~~ has been in the hospital for several years. She is well adjusted to hospital
:m if tested wh: : 9utine and appears content, taking, she says, a great interest in helping
1'ew patients to ad just· themselves to the hospital. When pressed she will
nanic, tested .soQl
n the acute excir',. 'U of the good she does other patients, intimating she is in the hospital
C
· that reason. Otherwise, she is, for the most part, in good contact and
ting scores. "W{ __ snot feel persecuted. Not all paranoid patients, therefore, work over and
ihle consistency 9 )Ith-up their drawings, and we don't know that all .that do are para-
~ntioned, ( Chapt~- 'id; but we have observed this type of performance in paranoids with
- ~r factors seemitj :)~siderable consistency. Our files contain only a few paranoid records that
effect of · practict :, not show workover and these; as far as we can tell, are the records
1easures of psych': 'cchronic and well-adjusted patients. We have observed the presence of
' :*/:
~ );'kover and touch-up in the records of nonpatients whom we know to be
. ewhat suspicious of their neighbors and with some tendency to feel per-
',µted. We .should suggest caution in the interpretation of this deviation. i
1
method of scoring, Je 8 ( Chapter 7 ) shows that workover is common to psychotics, indicating \

entioned previousl1'. · '.~:verage of about two scorable workovers to a record. Nonparanoid patients \
-~ iations to diagnos''.; \common with children are, however, most apt to workover dots, and
l tests we could n<} \:noids the line drawings.
th certain diagnos'; :None of the other deviations which we shall mention show the consistency
iShip. .) · ·· orkover in the records of paranoids, and we do not feel nearly so
· to our observatio. fo of them. We shall discuss them, briefly, for the possible aid they
their drawings. \Ji he in conjunction with findings from other procedures. Occasionally
._ .. , in the records of hypomanics, is the tendency to leave closed figures
individuals sho~
t of the record of:' , ·ri.e., the deviation scored is "ends not joined." These same individuals
~
'
brous, and with pc( \also tend to make less than the required number of dots or columns
~s are carefully ef ,.1esigns 1, 2, and 5 ( see figure 50). Tremor, we have noted, is apt to
5ts showing consid~; f pund in the records of subjects with a great deal of "pentup aggression"
!rt of the record ·:;w jfding other factors which may also account for tremor are excluded.
1
,ho, as a last reso ;:

,, .< or is a very common deviation. It is found in the records of many
::ord of an outpatie_:, if }ndividuals, in some alcoholics, in old age; in various "organic" syn-
on designs 4 and' tN·-f~; Its interpretation as "pent-up aggression" is, therefore, elusive, and
rked paranoid tren . ~:.;_p~s considerable corroboration. Compressed drawings, i.e., about one-
LS year old inpatiep: \~e page used for all designs, are sometimes noted in the records of
y the designs. Figlllj ,n~ with strong feelings of inferiority, and depression ( see figure 46).
outpatient with pl'.1! :Fi;l0 • not wish to imply that compression is common in all depressed
psychotherapy; fi~ p[~. i.e~, ~anic _ ~e~ress~ves, depressed o~ invol~tionals. Most depressed
cessful psychotherap, ::JV'\<,. _observed liy us do not compress their drawmgs. Bender (9, p. 97)
pahnoid ideation. 'W.e ~rites: ''When micrographia occurs it is associated with the· poverty of im-
94 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: CLINICAL U
pulses in cases showing lethargy or dullness." In our files micrographia ·.

most often found in compressed drawings. We have noted it, for instan •··
in the drawings of catatonics in conjunction with otherwise fairly w
executed drawings. ( See practice drawings in manual.) .
One could, of course, speculate upon the significance of the presence ,
deviations similar· to those found in children, e.g., circles substituted f
dots, which are most often found in the records of psychotics. We have n•
noted, however, that such deviations are specific to any particular diagno
Other relationships between deviations and attitudes will be noted by
experienced examiner, e.g., rotation and opposition, but we do not feel t.
they are of sufficient consistency to be remarked here.
We have attempted, in this section on the clinical use of the test, ~"'-
show that the B-G record may be economically used as a part of a t,.
battery. Scores on the test give the probability of psychiatric illnesl
In the records of patients scores are indicative of the extent of the patient}
departure from the normative data. We have suggested that low scores mai
indicate a favorable prognosis for treatment. The presence of major devl
ations influences judgment as to the seriousness and the nature of the illnes~:'
Beyond what information we have been able to impart about the use of th!
test the discerning reader will have realized that judgment of the individ~
record requires a good deal of clinical art. The quantification of the Bend~
Gestalt test will, it is hoped, assist the clhiician; it does not supplant t1ti,
~b~~ ~
: CLINICAL U
'. micrographia
, it, for instanc
~ise fairly we
f the presence
\s substituted f
tics. We have n.
rticular diagnos'
·. be noted by
•e do not feel t ·
Jse of the test,

s a part of a t
psychiatric illne APPENDIX
. :ent of the patien
hat low scores
:nee of major de:
~ature of the illn .
· !lbout the use of
~nt of the individ
~ation of the Ben
oes not supplant .
1
" 2
" 3
4
J " 5
" 6
" 7
" 8
" 9
" 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
'" 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Table L
Item Frequencies, Weights and Phi Coefficients
(260 Nonpatients, 260 patients)
Frequency
Nonpt. Pt. Phi Wt.
Design 1
Item 1 62 111 .20 2
" 2 1 12 .18*
" 3 8 3
16 .08 2
" 4 2 17
" 5 4 8
7 .18* 2 (each)
" 6 0 1
" 7 47 8
80 .12 2
" 8 2 5 .22*
" 9 0 3 (each)
2 .30* 8
" 10
8
Totals 126 251
1 118 169 .20 2

" 2 6 12 .11
" 3 8 3
35 .20 3
" 4 2 7
" 5 1 5
5 5
'·' 6 16 51
" 7 .22 3
2 6 .18*
8 0 2 (each)
1
" 9 1 3
8
" 10 .11 * 2
11 26 .12
" 11 0 2
2
" 12 .22* 3
0 4 .30*
" 13 8
8
165 321
1 102
2 129 .22* 3
10 22 .18*
3 5 3
4 12 .10* 2
5 8
32 43 .18
6 2
,, 7 8
6 15
.,, 8 8
0 2
9 8
0 4
",, 10
43
.11 * 2
11 81 .12* 2
,, 0 2
12 .22* 3
1 13
" 13 .30* 8
Totals 8
199 323
97
98
Table I (continued)
Frequency
i Nonpt. Pt. Phi Wt.
I Design 4
. 1·.
'I 11
I
Item 1
" 2
" 3
66
1
59
93
14
80
.22*
.12
.09
3
4
1
Design 7
Item 1
" 2
.. itii 5 21 .12 4
1 1\
1
" 4 8 " 3
. I•
,. ,I " 5 3 " 4
r 1l 1 6 .1~*
" 6 " 5
i li " 7 0
87
.6
165 .35*
8
4 " 6
I
" 8 8 " 7
" 9 .11 * 2 " 8
,,, " 10 0 1 ... " 9

\ .22* 3 (each)
" 11 5 18 " 10
.30* 8 ·'\
i, 12 0 5 " 11
" 8
13 0 1
" Totals
i~ 410
1, i ,,
i i~\
~\\ !
Totals
Design 5
224
,. :ii~
:ffit
120 .22* 3 1
Item 1 62
.18* 3 " 2
\',,,ii
/,~tt " 2 16 28
.10* 2 " 3
3 6 14
"
'i 8 " 4
" 4
5 100 139 .13* 2 "
" 3 "
6 4 12 .10*
" .18* 2 "
" 7 1 3
8 0 1 8 "
" 2 "
9 7 20 .11 *
" 2 " 11
10 41 66 .12*
faJ,: I " 4 .22* 3 " 1
" 11 0
Ill 8 " 1
12 0 6 .30*
" 8
13 0 1
:;/iii I " -
I•">"
Totals 237 414
Design 6
Item 1 29 74 .22* 3 "
39 69 .12 2
" 2 2
2 5
" 3 8
0 4
i;~f;:
" 4
- r•··
eu1i 36 61 .18* 1
r;:ii " 5 3 8 "
" 6 0
80 176 .35* 4
1ml " 7
i:i:n 1
" 8 0 1 8
1:u.,1
" 9 0 1 .11*
.12*
2
2
10 2 9
" 14 .22* 3
11 1
}n1.1 "
12 0 3 .30* 8 per s
! ~j " 4 8
" 13 0
?Combir
Totals 189 424
99
Table I (continued)
Wt. Frequency
Nonpt. Pt. Phi Wt.
3 Design 7
4 8
Item 1
1 20 56 .18 3
4 " 2 20 27 .09* 3
8 " 3 16 59 .22* 3
3 " 4 139 .18* 1 (each)
91
8 " 5 56 157 .35* 4
" 6
4 4 11 8
" 7
8 6 7 .11* 2
" 8
2 5 11 .22* 3 (each)
" 9
3 (each) 1 15 .30* 8
" 10
8 0 3 8
8 " 11 -
Totals 219 485
Design 8
Item 1 8
3 3
18 49 .20
3 " 2 14 .09 3
2 " 3 5
10 35 .22* 3
8 " 4 .18* 1 (each)
5 70 93
2 .35* 4
" 6 65 138
3 8
" 7 2 10
2 2
10 12 .fl*
8 " 8 2
10 31 .12*
2 " 9 3 (each)
" 10 5 14 .22*
2 8
" 11 0 5 .30*
3 8
8 " 12 0 3
8 Totals 195 404
1 18 33 .11 2
3 38 .13 2 (each)
" 2 17
3
2 " 3 4 14
2 4 8
" 4 0
8 34 .09 2
i:,~ " 5 20
·* 1 (eachi 13 8
" 6 4
!I
8
" 7
i*
Totals 63 136
!~
L*
2* -all items 1617 3168
2*
Mean No. Deviations 6.2 12.2
O* 8
per Subject
8
*Combined with same deviation in other designs. Phi coefficient is for combined fre-
quencies.
100
Table II
Z Scores for Subjects of One Year or More of High School
Ages 15-50 Z= 1.06 (x-18.0) +so.
Raw z Raw z Raw
Score Score Score Score Score
1 32 51 85 101 1
2 33 52 86 102 1
3 34 53 87 103 140&
4 35 54
5 36 55
88
89
104
105 }~I
ll
6 37 56 90 106
7 38 57 91 107
8 39 58 92 108
9 40 59 93 109 1461
10 41 60 95 110 148:\i
~,;;:.;
11 43 61 96
12
13
44
45
62
63
97
98
111
112
113
}!~il
15i~t
14 46 64 99 114 151W
15 47 65 100 11°5 15:f'.c
16 48 66 101 116 15f~
17 49 67 102 117 15({
18 50 68 103 118 156{
19 51 69 104 119 157)f
L 20 52 70 105 120 158'.t
~! 21 53 71 106 121 159),
m 22 54 72 107 122 160\}
Ii 23
24
55
56
73
74
108
109
123 1614
16tJ]
~
124
'!
25 57 75 110 125 16~111
j\ 26 59 76 111. 126 165i~
!l 27 60 77 113 127
Tl
]i:i:
2e
29
61
62
78
79
114
115
128
129 lltl
1-.\
if!1
ti
30
31
32
63
64
65
80
81
82
116
117
118
130
131
132
!~t~
17f:f
lh-i. 33 66 83 119 133 172{
34 67 84 120 134 173,]
ti 35 68 85 121 135 174;¥
li 36 69 86 122 136 175'1
ll t~
37 70 87 123 137 176;)
,\i!
~F
38 71 88 124 138 177 :;
:J;r;
,f 39 72 89 125 139 178,}.
\;{;,
40 73 90 126 140 179)i
\( 41
42
74
75
91
92
127
128
141
142
180',:
182 ·;
ll jR
43
44
77
78
93
94
130
131
143
144
183 -•~
184
4
5
1fi 45 79 95 132 145 185 6
1\ 46 80 96 133 146 186 47
~ '
47 81 97 134 147 187 48
48 82 98 135 148 188 49
49 8.3 99 136 149 189 50
50 84 100 137 150 190·
-- :,,;s;:::•
', ~~"~---:
TABLES 101
Table III
hool Z Scores for Subjects of One Year or More of College
iO. Ages 15-50 =
Z 1.10 (x-12.7) +so.
Raw Raw z Raw z Raw z

kore Score Score Score Score Score
101 1 37 51 92 101 147
102 2 38 52 93 102 148
103 3 39 53 94 103 149
104 4 40 54 95 104 150
105 5 41 55 97 105 151
106 6 42 56 98 106 152
107 7 43 57 99 107 153
108 8 45 58 100 10~ 154
109 9 46 5_9 101 109 155
110 10 47 60 102 110 156
111 11 48 61 103 111 157
112 12 49 62 104 112 159
113 13 L
50 63 105 113 160
114 14 51 64 106 114 161
1!"5 15 52 65 107 115 162
116 16 53 66 108 116 163
117 17 54 67 110 117 164
118 18 55 68 111 118 165
119 19 56 69 112 119 166
120 20 58 70 113 120 167
121 21 59 71 114 121 168
122 22 60 72 115 122 169
123 23 61 73 116 123 170
124 24 62 74 117 124 171
125 25 63 75 118 125 172
126 26 64 76 119 126 173
; 127 27 65 77 120 127 176
128 28 66 78 121 128 177
129 29 68 79 122 129 178
130 30 69 80 123 130 179
131 31 70 81 124 131 180
132 32 71 82 125 132 181
- 33 72
133 83 126 133 182
134 - 34 73 84 128 134 183
)35 74 85 129
135 1 ,',•··
135 184
136 1
':\!i .....
75 86 130 136 185
):37 76 87 131
137 1 38 137 186
138 1 77 88 132 138 187
- 39 79
139 1 89 133 139 189
i'. 40 80
140 1 90 134 140 190
> 41 81 91 135
141 1 -42 141 191
142 182 82 92 136 142 192
43 83
143 183 44 93 137 143 193
144 184 84 94 138 144 194
145
15 85 95 139 145 195
185 46
146 186 86 96 140 146 196
4'7 87
147 18 48 97 143 147 197
148 18 88 98 144 148 198
---
49
149 18 90 99 145 149 200
50
150 19 91 100 146 150 201
EYI
\,'\(\~? Tru
,' FRE
::,.
...
-~ ,,_ \_~\.
v.4
GEi
Psy
Gu
?i'.l ne1
603
REFERENCE§,, G01
1.
ii
ALEXANDER, F.: Fundamentals of Psychoanalysis. New York, W.W. Norton,tw
a "'
vid1
'\i
1W8 ~ of 1
2. ANA;TASI, A., and FOLEY, J. P., JR.: A survey of the literature on artistic:it1 GUI
behavior in the abnormal: 1. Historical and theoretical background. J. Gen,<'itf Md
HAI
Psychol., 25: 111-142, 1941. of adult--•••.i_;_:_:_; cal
3. - - , - - : An experimental study of the drawing behavior ------
psychotics in comparison with that of a normal control group. J. Exper.}r Ho1
Psycho!., 34: 169-194, 1944. :{ perJ
i. ANONYMOUS: A guide to the use of the Bender-Gestalt drawings. Neuro-){ resf
psychiatric Service, Psychology and Social Work Section, Mason General};~ Hm
Hospital, Brentwood, L.I., New York, 1945. . j Hur
5. Army Air Force Aviation Psychology Program Research Report No. 15: ;~ J. ~
The Psychological Program in Army Air Force Convalescent Hospitals}[ Pm
(Restricted) . -- Hm
AsH, PHILIP: The reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. J. Abnorm. & schi
Psycho!., 44: 272-276, 1949.
7. BARTLETT, F. C.: Remembering: a Study in Experimental and phn
Psychology. New York, Macmillan, 1932. --, Hu1
B. BENDER, L.: Principles of Gestalt in copied form in mentally defective and,!}f the
schizophrenic persons. Arch. Neurol & Psychiat., 28: 661-673, 1932. Iij (Re
- - : A visual motor Gestalt test and its clinical use. Amer. Orthopsychiat.,tt
Assoc., Res. Monog. no. 3, 1938, 176 pp. _ }if med
Mc<
- - : Instructions for the use of visual motor Gestalt test. New York, Am{i
effe1
Orthopsychiat. Assoc., 1946. -~
25:
11. - - , CURRAN, F. J ., and SCHILDER, P.: Organization of memory traces in the0J
Korsakoff syndrome. Arch. Neurol. & Psychiat., 39: 452-487, 1938. - •.·~
,,~ 12. BILLINGSLEA, F.: The Bender-Gestalt test: An objective scoring method andj-f
of I
/
_/
validating data. J. Clin. Psycho!., 4: 1-28, 1948. ]f, 311-

13. BRUNNER, J. and GOODMAN, C.: Need and value as organizing factors in~,:
Md
ORE
perception. J. Abnorm. and Social Psycho!., 42: 33---44, 1947. _.
trea·
J4. COBB, S.: Personality as affected by lesions of the brain. In Hunt, J. McV,:ff
_,,/f 193!
Personality and the Behavior Disorders, v. 1. New York, The Ronald Press,/'}
1944. ,_ On~
Co.,
15. CORNELL, E., and CoxE, W.: A Performance Ability Scale: Examination/
PAs,
Manual. Yonkers, World Book Co., 1934. _
Am.
16. EDWARDS, A.: Statistical Analysis for Students in Psychology and Education, •
New York, Rinehart, 1946.
102
REFERENCES 103
17. EYESENCK, H.: Dimensions of .Personality. London, Kegan Paul, Trench,

Trubner, and Co., Ltd., 1947. • ·
18. FREUD, S.: Interpretation of Dreams. New York, Macmillan, 1933.
19. - : Metapsychological Supplement to Theory of Dreams, Collected Papers,
v. 4. London, Hogarth Press, 1924.
20. GELLHORN, E.: Autonomic Regulations: Their significance for Physiology,
Psychology, and Neuropsychiatry. New York, Interscience Publishers, 1943.
21. GLUECK, G.: Psicopatalogia della percezione della forma. Principi della forma
nei disequi copiati di malati mentali. Arch. psicol., neurol. e psichiat., J :
603-664, 1940.
22. GoLDWORTH, SAMUEL,: A comparative study of the drawings of a man and!
a woman done by normal, neurotic, schizophrenic and brain damaged indi-\
viduals. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Department of Psychology, University
of Pittsburgh, 1949.
Gun.FORD, J.: Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York,
ture on artisti
1
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1942.
ground. J. Ge .
HARROWER, M.: Changes in figure-ground perception in patients with corti-
cal lesions. Brit. J.M. Psychol., 30: 47-51, 1939.
1avior
HOAGLAND, H., ELMADJIAN, F., and PINCUS, G.: Stressful psychomotor
;roup. performance and adrenal cortical function as indicated by the lymphocyte
response. J. Clin. Endocrinol., 6: 301-311, 1946.
rawings.
HosKINS, R.: The Biology of Schizophrenia. New York, W.W. Norton, 1946.
Mason Gener
HUNT, J. McV., and COFER, C.K: Psychological deficit. Chapter 32 in Hunt,
J. McV.: Personality and the Behavior Disorders, ·New York, The Ronald
Report No. 15~t
Press, 1944.
escent Hospital¥i
. /$' HUSTON, P. E.: The reflex time of the patellar tendon reflex in normal and
schizophrenic subjects. J. Gen. Psychol., 13: 3--41, 1935.
.bnorm. & Socii! - - , SHAKOW, D., and RIGGS, L. A.: Studies of motor functions in schizo-
phrenia: II. Reaction Time. J. Gen. Psychol., 16: 39-82, 1937.
:ntal and Soci~
~~ti
illy defective a~11
HUTT, l\·I.: A Tentative Guide for the Administration and Interpretation of
the Bender-Gestalt Test. U. S. Army, Adjutant General's School, 1945
(Restricted).
-673, 1932. i~i - - : The use of projective methods in personality measurement in Army
!r. Orthopsychiat.')
medical installations. J. Clin. Psychol., 1: 134-140, 1945.
. New York,
. .JI
Arnff McCLELLAND, D., and ATKINSON, J.: The projective expression of needs. I. The
effect of different intensities of the hunger drive on perception. J. Psychol.,
25: 205--232, 1948..
mory traces in ili~
- , - - , and CLARK, R.: The projective expression of needs. III. The effect
t87, 1938. . ,.~
of ego-involvement, success, and failure on perception. J. Psychol., 27:
oring method a~1l 311-330, 1949.
i! McNEMAR, Q.: Psychological Statistics. New York, Wiley & Sons, 1949.
:1~zing factors ~ ORENSTEIN, L., and SCHILDER, P.: Psychological consideration of insulin
In Hunt, J. Mc'EI treatment in schizophrenia. J. Nerv. & Ment. Dis., 88: 397-416, 644-660,
1939. .
The Ronald Pr~ .-·. ·?~~ OTis, A.: Otis Self-Administering Test of Mental Ability. Yonkers, World Book
Co., 1922.
cale:
PASCAL, G.: Quantification of the Bender-Gestalt test: A preliminary report.
Am. J. Orthopsychiat. 20: 418--423, 1950.
104
38. - - , and ZEAMAN, J.: A note on the validity of Wechsler-Bellevue Scatter.

Am. J. Psychiat., 105: 840-842, 1949. ,
39. - - , - - : Simple methods for the objective determination of some effects}
of electroconvulsive therapy on the individual patient. J. Abnorm. and Social '.it
Psychol. (In press) <J!
40. POSTMAN, L., BRUNNER, J., and McGINNIES, E.: Personal values as selective 1 il
factors in perception. J. Abnorm. and Social Psychol., 43: 142-154, 1948. ·I
41. RABIN, A.: The Use of the Wechsler-Belfevue scales with normal and abnormalJf
persons. Psychol. Bull., 42: 4,10-422, 1945. {$
42. RAPAPORT, D., GILL, M., and SCHAFER, R.: Diagnostic Psychological Testing.;,:ll
Menninger Clinic Monograph Series, nos. 3 and 4. Chicago, Year book Pub, .,~ ,;i
lishers, 1945. 4ii
43. RICHARDSON, M., and KUDER, G.: The calculation of test reliability coefficientsc,,,f
based upon the method of rational equivalence. J. Educ. Psychol., 30:fi\'
681-687, 1939. Ji
44. SCHILDER, P.: Notes on the psych_ology of Metrazol treatment of schizophrenia.)l
J. Nerv. & Ment. Dis., 89: 133, 1939. ii}
45. STAINBROOK, E.: Shock Therapy: Psychologic theory and research. Psychol.)l
Bull., 43: 21-60, 1946. :Ji T
46. - - , and LOWEN BACH, H.: Writing and drawing of psychotic individuaisYt
after electrically induced convulsions. J. Nerv. & Ment. Dis., 99: 382-388;f{
1944. . T
4 7. TERMAN, L., and MERRILL, 1\1.: Measuring Intelligence. Boston, Houghton·~
Mifflin, 1937. Pi'
48. THORNDIKE, E.: The Measurement of Intelligence. New York, Bureau ohgl
Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia U., 1927. . iJi
49~ WATSON, R.: The Use of the Wechsler-Bellevue Scales: A Supplement. Psychol.)1~
Bull., 43: 61-68, 1946. ti
50. WECHSLER, D.: The Measurement of Adult Intelligence ( 3rd ed.). Baltimore,it;i
Williams and Wilkins, 1944. ;li,
51. WERTHEIMER, M.: Studies in the Theory of Gestalt Psychology. Psychol/tl
Forsch., 4: 301-350, 1923. .· •.~~•
52. WOLFF, W.: Diagrams of the Unconscious. New York, Grune & Stratton, 1948.,j ·---,!i
liability coefficien
luc. Psycho!., 3
nt of schizophreni SCORING MANUAL

I research. Psyc
~ychotic individua
THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST
Dis., 99: 382-3
• Boston, Houghto
w York, Bureau o
Supplement. Psycho/
.{<
( 3rd ed.) . Baltimor~
Psychology. Psychot
.rune & Stratton, 19 ;

; )
;
""===---------:-----.........-----..----"---"-"---=---...j
r
~ -
... ___:= __________ _ -. - -·,.,.--
::Jllustra
{for do1
'fexampl
"import
A,
►
INTRODUCTION
Each test figure~ of which the,re are nine, is called by us a design. Thus,
·· the first test figure, the square and circle, is called desigp_, A. Thereafter,
•· · designs are numbered. Each scorable deviation, called an item, is numbered,
'named, and described in this manual. Item numbers are consecutive by de-
signs, the first item in each design being numbered one.
Item definitions are supported by examples, except where scoring is ob-
vious. The illustrations accompanying each item are part of the definition of
\i that item. In some cases examples give the meaning of the item so clearly
.;. that verbal definition is kept to a minimum. In other _cases the examples
\ illustrate when to score and when not to score and help to sharpen judgment
(for. doubtful deviations. It is clear, therefore, that careful scrutiny of item
'examples and an understanding of the "score" and "no score" examples is
'iimportant in order to achieve reliable scoring.
•. .· A word needs to be said concerning the examples used to illustrate item
: clefinitions. These examples are taken from actual records and are apt to
show deviations other than the one under consideration. In order to avoid
;:~onfusion, therefore, the examples used to illustrate an item are scored only
for the item defined. Such a procedure does not mean that the examples
,may not have other scorable deviations.
, In addition to examples illustrating each item, several examples are given
)llustrating the total scoring for each design. These examples, taken from
\,ctual records, attempt to illustrate difficult scoring and are scored for all
r.:,:S~orahle deviations. In these examptes each scorable deviations is numbered
'.\{,nd its location on the draw~:-. 6 is indicated. Careful study of these examples,
)Ilustrating the scoring for each design, is also important if reliability in
,;(SCoring is to he obtained.
iE/ Assuming the beginning scorer has read through the manual once, having
st
':•!) udied each scorable deviation, he has some understanding of the nature of
g}:th~ scoring system. Before discussing actual scoring we should like to present,
il!} hnefly, two items of equipment which we have found to be important in
, .scoring. The first of these is the score sheet. It shows the numbers, names,
107
108 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL
and weights of all scorable deviations, providing a systematic method of

accumulating scores by items, design totals, and total for the test. It serves
as a check list which not only speeds u.p scoring but is also indispensable ing ,
for reliability in scoring, for without some such reminder it is easy to rrmg
overlook scorable deviations. A sample score sheet is on page 209; on it are. innin
entered the name of the subject, his age, education and, after the accumulation \1' scorn
of raw scores, his Z score. The other item of equipment which we have }{ nual I
found to be important in scoring is a transparent combination ruler and)
.;·,.,
protractor. Although scoring is, in general, by inspection, there are doubtful} · Reco
cases which need to be measured. Beginning scorers may, at first, feel more4j
confident of their judgments if these are confirmed by actual measurement.J~
Armed with the score sheet, a transparent combination ruler and pro-},[;
tractor, the examiner is ready to begin scoring. Design A is not scored.~J,'
Beginning with design 1 the reproduction is examined to ascertain whetherI~·
or not a scorable deviation occurs. Thus, design l, item 1, wavy line of dots.}&
If the deviation occurs, the record is scored two and this is tabulated in the{{
appropriate space on the score sheet. Each item for each design and forJ;[
configuration is checked, and a total raw score obtained. Where no scorable ) ,_,
deviation occurs the record is automatically scored one. Two tables are pro- "1screpa
vided in the Appendix for the conversion of raw scores to standard scores,}} pie hegi1
If the subject is between the ages of 15 and 50 and has one year or more of{; ·• Ten
high school, and no college education, the table for subjects of high schooL:, his last
education, table II, is used and the standard score found opposite the raw{ (:~s scor
,!_~--
score. If the subject has one year or more of college, table III is used. .::::~ ipresen
Opportunity is provided for practice, and for the beginning scorer to,~:} "'.,:•·the s
check his own reliability and validity. Forty-five actual records· accompanr1J )then
this manuaL These are so arranged that 25 of them are for practice and}J; f'the p
20 for a check on reliability and validity. The completed score sheets arel
included with the manual and immediately follow the description of scorabl{1 \f
deviations. These score sheets show the number of the record, the age, educa;t}
tion, I.Q., diagnosis, item scores, totd raw scores, and Z scores, when appli¥~
cable, for all except the first three drawings.
Records 1 to 25, inclusive, are the reproductions of individuals of various,¼ ru
nosological groups. The first three records, of feeble minded subjects, are,;j , un
not scored. These records are included as obvious examples of the repro?E ors.
ductions of the feeble minded, typically not scored by us. All of the other$ · of
records are scored. Some of the records, being reproductions of individua~J' ate,
outside of the normative population, are scored but the raw score is not}
converted to a :;tandard score. We have included such records because thef
afford examples of difficult scoring, and to indicate that, although no nonns
are available, the method of scoring may be used, for purposes of comparison;
with individuals outside the normalizing population. Records 1 to 25, then,
[NG MANUAL· 109
~ method of. Oare intended for practice in scoring. The beginning scorer should attempt to
est. It serves , . score the reproductions without reference to the completed score sheets. After
indispensable · \ scoring each record he should check his score against that of the authors,
.t is easy to ._ .referring to the manual in cases of discrepancy. With reasonable care the
109· on it are:
, ' ·:,
beginning scorer should, by the time he has scored 20 records in this manner,
accumulation'. c. be scoring within four or five points of the authors' scores. Users of this
1ich we have _manual have reported that by the twenty-fifth record they are scoring at the
ton ruler and ,c rate of about five minutes per record.
~ are doubtful Records 26 to 45, inclusive, are to be scored by the beginning scorer
without reference to the completed score sheets. The beginning scorer should
measurement. '.score all 20 records and then, as an estimate of his reliability, compare his
:uler and pro- scores with those given by the authors. He can, if he wishes, calculate his
is not scored;_ ,l'eliability coefficient. It should he close to .90. Mean scores should not differ
ertain whether more than five points from those given .. There is, however, a relationship
1
· ry line of dots., between the size of the score and the discrepancy between two scorers. i.e.,
1bulated in the ;~{€.f ""'" the higher the score the greater the discrepancy. But with high scores a few
lesign and for :Jt- score points one way or another make relatively little difference-whether a
=-re no scorable :f tecord receives a score of 101 or 109 is of little practical significance.
~tables are pro-Jff.: 'Discrepancies of over five for high scoring records should not, then, 'Y'Orry
'
tandard scores.·'.~ . -•·~/kk
"1e beginning scorer unduly. ·
rear or more o(" · , Ten records of patients and ten records of nonpatients are included in
of high schoo};. this last batch of reproductions ( nos. 26-45). Mean score for the nonpatients
pposite the raw: (as scored by the authors) is 45.1 and for the patients 80.3. These are not
is used. representative records, as the mean scores indicate. We have attempted, insofar
nning scorer t°: •as the small sample would permit, to cover the age and education range
ords accompant •.of the nonpatient population, and to cover a range of diagnpstic categories
1
or practice and ;:!P the patient sample. Within these limits, selection was unbiased. Reliable
score sheets ar . ~coring in this sample of twenty records will lead to perfect validity in
Jtion of scorabl_ '~ifferentiating between patients and nonpatients on the basis of Z scores
., the age, educ( ·w-hen the 20 records are divided into two groups. ·
)res, when applFJj .. A final word of caution to the beginning scorer. The utility of the data
. Al
riduals of vanoUSii
provided in this book depends on the extent of agreement with the authors
:J.n, scoring. The examiner can make no inferences based on the data of this
. .,Ag
ded subjects, ar,t\ :ook unless he is fairly certain that his scoring is in agreement with the
les ofh t e repr~;'j f
·,Rsi
~thors. Experience has shown that reliable scoring can he achieved by careful
stu
_ dy of this manual and practice on the records provided, in the manner
All of the other~'.lij
ms of individuaii :,a' •
;llldicated
raw score is nof~}J
1
ords because ther': ,
.lthough no norII15}'
ses of comparison; -•·-
rds l to 25, then,
r anc
.i DESIGN 1 red c
i
(12 Dots) ouht,
• • • • • • • • • • .. •
SI
I. Wavy line of dots. Score 2. For this deviation to be scored, the do~ff
~-
should form a distinctly wavy line. Only gross deviations from a straig~t!
line of dots are scored ( as in examples 1 and 2). In this, as well as in all%
\
o~her d~viations: subje~tive certainty, based on a ~udy of the examples pr~t
v1ded, 1s what _1s req~ired to score. Thus, ~ glan~e at exa~ples 1 and J'. _2_
show them to be decidedly "wavy." In cases of d\>ubt, as m example 4,,t

1
the item is not scored.
SCORE 2
1.
l \ \
\
\ \
2.
- .. - - ,_
• • . • - 0
•
~
NO SCORE
3.
• ... ... . -
4•
• • • • • • • •
-
2. Dots, dashes, and circles. Score 3. This deviation is scored when ther{f
variability in the reproduction of the stimulus, i.e., when dots and dasltt
dots and circles, dashes and circles, or all three, are used in the reproducti~i
The item is scored when two or more dots are converted to dashes 1
circles. It is not scored when all the dots, or all except one dot, are conve~
to dashes or circles ( see example 5).
A dash is defined as a line of at least 1 / 16 inch; a circle
no
iCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 1
111
~lear and unfilled. Enlarged dots and partially filled circles are not con-
0'iidered circles for the scoring of this item ( see example 6). Again, in cases
!if doubt the item is not scored.
..
. ;I SCORE 3
•
1.
• 0 • • • • . CJ c:.,
:ored, the dots~i t t t t

rom a straight~
; well as in aWJ 2.
: examples pro-filf, . .
.-
.' . •
!'e:;m;~d ~, I
I I
I I
t 1'
·::.;1
3.
•• t
1'
l
4.
I •
1' •
NO SCORE
5.
• I • I
t
6. (Example of 'fuzzy,' partially-filled circles)
• •
•
- ,1 1' t
ed when there lf\ 7
.,
dots and dash~t • • • • • • ••• C •
the reproduction.',
ed to dashes 4Ti
t
lot, are converted,
3
./ ~ Dashes. Score 2. For this deviation to be scored all !hr aois, or all except
01rt:e.
ili: dot, must be ~onverte? to ~ashes, i.e., lines of r'
;, nzontal or vertical. If, m a lme of dashes, t·
• ' • inch, either
che elements
THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING
112
remam dots as in the stimulus, the reproduction is scored for

item 2.
SCORE. 2
1.
( t t t l \ <.. <... l. L L
2.
,,,, ,,,
3. I I I I
NO SCORE
4. ;,;,.on two
'.'.&tin judg
••
1 • I I I ' I
;"~J'.~:v~::
fof dots
5. (Example scored for workover, Item 7)
Ii' • • •
·-- --- . •
4. Circles. Score 8. For this deviation to be scored aU the dots, or

except one dot, must be converted to clear, unfilled circles. If, in a line
such circles, two or more of the elements remain dots, the reproduction
scored for variability, item 2.
SCORE 8
C:, CC CC) C C Cl ~ ~ ~ O O
NO SCO~E (Example scored for dot, dash, circle;_ Item 2)

.,; . \
D
Netined as' . • 0 ct ca
SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 1 113
5. Number of dots. Score 2 for each. The stimulus for design 1 consists
of 12 dots. If, in the reproduction, the number of dots is less th~n 10; or
. IDO!~ than 14 (and the dots are yet a part of the design, not "extra-ii6attere"d"
d~ts) the item is scored. For each dot lacking or in excess of this tolerance,
the score is 2; e.g., if the reproduction consists of 8 dots, the score for the
item would be 4 ( example 1).
N. B. If there are 6 or less dots, the reproduction is scored for "part
of design missing," item 10.
SCORE 4
, . . .
SCORE 14
I I •
. . • • • 0 • • , , • • • • • • •
6. Double row. Score 8. This item is scored w_hen the design is reprodllced
on two lines instead of one. The deviation occurs when the subject, lacking
injudgment, begins the design in spite of insufficient space, and, when unable
::.:.{JJ~ . lo complete the design on one line, continues on the next. The double row
' deviation differs from that scored under item 8, second attempt, in the number
·of dots present. ( See examples following.)
SCORE 8
.
. • .
, the dots, or •ts,l
· ott:
·:s. H, .m a 1me ?}
1e reproduction ·.~ NO SCORE (Examples scored for second attempt, Item 8)
---..,,~.
:.>-..-.,,
1.
• f
• • •
2•
• . .
m 2)
. . .
I (I 0
114 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL ,
7. Workover. Scr,re 2. Most normal subjects reproduce the stimulus by single ·

dots, or by slightly thickened dots, i.e., small, filled circles (example 4).
· Some subjects, however, so belabor the dots that they become large, and
appear to result from the expenditure of a great deal of effort. Such elabora- } production
tions are scored as "workover." ·, stimulus ca
Scorable workover occurs in three instances, as illustrated in the ex- }the paper,
. amples: 1) when a single dot is so excessively belabore-:1 that it stands out fof the papt:
"from the line of dots ( example 1), 2) when several dots ( three or more)
are so worked-over that they differ from the remaining dots, although not
quite to the extent of the first instance ( example 2), and 3) when all
dots appear to result from a great deal of elaboration ( example 3).
SCORE 2
•
1.
• - . . • ~ • • • •
2.
- .. • • • . - • - ~ 4 •
. 3.
0 0
•• CD . • • •o 0
NO SCORE
4.
• • • • • • • • • • • •
5.
. •
t t
8. Second attempt. Score 3 for each. When the subject makes, and fails t0{
erase, more than one attempt to reproduce the design, the item is scored{
Attempts crossed out, or incompletely erased, are scored; the score is 3 for
each such attempt.
[UNG MANUAL : SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 1 115
iulus by single 9. Rotation. Score 8. This item is scored if the design is reproduced vertically
( example 4). . rather than horizontally, or if the reproduction is rotated from the horizontal
me large, and · 45° or more. Scorable rotations may come about l ) by inversion of the re-
Such elabora- : production from a properly oriented stimulus card, or 2) by a turning· of the
stimulus card by the subject. Nonscorable rotations may result from turning
ted in the ex- . the paper, e.g., when ,the subject, in order to make the most economical use
,t it stands out of the paper turns it to fit in the drawing.
:hree or more) ·
. ; although not•.
' '
) when all the·

SCORE 8
ple 3 ).
•
,
•
oa
-
NO SCORE
..
t
the item is ,,,..,,r~\,.,

. the score is 3 lO. Part of the design missing. Score 8. If the design is reproduced with six
or fewer dots, the item is scored. · ·
I
116 THE BENDER-GEST~YT TEST: SCORING MANUA

/
Examples of scoring for Design 1. Items scored are indicated by number

location of deviation, by arrows. The total score for the design is below eac,
reproduction.
A.
(.)A,.«.)
...
\a
t•
• • ,- • • I .......+
2. 7. f 7.
2.-3
7.-2
Design Total-5
B.
• •
1.-2
2.-3
7.-2
Design Total-7
c.
- 1.-2
- . . .-
2.-3
Design Total- 5
D.
. . .
Design Total-2 (1.)
RING MANUAL .
l by numbers;
is below each
DESIGN 2
( l} Columns of Circles)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0
0 0 0 .o .0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\
·: 1. Wavy line. Score 2. For this deviation to be scored, the bottom row of
., circles should form a distinctly wavy li.ne. ·Rotating the paper 90° facilitates
observation of this deviation. As in design l, the scoring is not rigid; in cases
of doubt, the item is not scored. Ex;Ihple 3 illustrates a borderline case, not
scored.
SCORE 2
.- 1.
•• • 6 0
0
,:> 0 a 0 0 C) a
C) 0
• !)
• u 0
0 0 0
• 0 Cl C. . #!I e)
2.
0 a 0 0 0 a 0
0 0 C, 0 e 0 ()
0 0 0 D C a C!) C,
C 0 0
0 0 0 0 a D
0
0
NO SCORE
3.
0 cs
0
0
C,
0
0 0
0
0
C)
0. .,
0 C,
0
0
0
0
·c
0
0
0000 0 ~ c::> 0 C) d ~
Dashes or dots instead of circles. Score 3. Where dashes and/ or dots are
consistently (more than half) substituted for circles, the item is scored.
117
I
118 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL:
SCORE 3
1.
•• • . .,. .
• • • • • .•
. •
-
t,
• •• •• • • •
' • •
• • •
' NC
2.
,,,,,.,,,,.
I t I I I I I I ' ' I
I I I I I • • I I I C
NO SCORE
3.
C, G, 0
0
• 0 ~ 6 0
· in any of t;
0 ~ C, 0 • d Cl. Go C c:..
, lapping cir1
e,, .,. c,, 0 ~ C C. 0
0 C,
_produced b
:fin the follo
N. B. E
>"workover,'
3. Circles showing tremor or other deviations in shape. Score 3. Three or r.iore •'.
of the circles should show tremor or deviate markedly from the circular, for · ·
the item to be scored. Tremor, as it is found in this design, is easily observable SCI
as small, irregular changes in the direction of the line. Marked deviations
from the circular occur in several ways: the resulting reproduction may appear " ••
heart-shaped, diamond-shaped, tear-drop-shaped, and the like ( see examples
following) . In cases of doubt, the item is not scored.
C,
e,
SCORE 3
1. (Example scored for tremor)
o O O a O (100/J O If
oooaoaooSJuo
Oa80nooool1o
2. (Example scored for tremor, and deviations in shape)
0
IJ
-0 ti
0 ~o i g> ggo i't,
I) 0
"
3. (Example scored for deviations in shape)
0 o 0~ c> 0
0
0
(S
0
I)
0
b
0
.,
0 0
0
Cl
u
~
0
I)
~
0
c:),
~
~
0 C> u 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~
()RING MANU .. CORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 2 119
4. (Examples scored for deviations in shape)
0 0 {)\\ Q0 0
0
()
b ~
\ Q I
' '
•• '
I) () C)
0 ()
~ \\ 0 D b () 0
• n
•
NO SCORE
'
5.
t, Cl ~ b (9 ·o
0 0 D 0 ()
0 0 C, 0 0 0 {!_)
0 0 0 0 0 (J
0 D (:)
0 0 4 0 0 0
·o Circles missing or extra in the column. Score 5. Extra circles may appear
,in any of three ways: 1) as additions to the individual columns, 2) as over- t
c:..
lapping circles in a single column, or 3) as a result of the design being re-
produced by rows rather than by columns. These deviations are illustrated
in the following examples.
N. B. Example 4 illustrates the difference between the deviations scored
"workover," and those scored "circles extra."
3. Three or r.i.oreitl'!
the circular, foriff:
easily observable\,!:· SCORE 5
J. (Example of addition to -individual columns)
.. .
:1rked deviations{)l
~t1~.}'
•• •• •, • C, . \ • .• ... . • C,
•
:tion may appear}}tt
:e ( see examples'.\t!
• • • • • •• . " 0
0
0 "•
+ t
.! 2 •.
}ti C,
C,
0
0
. -.,
Ci,
C) 0
a.
C.
b
b
$
a,
c:.; ..
0
C,
•
C!t
ca
d
G
a
0
?
3. (Example of reproduction by rows,
resulting in an extra circle
lpe)
0
.,
•
e.
• -
19 0
0
C)
•
0
c:.
0
Ct
C,
0
0
0
0
0
C>
C, 0 0 ao
t::> 0 0
0 0 e 0 t
4. (Example of overlapping circles)

0 C>
0 a, C, 0 e. 0 0 e, @
IC) c.. <,
0 ~
. <:> p 0, ~ a, C, 0 Co ~ 6:>
0 C. 0
"-:i c:., O> 0 C, 0 C> c:» 0 €:>
t 5<:.0REC> SCORE!) t
CIRCLES EXTRA WORKOVER ITEM /0
/
J
I
I.
r
!
120 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING
I 5. Circles touching. Score 5. For the item to be scored, the circles must be
placed that they touch or overlap more than once.
SCORE 5
1.
0
0
0
0
a
0
6
~+- lb
c»
C.
0 i+- 0
Q) ~+-
(!)
0
0
Ct
0
0 0 0 () ~ C Cl 0 0
(fr
i1,
- 2.
0 ~·~
• • ,,;,
a,
'9
0 0
'61)
• •
0
1,.... 0
a(-~
0
-~
•
6. Deviation in slant. Score 3. There should be two or more abrupt chang~s}

in the slant of the columns and/ or alignment to score here. So long as sue'. i
cessive columns are roughly parallel, the item is not scored l example 4 }.,}
Gradual change in the direction of slant ( example 5) is not scored, nor are)~;
minor deviations ( example 6). Scored deviations occur in two ways: 1) as?/
pronounced change in the direction of slant, and 2) as deviations in align-?,
ment ( see examples following).
1. (Example of scorable change in slant)

~
0
" lJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 6
0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0
t t t
3.
0 e, 0
0 0 e, 0 0 t» Q ?)
0 C, Cl 0 C, 0 0 b 0 0 a
C, Q D
0 0 0 D C, 0 0 0
t DEVIATION t
IN .SLANT Jr-I ALIGNMENT
·cles must bes'

NO SCORE
4.
0 0 c» 0 B 0 C 0 0 ~ a C.
0 0 0 0 t!I 0 0 CiP 0 C, 0 0
0 0 C, 0 0 0 C> 0 0 0 0
0
Ct
0
0 5. (Example of gradual change in slant)
•0 •• 0
e
~
o
0
C,
c.,
0
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
C,
0 0
0 • 0 0 D 0
6. (Example of non-scorable minor deviations)
"
0
0
0
C,
. C,
0
0
0
0
c!)
0
0
0
"
II:>
0
.
0
c:,
~ 0 C, 0 a 0 0 0 C, • 0
·7. (Example of only one scorable change)

: abrupt ,.,,_,,_,,_,,"'·'
So long as • 0
0
0
C,
0
0,
<!>
0
C!)
0
0
c)
•
C,
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
!d texample
+
riations 1. Number of columns. Score 2 for each. The stimulus for design 2 consists of
-_·.11 columns of circles. If, in the reproduction, the number of columns is less
Cthan nine, or more than 13, the item is scored. For each column lacking or in
} excess of this tolerance, the score is. 2. The deviation is also scored when one
of the columns, usually the last, is crossed out ( example 2).
0 N.B. If there are 6 or less columns, the reproduction is scored for "part
0 of the design missing," item 13.
0
SCORE 8
0
0
•
0 () 0 C)
• 0
•0 C, 0 0 0 ~~ Q
a ..,
• •
0 ~ ~
0
0
0 0
0
C, 0
•• • 0
6
b
er.
0
a
o
0
Q
0
0
0
0 .,
d
e
e> 0
SCORE 2 (Example scored for extra column, crossed out)
' ', 7(
0 \
:, 0
...
'(
~ 0
122 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL'~
·'·.H_,
8. Design on two lines. Score 8. This deviation has to do with the tendency
of some subjects to reproduce this design on several levels as in example 1.
This deviation may occur in several ways: 1) as in design 1, the reproduction
may be begun on one line and continued on another; 2) the columns may.···.·
be divided into several series, each with its base on a different level; or 3) >
one column may be "dropped" decidedly below the level of the remaining f
columns. The middle circle of the "dropped" column should be at, or below,,
the base level of the reproduction for the item to be scored.
SCORE 8
1. (Example of division into series)
~ ~
• !j(i)Cb
Q:>eo 0 o <?:>
• 0 ~ e~~ 0 <l>.
ic
e>eo
• 0 ~ 15 ~ ~ ~
~()G
~
2.
C, (>
0
~
0
G,
0
-
d
0
6
0
0
- ~
0
0
C
0
()
0
0
~
CC>0
C, C. 6
CJ c..,
e 0
(,)
3. (Example of one column 'dropped,' child's record)
CJ 0 V 0 ::) c., o> 0 0
oo 0/J 2)~ Q0 0() 0C) 00 00 ~
~
ea
c..,
t
4.
.
,
,, , ,,, ,
't "• "

~
•
/
I I .
• I '
NO SCORE
5.
I!> • 0 C,
0 0 o o O C o
0
0 ' 0
., 0 0 0 °
0
0
0
C, • 0
c, 0 0 _, 0 O 0
\
\
1RING MANUAL . SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 2 123
t1 the tendency' 9. Guide lines. Score 2. Where lines are made to guide the placement of the
in example 1. · circles, the item is scored.
le reproduction
: columns may
SCORE 2
nt level; or 3)
the remaining
e at, or below,
10. Workover. Score 2. The stimulus for design 2 is usually reproduced with
clear, single-line circles, or with slightly but consistently thickened circles
(example 7). When the circles are so belabored that they become large thick
masses, workover is scored.
Workover is scored for design 2 in four instances as illustrated in the
following examples: 1) when a single circle is excessively belabored so as to
stand out in a context of clear single-line circles ( example 1), 2) when sev-
eral circles ( three or more) are belabored so that they differ from the re-
•·. maining circles ( example 2), 3) when three or more of the circles contain a
dot, dash, or ..;maller circle, indicating the subject began with a dash or dot
and then superimposed a larger circle ( example 3), and 4) when all the
circles appear to result from a great deal of elaboration ( example 4). When
the design is reproduced as dots or dashes instead of circles and these are
·• worked over, the item is also scored for item 2 ( example 5) .
SCORE 2
• ·•
1.
u 0 0 C, G' 0 t:, 0 0 0
• •
• •
0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0.
~ 0 0 0
• 0 0
C,
C. 0 C) e
, ,, ,
# , 2.
I
' -0 0• 0
0 tD
6 O
0
0
a, G
o
0 C, 0 0 0 D o·
3. (Example of subject's having begun.with dashes,
and having redone columns with circles)
0
a,~ o<!>-.~ e"
0
» 0 CD • 0 0
e
0
124 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING SCORABLI
4.
0
• 0
Ci' a
• •s • •• •• •• • 6• e e
0 0 C,
0
•
fD
e
~
0
A
• " • ct)
5.
• • • • • • • • • •
(i
•
•• •• •• •• ~
• ...
• • •
• 6
•
'
•
•
NO SCORE B.
6.
0 0 0 (?> C::. 0 ~ 0 O c::,

0 0 C, C, c, o oo oOoo
0 () (!) 0 0000 ooo
7.
(0 0 Q 0 0 (0 0 0 C 0
0 0 () ~ 0 (C) <C. C ~ ~
C.
0 0 C) 0 0 0
f) C 0
'°
11. Second attempt. Score 3 for each. The item is scored as item 8, design
12. Rotation. Score 8. The item is scored as item 9, design 1.
13. Part of the design missing. Score 8. If the design is reproduced with
or fewer columns, or with two instead of three rows, the item is scored.
SCORE 8
1. /
2.
C!,C)C, C ~ ~~ C~ ~ <::'
~ c:,<:.:> 0 <'.) ~ ~ ~ Q C> C,
SCORABLE DEVl\TlONS: DESIGN 2 125
· Examples of scoring for design 2. Items scored are indicated by numbers.
~ A.
•
' •
0 b () 0 0 0 0 D 0-
C> () 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 6 {J
0 \) () 0
0 D 0 0 0 0 ~ 0
1.-2 0
3.-3 t 1'
4.-5 Ir. 4-.
Design Total-10
B. (Example with unscorable minor deviations in

slant; unscorable workover)
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 C, C, 0
.,
0 0 C, C, 0
0 0 0
0 0 c) 0 C) ~ 0 0 0 0
t
1.-2 JO. UNSC'ORABLE
Design Total - 2
C. (Example with unscorable deviations in shape;

unscorable workover)
c,c.. C!r.oa
<:»~~be,
0 c:,1:00
't-.
luced with s' · 1.-2
is scored. 4.-5
Design Total-7
J
scoRABLl
DESIGN 3
( Arrowhead - 16 dots)
•
•. • .,
• •
• • • •
• • •
• •
•
1. Asymmetry. Score 3. For the item to he scored, asymmetry should he

pronounced. Three types of asymmetry are scored: 1) spacing asymmetry, in
which the space between dots varies markedly, 2) angle asymmetry, in which
there is great disparity in the angles from the axis ( examples 3 and 4), and
3) dot asymmetry, in which there is an uneven number of dots on either side
of the axis ( examples 5 and 6). The dots of the arrowhead should he approx-
imately equidistant from the axis, and should make approximately equal an-
gles with it. Scorable and nonscorable deviations are illustrated in the ex-
amples following; in cases ,of doubt, the item is not scored.
N.B. Asymmetry is not scored when the design is scored for distortion,
item 8.
SCORE 3 (Examples of spacing asymmetry) .

1.
2.
•
•
SCORE 3 (Examples of angle asymmetry)

3.
•.
•
.
·. \·
__.
4.
..
126
SCORE 3 (Examples of dot asymmetry)

5. • 6•
•
•
• .. •
•
• .
•
'
NO SCORE
7, 8. •
I
/ •
/.
// .
•/
I
• .
•, ,
ry should be :; •
•
symmetry, in ', , • •
:try, in which C,;.'l(,
'""''
I
,
and 4), and)'ii
)n either side]tf
•
l~ be approx-}J~
tely equal an~ i
ed in the ex~
•
9.
, •
•
-•, 10. (Scored for no, dots,
Item 5)
,• •
, • • •
~
:,2. Dots, dashes, and circles. Score 3. The item is scored as item 2, design 1.
SCORE 3 (Example of 3 clear circles among dots)
,, ~
•
I
• •
0~
,,
• •
- Q~
f~-4~~• , =!. ·- --·~2_--i,,-2_-_-·--•----· ...•c.·.-- ·~"'" -=- -· .r_-.-c-----=::-=:-:-;p-...-=:-•....--------c--=•-· -. . _-=----. __ .. ___ --··.
J .--
128 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL~

;
SCORE 3 (Example of 3 dots among circles)
C,
0
•<E- • 0
0 0 . ~
0
ta
0 •<E- ~
• 0
6
NO SCORE
3. (Scored for workover 4. (Example with only
Item 10) one circle; scored
for dashes, Item 3)
• ., •
•
• •., • I I
I
,
• • • tJ
, ,, 0~
, -
• • ~
e• "
Ys. Numbe1
'than 16 de
'deviation i
, N.B.1
3. Dashes. Score 2. The item is scored when all the dots, or all except on
Jtem 8.
dot, are converted to dashes. ,'~. Extra
SCORE 2
I
I I
I
I I
~ I I
; I
I
/ I'
~
4. Circles. Score 8. The item is scored when all the dots, or all except one
dot, are converted to clear, single-line circles.
SCORE 8
1.
e
0
~
0 0
0 0
0 0
a
C)
. 0
C)
~
C>
-~
NO SCORE
2. (Scored for dot, dash, circle: Item 2)
0 ~+-
0 C)
0
Q
0
C> <s C,
6 C,
0
0
)5. Number of dots. Score 2. The item is scored when there are more or less
{than 16 dots, dashes, or circles in the reproduction. The total score for this
, eviation is 2.
, N.B. The item may be scored when the design is scored for distortion,
_item 8.
'-~. Extra row. Score 8. This deviation is rarely encountered. The item is
~cored when there is an extra row of dots in the reproduction. -----
SCORE II
..
..
·,
-7. Blunting. Score 8. The point of the arrow should be obliterated to score
~his item. Rounding of the arrow, with the middle dot of th':! first row at
130 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUA ,,
the center of the curve, is not scored. Compare example 3, not scored, t<{
example l, scored. In cases of doubt, the item is not scored.
N.B. Blunting is not scored when the design is scored for distortion, item 8.
SCORE 8
1.
• - •- 2.
• • 4
• •
-
• --
I
• • S>
'• • •
•
•
• • - •• -•
&
,,
•
NO SCORE,
3. 4.
0
•.if
0 0
Cl 0
• 0
'I
• 0
0
0
A
:IJi
8. Distortion. Score 8. To score, there should be destruction of the gestalttlf ,e•.g-
resulting in a loose conglomeration of dots or in an extreme departure froIXl'liJ-

the stimulus. 1£ an arrowhead, using all the dots roughly patterned after th~{{
stimulus, is at all discernable, the item is not scored. ;J;r
~,i
SCORE 8
1.
........ . ..
..... .
I
. t
2.
,
. :I
I
Ii:i
_:-,:.~-~::f
I
3. 4.
0 0 0 \
0 ' ' \
C) 0
0 I I
' '
I
" a e
\ -,
,RING MANUAL SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 3 ,131
not scored, to 5. ••
0 '
• e
•••• ca
., 0
NO SCORE
6. (90° rotation) 7.
.
. . .
8.
....
Guide lines. Score 2. The item is scored as item 2, design 2.
1 of the gestalt,},/~'
departure fro~\
SCORE 2 ,
:terned after th~\'
~-
~
•
:-
Workover. Score 2. The item is scored as item 7, design 1.
SCORE 2
1.
•
••
•
-
f!
•
2.
•
'
• •
•
•
e • •
•
•
•
.• •
132 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAti iSCORABLE
3.
6
~
•
••
. rows is co
0
0
• • ••• •
dots, item
one of the
• e
G
NO SCORE
4. 5. (Example of all, small
consistent filled circles)
• •
•
• •• ••
• •
• • -
•
•
•
11. Second attempt. Score 3 for each. The item is scored. as item 8, design 1.
12. Ro(ation. Score 8. Rotation is scored for design 3 when the design is
tated 45°, 90° or 180° from its proper horizontal axis, whether the deviation
occurs in the actual reproduction or in previous turning of the card. Rota,: ;
tion of the paper is not scored.
SCORE 8
1. (Example of 2. (Example of 3. (Example of
45° rotation) 90° rotation) 180°rotation)
•
I f
•
e I
NO·SCORE
4•
•
. CORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 3 133
13. Part of the design missing. Score 8. The item is scored when one of the
rows is completely missing in the reproduction. In such a case~ number of
~. dots, item 5, is not scored, unless there is deviation in the number of dots in
' one of the remaining rows, i.e., an uneven number of dots on either side of
·.•. the axis, as in .example 2.
l SCORE 8
Les) 1. 2. (Scored also for
no. dots, Item 5
• •
• • ,
- #
•
.,
-
4
•
•
;: Examples of scoring for Design 3. Items scored are indicated by numbers.

8, design-I.
lesign is ro~
b.e deviation·
card. Rotat A.
..- B•
..... ...
1.-3 ... '

2.-3
7.-8
1.-3
10.-2 3;-2
Design Total- 16
5.-2
Design Total - 7
C.
•
• • D.
•oo
•
• ,
12.~8
13.-8 ,
0
,
,
Design Total-16 •
' , 0
•
1.-3
2.-3
Design Total- 6
DESIGN 4
( Square and Curve)
1. Asymmetry of the curve. Score 3. For the item to be scored, the halves
the curve should be markedly asymmetrical. Asymmetry may be in terms
contour, or of differences between the two ends of the curve, e.g., one
may be squared-off, curled, frayed, or worked over ( see examples
The scoring is not rigid; reasonable similarity of the halves is not .,. . v ......,
in cases of doubt the item is not scored.
SCORE 3 (Examples of conlour asymmetry)

1. 2.
j
3. 4.
134
.SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 4 135
SCORE 3 (Examples of differences between the

two ends)
5. (One end 'squared-off') 6. (one end 'curled')
7. (One end 'frayed')

8. (One end 'worked-over')
9. lO_j
SCORE 3 (Examples of contour and difference asymmetry)
11.
NO SCORE
12. 13.
15.
14.
2. More than one break in the curve. -Score 4. To score, more than one break
in .the curve must occur. When the design is sketched, the item is not
unless there occurs more than one open space in the line of sketching.
SCORE 4
1. 2. (Example of breaks in line
of sketching)
NO SCORE
3. (Example of only one break)
\_ .J,
cross th
N.B.
- SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 4 137
3. Curve not centered on square. Score 1. For this item to be scored, the curve
should be distinctly "off-center," i.e., when the center of the curve and the
lower right corner of the square do not coincide. In cases of doubt, a bisection
line may be drawn; the line should be at least 1/s inch from the adjacent
) corner of the square for the deviation to be scored ( example 1 ) .
SCORE 1
1. 2.
"'\
,,, ,
\
\,
,,. ,,.
,
,
, u
,
·e than one
.em is not ,,,.,.,..... n, ·'
NO SCORE
of, sketching.
3. 4.
in line
__)
\ 4. Curls added to extension (s) of the curve. Score 4. The end ( s) of the
; curve must be extended in a distinctly circular I,11otion for the item to be
• scored. The curl should turn back on itself, so that, if extended, it· would
,· cross the adjacent side of the curve. In cases of doubt, the item is not scored.
N.B. If only one of the ends is curled, the reproduction is also scored for
asYillm.etry,. item 1.
SCORE 4
1. (Example of one 2. (Example illustrating
distinct curl) 'turning back' on self)
NO SCORE (Examples not 'turning back' on selves)

4. 5.
5. Curve and square overlapping or not joined. Score 8. Where the peak
the curve is separated by ¼ inch or more, from the adjacent corner of
square, or where the curve overlaps the adjacent corner by 1/s inch or more,,'
the item is scored.
SCORE 8
1. 2.
LJ
NO SCORE
3. 4.
6. Curve rotation. Scor.e 3. For perfect reproduction of design 4 one line

should bisect the curve and the adjacent angle of the sq~are as shown in the
drawing below. The line bisecting the curve should form an angle of 135°
with the adjacent side of the square. When this angle is reduced to 90° or
less, the deviation is scored. Scoring is, in general, by inspection; although,
in cases of doubt, a bisection line may be drawn and the angle measured.
ere the peak o.

tt corner of th
SCORE 3
1.
_/
3. 4. (Example also scored for

design rotation, Item 12)
NO SCORE
5. (Scored for 6. (Scored only for
design rotation, 'curve not centered,'
Item 12) Item 3)
7.
7. Touch-up to the curve. Score 8. To score, an extra meaningless line must be\!,:,' unsteady
attached a/ter the curve has been completed. In most cases, the deviation isjif Tren
obvious; in cases of doubt, a decision can be made by considering wheth~(,,;.;, to be sc,
the line is integrated into the curve proper; usually they are in an e~tirelY}J!; N.B.
opposite direction. When there is doubt, the item is not scored. ·· where tl
N.B. Asymmetry is not scored unless the contour of the curve by an m
asymmetrical. for test
ING.MANUA i SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 4 141
SCORE 8
1. 2.
3. 4.
NO SCORE
5. (A second attempt
6. (Line added but in-
rather than a
tegrated into the
'touch-up')
figure)
8. Tremor. Score 4. Tremor, although a good discriminating item, is one of

;_ the most difficult to describe and to illustrate. In general, tremulous lines repre-
sent varying degrees of departure from clean, firmly-_drawn lines. Tremor may
he either of two types: fine, almost imperceptible, or gross, i.e., a generally
less line must unsteady line with large deviations from the untended direction of the line.
the deviation Tremor should be easily observable without the aid of a ma_CTnifying glass
;idering whethe:_ to be scora:ble. In cases of doubt, the item is not scored.
·e in an e~tirelh,:}r N:B. Use of a magnifying glass has been found necessary in some instances
where the question arises whether the tremulous-appearing lines were caused
te curve by an uneven writing surface. If, however, the precautions in the directions
for test administration are observed, such need should not arise.
142 THE BENOER-CESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL
SCORE 4 (Examples of fine tremor)

1. 2.
~+ \,----+-"
3. 4.
SCORE 4 (Examples of gross tremor)

5. 6.
;ING MANUAL SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 4 143
SCORE 4 (Examples of both kinds of tremor

in same ;reproduction)
8. 9.
) <iROSS
+
9. Distortion. Score 8. This deviation is rarely encountered; to score the item

the reproduction should he a marked distortion of the stimulus.
SCORE 8
1. 2.
10. Guide lines. Score 2. The item is scored, as item 9, design 2, where lines
or dots are made to control the placement of the design ( example 1). It is
also ·scored where consistent sketching occurs.
N.B. Sketching is a scorahle deviation, as it is expressedly prohibited in
the instructions given to the subject.
SCORE 2
1. 2. (Example of consistent
sketching)
144 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAt1·
11. Second attempt. Score 3 for each. The item is scored, as item 8, design)
1, when the subject makes more than one attempt to reproduce the design,')!
and fails to erase his first attempt ( s). Second attempts may occur with design ;i;
4 in either of two ways: 1) the subject may, as with designs 1 and 2, start)i
a reproduction, give up and start afresh a second reproduction, or 2) the sub~)
ject may superimpose the second attempt on the first. The score is 3 for; ,
each attempt. .,
N.B. This item must not be confused with "double lines" which are noE;;j1}
scored for design 4. A double line involves usually only one side, or less, oft',"'
···)
the square, or only a short distance on the curve, whereas a second attempt:,}
is usually a redoing of at least half of the square or of the curve. Thus, scoring\
"second attempt" becomes a matter of judgment: the question for decision;'
being whether the reproduction appears to result from an actual second
tempt at reproducing the design ( example 6) or from an adjustment or
rection line ( example 10) made on the one reproduction ( termed here "dou~
ble line").
SCORE 3 (Example of second reproduction started
apart from first)
1.
.\ I
~ LJ
SCORE 3 (Examples of superimposed second attempts)
2. 3.
.;12. Design
)ls for cun
4. 5. (Example of second attempt, the base oJ
first partially erased) 1, 2, and 3
_fuird of th,
·point of au
\ 00 , may o
tem is sec
.l rotated r
:scored whe
N.B. C1
•·· lion, or wi1
' the first ty
CORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 4 145
n 8, desi 6. 7.
the design
with desi
:md 2, start
,2) the suh"l
· ,re is 3 fo(
:, or less, of
ond attempt· SCORE 6
8.
hus, scoring
.for decisio~
· rnent or cor~l
:1 here "dout
/
NO SCORE (Examples of double lines -

cprrections made on first reproduction)
9. 10.
2. Design rotation. Score 8. Design 4 is scored for design rotation as 'fell

for curve rotation, item 6. Two types of design rotation occur: 1) when
mpt, e base of the square is rotated 45° or more from the horizontal ( examples
.' 2, and 3), and 2) when the curve is attached to the square more than one
-ird of the distance along that particular side of the square, from its proper
: int of attachment, i.e., the lower right corner of the square. Double rotation,
9o, may occur and is scored twice, i.e., score 16 ( examples 6 and 7). The
Jem is scored when the rotation results from -the copyi~g of the design -in
rotated manner, or from the turning of the stimulus card; the item is not
~ored when the paper is rotated.
,: . N.B. Curve rotation, item 6, may also be scored with either type of rota-
hon, or with double rotation; "curve not centered" m~y be scored only with
the first type. The examples following will clarify the scoring.
~---
________.,.,.,,~--,....,_""'"_-
:-:-:::- _ _ffl!!l!!'![l~lll!l1ill!III.............................~=~
___"'!"~-.....
•> - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - --- -- - -- ------·---- ""' . . . . . ~~-.........,,...._.--.. . . . . .,.__---
·--~·----.--,-----·· -··- ··--·-------· ~---
--
__ , _____ , ___ -•- ··---- -
146 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAtC
SCORE 8 (Examples of rotation of entire design)

1. (450 rotation) 2. (90° rotation)
3. (180° rotation)
SCORE 8 (Examples scored for point of curve

attachment)
4. (Point of attachment 5. (Example scored
more than 1/3 distance also for curve rotation,
along base of square Item 6)
SCORE 16 (Examples of double rotation)

6. (Example scored 7.
also for curve
rotation, Item 6)
NO SCORE
8. (Scored for curve 9. (Scored for curve not
not centered, Item 3) centered, Item 3; and
curve -rotation, Item 6)
i'.13. Part of the design missing. Score 8. The item is scored when more than
,one third of either the square or the curve is missing.
SCORE 8
1. 2.
LJ
NO SCORE
3. (Scored for asymmetry,
Item 1)
Examples of scoring for design 4. Items scored are indicated by numbers.
A. B.
t
1.
5.-8 1.-3
7.-8 Design Total - 3
Design Total-16
C. D.
+- 4-.
1.-3 1.-3
4.-4 11.-3
8.-4 Design Total - 6
Design Total -11
DESIGN 5
( 19 Dots in Curve; 7 Dots in
Extension)
•
•
• ••
• • • • ••
• •
•
••
•
•
•
1. Asymmetry of the curve. Score 3. For this item to be scored, the two{
halves of the curve should differ markedly as in item 1, design 4. Asymmetry>,
may be in terms of contour, difference in the length of the two sides, or othe~{
differences in treatment of the two halves of the curve. Reasonable similarity?
is not scored; in cases of doubt, the item is not scored.
SCORE 3 (Examples of obviously asymmetrical treatment

of the two sides)
1. (Example of dots doubled 2. (Example of
and excessively 'worked- asymmetrical
over' on one side) work-over)
• D
•
• ,
. •
• -
••
~
-..
~
• I "
•
•
•' -.
SCORE 3 (Examples of contour asymmetry)
I
3. 4.
•
... I
• •.... .
..•
I I
I
.
. • I
,.
•
I
I
,
148
'coRABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 5 149
5.
SCORE 3 (Examples of difference in length of the

two sides)
6. 7.
scored, the two'
.•'
I
I
..
••• . ..
ri 4. Asymmetry f • • •
> sides, or other/

nable similarity:
• •
.,•
•
•
ment
8.
., •
.. .,
•
•
•
,
,
NO SCORE (Examples of reasonable similarity of

the two sides)
9. 10.
•
• .•
' • ,. • • .
-•
;
• . ,
• •
•
• ••
-
•, ••
• •
'
]50 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL! Cr):\
11.
• I /
,
I
I
2. Dots, dashes, and circles. Score 3. The item is scored for the presence
combinations of dots, dashes, and circles, as defined in design 1, item 2.
SCORE 3
1. 2.
,•
o•
, ti ""
..
.,.'' ,J, ••
•' -
"•·o+-
....
.It:'
I I I I
, I I
,
·~
"'~
,
3.
•
r
,,
• ".•
NO SCORE (Examples with only one dash distinctly
over 1/16")
... - . -
4. 5•
..
•
•
ti
I
, SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 5 151
•• :3. Dashes. Score 2. The item is scored £or the conversion of dots to dashes,
•• as defined in design 1, item 3 .
,.
SCORE 2
,
1. I
;I
, ,,,. - - ..,, I
'\
,,,
r the presence
in 1, item 2.
of,;
I
~
\
,
J
I
NO SCORE (Scored for dots, dash, circles;

2. / Item 2)
,
---
'
I
I
I
4. Circles. Score 8. The item is scored for the conversion of dots to clear
circles, as defined in design 1, item 4.
SCORE 8
0
0
0
·o
0 00 o
0 0
• 0
o G
0
0
152 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAI.f,
5. Extension joined to curve at dot. Score 2. The item is scored when the ex-
tension is joined to the curve at a dot, rather than between two dots as in
the stimulus. In cases of doubt, a line may be drawn through the dots of
the extension to the curve; the item is scored only when this line passes
through a dot.
SCORE 2
1. 2. (Example scored
although at first
glance extension
appears to be be-
tween dots)
,. • #
-.:------
. --
NO SCORE
3.
. ... •
• •
,. f
I>
6. Rotation of the extension. Score 3. The stimulus for design 5 shows .

extension beginning between the eightli and ninth dots from the right en~
the curve. Rotation of the extension is scored: 1) when the extension be.
at or below the approximate mid:dot of the right side, 2) when the direct\··.· .
of the extension is reversed, to the left rather than to the right, and 3) w~J~f
the extension begins to the left of center.
RING MANU ,scORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 5 153
l when thee··
SCORE 3
:wo dots as ~· 1. (Example with extension 1
2. (Example with ex-
;h the dots joined below mid-dot of , tension direction
right side) •• reversed)
tis line
,
.
.. -- . -
,
3. (Example with extension 4. (Example with ex-

to the left of center) tension direction
reversed and to
,
• - .. ,
the left of the center)
• ,
• ,
. • ~
J \ \ \
\
• I
• I
• I
I
I
•
5. (Example with extension
· to left of the center)
NO SCORE
6. (Example with ext~nsion 7. (Example with ex-
joined at center) tension rotated to
parallel base;
•
sign 5 shows , ,. II. I•··•· . -.
not scored) •
l the right en4!;; '

extension be,··.:.
rhen the direcf
t .
I
ght, and 3) W ·.·• . I
•
• •
t
.
154 THE BENDER-GESTALT' TEST,: SCORING MANUAL·t
7. Number of dots. Score 2. The item is scored when then~ are fewer than 10,if'·h
but more than five dots in the cur.ve, and when there are fewer than four ··
in the extension. ·
N.B. When there are five or fewer dots in the curve, distortion,
is scored.
SCORE 2
1. (Example scored for 2.. (Example. scorl:!d for
number of dots in number of dots in
curve) curve, and in extension)
,
~
-
,_
--
I
• . I
•
~
,,
,
NO SCORE
3.
•
-• -. •
. -. ...
•
•
•
8. Distortion. Score 8. The item is scored: 1) when there are five or fewer, ,
dots in the curve, 2) when the design is reproduced with lines rather than'ct;:;:w
with dots, 3) when the design tends to a closed circle of dots, or 4) when there i {f 9
is marked distortion of the gestalt, resulting in either a loose conglomeration
of dots or an extreme departure from the stimulus.
SCORE 8
1. (Example scored for 2. (Example scored for
five dots in curve) reproduction with
• lines)
---~, ------,------....----------------
. CORABLE.DEVIATIQNS: DESIGN• 5 155
·'
3. (E:i;c:ample scored for 4_. (Example of marked dis-
. tendency to circular) tortion of the gestalt)
, -
ion) '
NO SCORE
5. (Example with tendency to
circular on only one side)
,
,
,,
, /
I
/
''
\ \
'
-----
' ... '
-
'
tve or fe
rather t
) when th 9. Guide lines. Score 2. The item is scored as item 9, design 2.
1glomerat
SCORE 2
]56 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL
10. Workover. Score 2. The item is scored as item 7, design 1. Seco.

Rota,
SCORE 2
1. (Single dot 2. (Four dots worked
excessively worked-over •
worked-over)
. ,. moderately)
0
•
•• •
• • .•
• - •
• d
•
•
••
• •
•
• 0
•
~+-
• •+- •
3. (Consistent 4.
· work-over) • 13. Part
or at lea~
• ••
•
•' .,
.••-
-••• ••
•
NO SCORE
5.
• •
• •
6.
•
.
•
•
• • • • •
• ,, •
.. •
-
.. •
• . •
I
•
•
•
e
• ·~. ~
ORING MANUA. SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 5 157
lesign 1. 11. Second attempt. Score 3 for each. The item is scored as item 11, design 4.
12. Rotation. Score 8. The item is scored when the design is rotated 45° or
more from the horizontal. The example below will clarify the scoring.
• SCORE 8
1. 2.
-c ,,
.
I , - ...
,
. , ' '
• I I
13. Part o1the design missing. Score 8. The item is scored when the extension
or at least half of the curve is missing.
.. .
SCORE 8
1. 2.
- . ,. ,
•
< ...
. ,.
•
--
- ~
'
,
NO SCORE
• 3. {Scored for asymmetry of length, Item 1)
,
. . .. .
I I
'
....
158 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL',

,
A.
- - .,,.
, - .,.
"i
' "'\
I s. 'J B.
6. I
\
·~ ,;,r·• I
1.-3
2.-3
5.-2
6.-3
Design Total-11 1.-3
2.-3
C.
- Design Total- 6
"
• -·· •
D.
0 • • "
f)
0~ s"
. •
'
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.-3
5.-2
2.
- "
• 1. Asymm
ences betv
10.-2
1.-3 Design Total- 7
10.-2
Design Total- 5
•
•
• F.
.
E.
• • . •
•
I
~ 7•
a, .,.•to t
I I
I
• a s.
, . '
s. • 6. •
• GI
• I
,
•
I
2.-3
0 5.-2
I 6.-3
2.~ 6 7.-2
• 1.-3
2.-3
5.-2
10.-2
•
0
Design Total-10
Design Total...:... 10
DESIGN 6
( Intersecting Sinusoidal Curves)
l. Asymmetry. Score 3. Asymmetry may be in terms of contour, or of differ~

,ences between the two ends of either line: e.g., one end may be squared-off,
;curled, frayed, or worked-over. The examples will clarify the scoring. A rem
roduction showing reasonably similar sinusoidal curves is not scored.
SCORE 3 (Examples of contour asymmetry)

1. (Example scored for asymmetry in both lines)
159
SCORE
2. (Example scored for horizontal line asymmetry)
4. (E
5. (I
3. (Example scored for vertical line asymmetry)
SCORE
6. (E
'oRABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 6 161
SCORE 3 (Examples of asymmetry in terms of difference between the two ends)

4. (Example scored for one end 'curled')
5. (Example scored for one end of each line 'worked-over')
SCORE 3
6. (Example scored for both contour and difference asymmetry)
F.ND "SQI.IARED
OFF"
CONTOUR
ASYMMETRY
NO SCORE
7.
8.
2. Angles in the curve. Score 2. F ?r this item to be scored, there should be

abrupt, distinctly angular change ( s) in direction, i.e., a distinct angle
be substituted for a curve. In cases of doubt, the item is not scored.
SCORE 2
1.
NO SCORE (Examples of changes in direction not sharp enough to be

scorable)
4•
. 1e
shoul
~ngle sh
pred.
5.
164 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAi{,
3. Point of crossing. Score 2 for each. The stimulus for design 6 shows the \ 1
vertical line crossing the horizontal at the third curve from the ~left, and the .:;.
horizontal crossing the vertical slightly above the middle. For "point of cross- ·•-~
ing" to be scored: 1 ) the vertical line should cross the horizontal to the left
of center, or 2) the horizontal line should cross the vertical in the lower
third. A reproduction may be scored for either, score 2; or for both, score,
4. The examples will clarify the scoring.
SCORE 2 (Examples of left crossing of the vertical line)

1.
2. (Vertical crosses horizontal left of center, scored:

a borderline case)
SCORE 2 (Examples of lnwer crossing of the horizontal

line)
3.
,,
J
i
jt:
11
r~,NUAL. --·. CORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 6 165
r
ts the/
~d the 1
;"cross.·•
Ae left};
t'lower"
~. score
f·
[.
:~-
SCORE 4 (Example of double 'point of crossing')

5.
NO SCORE
6. (Example of crossing at center, not scored)
166 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL.
8. (Example not scored for point of crossing, scored. for

asymmetry, Item 1: although vertical crosses hori-
zontal left of center, point of crossing is at third curve
from the left in the horizontal, as in the stimulus)
4. Curve extra. Score 8. When there are more than five sinusoidal curves in
either the horizontal or the vertical line, the item is scored.
SCORE 8
1.
2.
5. Double line. Score 1 for each. Each time a distinct double line appears in .·.
the reproduction, the score is 1. Double line is not scored when there is con·
sistent sketching, uqless, as in example 3, such a line is distinctly outside the
line of sketching. Double line is not scored when the double line actually con·
stitutes a second attempt superimposed an the first. Decision as to which item
'.to score, double line or second attempt, is a matter for judgment; usually a
,second attempt is obvious and consists of a redoing of at least one full sinus-
. oidal curve. The examples following will clarify the scoring.
SCORE 1
1.
SCORE 4 (Example scored also for second attempt,

Item 11}
2•
.,.
SCORE 2
3.
ppears in}
re is con~J
itside the,
·_.}:,
168 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL SCORA
SCORE 2
4. (Example with questionable second attempt, not long enough
to be scored)
~
SCORE 2
5. (Example scored also for second attempt, Item 11)
SECOND ➔
ATTEMPT
~
DOUBLE LINE
6. Touch-up. Score 8. Scoring is the same as that described for design 4,

item 7.
N.B. Asymmetry, item 1, i.e., for differences in the ends of the curves,is
not scored when touch-up occurs. Asymmetry for contour of the lines,
ever, may be scored.
SCORE 8
1.
'.scoRABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 6 169
2. (Example with a scorable and a non-scorable 'touch-up': the

non-scorable being more or less integrated into the figure:
scored too for asymmetry, Item 1)
NO SCORE
3.
f:curve
~
tines,
• J•
r 4. (Example of 'frayed' end, scored for asymmetry, Item 1)

['
f
!
~ - -
170 THE BENDER-GEST~LT TEST: SCORING MANUAL
7. Tremor. Score 4. The item is scored as item 8, design 4.

1.
8. Dist(
most of
gestalt i
ly from
(examp
SCORE 4 (Examples with both fine and gross tremor)

3.
FINE
.i,
f)
'iNUAL . CORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 6 171
i
4•
.· 8. Distortion. Score 8. Distortion of design 6 is rarely encountered; it occurs

·most often in the records of children. The item is scored when the essential
· gestalt is destroyed, e.g., when the sinusoidal curves of one line differ marked-
ly from those of the other ( example 1), or when the two lines do not intersect
•(example 2).
SCORE 8
1. (Example of marked difference in the vertical and horizontal
lines)
2. (Example of the vertical and horizontal lines turning perpendicular

to themselves, and not intersecting)
172 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL.:
NO SCORE
4. (Example in which the essential gestalt is not destroyed}
10. J1
lines.
When
score<
of the
1, is ;
Sc
by sk
sketcl
9. Guide lines. Score 2. The item is scored a~item 10, design 4.
ness'
score4
SCORE 2
1.
ORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 6 173
2. (Example of sketching, scored as guide lines)
Workover. Score 2. Most normal subjects reproduce the stimulus by single

·lines. Some subjects, however, superimpose several lines on the single lines.
When such elaboration results in a solid line of at least 1 / 16 inch, workove:r is
ored. The workover may be either of the entire line ( s) or of only a portion
of the line ( s). ( Where only one end of a line is worked over, asymmetry, item
1, is also scored.)
Some subjects may, in spite of the test instructions, reproduce the design
y sketched lines. In differentiating a worked-over line from one thickly
ketched, the matter of contrast is important. Sketched lines, short light lines
used to delineate the drawing, mat become at some poi~ts 1 / 16 inch or more;
unless such a widening of the ske\ched line is solid, and contrasted in dark-
ness with the rest of the line, workover is not scored. (Sketched lines are
ored for guide lines, item 9)
SCORE 2
1.
2.
tation o
Ing oft
actual t
Double
3. (Example of one end worked-over, scored also for asymmetry,
Item 1)
4.
WORK OVER
~
SKETCHED TO ,.::,
MORE THAN !;(6 ",
NOT SCORED
AS WORKOVER~
J
11. Second attempt. Score _3 for each, The item is scored as item 11, design
4. The differentiation between double line and second attempt is similar for
design 6; i.e., a second attempt is usually a redoing of more than one of the
sinusoidal curves whereas a double line is an adjustment for only a short
'. distance along the line. ( See examples for item 10, double line.)
·12. Rotation. Score 8. The item is scored: 1) when the vertical line is ro-
:,tated to the left, more than 10° from the perpendicular, (see examples fol-
,lowing), and 2) when the horizontal line is rotated 45° or more. Design ro-
:tation of 90° is rarely encountered and difficult to distinguish from a lengthen-
ing of the vertical curve, hence the importance of noting rotaiions during the
:actual test administration. Rotation is not scored when the paper is rotated.
. Double rotation may occur, and is scored 16.
SCORE 8
1. (Example of rotation of the vertical)
2.
NO SCORE
3.
13. Part of the design missing. ~re 8. One of the lines, or at least omi-na11
of one of the lines, should be entirely missing for the item to he
( One-half of a line is defined as two of the sinusoidal curves, r~gardless
the point of crossing ( example 2).
SCORE 8
1. (Example scored for one entire line missing)
2. (Example scored for one-half-two sinusoidal curves-

of one line missing)
I
NO SCORE
3.
A.
1.-3
5.-2
7.-4
Design Total- 9
B. (Arrows indicate scoring for

double line, Item 5)
1.-3
5.-5
6.-8
7.-4
9.-2
Design Total - 22
C. (Example of questionable reproduction not scored for point of

crossing; not scored for rotation of the vertical line)
1. En
may:
IS SCO
hexag
'
inch.
ampl«:
5.-1
7.-4
10.-2
Design Total - 7
DESIGN 7
( Overlapping Hexagons)
· 1. Ends of lines· not joined. Score 8. In reproducing design 7, the subject

may fail to join the ends of the lines forming the hexagons. The deviation
.• is scored: 1) when three or more gaps of 1 / 16 inch occur in either or both
: hexagons, and 2) when two gaps occur, one of which is approximately 1/s
, inch. The scoring is, in general, a matter for judgment, and not rigid ( see ex-
- amples following) . \
SCORE 8
1. (Example scored for 4 gaps 2. (Example scored for 3 gaps,
of more than 1/16") one of approximately 178")
179
180 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL(
3. (Example scored for 2 gaps

of approximately 1/8")
NO SCORE
4. (Example of gaps 5. (Example of only
less than 1/16") one gap of 1/8")
2. Angles extra. Score 3. The item is scored when there occurs in the repro"
duction more than six angles in either hexagon. The deviation may occur in ··
either of two ways: 1) when there is arbitrary addition of an extra angle, as
in example 1, or 2) when there occur abrupt changes in the direction of the
straight lines. An abrupt change in direction may constitute a well-defined
extra angle as in example 3, or may be a sharp curve as in examples 2 and/{}
4. A curved change in direction should be pronounced. In cases of doubt, a {/
ruler may be held tangent to the curved line; the angle thus formed should },
be approximately 20°, or more, for scorable deviation ( example 4).
SCORE 3 3. Ans
1. (Example scored for 2. (Example scored for both gle is 1
extra line to join angular and curved
two ends) changes in direction) not sec
of the
followii
When 1
he enti
N.I
design
scored
;!coRABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 7 181
3. (Example scored alsc; for 4. (Example with scorable curved

angle missing, Item 3) change in direction, making
approximately 30° angle with
tangent)
ANGLE
MISSING
~
I
SCORABLE NON-SCORABLE
ANCUf.AR CHANGE CURVED CHANGE
NO SCORE
5. 6. (Example with non-scorable
f
I curved change in direction,
r
angle approximately 10°)
f[
t
!.
1,,
~e rep
f
t occur
[angle,.
jon of
i
r
~ll-de
ries 2 OUE TO TR£MOR
J do
ied s
"
!!,).
~
t
.I'
;
F- ·~· Angles missing. Score 3. The item is scored when in either hexagon an an-
f ~le is entirely missing, i.e., when there are five or less angles. The item is
not scored when a curve constituting a pronounced change in the direction
of the line ( defined as in item 2) is substituted for an angle. The examples
following will -clarify the scoring. In cases of doubt the item is not scored.
:w'hen there is any attempt to make an angle, although the attempt may not
,he entirely successful, as in example 5, the item is not scored. .
,! N.B. This item is not scored when a hexagon is scored for "part of the
;design missing," item 11, unless, of course, the other hexagon-the one not
scored for item 11-has an angle missing.
182
SCORE 3
N.I
1. (Example in which there 2. (Example in which a straight
are five angles in right line is drawn through the
hexagon) position of the angle, indicat-
ing no attempt to make angle)
NO SCORE 5. (Clear break indicates

4. attempt to make angle)
4. Extra scattered dots and/or dashes. Score 3. To score, there must occur in
the reproduction at least two dots and/ or dashes which are not integrated into •
the design. These m~!!ningless additions may result from touching-up the
reproduction, or from some sort of peculiar "doodling" on the side.
r
L N.B. The dots and dashes should be distinct to be scored, and not be eon-
jght
e ,Jused with imperfections in the paper, or with dots and dashes which may
licat- occur as a result of dropping a pencil.
µigle)
SCORE 3
-1.
3. ~ , ,.;;.·-
'b,~,;~i>c.,,~'j .
. -,,
_5. Double line. Score 1 for each. The item is scored as item 5, design 6. The
examples di:fferentiate double line and second attempt.
2.
SCORE 1
3. 4. (Example. also scored
for second attempt, Item 9)
4-.SECOND
occur in·
!;t LINE ATTEMPT
'
~ate dm· to._ . ,- -•·-·•
ing-up the i•
le.
184 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL)}
- -:::~
NO SCORE
5. (Scored for sketching,
guide lines, Item 8)
torti
8, 1 1
in Cl

1. 2.
·scORE 4 (Examples of gross tremor)

3. 4.
7. Distortion. Score 8. Distortion may occur in three ways: 1) when there is

disproportion between the sizes of the two hexagons-for scorablc deviation . .
one must be approximately twice the size of the other, 2) when the two
hexagons do not overlap or when they overlap excessively, as in example 5,
and 3) when the design is otherwise reproduced in a markedly distorted

manner. (What is meant by a "markedly distorted manner" will be clarified
in the examples following. )
The reproduction may be scored for one, two, or all three types of dis-
\tortion, although JnOre than one rarely occurs; th~ scores accordingly are
:8, 16, and 24, for the item. In general, the scoring is a matter for judgment;
in cases of doubt, the item is not scored.
SCORE 8 (Examples of size distortion)

1. 2.
SCORE 8 (Examples of overlap distortion)

3. (Failure to 4.
overlap)
5. (Excessive overlap, left

hexagoll: projects to right
of right hexagon)
·,--'
;: ~:/
lthere~;
'deviatioti},t L
~~;:~t -. .;'·
- - ..:_. - - -- .
186 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL··•···•• SCOR
S<.;u.ttE 8 (Examples of reproductions in 'markedly' distorted

manner)
6. 7.
8. (Markedly distorted in place-

ment of left hexagon - more
than 1/2 down side of right
hexagon) 9.
10. (Markedly distorted in SCORE 16 (Example scored

placement of opposing for shape distortion, and
angles - angles a and placement of left hexagon)
b should be approxi-
mately opposed-more
than 30° displacement) 11.
b
SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 7
187
NO SCORE
12. 13. (Insufficient displace-
ment of opposing angles)
14. 15.
\
. \-J
8. Guide lines. Score 2. The item is scored as item 9, design 4.
SCORE 2
1. 2.
L-
._ I ;)
J
I
j
L
~y
3.
•
V
9. Second attempt. Score 3 for each. The item is scored as item 11, design 4.
SCORE 3
1. 2.
10. R
hexag,
4. 90° or
rotatic
from 1
5.
\
SCORE 6
6.
NO SCORE
7. 8.
I
10. Rotation. Score 8. Rotation of clesign 7 is scored: 1) when the lateral
hexagon is rotated so that the 30° angle of the stimulus design is increased to
90° or decreased to 0°, and 2) when the entire reproduction is rotated. Double
rotation may occur, and is scored 16. Rotation is not scored when it results
from the turning of the paper. In cases of doubt, the item is not scored.
SCORE 8 (Examples scored for rotation of one hexagon on the

other, zero angle, lines 1 and 2 do not intersect)
1. 2.
190 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL SCOR
SCORE 8 (Example scored for 900 rotation of one

hexagon on the other)
3.
<
SCORE 8 (Examples score for design rotation)
4. 5.
IL.
omit
SCORE 8 (Examples scored also for distortion, Item 7)

6. 7
I\
8.
I
\
~ MANUAL SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 7 191
SCORE_ 16 (Example scored for double rotation)

9.
---../
11. Part of the design missing. Score 8. The item is scored when the subject
omits a major portion of one of the hexagons .
...
SCORE 8
1. 2.
NO SCORE
3. (Arrow .indicates attempted point
of hexagon)
7.-8
9.-3
2.-3 Design Total-11
Design Total - 3
C.
1. E,
sign
sec
·1.-8
5.-1
7.-16
Design Total-25
2.-3
5.-1
6.-4
Design Total - 8
E. \
7.-8
Design Total - 8
1.-8
Design Total-8
DESIGN 8
( Hexagon and Diamon·d)
1. Ends of the lines not joined. Score 8. The item is scored as item 1, de-
sign 7.
SCORE 8
1. (Example scored for 2. (Example scored for
a gaps of 1/16") 2 gaps, one of 178")
3.
193
NO SCORE
5~/---~()--::/ SCOF
1.
zo
6.
- 3.
2. Angles extra. Score 3. The item is scored when an extra angle occurs in NOS
either the hexagon or the diamond, as defined in item 2, design 7. 5.
SCORE 3
1. 2.
> 7.
5. 6.
\_C--
L, <2
NO SCORE
_/ ~ ◊ > 4. Ex1
and di
7.
/ ~
~ ◊ -
/
3. Angles missing. Score 3. The item is scored when an angle is missing in
"either the hexagon or the diamond, as defined in item 3, design 7.
SCORE 3
1. 2.
3. NOT .SCORABLE 4.
Lt 0 / /
t
NO SCORE
5.
t
7.
· Extra scattered dots and/or dashes. Score 3. The item is scored fot dots
!and dashes not integrated into the design, as defined in item 4, design 7..
SCORE 3
5. Double line. Score 1 for each. The item is scored as item 5, design
SCORE 1 is SO SD
1. the hex.
the hex;
O>
SCORE 2
clarifiec
The
tortion,
2. 16, and
cases o
sec
3.

sec
SCORE 4
1. 2.
3.
-l. 1i': ..._ --mr: ;;'_'_'?ttf'liirik¥#fil:-'¥1:s+¥y1?fit =·r...., w • ,Ma
'SCORABLE :"DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 8 197
.1. Distortion. Score 8. Distortion may occur in three ways: l) when the design
is extremely disproportionate in its length4Vidth ratio, 2) when the diamond
overlaps the hexagon by more than one-third of its area, when the diamond
/is so small as to cover only two-thirds of the distance between the sides of
the hexagon, or when the diamond is placed in one of the extreme thirds of
,the hexagon, and 3) when the figure is reproduced in an otherwise markedly
distorted manner. (What is meant by 'markedly distorted manner' will be
clarified in the examples following.)
The reproduction may be scored for one, two, or all three types of dis-
: tortion, though more than one rarely occurs; the scores are accordingly 8,
\16, and 24, for this item. In general, the scoring is a matter for judgment; in
, cases of doubt, the item is not scored.
SCORE 8 (Examples scored for disproportion in length-width ratio)
1.
I I
\ \I
2.
~
,2
<=
SCORE 8 (Examples scored for 'diamond distortion')
3. (Overlap of more than 1/3 area)
4. (Extension 2/3 or less of distance a to b)
5. (Placement in one of extreme thirds of hexagon)
y
SCORE 8 (Examples of reproductions in 'markedly distorted manner') 8. Gu

6. (Extreme disproportion in two ends)
7. (Displacement of opposing angles-more than 30°-see Item 7,

Design 7)
30°
~.,____◊---t---r-,.. 9. Wo
8.
\
I
NO SCORE
9.
10. (Example scored for extra angles, Item 2) 10. Se
11.
-----~
<(_ _...,._Q_ I
· SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 8 199
·• · 8. Guide lines. Score 2. The item is scored as item 10, design 4.
SCORE 2
1.
2.
Workover. Score 2. The- item is scored as item 1~, design 6.
~
t 2.
L Ji 7
3.
~- ~ -
10. Second attempt. Score 3 for each. The item is scored as item 11, design 4.
SCORE 3
1.
3. (Scored also for double line, Item 5)
_,...::;¼!::::-~----~
(~--~◊~------__/
200 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANU,\li:: SCOR.
11. Rotation. Score 8. The item is scored when the base of the design is Exam
rotated 45° or more from the horizontal.
SCORE 8
12. Part of the design missing. Score 8. The item is scored when the subject
omits the diamond, or at least one-third of either the diamond or the hexagon.
SCORE 8
1. 2.
NO SCORE
3. (Scored for angle missing, 4. (Scored for distortion,
Item 3) Item 7)
5. (Scored for angle missing,

Item 3)
SCORABLE. DEVIATIONS: DESIGN 8 201
· Examples of scoring for design 8. Items scored are indicated by numbers.
A.
2. -,-3 3.
3.-3
6.-4
9.-2
Design Total -12
B.
_ _ /~-~(l--/_2.
_ t
--~
.3.
1.-8
2.-3
3.-3
5.-1
Design Total-15
C.
<
7.-8
Design Total - 8
D.
2.-3
6.-4
7.-8
Design Total-15
SCOI
2. C
. lines
CONFIGURATION SCORE dfiOt
sepa
exar
1. Placement of Design A. Score 2. The item is scored when design A is

placed in the lower two-thirds of the page. The reproduction of design A
should be at least three inches from the top of the page for the deviation to
he scorable. ( In the examples that follow the large rectangle represents the
paper.)
SCORE 2
1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6.
NO SCORE
7. 8. 9.
00 00
202
SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: CONFIGURATION 203
2. Overlapping of the designs. Score 2 for each. The item is scored when the
lines of one design overlap the lines of, or run into ·the "enclosed space" of,
dnother design. The item is also scored when the subject has drawn lines to
separate the designs, and overlaps these lines and the reproductions, as in
example 5. Each time overlapping occurs, the score is 2.
SCORE 2
1. 2.
-
•
. .
.
,.•
SCORE 4
4.
5.
~-- .....
......
.. ..
204 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL sco:
3. Compression. Score 2. The item is scored when the reproductions are com-
pressed to cover approximate~ one-half of the page, whether the half used
is the top, middle, right, or left half.
EXA
SCORE 3 1.
1. 2. 4•
.
A I 2 3 4
A
I
I A
I
5 6 7 8 2
3
I 2
3
4
5 I 4
4
5
6
7
8
I A I
5 7
2 3 6
7
8
I 6 8
5
5. 6. 7. a. No sco'.RE
A 2 A I 2 3 A 2
4 3 5
4 5 6
A I 2 3 6 7 4
--7- - •- - - - 7 - -•--
4 5 6 7 8
4. L.ines drawn to .separate the designs. Score 8. The item is scored when the
subject draws lines to separate the reproduced designs. The deviation is scored
even when -only one such line is drawn.
SCORE 8
1. 2.
001..........
____, 00
•••o••o•••••
. ... .
.:
\ -.:.=-:_
. 5.
OI
m
m
aJ
~;
~UAL SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: CONFIGURATION 205
~--
;_,
~"-
!com-
r'used
EXAMPLES OF LOGICAL ORDER

1. 2. 3. 4.
A 6 A
A A
I
7 2
2 3 2
2 3
4 !5 8 3 4 4 !5
3 6
6 7 !5 6
4 8
8 7 8 7
5
5. 6. 7.
A 6 A 2
7 3
2 8 8 7 4 !5
3 4 !5 6 6 8
4 5 A I 2 3 7
8. 9.
A 7 8
A
2 2 3
3 4 !5
4
7 8
6 !5 6
5. Order. Score 2. Scoring. for this item is differentiated from scoring "no
order," item 6. To score here, the arrangement of the drawings on the page
must depart from logical order, but not markedly. Usually this type of order-
ing results from arbitrary placement of one or two reproductions. ( See ex-
amples of logical order below. )
206 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: SCORING MANUAL , sco
The examples following will clarify the scoring. The arrows indicate the 7. J
basis for scoring. Thus, in example 1, design 8 is arbitrarily placed at the occ·
top of the page when sufficient space remains for its placement at the bottom. is s,
or,
SCORE 2
1. 2. 3. 4.
_.8 8+- 7 8 -+4

6
A A A 2
t A
3 4 2 3
2 5 6
I 2 3
3 4 5
5 6 7 7 8
6 7 4 IS
NO SCORE (Examples not scored, impossible to place 8 below 6 and 7)

5. 6.
8 8
A A
2 3
2 3
4 5 4 5
6 7 6 7
6. No Order. Score 8. When the ordering of the reproductions is confused, no

order is scored. In cases of doubt, the item is not scored; when there is any
discernable order the item is not scored.
SCORE 8
1. 2.
A 3 8
3
5
4 A 5
2 7
6
4 6 7 2 8
UAL SCORABLE DEVIATIONS: CONFIGURATION 207
the 7. Relative size of the reproductions. Score 8. The item is scored when there
the occurs pronounced variations in the size of the reproductions. The deviation
;>m. is scorable even when only one of the designs is disproportionately compressed
or expanded. In cases of doubt, the item is not scored.
SCORE 8
1.
,
•
,
•• •-
. , ., • •
#
•
. •
~
t
I •
2.
up
DES1
1. "\'I
2. D
3. D
4. C
5. 1'
6. I
7. ~
8. S
9. F
10. I
DES
1. ,
2. ]
3. 1
4. C
5. C
6. I
7. :
8.:
9. t
10.
11.:
12..
13.
DE!
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEST
Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age . . . . . . Sex ..... .

· Education I.Q. . . . . . . Diagnosis
DESIGN 1 DESIGN 4 DESIGN 7
I. Wavy line (2) 1. Asym. Crv. (3) 1. Ends no. join. (8)
2. Dot, dash, cir. (3) 2. Break crv. (4) 2. Angles ext. (3)
3. Dashes (2) 3. Crv. not center. (1) 3. Angles miss. (3)
4. Circles (8) 4. Curls (4) 4. Ext. scat. (3)
5. No. dots (2) each 5. Not joined (8) 5. Dbl. line (I ea.)
6. Dbl. row (8) 6. Crv. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4)
7. Workover (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Distortion (8 ea.)
8. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) 8. Tremor (4) 8. Guide lines (2)
9. Rotation (8) 9. Distortion (8) 9. Sec. attempt (3 ea.)
10. Des. miss. (8) 10. Guide lines (2) 10. Rotation (8)
Design Total 11. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) 11. Des. miss. (8)
12. Rotation (8) Design Total
13. Des. miss. (8)
Design Total
DESIGN 2 DESIGN 5 DESIGN 8
1. Wavy line (2) I. Asymmetry (3) l. Ends no. join. (8)
2. Dash or dots (3) 2. Dot, dash, cir. (3) 2. Angles ext. (3)
3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Dashes (2) 3. Angles miss. (3)
4. Cir. miss., ext. (3) 4. Circles (8) 4. Ext. scat. (3)
5. Cir. touch. (5) 5. Ext. join. dot (2) 5. Dbl. line (I ea.)
6. Dev. slant (3) 6. Ext. rotation ( 3) 6. Tremor ( 4)
7. No. col. (2 ea.) 7. No. dots (2)
······· 7. Distortion (8 ea.)
8. Fig. on 2 lines (8) 8. Distortion (8) 8. Guide lines (2)
9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide Jines (2) 9. Workover (2)
IO. Workover (2) 10. Workover (2) 10. Sec. attempt (3 ea.)
11. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) . . . . • . 11. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) 11. Rotation (8)
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Des. miss. (8)
13. Des. miss. (8) 13. Des. miss. (8) Design Total
Design Total Design Total
DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN
I. Asymmetry (3) 1. Asymmetry (3) l. Place. Des. A. (2)
2. Dot, dash, cir. (3) 2. Angles (2) 2. Overlap (2 ea.)
3. Dashes (2) 3. Pt. crossing (2 ea.) 3. Compression (3\
4. Circles ( 8) 4. Crv. extra (8) 4. Lines drawn (8)
5. No. dots (2) 5. Dbl. line (1 ea.) . 5. Order (2)
6. Extra row {8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8)
7. Blunting (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rel. size (8)
8. Distortion ( 8) 8. Distortion (8) Total
9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide lines (2) DESIGN TOTALS
10. Workover (2) 10. Workover (2) 1. 5.
11. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) 11. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) 2. 6.
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 3. 7.
13. Des. miss. (8) 13. Des. miss. (8) 4. 8.
Design Total Design Total Config.
SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEST SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEST
Name ... :t!'?.•.. 4.......................... Age ;L.J,:·;LJSex .• f .. . Name _. .. 1!~.•..-? ........ ~Jifa~··:····:··· Agel:!/:-R. Sex .!I: ...
6·s·.... b..go.._,. .. f.Ele ble ~1111DAed. .•. , Name •
Education .......... I.Q. /.<? ... Diagnoeio •. .-!'!l.'!1J;J..E!7!'\~~9-.'!<J.... . Education . .. . . . . . . . 1.0.
12- (Porteus/
DESIGN I DESIGN f DESIGN 1 DESIGN I DESIGN 4 DESIGN 7
l. WaT'f lino (2) 1. Aaym. Crv. (3) • J ... I. Erid ■ no. join. (8) I. Wo,y lino (2) . .2.. I. Aoym. C.... CS) • J ... l. End■ no. .foia. Cl) DESIGN
2. Dot, du&, "'· (3) 2. Break CJ"f'. (4) 2. Angles est. (3) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) . i... 2. Break Cl'T. (4) 1. Ande■ en. C3) L Wa't'J'
S.. Dulles (2) S. Crv. not center. (1) , , •••• 3. Anglea mi& (3) 3. Duhes (2) 3. Crr. aoteenter. Cl) •.•••• 3. Anglea mla. (3) 2.Dot.C
4. Circlet (8) 4. Curls (4) 4. E:r.t, .cat. (3) 4. Circles (8)
},,:::
4. Curh (4) 4, Ext. 1e.1t. U) S. Duhe
5. No. doll (2) each
6. Dbl row (8)
5. Not joined (8)
6. Cn. rotation (3)
.i.. .. 7. Touch-up (8)
5. Dbl line (1 ea.)
6. Tremor (4)
5. No. do11 (2) each
6. Dbl row (8)
5. Not joined (8)
6. Crr. rotation (3)
.a. ..
::r:
S. Dbl. line Cl ea.)
6. Tremor (4) ::r:
.. Cbd,
5. No. d
.,x::....
7. WorkaTer (2) 7. Dittortion (8 ea.) 7. Workoftl'. (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Ditlortion (Bea.) .I... 6. DhL I
8. Sec. attempt (3eL) •.•••. 8. Tremor (4) 8. Guide linn (2) 8. Sec. attempt (·3 u..) • • • • • • 8. Tmnor (4) 8. Guide Wlel (2) 7.Ym
9. Rotation (8) 9. D.e1or1ion (8) 9. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) •••••• 9. Rotation (8) 9. Di1lortion (8) 9. Sec. attempt (S es.) •••••• 1.See.1
10. Dee. miu. (8) ••.. , • 10: Guide lines (2) 10. Rolalion (8) .1f ... 10. Des. miu. (8) 10. Guide line,, (2) 10. Rota1ion (8) 9. Row
Dalgn Total .. 'J-...
11. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) •••.•• 11. Des. miu. (8) ••••.• Daipi Total .(3... 11. Sec. allempl (3ea.) ..•••• ll. Oct. mba. {I) 10. I),,.
12. Rotation (8)
13. ll,,. miu. (8)
Ileu&D Tot,! J:7... 12. Rotation (8)
13. Des. miM. (8)
D,,ipT.._,, ii:: I
D,,ign Tot,! ,!f. .. De.ign Total

DESIGN 2 DESIGN 5 DESIGN a DESIGN% DESIGN 5 DESIGN I
1. w•.,.,unc (2)
2. Dub or doll (3)
.R. .. I. Asymmetry (3)
2. Dot, dalh, cir. (3)
3. Duhes (2)
!. End1 no. jc;in. (8)
2. Angle, ext. (S)
3. Anglea miu. (3)
1. WaYJ line (2)
2. Duh or dot, (3)
l. Aaymmc:try (3)
2. Dot. duh. cir. (3) ~ !::;:~o~) ::a:: (8)
DWGN
1. Wa~
3. Shape cir. (3)
4. Cir. miu., ext. (3)
S. Cir. touch. (S)
4. Circles (8) 4.Est.lClll. (3)
.l .. .
3. Shape cir. (3)
4. Cir. mite., est. (3)
3. Duhn (2)
4. Cirdea {8) ::;:: : 3. Anale■ m1a. (5)
4. llt. acaL (3)
2. Dul,
.. Shop
S. EJ:1. join. dot (2) S. Dbl. line (lea.) 5. Cir. touch. (S) 5. Ell!. join. dot (2) ..%. .. 5. DbL line <1ea.) 4.Cir.
6. DCT. 11ant (3) 6. Ext. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4) • .If.. . 6. DeY. el.ant (3) 6. 'E'lll. rolation (3) .d... 6. Tremor (4) s. Ci,,
7. No. cot (2ea.) 7. No. dota (2) ..L 7. Dislortion (8eL} J.9.. . 7. No. col. (2ea.) 7. No. dolt (2) 7. Oiatortion (Bea.) o.n...
8. Fig. on 2 linea (8) 8. Di1torlion (8) . t ... 8. Guide lines (2) 8. Fig. on 2 line■ (8) 8. Dialortion (8) 8. Guide lines (2) 7. No.
9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide linee (2) 9. Workover (2) 9. Guide )i11ea (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Worko-,er (2) a.n,.
10. Workover (2) 10. Workover (2) ..L.
10. Sec. an empt (3 ea.) •••••• 10. Worko,u (2) ;. ... IO. -Worlcovu (2)
10. SN:. attempt (3ea.) .••••• 9. Gak
II. Sec. allempt (leL)... •. • 11. Sec; allempt (3 ca.) • • •• •. 11. Rotation (8) IL Sec. allempt {3ea.) ...••• 11. Sec. allempl (3ca.) •.•.•• 11. Ro11tio11 (8) 10.Wor
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Dea. miu. (8) 12. Rota1ion (8) 12. Rotalion (8) 12. Dea. mlea. (8) IL Sec.
13. De■.::~ (iotal : i:: 13. Dea. i:: ~~tal ,l('_.. De■ign "Total 13. Des. miu. (8)
Deaign Total
13. Des. miu. (8) De.ip Total
Deaign Total
]2.Rol,
JS.I),,.
DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN

J. Aaymmetry (3) l. A,ymi:netry (3) .8... 1. Place. Dee. A. (2) 1. A,ymmetry (3) .$.... I. Asymmelry (3) .3... l. Pi■ce. Dea. A. (2) DESIG.
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Angles (2) .J,.. .. 2. Overlap (2eL) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) .,.2. .. 2. Ovrrlap (2ea.)
.,
2. Anglea (2) L A,y
$.Dube.(?.) 3. Pt. croseing (2ea.) 3. Compreuion b) 3. Duhes (2) 3. PL croaaing (2ea.) •...•• 3. Compr-.io!l (3) 2. Dot
t. Circles (8) 4. Crv. elltra (8) 4. Linea drawn (8) 4. Circles (8) ... , 4. Crv. e:1tra (8) 4. Lines drawn (8) 1 Du
5. No. dots (2) 5. Dbl. line (I ea.) 5. Ordu (2) 5. No. do11 (2) .t. .. . S. Dbl. li1:1e (1 eL) 5. Order (2) .. Ci,,
6. Ema row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No ordu (8) 6. Esira row (8) 6. To1:1ch-up (8) 6. No ordu (8) S. No.
~ :=.:n(~~) :,.::: ~~ ~::~~ :4~8)2 .I... 0 7. Rel.;~~ (8)

7.
8.
~luntitig (8)
Dittortion (8)
7. Tremor (4)
8. Distortion (8)
7. Rel. ,itt (8)
Tot,! A.:: ~ E,n
7. Bia
1: ~~~o!:esc!~> :z::: 1~: ~~::~:~2~

>
11. Sec. allempt (3ea.) ••.... Ii. Sec. auempt (3ca.} ....•• 2.
~E-~~~ T~f:••
.Z. .. 6. /~ .••
9.
10.
Guide Unee (2)
WorkoTer (2)
9. Guide lines (2)
IO. Worlr.over (2)
DESIGN TOT AlS
1.• /J. .. s./!...
IL Sec. attempt (3 ea.) . . . . . • 11. Sec. attempt (3 eL) •••••• 2.1?,.. ~.L.
8. Di.
9. Ct1:
lQ Wei
12. Rotation (8) 12. Ro1a1ion (8) • • • • • • 3. J.1,.. 7• .a.:t .. 12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotatio.n (8) ~ .LJ. .. 1. l,,_.. !LS..
13. 0ea. miu. c0> •. •••• 13. 0ee. mw.. <e> •..••• 4. I.S:.. a .~L .. 13. Dea. mile. (8) • . • • • • 13. Dea. mi.la. (8) • .•••• 4. ··"-·· e. .I! .. 12. Ro
Design Total 1~.. Deaign Total ./J .. Con6g. •• -:': •. Deatga:··Tolal JJ... Dceig:a; Total Co,fi~ ..!l... !t... IS. De
Total Raw Score /!t. Standard Score •••••• Standud Score ••••••
SCORE SHEET-BENDER·GESTALT TEST SCORE SHEET-BENDER·GESTALT TEST

Name . , . !'.'!, ..q.......................... Age <i:-.l,+. Sex ..Iii .. . N:ame , . !l.<?, ..7. , ............. , . . . . . .. . . . . . Age , .Cl": 3. Sex .¥ ... .
Nm
Education . . . . . . . . . . l.Q. . .J,0;1.. Diagnosis .... li.Q>;'JllAl. (;l) !;l..c! ..•• Education . . . . .. . . . . I.Q. . . :P.5. Diagnosio ..Ji !l;l'.J\lll;l... 9M+!i..... •.
DESIGN I DESIGN 4 DESIGN 7 DESIGN 1 DESIGN 4 DESIGN 1
Edu
.1. I. A,ym. C.... (3) • _.-3. .. 1. w.,..,. c2> .. l ..
l. WaTJ line (2) ..
2. Dot. duh, cir. (3) ••• 2. 3. Break en'. (4)
J. End, no. join. (8)
2. Angleii ext. (3)
.. 3 ...
une
2. Dot, d,oh, cl<. (3) .J...
1. Aaym. Cr.. (3)
2. Bruk UT. (4)
er.. not center.
1. End ■
2. Angle& e"d.
110. join. (8)
(3) ::r: DES.
1.,
3. Dube! (2)
4. Circlea (8)
5. No. dots (2) each
3.
4.
5.
Crv. not center. U) ••••.•
Curit (4)
Not joined (8) • I ...
3 ..A.nglea miaa. (3)
4. Ext. &eat. (3)
S. Dbl. line (1 e.,_} ..4. ..
3.
4.
Dube■
Circle■
(2)
(8)
5. No. dota (2) each . /2...
3.
4. Curl1 (4)
5. Not joined (8)
(l) .•••.•
•••'f..
•• B. ..
3. Angl,1 mi.la. (3)
4. En. &eat. (3)
S. Dbl line (leL) . ./ ...
::L 2.1
u
4.(
er.. rotation (3)
6. Dbl row (8)
7. Worli:1:1vtt (2)
6.
7. .. ;..
Crv. rOtalion (3)
Touch-up (8)
6. Tremor (4)
7. Distortion (8 eL) ::;::: 6. Dbl row (8)
7. Workover (2) 7. ::z:: 6.
Touch-up (8)
6. Tremor (4)
7. Di■lortion (8 ea.) :,::: S.J
6.1
8. Sec. attempt (3eL) .•.•.. 8. Tremor (4) 8. Guide linea (2) 8. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) ...••. 8. Tno=mor (4) 8. Gui.de linea (2) ,.·
9. Rotation (8) 9. Distonion (8} 9. Sec. ■uempt (3ea.) .••••• 9. Rolatioll (8) 9. Diet.onion (8) 9. Sec. anempl (3 ea.) ••. • • • 8.:
10.DN- miu.. (8} IO. Guide 1inea (2) 10. Rolati~n (8) 10. Des. rniu. (8) 10. Guide linea (2) 10. Rotation (8) ./, •• 9.
D~;gn Tot,] 11. .if.. Sec. allempt (3ea.) •.• : •• 11. Des. mi.84. (8) Deaign Total U. Sec.allempt (3ca.} •.•••• 11. De■• mi.ta. (8) •••••• 10.
12. Rotation (8) .. f... Deaign Total 12. Rotation (8) •• i ..De,ign Toi,] .23.,
11 D... i::, c;~t.,1 :;:i;_:: 13. D,,. o:'.:. <;~t.,1 J/f.:
DESIGN 2 DESIGN 5 DESIGN 8 DESIGN 2 DESIGN 5 DESIGN B
1. WaYJ line (2) .. z.. l. A5)'fflmetry (3) l. End, 110. join. (8) 1. Wavy line (2) .. 2 .. 1. Agymmetry (3) l. End ■ 110. join. (8)
2. Dub or dola (3} 2. Dot, dub. ~- (3) 2. Anglea est. (3) 2. Dub or dota (3) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Angles e:rt. (3)
.. 3 .. ..3. ..
:x:
3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Dubes (2) 3. Anglea miaa. (3) • 3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Dashea (2} 3. Angle, mi:ea. (3)
4. Cir. misa.. e:r.L (3)
5. Cir. lo1:1cb. (S}
4. Circles (8)
S. E:zL jQin. dot (2)
4. EllL aeat. (3)
5. Dht lirle (lea.) ,
.. ...
4. Cir. miaa., w.
S. Cir. touc\. (5)
,. °"· """
(3)
::r:
4. Cirde1 (8)
5. fat. join. dot (2) :::.f 4. Es.L .cat.. (3)
5. Dbl line Oea.)
6. De-r. alant (3)
7. No. col (2 ea.)
6. Ellt. rotation (3)
7. No. doll (2)
6. Tremor (4)
7. Di1tortion (Sea.}
(3)
7. No. col. (2ea.) .. 2,..
6. E:rt. rotation (3)
7. No. doll (2) ::r
6.
7.
Tremor (4)
Di1tortioa (8-ea.) ::r:
8. Fig. on 2 lines_ (8) 8. Distortion (8) 8. Guide" lines (2) 8. Fig. 0112 Jinea (8) 8. Distortion (8) 8. Guide liDe■ (2)
9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide linea (2) 9. Workovu (2) 9. Guide linea (2) 9. Guide line■ (2) 9•. Workover (2)
10. Worlr.ovu (2} IO. Worlr.Ol"er {2) 10. Sec. anempt (3ea.} •.•••. 10. Workovu (2) .. 2,.. 10. Worlr.ove:r (2) .. i. .
10. Sec. au empt (3 e■.) • • • •• •
,
11. Sec. attempt (3ea.) ....•• 11. Sec. attempt (3e.a.) ....•. IL Rotation (8) 11. Sec. attempt (3 ea.)...... IL Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • .. . . • 11. Rotation (8)
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. De■• mita. (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Dea. mita. (8) .....!
.. .. .
IS. Des.~ (~otal :iQ: 13. Des. ;eai: ~~tal :;;::: Deaip Total
13. Dea. miu. (8)
Ile,ifln Tolo! )if::
13. Dea. miaa. (8)
lleoign Tot.,] :::;,::
Deaisn Total
DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIGN 3 DESIGN O CONFIG. DESIGN

l. Aaymm.etrJ' (3) ...3.. l. A9y:mmelr)' (3) .3 ... l. Place. Dea. A. (2) 1. A■ymmeu-,- (3) .. 3., I. Aoymm•ltJ (3) •. J.. I. Pl"'- D.._ A. (2) .. 7.... D
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) .. a.. 2. Angles (2) .~ .. 2. Ovr-rlap (2ea.) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) ..j .. 2. Ang!" (2) •• .2. . 2. Overlap (2ea.)
3. Duhes (2) 3. PL crot1ing (2ea.) ..•..• 3. Comp,euion (3) 3. Dub.es (2) 3. P1. crewing (2 ea.) •• N.. 3. Comprettion (3)
4. Circle■ (8) 4. Crv. elltra (8) 4. Linea drawn. (8) 4. Caci.. (8) 4. Cn. exlrll (8} •• I~, 4. Liacs dra,ni. (8)
5. No. dota (2) 5. Dbl line U ea.) 5. Order (2) 5. No. dota (2) .. L .. S. Dbl. line (lea.) 5. Order (2)
6. Extra row (8} 6.•Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) 6. Extra row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8)
7. Bl1lllting (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rel 1ize. (8) 7. Bluntul.1 (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rel. aitt (8)
8. Diatortion (8) 8. Di:r.1ortion (8) Total 8. Di.tort.ion (8) 8. Distortion (8) Tot,]
9. Guide line, (2) 9. Guide JUI.cs (2) DESIC.IV TOTALS 9. Guide linea (2} 9. Guide line. (2) DESIGN TOT Al.S
10. Work.om' (2) .. Jc. IO. Workovcr (2) I. . 3!f.. 5. ./1 .. . 10. Workon:r (2) ..2, .. 10. U'orkovu (2) ,. .1.9.. s. .. l.
11. Sec. anempl (3ea.) ....•• ll. Sec. allernpt {3eL) ..•••. 2. 2-0:. 6. /3.. . 11. Sec. aUempt (3 ea.) • • • • • . 11. Sec. attempt (3 eL) ••••.. 2. ./!/-.. ~ .JS..
12. Rotation (8) 12. Ro1a1io:1 (P) ...•• , 3. •• V.· .. 7. . JS'. .. 12. Rotation (8) •. f... 12. Rotation (8) 3• . ,t .. ,. ..ia.
11 D... miu. (8) 13. o... mw. (8) •.f. .. 4. ./.'I.. JJ. .. 13. Dea. lllUL (8)_ 13. Dea. miss. (8) 4,.J.4.. .. .. 3..
Dcaip. Total :: :r.: Design Total /.3... Conlig.
8.
. .0 ... Deaign Total . IC... Dcaigo Total 6.,,~ .IA ..
Total Raw Score/.a.1.. Standard Score Total Raw Sc.ore J.fq_ S11.11dard Sc.ore
[210)
SCORE SHEET-BENDER•GEsTALT TEsT SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEST
Name .......!iP.,.!l....................... Aae .6:-6. Sex .JI .. . Name ... .l!P., .9.......................... Aae 9.-:?.. Sex .,•....
Education . . . . . • . . . . 1.Q. . ;L.Q7. Diapiosu . ~.C!r.1)111,J,. PJ:lU-.4 •....•. Education .......... 1.Q. .J.3:7.. Dnpiosu ..!IP~llla.l..Chil.Ji .. :__;,,-•--·/
DESIGN I DESIGN• DESIGN 7 DESIGN I DESICN 4 DESIGN 7
L Wm line (2) .. L.. 1. A1ym. Cn. (3) .J. .. 1. Ench no. join. (8) 1. WaYf line (2) J. Asym. en. (3) 1. Ende. no.j.olit.-(8) .. , ..
:t. Da<. duh, cb-. (3) 2. Break en. (4) 2.. Andet1 ext. (3) 2. Dot. duh. cir. (3) • J... 2. Break en. {4,) 2, An~~~~ (3)
S.Dtoh,,(2) 3. Cn. not center. (]) • .I .. , 3. Ang)et miN.. (3) S. Duhe. (2) 3. en. not center. {1) ...... 3._.Arii}ea mi& (!I)
'- Cln,JN (I) Curll 14) •. Ext. ...._ (3) • t. 4:
::~::
4. Carde. (8) 4. Co.rl1 (4) F.-.1. ac.aL (3)
5.No. doh (2) ...i, 5. Not joined (8) S. Dbt line (I ea,) 5. No. data (2) ud! 5. Not iolued (8) 5. Dbl line (] ea.) : : :;: :
6. DhL nnr (I) 6. Cn. rotation (3} 6. Tremor (4) 6. Dbl row (8) 6. en.
roiation (3) 6. Tremor (4) •.• *..
.. z...
7.W..to-(2)
L Sec, aitempt C3u.)~ •••...
7. Touch-up (B)
a Tff!mOf' (4)
7. Dtatortion (8 u.)
8. Goidelinea (2) ! ~-=~2)( 3 ea.) ... ,., ~ ~0~4,)(8) ::~:: ~ ~=~;:es'~;~)
,.__,,(8) 9. Distortion (8) 9. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • , ••• , 9. Rot.at.ioa (8) • . .. .. 9. DiltOttioa (8) 9. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) ......
Jll,U,..ml,o, (I) 10. Guide lines (2) 10. Rotation (8) I ..
oial -p;,:: DalpTobl ::y;:: ll.Sec. ■ttempt(3ea.) ••••••
12. Rotation (8)
II. 0... mJ,,, {I)
DalpTobl ::ii;::
10. Del. mill. (8)
Daip Tot.al :3:: 10. Gnide linea (2)
11. Sec. ■ttempt
12. Rotation (8)
10. Rotation (8)
(ha.) ...... ll. Dee. miu. (8)
Deelp Total
•••
......
• .13.
]!. Del. miu. (8).
n..,,. Tobi ::r: 13.Dee.tniN.(8)
Doip Total ::if::
DISIGN 2 DESIGN I DESIGN 8 DESIGN 2 DESIGN 5 DESIGN 8
•, ::a::
L:(8)
L W1'7 lllMI (2) .J,.. 1.
l. AIJfflmell'T (3) .. 3 ..
.. a..
End1 no. jo1n. (8) .. L
.. j ..
1. WaYJ line (2) •• 2,..
J. ..
1. A1JJD1melry (3) ,,3,,
l. Enda no. join. (8)
..a .. :::s::
!is> 2. D... t1t dote (3) 2.Dot.daab,cir.(3) 2. Ang)ea at. (3) 2. Dub or doll (3} • 2. Dot, d~, cir. (3) 2. An1lu est. (3)
> a. Slupe cir, (3) 3. Dube1 (2) 3. Anglea mlu. (3) 3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Duhea (2) 3. Aa1le1 mlu.. (3)
4. Cir. miu.. est. (3) 4. Circles (8) 4. '- Cir. mi&, est. (3) 4. Circ1ee (8)
::r: 4. Ext• .u.L (3)
UL ICaL (3)
~)
Ut. join. dot (2) .. 2,.. S. Dh1. line (1 ea.)
5,0,.tooodi.{5)
6. De,. OWll (3)
7. No. c:oL (2 a.)
5. Est. join. dal (2)
6... .3 ..
En. rol■tion
7. No. dote (2)

(3)
5.
6.
7.
Dhl line {lea.)
Tremor (4)
Diatortloa (8 ea.) ::,.::
S. Cir. touch. (5)
6. On-. 1lant (3)
7. No. cot (2 ea.)
5.
6.
7.
Ext. rotation (3)
No. dota (2)
6. Tremor (4)
7. Dl11tor1ion (&ea.)
::,;,:
L Fil-ea 2 lines (8) 8. Dbtortloa (8) 8. Guld~ &ea (2) a. Fig. on 2 linee (Bl a. Di1tortion (8) 8. Cuicli,: linee (2)
9. Golde U- (2) 9. Guide JlMS (2) 9. WorkO"t'er (2) 9. CuJde linea (2) 9. Gulde Jinn (2) 9. Workower (2) •
10. W..to- (2) 10, Workoff:l' (2) JO. St-c. attempt (Sea.) , ••••• 10. Worko-m- (2) 10. Workover (2) 10. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) .•••••
11. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) •••••• JJ. Sec. attempt (3ea.) ...... JJ. Rotation (8) lL Sec. attempt (3ea.) ...... ll. Sec. anempt (3ea.) ...... 11. Ro1alion (8)
11 Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Dea. miaa. (8) 12. Rotatioo (8) 12. Ro1a1ion (8) 12. Dea, milL (8)
}f
l2.0...mlM.{8)
DalpTotal ::{:
13,Dea.mlu. (8)
Delip Tot.al ::,:: Deaip Tollll
l3. Da. ~ (~otal ::r:: 13. Dtt.; ~ : ~~tal ::,:: Deaip Total
DESIGN! DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN CONFIC. DESIGN

.. L .. .?-..
L ..,.._.,. (3)
2. Do<. duh, .... (3)
a. D..,,.. {2)
l. A1yrnrnetry (3)
2.
3.
Analee (2)
Pt. crouin1 (2ea.)
:::z: 1. Pltoe. Dea. A. (2)
2. Onrlap (2 ea;)
3. Compreuion (3)
l.
2.
3.
Place. Des. A. (2)
Overlap (2ea.)
Coro.pre11ion (3)
~Cbd,,{8) 4. Cn. extra (8) 4. Linet drawn (8) 4. Uues drawn (8)
S. No. dote (2) 5. Dbl. line {lea,.) .. J.. 5. Order (2) :::.z:: 5. Order (2)
6. £st:ra ftlW (8) 6. Ema row (8)
7.BJ..... {8)
L D&tonfoo (Bl 8. DH!onioa (8)
6. Touch-up (8)
7. Tremor (4,)
Total
::-;,:: 6. No order (8)
7. Rd. 1iz.e (8)
::'ft.:
7. BIDDllq {8)
8. Di1tartion (8)
6. Touch-up (B)
7. Tremor (4-)
8. Di11or1ion (8)
:::if 6. No order (8)
7. Rel. 1iie (8)
Total
9. Galde U- {2) 9. Guide lines (2) DESIGN TOTALS .,. 9. Gulde lines (2) 9. Guide linn (2) DESICN TOTALS
10. W..to- (2) 10. WorbYU (2) 1. •• /L ~ s.. .. 10. "Workonr (2) 10. Workover 12) I • •. 3 ..
S. •• f ..
lL Sec. dtempt·(3ea.) ...... 11. Sec. at1empt (3 ea.) ...... 6• • .... s.. 1. ... lL Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • • • • • • 11. Sec. attempt (3 eL) •...•• 2. .S. .. 6•••!L
12.Rot,t;oo(B) 12. Ro1ation CB) 3. . ] : " 1.. !L 12. Jlot.atioa (8) 12. Rot1lion (8) 3.. '.7 ... 7 . ~ .•
4. ..... L ,;i.;i,... 4. .'/: •.• ~ • ••• 7..
U.D,o.mlM.(B)
De,lpTobl ::a::
13. Dea. mJ9I. (8)
Dealp Tot.al :::;:: Coafi&, .. !4-..
13. Dee. m1M. (8)
llN!p Tobi :::t: 13_. Des. miu. (8)
n.u.. Tot.J :::..:: Coalig, .2. ..
Tot,! Raw 5'on .$.9.. StazadardSt:ore Total Ra., S=e ./..3.. Sludud S.... .... ,,
SCORE SHEET-BENDER·GESTALT TEsT SCORE SHEET-BENDER·GESTALT TEST

i Sex .¥ ... .
Name .....ll9.,J.~ ....................... AHO )5. ... Sex .• f .. . Name .... 1'1.9, ..U ........................ Age .3ll. .. Sex . .IL.
,~~+!\
.. ..... .
Edncation . 9.t:l'J!!J!lfJ' I.Q .•. 9;1..• Diapioon ... l!IAA'-P::J;)!'Jlf!'.Oj..V:~ Education s!~tl. .. 1.Q...l:?IJ. Diapioais . ;i.~l?-!-.~<?~.l'.,r/l;I!!'.1.<! ...
I..
jom.(B)
L (3) ::L DESIGN I
L w...,.
U.. (2)
DESIGN 4
J. Aaym. Cn. (3)
DESIGN 7
1. Enda no. join. (8)
DESIGN I
1. WaYJ Une (2>
DESIGN 4
1. Asyrn. (3) en.
DESICN 1
.. a..
1. Enda DO. join, (8)
[m
(3)
:;t:: 2.Do<.,duh,cb-.(3)
S. Duhe, (2)
2. Break
3.
en', (4)
en. not cenltif. Cl) ......
2. An,Jea ext. (3)
1 Ansl" mlu. (3)
2. Do<. duh. ch-. (3)
s. Duhea (2)
2. Break en. (4) 2. Analee e-.L (3)
3. Crv.noteen!e:r. (1) ...... 3. Analn mill. (3)
;(lea.) •. , .••
'"°""" {8)
4. Cur11 (4) 4. Ext. ac.aL (3) 4. Orclea (8) 4. Cur11 f4) 4. En. acat. (3)
::r
~)
paea.l :J:: 5. No. dol:1 (2) each 5. Not joined (8)
6. Tremor (4)
5. Dbl. line (1 e1..) S. No. doll (2) each S. Not joined (8) 5. Dbl line Clea.)
;. (2)
i_.. (3 ...) ••••••
6. Dbl. row CB)
7.Wo,\o,,,{2)
8.Sec.attm1pt(ha.) ......
Touch-up {B)
Trr.nw (4)
6.
7.
8.
Cn. rotation (S)
7. Di.tort.ion (8 eL)
8. Gut.de lines (2)
6. Dbt row (8)
7. Work.over (2)
6. Cn-. rotation (3)
::t:
7. Touch-up (B)
8. Sec. attempt (3 ea.} •••••• 8. Tmnor (4)
6. Tffmor (4)
::4.:
7. Diltortion (Bea.)
8. Gulde Unn (2)
~8> .I... 9. Bolation (Bl Di11onlon (8) 9. 9. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) ...... 9. JlotatioD (8) 9. Di1tortUID (8) 9. Sec. auempt (Su.) ......
({8) ....•• l~D,o.mJoo.,8) 10. Rotation (8) 10. Des. miu. (8) 10. Gulde Unee (2) ..... ..
p
i
Tot,! .JJ.. D..i,.Total
10. Gulde Unee (2)
:::o::
11. Sec. auempt (Sea.) ...... 11. Dea. mi-. (8)
12. Rotation (B) Deaip Total :::a: Dealp Total ::r • 10. Ro1ation (8)
ll. ~ atleJ!lpl (3ea.) ...... 11. Dee. mlu. (8)
12. Roi.don (8) D..SID ·Tot,! ::it:.:
'
'·i- (8) DESICN 2
13.0...m!M.{8)
Do,IID Tobi ::-;,::
13.0...-{8)
Detlp Total :::1:
DESIGN 5 DESIGN 8 DESIGN 2 DESIG/Y 5 DESIGN 8
~(3) L w...,. u., {2) .. .1. 1. A1,mme11T (3) .J. .. l. End1 no. Join. (8) 1. Wa,.,- line (2) L Atymmett, (S) 1. Enda l'IO. join. (8)
~{3) 2. Duh" d"' (8) 2. Dot. duh, ,~. (3) .. 3 .. 2. Aziglea en. (3) 2. Duh a, doh (3) 2. Dot, dub, cir. (3) i. Anaiet. UL {3)
,,tm
t (lea,)
S.Shap, cb-. {3) 3. Dubee (2) 3. An!J)ea mil&. (3) S. Shape ei:r. (S) 3. Du-hee (2) 3.A,..Je,mlu. (3)
4a.. ...._..., {S)
(4)
t (Bea.)
~a.."""'-
6.Do,.""" (3)
(5)
4. Circ1ee (8)
S. En. join. dot (2)
6. E:rt. rotation (3)
4.E"ll. ICd. (S)
5. Dbl Hu Clea.)
6.Tmoor(4)
... I ..
.. !t..
4.a..mtu.. .... {3)
S. Ck. toacb. {5)
6. De,,. alant (3) :::r
4. Circle,. CB)
5. E-.t. join. do1 (2)
6. E-.t. rotation (3)
::i:
4. Est. ac.at. (3)
5. Dbl line (lea.)
6. Tremor (4)
:::.r
1,..(2) 7. No. col. (2ea.) 7. No. doll (2) 7. Dl1tortion (Bea.) 7. No. col (2ea.l 7. No. dote (2) 7. Diltartioa. (Sea.)
' (2) L Flc-on2llllf:I CB) a. Distortion (8) 8. Guide linea (2) 8. Fi1, on 2 linea (8) 8. Diator1lon (8) 8. Guide 1inea (2)
in,pa. Cha.l •• ·••.· 9,Guidelinea(2) 9. Guide linea (2) 9. Worko~ (2) 9. Guide linee (2) 9. Guide linea (2) 9. Worlr.on:r (2) ......
f (8) ID. w......,
(2) 10. Workon:r (2) 10. Sec. attempt (3ea.) _••···• 10. Worlr.O'l'er (2) 10. Workovu (2) .. .z.. 10. Sc<. ottempt (S ,a,) ... ~•.
.. (8) lLSee. &ftempt (Sea.):::::: n. See. attempt (3 u.) •••.•• 11. Rotalioa (8) JL Sec. attempt (ha.) ...... 11. Sec. attempt (3ea.) ...... 11. Ro111ion (8)
tp
,. Total 12.'l!olonoo(8) .......
13. D,o. ..... (8)
12. Rotat,ion (8)
13. Dea. miM. (8)
12. Des. miu. (8)
:x: 12."Rotatlou (8) 12. Relation (8)
i~ 0... mlu. (8)
12. Dea. mia (8)
..:1..
:A::
Deaip. Total 13.Dea.miN. (8) Desjp Tot.al
l·-
~ESIGN D,,;ID TOlOI ::1: Desip Total :s: llN!p Tot,l .. 3.. Deti.111 Total
""'A. (2) DESICN.! DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN
~ (2ea.) L"na-, ..a..
. . . (3)
~(8)
~ Doi, d..i.. ch-. (3)
1lla!,,,(2)
{3)
::I: l. AJYfflmel?J (3)
2. Angles (2)
3. PL cnmin1 (ha.) ......
l. Place. Dea. A. (2)
2. Owerl.ap (2ea.)
3. Cornpreuion (3)
::t:: L - l r f (3)
2. Do<. duh, .... (3)
3. Du!:iee (2)
l. A•Jmmetry (3)
2. Anglea (2)
3. Pt. crONinl (2 ea.)
2. Ovrrbp (2ea.)
3. CompreNIOD (3)
:::i:
11
S {8}
~ (8)
4.a..i,. {8)
5. No. data (2)
6.Em...,.<e)
4. Cn. exln (8)
5. Dbl line Uea.)
6. Touch-up (8)
4. Lines drawn
s. Order (2)
6. No order (8)
(8)
::t:: .. a.ct,, {8)
5. No. dots (2)
6. Ema row (8)
4. Cn-. e.stra (8)
5. Dbl line Uea.)
6. Touch-up (8)
,
... ..
4. Lints drawn (8}
5. Order (2}
6. No order (8)
!al 7.Bt....,_{8) ::-ii.:
"OTALS
s..J ..
8. rfutonioQ (Bj
~ c,,;.,1m,, (2l
8.
9.
7. Tremor (4-)
Dir.tortion (8)
Guide linee (2)
7. Rd. 1ii.e CB)
Tot.J
DESIGN TOTALS
::i: 7. Bhmtlnc (8)
8. Distortion (8)
9. Guide Una (2)
7. Tremor (4)
8. Di,tortion (8)
9. Guide lines (2)
7. Rel ,ize (Bl
Total
DESIGN TOTALS
::t::
6. .JS,.
.1<1.
10. York.ne:r (2 ) .. 2.. 10. Workover (2) ...... )... Q .. JO. Workoft:r (2) ...z..
10. Workover (2) I. .. 2 .. 5. •!I-...
7••
I ..
JL Sec. 111:!empt (3 ea.) •.•••• Jl. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) .•.••• 2. .. i. .. ...a ...
5. ·"'··· 11. See. attempt (3ea.) ••...• lJ. Sec. allempt (3 ea.) .. .... ~ . .3. .. 6.. s...
L ..
./A ..
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rolation (8) 3. . s. .. 7. . 11 ... 12. Rotation (8) 12. Ro1a1iot1 (8) 3• . 2..,, 7• . 2. ..
l!. Det. miu. (8) o~ ... Q ... e..$:. .. 13. Dea. miM. (8) 13. ~a. mia. (8) ,.. '1 .. & .1...
Duip Toial ::s:::
13. misa.. (8)
Deaign Total :T Con6g. .If... Desjp. Total ..z.. Design Total ::-s.: Conlig. .2. ..
Total Raw .Score .M:. Standard Score ...... Total R,w ~,a,{. Sundard ~re .'-7..
[211]
SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEST SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEsT
Name ...... !i.'1, ..J,? ...................... Age .~Q ... Sex .. f. .. Name .... .l! 9.•. . +.3............... ·. . . . . . . . . Age ..~C/. . Sex ... !o\ . Name ..
Education ~.'1+~.'!g!'. I.Q....... Diagnosis .. SPh!M. ~. Education .. fl, ..:'\,. I.Q . ...... Diagnosis ll.<:l,~.2:9~9.'!t!\1;9!l_~g··· Education
.Ga.t.at.Qllic
DESIGN l DESIGN 4 DESIGN 1 DESIGN 1 DESIGN 4 DESIGN 7 DESIGN I
1. w.'f'J
line (2) .. a... I. Asym. Crv. (3) .. 3 ..
I, End1 no. join. (8) ]. W.,--, line (2) •• Z.,, I. Aaym. Cn-. (3) 1. Ende no. join. (8) l. Wa'IJ" li·
2. Dot, duh, cir, (3) ..3. .. 2. Break crv. (4) 2. Angleant. (3) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Break en. (4) .'- Anglea exl. (3) 2. Dot, d111
3. Duhea (2) 3. Crv. nol center. (I) ••..•. 3. An11:lea miu. (3) 3. Duheo (2) 3. C...... not center. (1) •...•• 3. Angles miu. (3) 3. Duhes
4. ~irclea (8) 4. Curle (4) 4. Ext. ICIL (3) 4. Circlce (8) 4. Curia (4) 4. E.xr. ac.aL (3) 4. Circles
5. No. dole (2) each S. Nol joined (8) 5. Dbl. line (lea:.) S. l-i;:,. doll (2) each 5. Not joined (8) 5. Dbl. line (lea.) 5. No. dot
6. Dbl row (8) 6. Crv. rotation {3) 6. Tn-mor (4) •• ff .• 6, [bl row (8) 6. Crv. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6. Dbl. ro•
7. Workover (2) 7. Touch-up (8) i. Distortion (Bet.) 7. Workovcr (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Distortion (8 eL) 7. Worko'I'
8. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • , • • • . 8.•Trrmor (4) 8, Guide Jines f2) 8. f'.cc. attempt (3 ea.) . . . . . . 8. T""'1or (4) a Guide lines (2) 8. See. ■tt
9. Rotation (8) 9. Distortion (8) 9. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) ...••• 9. Rotation (8) 9. Diatortion (B) 9. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) , .... , 9. Roiatio
10. Dea. mia. (8) 10. Guide lines (2) 10. Rotalion (8) 10. Dt:a. miu. (8) IO. Guide line1 (2) 10. Ro111ion (8) 10. Dn. m
-Design Total 11. Sec. allcmpt (3 ea.) . . • .. • 11. Dea. miaa. (8) Dcelp Total 11. Sec. atlempl (3 ea.) • • • • • • 11. Dea. mile. (8) D,
12. Rotation (8) Deaip Total 12. Rolalion (8) Design Total ..'!...
13. Dea. mi.as. (8) 13.Det.miu.(8)
Deeign Total Design Total •• P. ..
DE~IGN z DESIGN 5 Df_SIGN B DESIGN 2 DESIGN 5 DESIGN 8 DESIGN!
I. w.,.y]ine (2) l. A1J1T1metry (3) I. Ends no. join. (8) ...8.. 1. Wavrline (2) 1. Asymmetry (3) I. End, no. join. (8) 1.wa.,..,.
2. Duh or dota (3) 2. Doi, daeh, cir, (3) 2. Angles ext. (3) 2. Dash or dota (3) 2. Dot, deli, cir. (3) 2. Ans]es ext. (3) '-Duh,
3. Shape cir, (3) .. J. ...
3. Dashe5'(2) 3. Anglea miaa. (3) 3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Dashes (2) 3. Anglea miu. (3) 3. Shape
4. Cir. mlas.,ext. (3} 4. Circlu (8) 4. Ext, acaL (3) 4. Cir. miae., at. (3) 4. Clrclee (8) 4. El:t. ICl.t. (3) 4. Cir,m
5. Cir. touch: (5) S. Ext. join. dot (2) •• • Z..
5. Dhl. line ( l ea.) 5. Cir. touch. (5) 5. Ex!. join. dot (2) 5. Dbl, line Cl ea.) S. Cir. tc
6. De-r. alant (3) 6. Exl, {otalion 13) 6. Tremor (4) 6. D". alant (3) 6, UI. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6, l)eV, I
7. No. coJ. (2cL) 7, No. doll (2) 7. Distortion (8 eL) 7, No. col. (2 ea.) 7. No. dola (2) 7. Di1tort!on (Bea,) 7. No.a
8. Fig. on 2 linea (8) 8. Dis1ortion (8) 8. Guidr. linee (2) 8. Fig. on 2 lines (8) 8. Ditlortion (8) 8: Guide lines (2) a. Fig. o
9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Workover (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Workovcr (2) 9. Guide
]O. WorltoTe:r (2) 10. Workover (2) 10. Sre. allempl (Sea,) ..... . 10. Wori:over (2) 10. Workover (2) 10. St-c. auempt (3ea.) ...... 10. Work,
11. Sec. attempt (3 cL),..... 11. Sec. anempt (3 eL) •. , . • • 11. Rolation (8) ll. Sec. attempt (3 ea.)...... ll, Sec. allempl (3 CL) .... , • JJ. Rotation (8) n. Sec.'
~- ::l:a.(~~) ~!: ::t~;91 ~8~ 8 ) 12. Dea.;:~:./~otal ~ji 12. Rotation (8)
13. Dce. ~ (~otal •.

12. Rotation (8)
_. 13. Des. n:; 12. Des. miaa. (B)
~~tal : :s::: Design Total

::z.: 12. Rotal
13,Des.:
Design Total . 3., . DcaiKn Tola] .. S.. O 3 I
DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIGN
1. AaJJDmetry (3)
2. Dot. duh. cir. (3)
• .3.. .
. 3 .. .
I. Asymmetry f3) J. Place. Dea. A. (2) 1. Asymmetry (3) I. Aeymmclry (3) l. Place. Des. A. (2) .. .a.. 1. Aayrr
2. Anglea (2) 2. Overlap (2 e.a.) 2. Dot, duh, cir, (3) 2. Angles (2) 2. O,,erlap (2ea.) 2. Doi,
3. Dubca (2) 3. Pt. cros.sing (2eL) •..... 3. Compreuion (3) 3. Duhcs (2) 3. Pi. crouin1 (2eL) 3. Compression (3) ..:L 3. Dash
4. Circlee (8) 4. C......ulra (8) 4. Lin~ drawn (8) 4. C...... exlra (8) 4. Lines drawn (8) 4. Cird
S. No. dot& (2) •k ..
5. Dbl. line Oea.) S. Order (2) S. No. d011 (2) 5. Dbl. line (le.a.) 5. Order (2) 5. No.
6. Extra row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) 6. E:x1ra row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) 6. Extr
7.
8.
9.
Blunting (8)
Diatortion (8)
Guide lines (2)
7.
8.
9.
Tremor (4)
Dis1or1ion (8)
Guide lines (2)
Tola]
DESIGN TOT A.LS
7.
8.
Blunting (8)
Dialortion (8)
9. Guide linee (2)
7. Tremor (4)
8. Distortion (8)
9. Guide lines (2)
7. Rel. aize (8)
Total
DESIGN TOT A.LS
::r:: 7. Blw,
8. Di.r.t.
9. Guic
JO. Workover (2) 10. Workovcr (2) l . . 5. .. 5. •f.. .. 10. Wo~lr."oYC:l' (2) 10. Workovcr (2) 1. .. z.. 5•.. iL 10.. Wor
11. Sec. allempt (3 ea.) • • • • • • 11. Sec. aucmpt (3 ea.) ... , , , 2. .3:.,. 6. ,I/-_ .•• 11. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) .. . .. . II. Sec. allempl (3 ca.) • .. .. . 2. . .J, . 6. .. 0 .. n . .sce.
12. Ro111lon (8) 12. Rotation (8) 3.. i ...
7..'/: ••• 12. Rotation (8) 12. Rolalion (8) 3... a... 7... R.. 12. Rolr
13. Dea. o:~(iolal : l:: 13

. Dee. D:::a (~01al :: :if-:: ~!~.. a. .If.:.' 13. Dea. mba. (8)
Detip Total •. 3 .. 13. Des. D::~ (~otal :~:~: ~~~: .. 8. :.-:.:
I~ 0..
Total Raw Score .lJ.1/-.. S1andud Score f.4. .. Total Raw Score ./I. .. Standard ,Score .S:P..
SCORE SHEET-BE'1DER-GESTALT TEST SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEST

Name .. !i.C!, .. :1,4 .......................... Age ./!4 .. Sex .. !,I•.. Name ....... N.C/, ..l5 ..................... Age .. 52. Sex .. Iii.. . Name
Education 9r.~~f- 1.Q..~Q$.. Diagnosis ... ~P.~<?f-.l!~~-~I)~.l.. Education .ll,S •.... I.Q. -·· ... Diagnosis .lnY.QlU:tional. Educi
J'.s.ychos is .esr.chosi_s
DESIGN l DESIGN 4 DESIGN 1 DESIGN I DESICN,t DESIGN 1 DES/G
I. Wavy line (2) ,.2,.. ]. A~ym. Crv. (3) .. 3.. l. Ends no. join. (8) ]. WaTJ line (2) I. Al)'TTL Cr,, (3) 1. End, no. join. (8) I.We
2. Doi, rla~h. cir. 13) 2. Br~ak en·. (4) 2. Anglrs ext. (3) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Break UY. (4) 2. Anglea ext. (3) 2. Doi
3. DafhH (2) .. Z.,.. 3. Crv. nol t.rntPr. (1) .••••• 3. Anglea miss. (3) 3. Duhea (2) 3. Crv. not center. fl) ...•.• 3. /Ingles miu. (3) 3. Da·
4. Cirf'll's (8) 4. Curia (4) 4. Exl. &eat. (3) 4. Circles (8) 4. Curls (4) 4. Ex1. ,eat. {3) 4. Cir
5. No. rlo1~ (2) t'&!!h 5. Not joinrd (8) 5. Dbl. line {l ca.) 5. No. do11 (2) ea.ch 5. Not joined.(8) 5. Dbl line Cl ea.) •. 1... s. No
6. Dbl row (8) 6. Crv. rolalion (3) 6. Tremor (4) "6. Dbl row (8) 6. Crv. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4) •• fl... 6. Db
7. U'orkow•r (2) 7. Touch-up lR) 7. Di~tonion (8 ea,) 7. WorkoYCr (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Di11onion (8eL) 7.W,
8. Set. 11llemp1 (3 t-a.) .... , . 8. Tr<'mor (4) 8. Guirle lincs (2) a Sec. auempt (3 ea.) • • • • • • 8. Trrmor (4) •• !f.. 8. Guide lines (2) as.
9. Rotation 18) 9. Distortion (8) 9. Sec. allempt (3 l'Ll ...••• 9. Rotation (8) 9. Dialortion (8) 9, Sec. attempt (3 '--) ••••• , 9. Re
10. Du. mm. (8)
Dtsign Tolal
. . . . . . JO. Cuidr. line,,. (2)
.• If...
IO. Rotation (8)
n. Sec. ancmpl (3 ca.) •. 3.. n. Dea. miss. (8)
.. f ..
IO. Dn.D~: ~~al ::a:: ~~: ~;~:1: : ,
12. Rotalion (8)
({~ea.) •••••• :~ ~:!=~(~~) ......
Dalp Total , .I, ..
IO. Th
12. Ro111ion (8) Design Toia1

13. Des. miu. (8) 13. Dea. misa. (8)
Dnign To1al Design Total
DESIGN .2 DESIGNS DESIGN 8 DESIGN Z DF.SIGN 5 VF.SIGN B DESI•
.. t .. l ....
I. W"yline (2)
2. Dash or do1~ (3)
3. Shape cir. (3)
1.
..IL
2.
3.
Aay111melry (3)
Doi, da~h, cir. (3)
D:i~hcs (2)
.• .3 ..
I. Ends no. join. (8)
2. Angl,'S ext. (3)
3. Angles min. (3)
l. WaTJ line (2)
2. j)uh or dota (3)
3. Shape cir. {3)
J, Asymmetry (3)
2. Dot, duh, dr. (3)
3. Da~hea (2)
::.L l. Ends no. join. (8)
2. Angles en. (3)
3. .\nglearni.u..(3)
2D
3. SI
4. C
4. Cir. mis.s.,exl. (3)
5. Cir. touch. (5)
6.De-,,.slaat(3)
4.
5.
6.
Circles (8)
Eu. join. dot 12)
Ex1, rotation (3)
.. :Z.,.
4. Ex1. seal, (3)
5. Ohl. line fl ea.)
6. Tremor (4)
:A::
.. !/-..
4. Cir. mill., ext. (3)
5. Cir. touch. (5)
6. OCT. slant (3)
4. Circle, (8)
5. Ext. join. dol (2)
6. Exl. rotation (3)
4. E:tt. seal. (3)
5.
6.
Ohl. line {lea.)
Tremor (4)
.. /... 5. C
6.. D
7. No. col. (2ea.) 7. No. do111 (2) 7. Distortion (8 ea.) 7. No. col (2 ea..) 7. No. dots (2) 7, Dis1ortioi:r, (8cL) 7.fli
8. Fig, on 2 lines 18) 8. Dii;lortion {8) 8. Guide lines (2) 8. Fi1, on 2 Jines (8) 8. Di!1or1ion (8) 8. Guide lines (2) ar
9. Guide lines {2) 9. Guidr lines {2) 9. Workover (2) 9. Guide lines {2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Work.over (2) 9. G
IO. Workover {2) 10. U:orko\-ct (2) JO. Si:-c. aucmpl (3ra.) ..•..• 10. Workover (2) JO. Worko•er (2) 10. Sr-c, attempi: (3ca.) , .•••• 10. V
11. Sec. at!t-mpl 13ra.) •.•.•. 11. Sec. allrmpt 13 ra.) ..••.• 11. Rotation 18) 11. Sec. atlempt (3ea.) ...•.• 11. 5<-c. allcmpt (3ea.) •••••. 11. Rotation (8) 11. S
12 F
12. Rotation (8) 12. Ro111ion (8)
o:~:
12. DCll. miu. (8)
::r:: 12. Rolation (8) 12. Rotation (8)
::2.:: i::
12. Des. miss. (8)
::a:: 13.[
13. Des.;!~~C~olal ::
3:: 13. Des. ';!ial --~-- Dr.sign Total 13. Dea.:: (~otal 13. Des. ~:al De.in Total
DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONF/G. DESIGN DES

l. A•ynm><try (3) .1,... I. Ai;ymmr:lry (3) J. Place-. Dc1. .\. 12) J. AaJJDmetrr (3) I. Asymmclry 13) l. Place. Des. A. {2) !.,
2. Dot, duh. cir. {3} •• ?, .. 2. Ang!~ (2) 2. Ovrrlap l2r.a.) 2. Dot, dash, cir. (3) 2. A'ngles (2) 2. 0,l"J"!ap 12ea.) 21
3.
4.
Duhea (2)
Circles (8)
3. Pt. a0$Sing <2 eL)
4. Cn-·. t-Xlra (8)
3. Compression (3)
4. Line1 clr■ wo {8)
3.
4.
Dl!.bes (2)
Circlea (8)
3. P1. crossing (2 e■.) 3. Comprcsaion (3)
4. Lint:1 dr■•n (8)
...
3.1
5.
5, No. dols {2) . . h. 5. Ohl. Jin~ '1ea.) ..•~. 5. Order (2) 5. No. dota (2) 5. Order (2)
6. Exira row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order 18) 6. Extra row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) 6.
7. Blunting (8) 7. Tr,mor (4) 7. Rel. al~ 18) 7. Blunting (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rr.l. siu: CB} 7.
8. m~tonion 48) 8. Di~1onion hH To1al 8. Diatortion (8) 8. Disloriion (8) Total a
DESIGN TOT A.LS 9.
9. Cuidt- line.; (2) 9. Cui,lo·: line, 12) DESIG.'V TOTAI.S 9, Guide lines (2) 9. Guid~ lines C2)
JO. Workovl"l" 12) IO. W11rkuvrr 12) I. .It, .. 5. . S". .. 10. Work.over (2) JO. Workover (2) I. , .0... 5• ...3.,. 10.
ll. S,.e~ allt-rnpl 13Pa.l 11. ~t>t·. all.-mpl 13ra.) 2. . .3 ... •- .Z ... U. Sec. atlcmpt (3ea.) ...... 11. Sec. allcmpt (3ea.) ..••.• 2.. .1. .. 6. .j.. . ll.
12
12. Ro1a1ion 18\ 12. Holalion 18) 3. -i••· 7. •2.2.. 12. Rolation (8) ..••.• 12.
0
Rotalion (8) 3.. D... 7. •fA. •••
~~,.~~ 4. ·'-·· , . .. l .. 13. Det.. mi111. (8) .. , . • • 13. Des, miss. (8) . . • • • . 4. . +.... 8. . J., .. 13.
13. Des.D:::~ 1~01al 13. Ors. D:~~: f~lotsl
..:l.. C.nfig. .;l.... Design Total .. ft, Design Total .•• 7., Config. . :2. ..
To1al Raw Score J.~.. Stanrlard Score .....• Total Re"' Score ;is",, Standard Score .S:1.
[2121
SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEST SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT Tl:sT
~---IL Name ......... .ll9.•. .:!-~ ................... Age . ?.~ .. Sex . .¥.. . Name ... }JP.,. /-.7. ...•.•............•..... Age .?+... Sex . f. ...
~~ffii\l ... Education .!i.•.l?.-.... I.Q .... '.l-l!.2Diagnosis r.,~I .•. .11-0li:ll'.~. Education .. CPJ.li,geI.Q....... Diagnosis .. N.oi:w>.l .............•
J>.omp.ulsion
DESCGN J DESIGN 4 · DESIGN 1 DESIGN I DESIGN 4 DF.S/GN 7
1. WP'J'line (2} 1. A"ym. Cn. (3) ). Enda no. join. (8) l. Wavy line (2) l. As.ym. Cr.. (3) l. Enda no. join. (8)
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Break err. (4) 2. Anglea est. (3) 2. Dot, dub, cir. (3) •• 3 ..
2. Break crv. (4) 2. Anglea en. (3)
3. Dullea (2) 3. Crv. not center. (1) • • • • • . 3. Anglea mist. (3) 3. Dalhes (2) 3. Cn-. not center. (l) •.• .• . 3..-'ngles mlu. (3)
4. Circlee (8) 4. Curl, (4) 4. Ert.. scat. (3) 4. Circles (8) 4. C11rlt (4) 4. F.11t. acaL (3)
5. No, dots (2) each S. Not joined (8) 5. Dbl. line Cl ea.} 5. No. doll (2) each 5. Nol joined (8) S. Dbl. line fl eL)
6. Dbl. row (8) 6. Cn. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6. Dbl row (8) 6. Crv. rotation (3) 6. Trl'fflor (4)
7. Workonr (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Di~tortion (Bea.) 7. Workover (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Distortion (Bea.)
8. See. attempt (3 ea.) ••. , • • 8. Tmnor (4) B. Guide lines (2) 8. Sec. allempt (Sea.) •....• 8. Trr.mor (4) 8. Guide lines (2)
9. Rot11ion (8) 9. Dialortion (8) 9. Sec. allempt (3 ea.) ••• , •• 9. Rotation (8) 9. Di■tonion (8) 9. Sec. attempt (Sea.) ••••••
10. Dea. miu. (8) • . • • • . 10. Guide lines (2) 10. Rotation (8) 10. Dr:s. miu. (8) •••••• 10. Guide lines (2) 10. Ro!alion (8)
Design Total •.• 0. 11. Sec. anempl (3ea..) ..•..• 11. Dea. miu.. (8) Dealgri Tolal •• &..
11. Sec. aue.mpl (3 ea.} . . • • • • 11. Da. miu. (8) •• , ••.
12. Rotation (8) Deaip Tola! ••l,.. 12. Rotation (8) Deaip Total •• a..
13. Dea. mi.ea. (8)
Design Total
13. DeL ~~ (~~ ::Q::
DESIGN 2 DESIGNS DESIGN 8 DES/CJ\' 2 VF.SIGNS DY.SIGN 8
~(8) J. Wa,.,.Hne (2) 1. Asymmetry (3) l. Enda no. join. (8) l. Wa,.,.line (2) l. Aaymmeu-, (3) t: Ende no. join. (8)
'l•i 2. Duh or dota (3) 2. Dot, dash, eir. (3) 2.. Anglea en. (3) 2. Dub or dola (3) 2., Doi, da.h, cir. (3) 2. Angleae:xl. (3)
,.,~ (3) 3. Shape cir. ·(3) 3. Duhea (2) 3. Anglea miu.. (3) 3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Du-bea (2}" 3. Anglea miu.. (3)
'.lN-> --~--
4. Cir.mlaa.,ei.:l. (3)
5. Cir. touch. (5)
6. Oe-t'. slant (3)
4. Circles (8)
5. EJ:1. join. dot (2)
6. E:xt. rotation (3)
4. E:a:L acat. (3)
S.
6.
Ohl. line (lea.)
Tremor (4)
::i::
.. !!-..
4.
5.
6.
Cir. miaa., ei.:t. (3)
Cir. touch. (S)
De-t". elant {3)
4. Circles (8)
S. Ext. join. do1 (2)
6. E:r.r. rolation (3)
4. Ext. tcaL (3)
S. Ohl. line Uea.)
6. Tremor {4)
7. No. coL (2 u..) 7. No. dots (2) 7. Distortion (Bea.) 7. No. coL (2 ea.) 7. No. dot• (2) 7. Distortion (Sea.)
8. Fig. on 2 linea (8) 8. Oi!lortlon (8) 8. Guide lines (2) 8. Fig. on 2 lines (8) 8. Distortion (8) 8. Guide linea (2)
9. Guide linea (2) 9. Guide lines f2) 9. Workover (2) 9. Guide linea (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Work.over (2)
10. Workover (2) ·10. Workover (2)
11. Sec. attempt (3ea.) •••••• 11. Sec. attempt (3eL) :j:: 10. Src. attempt (3u.) ••.•••
11. Rolation 18)
10.
11.
Workover_ (2) 10. Workovn (2) 10. Sec. allempl (3 ea.) •.••••
See. attempt (3ea.) .••.•• 11. Sec. anempt (3ea.) .. :··· 11. Rotation (8)
::1:: ~~ ::t~:..(8()8) ~~~ :::~t::a.(8:8)

12. Dea. min. (8)
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8)
12. Dea. m~~gn(~otal
0 ::-iJ.::
13. Dea. miH. (8)
Deeigu Total
13. Dea. misa. (8)
.. a. Design Total :$: Design Total
Design To!al •• .Q•• Design Tolal .. L ..
DESIGN l DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFlG. DESIGN
L Alymmetry (3) 1. A8yrnmetry (3) l. Plaee.. Dea. A. (2) l. Asymmetry (3) l. A~yrnmetl"J' {3) 1. Place. Dea. A. (2)
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Angle9 (2) 2.. Overlap (2e,,.) .. h .. 2. Dot, duh. o.:ir. (3) 2. Angle!! (2)
2.. 0vl'rlap (2 ea.)
3. Duhea (2) 3. Pt. crouing C2ea.) 3. Compreaaion (3) 3. Dubea· (2) 3. Pt. crosaing (2 ea.) . . . . . •
3. Compression (3)
4. Circlet (8) 4. Crv. extra (8) 4. Linea dmm (8) 4. Circles (8) 4. Crv. extra (8)
4. Linea drawn (8)
5. No. dota (2) S. Dbl. line (lea.) S. Order (2) 5. No. dots (2) S. Dbl. line (lea.)
S. Order (2)
6. E:xtra row (8) 6. Touch-up (8)
6. No order (8)
6. Extra row (8)
7. Blunting (8)
6. Touch-up (8)
7. Tremor 14) ::r: 6.
7.
No order (8)
Rel. aize 18) 7. Blunting (8) 7. Tremor {4) 7. Rr,1. aiu. (8)
a Dit.tartion (8) 8. Dis1ortion (8)
9. Guide lines (2)
Total
VF.SIGN TOTALS
--~-- 8. Distortion (8)
9. Guide lines (2)
8. Diatortion (8)
9. Guid,. lines (2)
Tolal
DESIGN TOTALS
9. Guide lines (2)
10..Workov':1' (2) 10. Workover (2) }....0.. s. .3... 10. Workom- (2) 10. Workover (2) l. .. 5..• 3. .. 2..
2. .. 9 .. 6.• JI-... ll.Sec.altempt(3ea.) •..••. ll.Stt.attempt(3eL) •.••.• 2. •• Q •. 6. •. f!J..
lL Sec. attempt (Sea.) ...... 11. Sec. attempt (3ea.) ······ '- .. D.. 7• ••2- ..
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12.. Rotalion (8) •••••• a:_ .·.·!·_ ·.·. 78.. ·.·.q_ ._ .
13. Dea. iniu.. (8) 13. Dea. miaa. (8) , . .. IJ.. s. . .1,... 13. Dea. milL (8) • . • • . . 13. Des. misa. (8) 4 "t', fl
Dealp Total .. 0 .. DeaipTotal ".:!L Config. ..z. .. Design Toial. • ~.. Design Total •• Q.. Con6g. • .II...
Total Raw Seo" • 11... Standard Scwc, -~-- Total Raw Score • I/... Standard Score !I/,..
iSex . .1,1 ••• Name .. ll.'l , .. ~e .......................... Age ..26 .. Sex .. M. .. Name ... ~ 9 .• . .:!-9......................... Age ?.9. ... Sex .Iii.. .
inal. Education . H,. ::\ •. . I.Q. . ..... Diagnosis .....N. Qf!'lljl, ........... . Education~~~~~.!!~. I.Q ........ Diagnosis ..... li9TJ!l6l. ........•.
esr.chosis
i DESIGN l DESIGN 4 DESIGN 1 DESIGN 1 DESIGN 4 'DF.SlGN 1
,tn.CB) l. Wa,.,. line (2) l. A&ym. Cff.. (3) •..J.. l. Enda no. join. (8) I. Wa,.,. line (2) l. Asym. Crv. (3) l. End1 no. join. (8)
t (3)
IL f3>
.2. Dot, dash, cir. (3) 2. Break crT. (4) . . • •. •
J...
2. Anglea ext. (3) 2. Dot, da.sb, cir. (3) . ..3..2. Break ert. (4) 2. An,:lea nt. {3) ::r
3. Crv. not «nler. (1) •. 3..-'nglea mi.u. (3) 3. Crv. not center. (1) • . . • • • 3. .1.ngles mi.a. (3)
-, .
3. DaBhea {2) 3. Daahea (2)
i•> l..
4. Circlea (8) 4. Curls (4) 4. F.i:t. acat. (3)
.• 2...
4. Circles (8) 4. Curls (4) 4. Ei:t. .cal. (3)
t
S. No. doll (2) each 5. Not joined (8) S. Dbl line Clea.) S. No. do11 (2) each 5. Not joined (8) 5. Dbl. line fl ea.)
.. !L 6. Dbl row (8) 6. C". rolalion (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6. DbL row (8) 6. Crt. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4)
,,Bea.> 7. Workover (2) 7. Touch-up 18) · 7. Di8tortion {Bea.) 7. Workover (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Dir.tortion (8 ea.)
if2> ..... . 8. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • . • • • • 8. Tn-mor (4), 8. Guide lines 12) 8. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) . . • . . . 8. Tn-mor (4) 8. Guide lines (2)
~Uea.l •.•..• 9. Rotation (8) 9. Distortion (8) 9. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) ••..•• 9. Roiation (8) 9. Distonion (8) 9. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) •••..•
!l 10. D~ mlu. (8) 10. Guide linea (2) 10. Rotation (8) 10. Df,,a. mile. (8) 10. Guide lines (2) 10. Rotation (8)
,~,ta] J;:: Design Totel .". 9... 11. Sec. anempl 13 ea.) • . . • . • 11. Dea. mia&. (8)
12. Ro1ation (8) Design. Total
Design To!al .J. .. 11. Sec. attempt (3ea.) .•••.• 11. Des. miu. (8)
12. Rotation (8) Detign Total
••••••
•. 3..
t 13. Dea. min. (8) 13. Dea. miu.. (8)
j[
f- Design Toial Design Total
lee)
1(3)
DESIGN 2
1. 'WaTJ line (2)
DESIGN 5
l. Aaymmelry (3)
DESIGN 8
DESIGN 2
l. Wavy line {2)
DF.SIGN 5
l. Asymme1ry (3)
DESIGN 8
l(l) 2.
3.
Duh or dots (3)
Shape cir. (3)
2..
3.
Doi, dash, cir. (3)
Du.bes f2l
2. Angles e:xt. (3)
3. Anglea min. (3)
2. J11h or dots (3)
3. Shape cir. (~)
2.
3.
Dot, dash. cir. (3)
Duhea (2)
2.
3.
An&}ea exL {3)
Angles miss. (3)
Ill 4. Cir. misa.,e.n. (3) 4. Circle, C8l 4. E:r.t. ecat. (3) 4. Cir. miu.., ext. (3) 4. Circle$ (8) 4. [xt. ecaL (3)
(1-, .. /... S. Or. touch. (5) S. E:x1. join. dot (2) S. Obi. line Oea.) S. Cir. touch. (S) 5. E11. join. dot (2) ..Z,.. 5. Ohl. line (lea.)
~ 6. De-r. al.ant (3) 6. Ext. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6.De,-.dant (3) . ..3.. 6. Th.I. rot.ation (3) 6. Tremor (4)
lsea.> 7. No. coL (2ea.) 7. No. dots (2) 7. Distortion (Bea.) 7. No. cot (2 ea.} 7. No. do11 (2) 7. Distonion (8 ea.)
l ,21 8. F""ig. on 2 linea (8} 8. Distortion (8) 8. Guide lines (2) 8. Fig. on 2 line-a (8) 8. Distor1ion (8) 8. Guide lines (2)
,,ti
i2) 9. Workover {2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Workover (2)
9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide liner, (2) 9. Guide lines (2)
(3ea.) •.••••
10. Work.oTer (2) 10. Worko•er (2) JO. Sec. attempt f3 ea.) .••..• 10. WorkOt'er (2) IO. "Workover (2) 10. Sec. attempt (3ea.) •.••.•
11. Ste. attempt (3 ea.) . . . . . . 11. Src. allempt (3 ea.) . . . • • • 11. Rotation (8) lL Sec. attempt (3 ea.)...... 11. S«:. allempt (3 CL) •••••• 11. Ro1a1ion (8)
Is> 12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Dea. mist. (8)
=pi
12. Rotation (8) 12. Ro1ation (8) 12. Des. mi.. (8)
f Totol .. / .••
13. Dea. miss. (8) 13. De. miu. (8) Design Tolal .• /J ..
3.:: ~~
'
(·
SIGN
~ A. (2)
DESIGN 3
Il<aign Total ___q__
DESIGN 6
ll<olih Total •. 4 ..
CONF/G. DESIGN
1. Plaee. Dea. A. (2)
13. Des.
DESIGN 3
(~otal
l. Asymmetry (3)
: 13. DN. : . ~
DESIGN 6
1. Asymmetry 13)
.• t,..
CONFIG. DESIGN
ne.ip Total
1. Place-. Dea. A. (2)

1. Aaymmetry (3) l A~mt-1.ry £3)
lea.)
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) ; Angle9 12) 2. 0,l'rlap C2 ea.) 2. Dot, duh. cir. (3) 2. Anglea (2) · i. Ovnlap (2 ~}
~ (3)
3. Compression (3) 3. PL crouin1 (2 ea.) • . . • . • 3. Compreuion (3)
3. Duhca (2) 3. Pr. crossing l2ea.) 3. Duhea C2l
~ (8)
4. Circles (8) 4. Crv. l'Xtra (8) 4. Lines dnWD (8) 4. Circles (8) 4. Cr,. extra (8) 4. Line• drawn (8)
S. No. dota (2) S. Db( line (lea.) S. Order (2) 5. No. doll (2) 5. Dbl. line Cl ea.) S. Order (2)
::*-: ~: ::1.~: : :
Bl 6. Touch-up (8)
6. Extra row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) 6. Extra row (8)
8) 7. Blu.nting (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rel 1W' (8) 7. Blunting (8) 7. Tremor 14)
.. %,..
8. Di&1onion (8)
9. Guide line11 (2)
8.
9.
Di!!lortion (8)
Guidi: lines 12)
Total
DESIGN TOTALS
..!I.. -8. Distortion (8)
9. Guide lines (2}
8,
9.
Distortion (8)
Guide linea (2)
Total
DESIGN TOTALS ··"··
10. Workover (2) 10. Workovl'r f2) 1. .. a .. s. .. Q .. 10. Worko,er (2) 10. Workover (2) l. . .3 .. 5. • z....
IL Sec. attempt (3 ea.) •...•• 11. Stt. allcmpl (3 ea.) •..••. 2. ..0 ... 6• •• 9. .. 11. Sec. auempl (3°'t,L) ..•... ll. Sec. ellempt (3 ea.) ••.•.. 2. . ,:I... 6. -~••·
12. Rotation (8) •• f ..
12. Rolation (8) 3... , ... 7. . .2. .. 12. Rotation (8) 12.. Rotalion (8) 3 .•. o... 1.:t'L
13. Dea. mW. (8) • . . . • . 13. De~- miss. {8) ..•.•• ,. .!/-. .. s..O. .. . 13. Dea. mill. (8) 13. Des. miu.. (8) ·_·_;_, ·.·. , . .. 0... s. .. 9.. .
Dealgri Toial. .•f... Design Total .•. fl..
Config. .0.. . Design Total .. 0. .. Des.ign Tolal ':t Cor,fi1- .• 0.. .
Total Raw Score . I~.. Siandard Score ,4/,,.. Total Raw Sc.ore J'S... S1aadud Score .5.i.
(213]
r
I
l SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEST SCORE SHEET-BENDER•GESTALT TEST
I Name ..... P.~, ..~9 ....................... Age .39... Sex .. .M .. Name .. t/.Q, .. :?+ .......................... Age ..~Q .. Sex .• f .. . Nam
Education . _Ij_.,_~ , ..• I.Q....... Diagnosis ... ~9f.nl~J............. . Education l:f.•.. $ .•.... 1.Q....... Diagnosis .. ).IP.".l!IN-..•...•.•..•.• Edu,
DESIGN l DESIGN 4 DESIGN 7 DESIGN 1 DESIGN 4 DESIGN 7 DESI·

I. Wa't'J line (2) I. .-'sym. Crv. (3) 1. Enda no. join. (8) J. WayY line (2) I. A.sym. Crv. (3) I. Enda no. join. (8) 1.W
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Brrak av. (4) 2. An1det eJ:I. 13) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Bruk en. 14) ••. . . • 2. Ansle:t. ert. (3) 2. D,
3. Debes (2) 3. Cn. nol center. U) 3. ,,ngln mi.e. (3) 3. Dehrt 12) 3. Cn. not center. (I) ••-/.. - 3. 4n,:lee mia. (3) 3. D1
4. Circlt:1 (8) 4. Curia (4) 4. Ext. tcaL (3) 4. Circles {8) 4. C11d1 C4) 4. F.:rL 1e11t. (3) 4. Ci
5. No. dol1 (2) each. 5. Not joined (8) 5. Dbl. line (le.a.) 5. No. dots (2) each 5. Not joined (8)
..... . 5. Dbl. line Cl ea.) 5. N,
ti. Dbl row {8) 6. Crv. rotation (3) 6. Tremor C4) 6. Dbl row (8) 6. Crv. rol1tion {3) 6. Trmior (4) 6. DI
7. Worko-m- (2) 7. Touch-up 18) 7. Di11or1ion (8 ea.) 7. Workovrr (2) 7. Touch•up (8) 7. Diatortion (8 ea.) ,. w
8. Sec. 1t1em.pt (3ea.) •••••• 8. Tnmor (4) 8. Guidelines 12) 8. Sec.altrmpt (3ea.} .•••.. 8. Trf'mqr (4) 8. ~uidr line. 12) 8. s.
9. Rota1ion (8) 9. Dhtortion (8) 9. See. allernpt (3 ea.) , •••• , 9. Rotation (8) 9. Distortion (8) 9. Sec. attempt: (3 ea.) •••••• 9. R,
10. Dea. mW. (8) JO. Guide Jinn (2) JO. Rotation (8) 10. Dea. mW. (8) JO. Gnidr linra (2) lQ Rotation (8} !O.D,
Deaip Total •.. <-!. 11. Sec. atlempt (3ea.) . . • • • • ll. Dea. rnia. (8) •.•••• Dr.ip Total •• Q .. ll. Sec. allempt (3 ca.) ...... ]l. Dea. mlM. (I)
12. Ro11tion (8) Det.ip TGtal • J/:., 12. Rotation (8) Deai111 Total •• 9. ..
13. Dea. miu. (8) 13. Dee. miu. (8)
Detisn Total .. fl .. De,ign Total •• / •••
DESlGN % DESIGN 5 DESIGN a DESIGN Z DP.SIGNS DESIGN I DKS!•
1. W191llne (2) .. ~.. I. Aaymmetry (3) l. Enda no, join. (8) l. W■YJline (2) L Aaymmcll'J (3) I. End, no. joi.n. (8} !.W
2. Dub or dot. (3) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) ..a ..
2. Anglea UL (3} 2. Duh or dole (3) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Analet rxL (3} 2.1>
3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Da~i,~ (2) 3. ,\nglea miN. (!) 3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Du.hes (2) 3. Anglea mill. (3) ~ SI
~ Cl
4. Cir. miaa., u:L (3)
S. Cir. touch. (5)
6. De... alant (3)
4. Circle& (8)
S. E:1L join. dol {2)
6, Ext. rota1ion (3)
4. Ext. scat. (3)
..z. ..
5. Dhl. line Or.a.}
6. Tremor (4)
:x:
.. !I-..
4._ Cir. miu., 6:L (3)
5. Cir. touch. (5)
6. DeY. alant (3)
4. Circlea (8)
5. E:rl. join. dot (2) •• 2,..
6. U.1. rotation (3) 6.
4-.
5.
EJ.1. 1C1L (!}
Dhl. line (l ea.)
Tremor (4)
5. Ci
6.llo
7. No. col (2 ea.) 7. No. do111 (2) 7. Dislortion (Bea.) 7. No. col. (2 ea.} 7. No. dota (2) 7. Dla.lortion (Bra.) 7.'N,
8. Fig. o~ 2 line1 (8) a Di111ortion (8) 8. Guide lines (2) 8. Fig. OD 2 linet (8) 8. Distortion (8) 8. Cuidf! lines (2) 8.F;
9. Guide linet (2) 9. Guide line& (2) 9. Worlr.over (2) 9. Guide line1 (2) 9. Guide Tines 12) 9. Workovrr (2} 9. G1
10. Workove:r (2) lj'.l. Workover (2) JO. Sec. ■ .tempt (3 ea.) •••.•. 10. Workover (2) 10. Workover (2) JO. Sf!C. aUrmpl (! ea.) •••••• 10. W
11. Sec. atcempl (3u.). ••••• II. Stt. 111empl (3eL) ••..•• 11. Ro111ion (8) ll. Sec. attempt (3 eL)...... 11 . .&,c. allempt (3 ea.) •• ••• • ]1. Ro11tion (8) 11.St
12. Ro1ation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Des. miu. (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Ro11tion (8) 12. Dea. miaa. (8) 12.R,
13. Dee. miss. (8) 13. D,:s. mW. (8) Detign Tola] ::~:: 13. Dea. miaa. (8) 13. Des. mi5J. (8) De.ip TotaJ .• .fl.. 13.1).
Design Tota.I •• ~. •. Desi~ TolaJ : :s.: : Deaign Total .. 0 .. Deaign Total ..%,..
DESIGN J DESIGN 6 CONFJG. DESIGN DESIGN 3 DESlGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESI
l. Aaynimrlry (3) l. Asymmelry (3) J. Place. De.. A. (2) l. A17"Rlmelry (3) ..3 .. I. A1ymme1t·r (3) I. Place. Dea. A. 12) I.A
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Anglea 12) 2. 0vf'rlap (2e.a.) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) ..3 .. 2. Angles 12) 2. Ow-rlap (2ea.} 2.D
3. Du.bes (2) 3. Pt. croS!ling (2rL) ..••.• 3. Compression (3) 3. Duhe. (2) 3. P1. crossing (2ea.) 3·. ComprCS11ion (3) 3. D
4. Circles (8) 4. Crv. exlra (8) 4. Linr1 drawn (8) 4. Circles (8) 4. Crv. eJ.lra (8) 4. Linea drawn (8) ~c
S. No. dot■ 12) 5. Dbl. line OeL) 5. Order (2) 5. No. dot■ (2) .. z.. 5. Dbl. line (1 ea.) 5. Order (2) S. N
6. i;s.tr• row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) 6. Exira row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) 6. E:
7. Blunting (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rel. siu (8) 7. Blunting (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rel aizr (8) 7. Bl
8. Diatonion (8)
9. Caidr Jinra (2)
8.
9.
Distortion (8)
Guide lines (2)
Toto!
DESIGN TOTALS ··"·· 8.
9.
Distortion (8)
Guide linee (2)
8. Distorlion (8)
9. Guide lines (2)
To..i
DESIGN TOTALS
...C!. 8.D
9. G
10. Workover (2) 10. Workover (2) 1. •• 0 .. s. . s:.. ]O. Work.over (2) IO. Workovrr (2) ]. ··"·· s. . ..z. .. IO.W
11. Sec. allempl (3u.) .••.•• 11. Sec. altrmpt (3eL) •.••.• 2. .. ~•• 6. . ff: .. 11. Sec. allempt (3ea.) ..•... 11. Sec. altcmpl (3rL) .••... 2. •..0 .. 6.• .Q .• IL S.
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 3. . ~-.. 7•• H-..• 12. Rotation (8} 12. Ro111ion (8) 3. ••.9.. ,. ..t>. .. !2. R,
13. Dr11. n~~,- (TB~·-• ·.·.3.·. . . 13. Dr1. miu. (8) •••••• 4••.Q.:.. a.. IP_ •• 13. Dea. miss. (8) . • • •.• • 13. Dea. misL (8) . ..... , . .. 1 .. .. ..0. .. 13. D
u.:. _ - Duign Tola] •• ~.. Config. • •Q... Deaip Total •. f.. Deaign Total ...0.. Con61. ..Q ..
To..i Row 5=e Z!f.. Swdud 5=e S' . Total Raw Score . fl ... S<andud 5=e . ~..

Name .•..•. NC?, .. ~? ...................... Age ..63.. Sex .Iii. .. . Name ... .l! P., . ~3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age ..~7. . Sex . ¥....
Education \:i.Z:~~F. I.Q... l-.RQ Diagnosis .. J:l~,:,pi,;i. ............. . Education 9.1'.l'Plff!ll.;t'. I.Q • .79 ... Diagnosis .•...•.....•.••.•..• • • • •
DESIGN l DESIGN 4 DESIGN 1 DESIGN l DESIGN 4 DESIGN 1

1. Wavy line (2) ! .. A,ym. Cn,. 13) •. 3.. l. End, no. join. (8) l. WiYJ line (2) I. A1ym. Cn. (3) •• ~ •• I. End1 no. join. (8)
2. Dot, duh, dr. (3) 2. Break en. f4) 2. .Angles cJ.L (3) 2. D01, duh. cir. (3) .• 3 .. 2. Brralr. av. (4) 2. Andes ezt. m
3. Daahrt (2) ::z..:: 3. Cn. not center. (l) •.•••• 3. A nglet mile. (3) 3. Duhre (2) 3. Cn. not center. (l} .. J••• 3. Anslet mia. (3}
-4. Circlet (8)
5. N'o. dot, (2) each
4. Curl• f4)
5. Not joinrd (8)
6. Crv. rotation (3)
4. F..n_ aeaL (3)
5. Dhl. line OrL)
6. Tremor (4)
:::r 4-.
S.
15.
Circlea (8)
No. dots {2) each
Ohl. row (8)
4.
5.
6.
Curl, l4)
Not joined (8)
Crv. rotalion (3}
::,:: 4. EJ.'I. ICII. (!)
5. Dbl line (l ea.)
.'.3 ..
6. Tmnor (:t)
:::r:
...+..
15. Dhl row (8)
7. Dl,tortlon f8 ea.) ···"'·
7. Work.over (2)
8. See. attempt (3 e■.)
9. Rotation (8)
7. Touch-up (8)
•••••• 8. Tn-mor 14)
9. Di11ortlon (8)
8. Gulde linea (2)
9. Sec. 1Urmpt (3 ea.) , • , •••
7.
8.
9.
Worko'ffl' (2}
Su. attempt {3ea.) ....•• 8.
Rotation (8)
7.
9.
Touch-up (8}
Trrmor 14)
Di1tortion (8)
::if::7. Distortion (Sea.)
...f.. !.~~:,!:etpl':!ea.) ::1:

10. Det. mlae. (8) JO. Guide lines (2} JO. Rotation (8} IO. Dts. mill. 18) JO. Gulde llnet (2) 10. Rotation (8) ••• f. •
DealpTotal 11. Sec. attempt (3e.a.) •••.•• 11. Dea. mtu. (8) •••••• Dr1l111 Total ll. Sec. attempt (ha.) •...•. U. Dea. ml& (8) ••
12. Rotallon (8) D,,;ID Total .. S.. 12. Ro111ion (8) .•. f .. DK(p, Total ::if..
13. Dea. miN. (8)
·ne.1111 Total ia. ne.. o:i':o <~otaJ :~r.:
DESIGN J DESIGN 5 DESIGN I DESIGN Z DESIGN 5 DESIGN I
.J... .. .i.. .~ ..
J. WaYJ' Une (2) 1. A1ymmetry (3) 1. Enda no. join. (8} l. WaYJllne (2) 1. Aaymmetry (S)
~
1. End1 no. join. (8}
.. .. :::r
2. D11h or do11 (3)
3. Shipe cir. (3)
2. Dot, daah, cir. (3)
3. DIMes (2)
2. An,lra ext. (3)
3. Anglea IIUIL (3) ::i: 2. Duh or dois (3)
3. Shipe clr. (3)
2. Oat, duh, cir. (3)
.. 3 ..
3. Duhea (2)
2. An,Iea HL (!}
3. Anglea DUN. (!)
::-;i::
4. Cir. ml11., ezL (3)
s. Cir. touch. (5)
6. On. slant (3)
4. Circles (8)
S. Ext. join. dot (2)
6. Ext. rotalion (3)
4. EJ.'I. ICIIL (3)
5. Dhl line (le.a.)
6. Tremor (4)
:::c
.. !I-..
4. Cir. miaa., crt. (3)
S. Cir. touch. (S)
6. DeY. slant (3)
4. Circles (8)
S. F.xl. join. dot (2)
6. Exl. rotation (3)
4-.Ezt. 1Ut. (S)
5. Dbl. line (lea.)
6. Tremor (4) .. )I..
...s..
7. No. col. (2ea.) 7. No. dot, (2) 7. Distortion (8 ea.) 7. No. coL· (2 ca.) 7. No. dot, (2) 7. Di11ort.ion (8 ea.)
8. FJ1, on 2 linea (8) 8. Di1tortion (8) 8. Guide linea (2) 8. Fig. on 2 1inre (8) 8. Di1tortion (8) 8. Guide lillea (2}
9. Guide linea (2) 9. Guide line1 (2) 9. Workover (2} 9. Guido Iinea '2) 9. Guide linea (2} 9. Workove:r (2)
10. Work.over (2) JO. Workovcr (2) 10. Sr.c. altempt (3u.) ••••. , JO. Workonr (2) •••••• 10. Workove:r (2) JO. St-e. allcmpl (3ea.) •···•·
IL Sec. attempt (3e.a.) •••••• 11. Src. allempt (3ea.) ..•••• ll. Rotation (8) U. Sec. aUempt (3ea.)..3 •• n. Stt. 1t1empt (3 ea.) • • • • • • 11. Rota1ion (8)
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Dea. mW: (8} 12. Rotation <8> •• I ..
12. Rotation (8) • • . • . • 12. Dea. mill. (8}
Draip.
13. Dea. miaa. (8)
Draip:i Total
13. Des. mi11. (8)
•• %.. Design Total
Draign Total
•• Z,. 13.Dri.~(~otal
13. Dea. miu. (8)
:;-1,:: Deaip Total ::i: Total
DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIGN J DESIGN 6 CONF/G. DESIGN

L Asymmetry (3) ] . .Ai;ymmetl'J 13) I. Place. Dea. A. (2) 1. Asymmetry (3) .. D.. l. A■ymmetry C3) 1. Place. Dea. A. (2)
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) •• ~-. 2. Anglea (2) 2. 0vf'rlap (2ea.) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3} .. 3 .. 2. Anglea (2) 2. O,."rl1p (2ea.)
3. Duhe. (2) 3. PL crouing (2 ca.) 3. Compre11ion (3) 3. Duhea (2) 3. Pt. Cl'OMinl (2eL) 3. Co~preuion (3)
4. Circles (8}
5. No. dot• (2)
4.
5.
Cn,. r:nra (8)
Db1. line (I ea.)
::".i:: :: ~:: dt;)wa (8)
4. Circlea (8)
5. No. dot, (2} .. 2.. :: :: ;~~,!~) ::i:
4. Lines drawn (8)
5. Order f2)
6. Extra l'01I' (8)
7. B)lllltinl (8)
8. Oiatortion (8)
6.
7.
8.
Touch-up (8)
Tremor- (4)
Distortion (8)
::~r: ~: ::i.°:: :::Tola! ..0. ..
6. Extra row (8)
7- BIU11tina; (8}
.. f ..
6. Touch-np (8)
7. Tremor (4)
8. Distortion (8)
::ij:: 6. No order (8)
7. RrL aize (8)
Total
8. Diatortion (8)
9. Guidelines (2) 9. Guide ]inet (2) DESIGN TOTALS 9. Cuidr lines (2) 9. Guidr lines f2) . • • • • • DESIGN TOTALS
IO. 'Vorkover (2i 10. Wbrkovrr (2) I. .. 2... s. . z. .. 10. Workover (2) ..l.. IO, Workover (2) •• N.. 1.. ,3.... 5.• I..••
ll. Sec. aUempt (3ea.) •····· I]. Sf.c. al!empt (3ea.) .•.••• 2. . .1, .. , .. . $. .. 11. Sec. atlernpt (3 ea.) ...•.• 11. Sec. altempt (3rL) .• !f..2. Jft .. 6. .J..l..
12. Rotation (8) .. I ..
12. Rotation (8} 3.• /1. .. 1.• $ .. . 12. Rotation (8) .. R..
12. Ro1a1ion (8) ••...• 3. :II. .. 1. Jf, ..
13. De1. miss. (8) 13. Du. misL (8) ...... ,. ..7... a .f.. .
13. D.._i::. (i«.J :i/i: 13. D= mik (8) ...... ,. as:.. a ./+.. ·
Dwgn To..i •• II .. Design To1 ■1 ..5... Coafi~ . 0 . .. De1ign Total . ~/.. Config. .-'). • •
Tolal R1w Score .lJ:2.. Standard Score ..•••• Tora! Raw"'°" .!f3. Standard Score ..•••.
(214]
SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEST
f-. SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GEsT,LT TEsT
, .. f ... Name ~-~-•- ~-~-- .......................... Age .9.ll.. Sex . )4... Name ... JIR, -~ ........................ Age .. 9!>.. Sex .)\ .. .
Education . ~---~ .•.. .. 1.Q. ?-_l.4 .. Diagnosis ...1-i \>l'.11)1'/-;L............. . Education ..~ .•.&, ... 1.Q....... Diagnosis .•.... ~.C?~~~--·······.
DESIGN I DESIGN 4 DESIGN 7 DESIGN l DESIGN 4 DESIGN 7
1. WaYJ line (2) 1. Asym. Crv. (3) l. End• no. join. (8) 1. Wavy line (2) 1. A1ym. Cn. (3) . ~-.. 1. End, no. join. (8)
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) .,3 .. 2. Break en. (4) 2. Anir:1~ nL (3} 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) . J... 2. Break en. 14) 2. Ang]ea en (3)
3. Duhea (2) 3. C". not cenla. (]) ...... 3. Anglea misa. (3) ~ Duhee (2) 3. Cn. not center. (l) ••••.. 3. AniJ.es miaa. (3)
}l:..
f. Circlea (8)
5. No. dou (2) each
4. Curl, C4)
5. N_ol joined (8)
4. F.J.t. acat. f3)
S. Dbl. line (lea.) :::i
... ':I-.
4. Circlea 18)
5. No. dota (2) each
4. Curls (4)
5. Not joined (B)
• 4. £:1.1. scaL (3)
5. Dbl. line (leL)
iii;,
6. DbL row (8)
7. Worltoftl' (2) ::,::
8. Sec. atlempt (3 ea.) ••••••
6. Cn. rotation (3)
7. Touch-up (8)
8. TR"mor (4) .. H:.
6. Tremor (4)
7. Dhtortion (8 ea.)
8. G11ide lines (2)
6. DbL row (8)
7. Workover (2)
6. Crv. rotation (3)
7. Touch-up (B)
6. Tremor 14)
7. Diator1ion (8eL)
8. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • • • . • • 8. Tremor (4) 8. Guide lines (2)
~, ..... . 9. Rolatioa (8) 9. ·oi,tortion (8) 9. Sec. allempt (3 ea.) ••••.. 9. Rotation (8) 9. Distortion (8) 9. See. anernpt (3 ea.) ••••••
lD.. Dea. miu. (8)
Daip Total :~s.:: JO. Guide tines (2)
ll. Sec.attempt (3e.a.)
12. Rotation (8)
......
10. Rotation (8)
11. Des. miu. (8)
Detip Total :::,: l0. D- D':n ~!tal ::,:: ~~: :d:t::,:l
12. Rotation (8)
~~CL) •••··· ~~: ~:l::L(~~) •••·IP,,.••
Deaign Total •••
13. Dee. miu. (8) 13. Des. mlu. (8)
DeaignTotal ::i+;: Design Total ::;:::
D'IISIGN J DESIGNS DESIGN 8 DESIGN J DF.SlCN 5 DESIGN a
.. i...
l. Wa..,.,Une (2)
2. [)pb or dota (3)
3.. Shape cir. (3)
.,
__ __
l. A1ymmetrr (3)
2. Dot, dub, cir. (3)
3. Dubea (2)
::i: l. End, no. join. (8)
2. Angles e:1:1. (3)
3•..\ng]es miu. 13)
:::r ·1. Wa..,., line (2)
2. Duh or dots (3)
I. A1ymmetry (3)
2. Dot, dash, cir. (3}
l. End, t10. join. (8)
2. Ang]ea ei:L (3)
3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Dashes (2) 3. Anglet mi11. (S)
-lo C"u. mlu., e:d. (3)
5. Cir. touch. (5)
6. DeT. alant (3)
-lo Circlet (8)
5. E:rt. Join. dot. 12)
6. Est. rotalion 13)
:::t: 5.
6.
4. [,.1. eca.L (3)
Dhl. line (lea.)
Trei:nar (4) :::4:
4. Cir. mlae.. e:s.L (3)
5. Cir. toacb. (S)
6. De,-. ,lant (3)
4. Circles (8)
S. E:s.t. join. dot 12) .. a..
4. E:11:L teal. (3)
5. Ohl. line (leL)
6. E'll. ro1a1ion 13) 6. Tremor (4)
1, · No. col (2 ea.} 7. No. dots (2) 7. Dialortion (Bea..) 7. No. coL (2e.a.) 7. No. dota (2) 7. Distortion (8eL}
& F"i.g.on21inu 18) 8. Distortion {8) B. Guidfl lines 12) 8. Fig. OD 2 Jines (8) 8. Dislortion (8) 8. Cuidtt lines (2)
9. Guide linea (2) 9. Workover (2)
9. Gulde lipes {2)
10. Workottl' (2) 10. Workova (2) 10. Src. attempt (3ea.) ......
9. Guide !iuea (2)
10. Worko'l'a (2) :::;;:
9. Guide lines (2)
10. Workover (2)
9.
10.
Workover (2)
Sec. attempt (3ea.) , .••••
lL Sec. attempt (3ea.) .•••.• ll. Sec. anempt (3ea.) , ••.•• 11. Rota1ion (8) 11.Sec. attempt (3ea.) •••..• 11. Sec. attempt (3ea.) ...... U. Rotalion (8)
Des. miu. 18)
17.. Rolltion (8)
13. Dea. miu. (8)
:::r.:
12. Rotation (8)
13. Dea. miaa. (8)
::s.:
12.
Deeign Total :::1: 12. Rotation (B)
13. Dea. mi.N. (8)
12. Rotation (8) 12. Dea. mi.a. (8)
::ii:::
De11ign Total Duign Total Deai.sn Total
13. Des. mm. (8)
:::s.: Dc1ign Total ::'i.: Daign Total
DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFlG. DESIGN DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN

l. Asymmetry (3) ...3.. l. Place. Dee. A. (2)
1. A1ymmetry (3)
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3)
3. Duhea (2)
:::~:: 2. Angles (2)
3. Pt. CTOsaing (2 eL)
2. Ovrrlap (2eL)
3. Comprceeion (3)
L
2.
Al)"JllmeU-, (3)
Dot, duh, cir. (3) ::3:: 1. Asymmell"J (3)
2. Anglea (2)
2. Overlap (2ea.)
3. Duhea (2) 3. Pt. cro,aing: (2ea.) 3. Compreuion (3)
4. Circles (8)
5. No. dota (2)
4. Crv. extra (8)
5. Dbl line (lea.)
4. Lines drawn (~)
5. Order {2) :::z: 4.
5.
Circles (8)
No. doll (2)
4.
S.
C". ex1ra (B)
Dbl. line (lea.)
4.
S.
Lines dr~wn (8)
Order 12) :::i:
6. Extra row (8) 6. Touch-up (8)
:::{ 6. No order (8) 6. Ei:tra row (8) 6. Touch-up (8)
:)f:
6. No order (8)
7.
8.
BIUDting: (8)
Dhtortlon 18)
7. Tremor (4)
B. Distor1ion (8)
7. Rel. size 18)
Total
DESIGN TOT A.LS
:::i. 7. Blunting: (8)
a Dlatortion (8)
7.
8.
Tremor (4)
Dislor1ion (8)
7.
Total
Rel. ,ize 18)
::1.:
9. Guide lines (2)
9.
10.
Guide linea (2)
WorkoYel' (2) ::J: 10. Workover (2)
......
1 ..
;L
,._ __ ___
5. .. S:..
9.
to.
Gn~e linea (2)
Workover (2)
9.
10.
Guide lines (2)
Workover (2)
DESICN TOTALS
1---~-- 5. . .5...
Sec. allempt (3 ea.) •••... 11. Sec. anempl (3 eL) •- --1-- .5... •- -*---
,.
lL
)2. Ro1a1ion (8) 12. Rotation (8) 3. -5--- 7. f- 11.
12.
Sec. attempt (3ea.) .••..• lJ. Sec. anempt (3e.a.) ...••• 2.
Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 3 . . ~ ..
7. --"--
!+ ..
F
13. Dea. miM. (8)
Deaip. Total ::r
13. Des. misa. (B)
Design Total ::::r. •- ·*-··
Config.
a .....
.1.. ..
13.. Dea. miu. (B)
Deaign Total :::~: 13. Des. mW: (8)
Onign Total ::ii::
4. ..
Conlig.
8. •1 ..
..2...
r
i, To!al Raw Score .. 'IL,. Standard Score .SQ. Total Raw Score ~ , • Stand"'1 Scou .12.
~
~ -~----
t: .......
N.B.: The score sheets that follow are not to be consulted by the
beginning scorer until he has completed his own scoring of records
26,to 45 .
... c>..
Name . -~=-~:. -~~ .......................... Age . /.i..L Sex .. f .. . Name ... J/?.• .. ?7......................... Age ?_q··· Sex .)i.. . Name
Education . A , $ .•. . . . l.Q. • • . . . . Diagnosis .. X P.i::r!'-!'J. .•............ Education {~.•-~ . 0

••••• I.Q... 4?4 Diagnosis . -~~:. -~~?; ~. P.€ffY.Qt~.~9n Educat
DESIGN 1 DESIGN 4 DESIGN 7 DESIGN I DESIGN< DESIGN 1 DESIGn

1. WaTJ line (2) ••Z.. l. A..ym.. Cn. (3) I. Enda no. join. (8) I.Way-:
2. Dot, duh. cir. f3) •• S.. 2. Break C?Y, (4) 2. Anglea e:rt. (3)
I. Wavy Wle (2)
i Dot, dash, eir. (3)
I. AIYffl. Crv.
2. Break en. (4)
(3)
.••••• ~ !:::o~~~i~,<8) ::i: 2. Doi,
3. D...... (2) 3. Cn. not center. (1) • • • • • . 3, Angle. ml-.. (3) 3. Duhea (2) 3. Crv. not center. (1) ••• J.. 3. Angle1 miM. (3)
l. Dub
4. Circl
•. c,,.,i., (8) 4. Curls (~) 4. Ext. !Cat. (3) 4. Cirelee (8) 4. Curls £4) 4. Ezt. &eat. (3)
5. No. doll (2) each 5. Not joined (8) 5. Dbl. Jine (lea.) 5. No.
5. No. dots (2) each 5. Not joined (8) 5. Dbl line (I CL) .• .l..
6. Dbl row (8) 6. Cn. rotation {3) 6. Tremor (4) 6. Dbl row (8) 6. DbL
6. Crv. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4)
7. WorkaYU (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. DisloMion {8 eL) 7. WorkOVt'!' (2) 7. Touch-np (8) 7.Wor
7. Distortion (8eL)
8. Sec. attempt (3ea..) , ... .. 8. TTI"mor (4) 8. Guide lines (2) 8. Sec. attempt (3 eL) ..... . 8. Tn,mor _(4) 8. Guide lines (2)
a.Sec.
9. Rotation (8) 9. Dislonion (8) 9. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) .• , , •• 9. Rotation (8) 9. Roll
9. Di!tortion (8) 9. Sec. auempl (3 ea.) •.• , , •
::o:: -:~: ~d:,:::i ~!\L) ...... ~~: =I::..(~~)

10 Dea. miu. (8) JO. Guide lines (2) 10. Rotation (8) 10. Dea. miaa. (8) 10. Dea.
• Design Total ::~:: ll. Sec. attempt f3eL) .••••• ll. Des. raiu. (8) DC!!is:n Total
12. Rotation (8) Deaign Total .••0. , 12. Rotation (8) DW111 To1al ••'f. ..
13. Des. miu. CB) 13. Des. miu. (8)
DESIGN 5
Dc.ign Total
DESIGN 8
DC!lip Total :::s.: DESIGi
DESIGN J DESIGN I DF,SIGN S DESIGN 8
J. Wa,.,line (2) 1.
Asymmetl"J (3) l. Ends no. join. (8) ]. Wavy line (2) I. A&ymmetry (3) 1. Wa·
1. Eada no. join. (8)
2. Dub or doll (3) 2.
Dot. duh, cir. (3) 2. Angles ezL (3) 2. Dnb or dots (3) 2. Du
2. Doi, dash, cir. (3) 2. Anglea CXL (3)
S. Shape cir. (3) 3.
DHhes (2) 3. Anglea mW. (3) 3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Dashes (2) 3. Angles mi11, {3) 3. Sha
4,, Cir. mlu., ut. (3) 4.
Circles (8) 4. Ezt. scat. (3) 4. Cir. min., m. (3)
4. Cir.
4. Circlt11 (8) 4. EzL IICI.L (3)
5. Cir. touch. (5) S.
EzL join. dol (2) S. Dbl. line OeL) 5. Cir. louch. (5) S. Est. join. dot (2) 5. Cir.
5. Dbl. line (lea.)
6.Dn.alant (3) 6.
Ext. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6. DeT. !lant (3) 6, DC\'
6. EzL rotalion (3) 6. Tremor (4)
7. No. col (2 ea.) 7.
No. dol9'(2} 7. Di!lonion (8 ea.) 7. No. col (2ea.) No. dot11 (2) 7. No.
7. 7. Dis1onion (8 eL)
8. Fig. on 2 linee (8) 8.
Dls1onion (8) 8. Guide lines (2) 8. Fig
8. Fig. on 2 lines (8) 8. Diatonion (8) 8. Guide li11t11 (2)
9. Guide lines (2) Guide9.lines (2) 9. Worko,er (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Workover (2) 9. Gui
10. Workour (2) 10.
Workover (2) 10. Sc-c. al tempt (3 ea.) •••••• 10. Vlo
IL Sec. attempt (3 ea.) •••• , •
12. Rotation (8)_
11.
Sec. attempt (3
12. Rotation (8)
u.) ...... ll.
12.
Rolation (8)
Dea. miu. (8)
10. Worko..-er (2) JO.
IL Sec. attempt (3ea.} ...•.• 11.
Workove;r (2) 10.
Sec. allempl (3eL) ..•.•. 11.
Sc-e. attempt (3 ea.) ••••.•
Rolalion (8) 11. Sec
12. Roi
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rolation (8) 12. Dea. miu. (8)
13.Dc..~(~olll :::o: 13.DC\.D:;~;lal :::Q: Design Total 13. Des. Dmea%. (*olal :::s: 13. Dea. D:~ ~;,al :::o:: Design Total
13. Dei
DESIGN l DESIGN 6 cormG. DESIGN DESIGN.! DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIG

1. Asymmetry (3) I. Asymmetry (3) I. Place. Dea. A. (2) 1. Asymmetry (3) l, Asymmetry (3) I. Place. Dea. A. (2) I.As:
2.
3.
'-
Dot, dub, cir. (3)
Duhea (2)
Circlea (8)
2..
3.
4.
Angle1 (2)
Pt. crouing (2ea.)
Crv. e1.tra (8)
2.
3.
4.
Overlap (2ea.)
Compresaion (3)
Lines drawn (8)
2. Dot, dub, cir~ (3)
3. Dubea (2)
4.Circlea (8)
i Anglea (2)
3. Pt. crossing (2ea.}
4. Crv. n1r1 (8)
2.
3.
4.
Ovt.rl1p (2ea.)
Compresaion (3)
Linea drawn (8)
,
.. .2..
.. ..
2. Do
3. Da
4. CiJ
5. No. dota (2) S. Dbl. line (lea.) 5. Order £2) 5. No. dota (2) S. Order (2) S. No
5. Dbi. line (lea.)
6. E,
6.
7.
8.
Eztra row (8)
Blunting (8)
Diatanion (8)
6.
7.
B.
Touch-up (8)
Tremor (4)
Di!tonion (8)
"'· No order (8)
7. Rel. !iu. (8)
Total ... 0.
!: :::m:•c!~)
8. Distortion (8)
~:
8. Distortion (8)
~;::~~u~4~8) ::
Total
~f ~: ::,.o:~: ::: 3.:
7.
8. Di,
BJ,
9. Gnide Una (2) 9. Guide lines (2) DESIGN TOT A.LS 9. Gt

9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide lines (2) DESIGN TOT A.LS
10. Worko..-er (2) 10. Workover (2) I •. S.... S••. tl .. I. . . R. . 5•• Q ...
10. W,
ll. Sec. auempt (3 u.) ...... II. Sec. anempt (3 u.) ...... 2. . 0... 6• •• Q ..
10. WorkoTer (2) 10. Work.over (2)
11. Sec. aucmpt (3ea.) ...... ll. Sec. allempt (3eL) ...... 2. •• 6••• f ... 'f: .. 11. Se
12. Rotati011. (8)
13. Dea. miaL (8)
12. Rolation (8)
• • • • . • 13. Des. mias. (8)
3. ..0
...... , . .0 ...
.. 7. ··+··
8. ..... .
12. Rotation (8)
13. Dea. mW. (8)
12. Rota lion (8)
• • • • • • 13. DC!. mW. (8)
•••. :·
.... Y"
0 0
·.~.· •• •
• •• 8.7. •. !f.,i. ••••
~;
12."'
13. D1
Deaign Total ••• 0. Deeip Total ••• ~. Config. .. !J .. Design Total •• ~-. Deaign Total •..'/:. Config. . S...
Total Raw Score • , , .• S1andard Score .'f-.9.. Tolal Raw .Score -~-~-. Standard Score Jtlit ..
Name .•... !I.C! •. -~ij. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age .. 46. . Sex .. J4 .. Name ....?!?.•.. ~?. ........................ Age . )9.. Sex .~...• Nam
Education ..J! ~:S ~ ... 1.Q....... Diagnosis .. +Jl.lr,>;l..,. l'.~YPAOa.is. Education ~.<?~~.~ii;!". I.Q....... Diagnosis •.. !I.C?:r!D.I\+ ............ . Educ
DESIGN 4 DESIGN 1 DESIGN DESI

DESIGN I
I. Wavy line (2)
2. Dot, dub, eir. (3) ::a:: I. A,ym. Cn. (3)
2. Break erv. (4)
••,3 ..
2.
I. Enda no.
Anglu czt. (3)
join.
(8)
. ..3 ..
DESIGN 1
1.
2.
WaYJ line (2)
Oo1. da1h, cir. (3)
l.
2.
DESIGN 4
A,ym. Crv. (3)
Break UI'. (4)
J. Enda no. join. (8)
2. Angles e:r.L (3)
7
I.II
2. D
3. Duhea (2) 3. Cn. not center. (I) •• / ... 3. Angle11 miss. (3) 3. Daehea (2) 3. Crv. nol cenler, CI) ••.•.. 3..A.nglCII i:niu. (3) 3. D
4. Circles (8) 4. Curb C4} •• 4.. 4. Eil. seal. (3) 4. Circlee (8) 4. Curb (4) 4. En. IICl.t, (3) ~c
S. No. dol9 (2\ each
6. DbL row (8)
7. WorkOTet (2) ::::a.:
5.
6.
7.
Not joined (8)
UT. rolalion (3)
Touch-np (8)
S.
6.
7.
Dbl. line (I ea.}
Tremor (4)
Distortion <Sea.)
.l. S.
6.
7.
No. dole (2) each
DbL row {8)
WorkoTer (2)
S.
6.
7.
Nol joined (8)
Crv. rola!ion (3}
Touch-up (8)
S. Dbl. line {l eL)
6. Tttmor (4)
7. Di1tonion (8 eL)
5. N
6. D
7. ~
8. See. attempt (3
9. Rotation (8)
u.) ..... . 8. Trnnor (4)
9. Distonion (8)
8.
9.
Guide linca (2)
Sec. attempt (3 ea.) , ..•.•
8. Sec. allempl (3ea..) ....•. 8.
9. Rotation (8)
Trrmor (4) 8. Guide lines (2)
9. Sec. aneinpt (3ea.) ..•••.
.. s
9. B
9. Distonion (8)
10. Dea. miu. (8) • • • • • • 10. Guide linea (2) 10. Ro111ion (8) 10. Dea. mW. (8) 10. Guide Jines (2) 10. Rotation (8) 10. D
Design Total •• S.. 11. Sec. attempt (3 u.) ..... . 11. Dea. mil9. (8)
De!iign Total
••••••
.JCJ..
Design To1al . .. R. II. Sec. au empt (3 ea.) .. . • • • I I. Des.. miu. (8)
Design Total •••q,.
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotalion (8)
13. Des. miu. (8} 13. Des. miu.. (8)
Design Tolal Design Total .. a..
DESIGN! DESIGN 5 DESIGN 8 DESIGN 2 DESIGNS DESIGN 8 DES,
.. 2,.. 1.,
I. Wa..,.line (2)
2. Duh or dots (3)
I.
2.
Asymmetry (3)
Dot. dash, cir. (3)
I.
2.
Ends no. join. (8)
Angles es.t. (3) :::a: I. Wuyline (2)
2. Dash or dots (3)
l.
2.
A1ym.melry (3)
Dot, duh, cir. (3)
1.
2.
Ends no. join. (8)
Angles uL (3) 2.I
3. Shape cir. (3)
4. Cir. mi.a, est. (3)
3.
4.
Duhes (2)
Circles (8) .. .B. .
3.
4.
Angles misa. (3)
Ezt. scaL (3)
3. Shape cir. (3)
4. Cir.miu.,e:rt. (3)
3.
4.
Da~be5 (2)
Circles (8)
3.
4.
Angle11 miss. (3)
fat. seal. (3) ..
3.,
5. (
(
5. Cir. louda.. (5) 5. [J:L join. dot (2) S. Dbl. line (leL) 5. Cir. touch. (5) 5. E:11. join. dot (2) 5. Dbl line (I ea.) ... / ••
6. lko. dant (3) 6. Ext. rotalion (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6. DcY. slant (3) 6. Est. rot.ation (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6.I
7. No, coL (2u.) 7. No. dol9 (2) 7. Di5lortion (Bea.) 7. No. cot (2 ea.) 7. No. dotB (2) 7. Di!tortion (Bea.) 7. I
8. Fig. OD 2 Jines (8) 8. D~lortion (8) 8. Guide li11e11 (2) •.• 2' 8. Fig. on 2 lines (8) 8. Distonion (8) 8. Guide lines (2) 8. I
9. Cu.ide linee (2)
10. Worbrrer (2)
9.
IO.
Guide line■ (2)
Workover (2) :::t: 1:: :::k::::)(3u.) :~:~{ 9. Guide lines (2) 9.
10.
Guide linCll (2)
Work.over (2)
9. WorkoTer (2)
10. Sec. anempt (3~) •.••.•
9.(
10. 1
u. ~
11. See. attempt (3 ea.)...... 11. Sec. attempt (3 CL) •• , . • • 11. Ro111ioo (8) IL Sec. attempt (3 CL) . . • . . . II. Sec. allempl (3 ea.) .. • • • • 11. Ro1a1ion (8)
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Dea. miu. (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Des. miss. (8) 12.1
13. De■• mi■1. (8) 13. Dea. miss. (8) Design Tatu 13. Dea. miM. (8) 13. Des. mW. (8) Design Total 13. I
De.ign Total :::4._: Design Total •. JR. Design Total .. 1,.. Design Total •. ~ ••
DESIGN J DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIGN J DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN D~
1. Asymmetrf (3) I. Asymmetry (3) I. Place. Des. A. (2) L A,ymmctty (3) 1. A~ymmetry (3) . -~-.. 1. Place. Des. A. (2}
L.
2.)
2.llot.dub.m. (3) 2. Anglea (2) •••••. 2. Ornlap (2 ea.) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Angles (2) .2' .. 2. Ovtrlap (2ea.)
3. Duhea (2)
4.o,<k,(8)
3.
4.
PL cr0$&ing (2ea.) ••• Z,,.
Cn. e:11ra (8)
3. Compression (3)
4. Lines drawn (8)
3. Duhea (2)
4. Ci,cle, (8)
3. Pt. eroMing (2 ea.)
4. Cn. et.Ira (8)
3. Con:iprt$5ion (3)
4. Lines drawn (8)
... ,
3.)
5. No. dol9 (2) 5. Dbl line Cl cL) 5. Order (2) S. No. dou (2) 5. Dbl. line (lea.) 5. Order (2) 5.:
:::if: ~: =~o:~:. ;::

6. Eztra row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. Enra row (8) 6. Toueb,up (8) 6. No order (8) 6.
7. Bhmti.ng (8)
8. Dialortion (8)
7.
8.
Tremor (4)
Distortion (8) Total .. 0 ..
7. Blunting (8)
8. Diltortion (8)
7.
8.
Tremor (4)
Distortion (8)
7. Rd. siz.e (8)
Total .. o. . 7.:
I~ ~:::;eac!:) :::i 1:: ~~:keo;:~2~ }

IL Sec. anempl (3ea.) ...... 11. Sec. allempt (3ea.)
2
~~~5~ T~T.f P...
....._. 2. .. 'f. 6. .4...
9. Guide lines (2)
IO. Workover (2)
9.
10.
Guidt. lines (2)
\Vorkover (2)
IL Sec. ane.mpt (3 CL) . . . . . . 11. Sec. auempt {3 eL) . , , , .. 2. .. 1..
DESIGN TOT A.LS
I.··''-- 5...
6. .. $..
a..
9.
IO.
IL
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 3. ./.Q .. 7. 1~ .. 12. Rolation (8) 12. Ro1a1ion (8) 3... /J.. 7....0 .. 12.
13.Dea.miu. (8) 13. D= mi,, (8) .•...• 4. . /),_. 8. t.3 .. 13. Des. miu. (8) 13. Des. mis!. (8) 4... 0.. 8... / .. 13.
D.,.;gn ToLd ••• / 0. Deaign Total ••• W. Config. .a ... Deaigll To1al .• P... Design To1al •. S.. Conlig. •. a..
Total Raw Score • i. f.. Standard Score /.PJ.. To!al Raw 5cOJ"e . J Q. Standard Score . 4.1
[216]
SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTAJ;'f TEST SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEST
Name .... ~-'?~ . .3.9........................ Age . ?Ii. .. Sex ..I! .. . Name . }!!>.•.. );J: .......................... Age _)7_ .. Sex ..I! .. .
Education _q!)_l,l,!'&'! 1.Q....... Diagnosis . ~-1:~~.",<?~9.'!~~t;!>P..~~-. Education _q!>.U!'.&'! 1.Q....•.. Diagnoeis •... ~!I................. .
DESIGN I DESIGN f DESIGN 7 DESIGN I DESIGN 4 DESIGN 1
1. w•..., line (2) •• -~ 1. Aaym. Cn. (3) •• 3.. J. Enda no. join. (8) 1. WaYJ line (2) I. A,yrn. Crr. (3) 1. Enda no. join. (8)
2. Dot. duh. w. 13) •. .!. 2. Bre-■k err. (4) 2. Angle=1 ext. (3) 2. Dot, duh. cir. (3) 2. Break en. (4) 2. Anglea ext. {3)
3. Duhe, (2) 3, Cn. no1 center. (1) , .••• , 3. An~N miaa. (3) 3. Duh.ea (2) 3. Anglea miaa.. (3)
4. Circles (8) 4. Curia (4) .. .'/:. 4. Ext Kt.I. (3) 4. Cirdea CB) 4. Ext. teal. (3)
S. No. dots (2) ucb 5. Not joined (8) 5. Dbl 1ine Clea.) 5. No. do1:1 (2) each 5. Not joined (8) 5. Dbl line (I ea.} •. J. ..
6. Dbl row (8) 6. Cn. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6. Dbl row (8) 6. UT. rotation 13) 6. Tremor (4) •• ~-.
7. WorkoTer (2) 7. TOuch-u.p (8) 7. Distortion 18 ea.) 7. Workovn (2) 7. Touch-up (8) .. 2..
7. DU.tortion (Bea.)
B. Sec. attempt (3ea.) •••••• 8. Tn-.mor (4) 8. GuidP. lines f2) 8. Sec. anempt (3ea.) . . . ... 8. Trt-mor (4) B. Guide linea (2)
9. Rotation (8) 9. Di!lortion (8) 9. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) •..•• , 9. Rotation (8) 9. Diatortion (8) 9. Sec. allempt (3 ea.) , ••.••
10. Dee. miu. (8) JO, Guide lines (2) 11). Rotation (8) 10. Des. miu. (8) 10. Guide linee (2) 10. Rotation (8)
Daign Total 11. Sec. attempt (3eL) .•••.• 11. Dea. mlsa. (Bl Deeip.To1al .. .Q.. 11. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • , • • • • 11. Dea. mis&. (8) .•••••
12. Rotation (8) Daign Total ...a. 12. Rotation (8) Design Total •• ( ••
13. Des. miu. (8)
Deaign Total :::r 13. Des. misa. (8)
De.;go To"1 ./.Z.
DESIGN J DESIGN 5 DESIGN 8 DESIGN 2 DESIGN 5 DESIGN B
]. W■YJ line (2) .. l-.. 1. ,\aymmetty (3) ..3 .. I. Enda no. join. (8) 1. Wa..-, line (2) I. Aaymmetry (3) 1. Enda no. join. (8)
2. Dash or dob (3) 2. Dot, dash, cir. (3) .,L 2. Angle, u:L (3) 2. Duh or doll (3) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3} 2. Anglea CJ:L <i>
3. Shape cir. (3) 3, Duhes (2} 3. Angles miu. (3) 3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Da,hea (2) 3. Anglea mile. (3)
4. Cir. miu.. ext. (3)
S. Cir. touch. (5)
4. Circles (8)
S.
4. ExL acaL (3)
Est. join. dot (2) .. 2,.. S. Ohl line Cl ea.) :::r 4.
5.
Cir. min., ext. (3)
Cir. touch. (S)
4. Circles (81
5. E:s:t. join. dot (2) •••1..
4. E:r.L IC&L (3)
5. Dbl line (lea.)
6.
7.
Du. 111'111 (3)
No. col. (2 ea.)
•• ,3..
7,
6. Ei:.1. rotation (3)
No. dot! (2)
6. Tremor (4)
7. Distortion (Sea.)
··*-· 6.
7.
OeT. ,bnt (3)
No. cot (2 ea.)
6. Ext. rc,t11ion (3)
7. No. dota (2)
.6. Tremor (4)
7. Dia1ortion (Bea.)
8. Fig. on 2 lines (8) 8. Di9tortion (8) 8. Guide linea (2) 8. Fig. on 2 lines (8) 8. Distortion (8) B. Guide linea (2)
9. Guide lii:ies (2) 9. Gulde linea (2) 9. Workonr (2) 9. Guide linea (2) 9. Guide linea (2) 9. Workover (2)
10. WorkoTu (2) 10, S«. aUempt (3ea.) •••••• 10. Worko,-er (2) 10. Wor!<,ovcr (2) 10. See. attempt (3ea.) .3 ...
II. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) .••. ,, ll. Sc-c. altempt (3 ea.) •.•• , • 11. Rotation (8) ll. Sec. anempl (3ea.) .•••.. 11. Sec. altempt (3u.) •••••• 11. Rotation (8)
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Des. mW. (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Ro1ation (8) 12. Dea. miu. (8)
13. Dea.~: (~otal :: j_: 13. Des. x::n ~~tal : : ): : Design Total
13. Dea. miu. (8)
Deaign Total .. 0..
13. Des. mW. (8)
Deaign Total
Design Total
DESIGN.! DESIGN 6 CONFIC. DESIGN DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN

1. Al5Jlllll!.etry (3) I. Asymmetry (3) l. Plaee. Dea. A. (2) •••t; 1. Aaymmctry (3) I. Aaymmelry (3) •• a:.. 1. Place. Dea..A. (2)
2. Dot. duh, cir. (3) .. 3.. 2. Angles (2) 2."oTI"rlap (2ea.) •. ..z.. 2. Dot,. duh. cir. (3) 2. Anglea (2) 2. Ovrrla11 (2ea.)
3. Dubes (2)
4. Circles (8)
5. No. dots (2)
3. Pt. crosaing (2ea.)
-4. Crv. exlra (8)
S. Dbl line (lea.)
3. Comprcuion (3)
4. Linea drawn (8)
5. Order (2)
:::r
.. .2,.
3. Dubea (2)
4. Circles (8)
5. No. dota (2)
3. Pt. croS11ing (2ea.) ••. . •.
4. Cn. e:ura (8)
5. Dbl line Cl eL)
3. Compreaaion (3)
4. Linet drawn (8)
S. Orda (2)
6. Ema row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) 6. E:r.tra row (8) 6, Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8)
7. Blnntin1 (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rel. siu-: (8) 7. BIIIDWl.g (8) 7. Tremor {4) 7. Rel. aize (8)
8. DUtortKln (8) 8. Distortion (8) Total ::iif 8. Distortion (8) 8. Dislortion (8) Total
9. Guide lines (2)
10. WorkoTer (2)
9. Guide line, (2)
10. Workover {2)
DESIGN TOTALS
• . • • . • I. .. ~-. 5..• f .. . 1~: ~u::o:eac!~) .. ~. 1~: ~::~~:~2~ ::r: ~~~I-~-~
21
T~T_Af•.
ll. Sec. attempt (3 eL) .••••. n. Sec. attempt 13 ea.> . . . • • . 2. . . S. .. 6.. D.. . 11. Sec. altempl (3 ea.) • • . . . • ll. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • • . . . . 2.•. 0. •. 6. • ! ...
12. Rotation (8) 12.. Rotstion (8) • . • • • • 3.. 3... 7, ••Q.•• 12. Rotation (8) 12. Ro1ation (8) ,... z.. 1.S ..
13. Dea. miN.. (8) •••••• 13. Des. misa. (8) •..••• 4... 7... 8. -~·- 13. Dea. mila. (8) , ••.• , 13. Dee. miu. (8) ........ . /:I, .. 8. •• 3...
Deaign Total .J... Deeip Total •, 9.. ,
Config. .f :,;, • Dc:aip. Total. •• .2.r. Design Total .., •• Coo61- • .tL.
Tot,J Raw 5=e .4-.7.. Staodud S<o,o /1.1.. Total Raw Score !5. .. Standard Score .7.?..

NBJDe . .IJP.,.3.~ ...•....•................. Age .~J .. Sex .. Jf: .. Name . ~'? .•. )}. .......................... Age .. l-A. Sex .. .¥ ..
Education .i;l.•.l:!.-.... J.Q....... Diagnosia . !1.9:rllllll-.........•..•.. Education .11,l>.,. ;I,. I.Q .....•. Diagnosis . ~.'<l}i.z.Q•C.11 ;11,.1;9n.l,c; .•
DESIGN J DESIGN 4 DESlGN 7 DESIGN 1 DESIGN f DESIGN 1

1. wa.,., line (2) l. Asym. er,-. (3) l. Enda no. join. (8) ]. Wa.,., line 12) l. Ai,ym. Crv. 13) J. End, no. join. (8)
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Break crv. (4) 2. Angle1 ext. (3) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Brr.ak crv. (4) 2. Angles e:a:L (3) ••,5 ..
s. Da1he11 (2) 3. Crv. not eenler. (l) ~- ,(.. 3. Angles miaa. (3) 3. Dashes (2) 3. Crv. not cent~. fl) • • • • • • 3. Angles miu. 13) , ..3 ..
4. Cirelea (8) 4. Curb <4) 4. Ext. M:al. (3) 4. Circles CB) 4. Curls {4) 4. ,F.:r:1. seal. (3)
S. No. doll (2) each S. Not joined (8) S. Dbl. line (lea.} S. No. dots (2) each 5. Not joined (8} 5. Dbl. line (lea.)
6. Dht row (8) 6. Crv. rolalion (3) 6. Tnomor (4) 6. Dbt row (8) 6. Crv. rotation (3) 6. Trrmor (4)
7. Worko-rer (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Di1toniou (8 ea.) 7. WorkoTer (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Distortion (8eL)
8. Sec. attempt (3 eL) ••.... a Ttt.mor (4) 8. Guide linea (2) 8. Sec. attempt (Sea.) .. , . . . 8. Tn-mor 14) 8. Guide linea 12)
9. Rotation (8) 9. Distortion (8) 9. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) .. , ••• 9. Rotation (8} 9. Dillorlion (8) 9. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) ••• , , •
10. Dea. miss. (8) 10. Guide lines (2) 10. Rotation (8) 10. Dt'L miaa. (8) • • • • . • 10. Guide Jinea (2) 10. Rotation (8)
Design Total .• ll. l .. Sec. anempt (3 ea.) • • • • • • 11. Des. miu. (8} Deaign Total •• • 0.. lJ. Sec. altempt (3 ea.) • , • • . . 11. Dea. miaa. (8) ••••••
12. Rotation (8) Design Total ••• Q. 12. Rotation (8) Design Total • .Ld..
13. Dea. miaa. (8) 13. Des. miM. (8)
Deaign Total .. .l . . Deafgn Total
DESIGN 2 DESIGN 5 DESIGN 8 DESIGN 2 DESIGN 5 DESIGN 8

J.. l. wa...,. line (2) .. t-.. 3..
1. Wa.,., line (2)
2. Dub ~r dou (3)
3. Shipe cir. (3)
.. %,._ J. Asymmelry (3)
2. D01, dub, cir, (3)
••
•. ,3..
l. Enda no. joia. (8)
2. Angles exL (3) 2. Dub or dots (3)
3. Shape cir. (3) .3 ..
1.
2.
3.
A1ymme1ry (3)
Dot, duh, cir. (3)
Da~hea (2)
•. 1.
2.
3.
Enda no. join. (8)
Anglea ext. (3)
Anglea mits. (3)
::J::
3. Da~hea (2) 3. Anglet. mW. (3)
4. Cir. mi1L, ei:t. (3) 4. Circles (8) 4. Ext. acaL (3) 4. Cir. mist.. UL (S) 4. Circles (8) 4. ExL acaL (S)
5. Cir. touch. (S) 5. Exl. join. dot (2) •. l..l.. 5. Ohl. line (1 ea.) 5. Cir. touch. (5) 5. Exl. join. dot (2) 5. Ohl line Clea.)
6. Dn-. slant (3) 6.. Ext. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6. Dev. alant (3) •. 5.. 6. ExL rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4)
7. No. cot (2ea.) 7. No. doll (2} 7. Distortion (Bea.) 7. No. cot (2 ea.) 7. No. dots (2) 7. Distortion (Sea.)
8. Fig. on 2linea (8) 8. Dislortion (8) 8. Guidr lines (2) 8. Fig. on 2 lines (8) 8. Dislortion (8) a Guide linea 12)
9. Guide linea (2) 9. Guide Jinea (2) 9. Worko,-er (2) 9. Guide linea (2) 9. Guide lines 12) 9. Work.over (2)
10. Work01'er (2) 10. Work.over (2) JO. 51-c, allcmpt (3 ea.) •••.•• 10. Worffler (2) 10. Workover 12) 10. SN:. attempt (3 ea.) •••.•.
11. Sec. atteml)t (3 ea.) •... ,. 11. St-c. auempl {3 ea.) • . . . . . U. Ro1a1ion f8) 11. Sec. attempt (3~L) ..••.• 11. Sr.c. 1r1empl (3ea.) .....• 11. Rolalion (8)
12. Rotalion (8) 12. Rotalion (8) 12. Des.. mits. (8)
12. Rotation (8)
la. Dea. miu. (8)
Design Total
12.
.•• Z.,,.
Rotulion (8)
13. Des. mW. (8)
Deaign Total : ~ f ~:
12. Des. miu. (8)
Design Total :::o: 13. Dea. miu. (8)
Design Total ::r:
13. Des. miss. (8)
Delign Total
Design Total
DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIGN• .. _ DF.SIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN.

L A.aJmlDetr, (3) 1. A,ymmetry (3) .. 3.. l. Place. Dea. A. (2) 1. Asymmetry (3) 1. Asyn:imelry 13) .. 5.. J. Place. Dea. A. (2)
2.llo,,duh_d,. (3) 2. Anglea (2) 2. Ovrrlap (2ea.) 2. Dot, duh, ci:r. (3) 2. Angles (2) .'.2,.. 2. Ovrrlap (2ea.)
3. Dubea (2) 3. PL crouing (2 eL) •....• 3. Compm.sion (3) 3. Duhea (2) 3. Pl. croui.ng (2ea.) ••.••. 3. Compn:asion (3)
4. Citt)., (8) 4. Crv. ex1ra (8) 4. Linea drawn (8) 4.Cnda(B) 4. Crv. exira {8) 4. Linea drawn (8)
5. No. dota (2) 5. Dbl. liDe (lea.) 5. Order (2) 5. No. dola (2) 5. Dbl. line (leL) 5. Order C2)
6. Extra row (8)
7. BlUt1ting (8)
8. Distorfion (8)
6.
7.
8.
Toncb-up (B)
Tremor (4)
Distortion (8)
6. No order (8)
7. Rr.L aW'. (8)
Total ...Q..
: =~:w(~~)
8. Distortion (8)
_~: ~::~•ru~ 4 ~8)
8. Di~tortion (8)
::~:: ~: : : / : : 1
Total
c::
.. IL
9. Guide linea (2) 9. Guide Una f2) DESIGN TOTALS 9. Guide linea (2) 9. Guidi!' lines 121 DESIGN TOTALS
10. Work.over (2} l.
10. Workovel' (2) 5.. .3... J. ,. 10. W01'kove:r (2) 10. Wotko~er (2) 1. .. •0.. 5.. 3.,,.
11 Sec. auempl (3ea.) •.•... 11. Sec. auempt (3ea.) ...... 2.. 6.. 1 ... 3 ... ll. Sec. allempt (3ca.) •..... ll. Ste. 1uempt (3ea.) ••.... 2. .. J .. 6. .! .. .
12.. Ro1a1ion (8) 12. Rolalion (8) 3... 0... 7.••Q••• 12. Rotation (8) 12. Ro111ion (8) 3... 3.. 7. . lo.. .
13. Dea. miss. (8) 13. Des. miss. (8) 4... / •.. 8. ..Q.•• 13. Des. m~ (8) .. "i.. •• 13. D~ miss. (8) ..•••. 4... f .. 8... f.. .
De.ign Total . D .. Deaign Total . Con fig. .: ..3.. 0... Design Total --~-- Design Total .. l.Config. •. Q•.•
Total Raw Score .J.1 .. S"'od"d S<o" . 41. Total Raw Score .'tf. Standard Sc.ore .1.'l..
[217]
t
Name .... ,i'?.-. .)~........................ Age . :.~. Sex l4 Name .....~!>.•. )?........................ Age . J.3 .. Sex .ij ... . Na,
Education • C.C!H~.S!I I.Q•.•.... Diagnosis . ~.c;>~;L.............. . Education . 9.<f!}!\g!' I.Q. . . . . . . Diagn05is ... ?I P.r.Ji!al ...•...•..•.. Ed,
DESIGN 1 DESIGN 4 DESIGN 7 f!.ESIGN 1 DESIGN 4 Dr.SIGN 7 D&

l. Wavy line (2) 1. Asym. Crv. (3) I. End, no. join. (8) l. Wa't'J line (2) I. Asym. Cn. (3) I. Ends no. join. (8) I.
2. Doi., duh, cir. (3) 2.. Bruk crv. (4) 2. Ang]ce e:a;L (3) 2. Dot, dash, cir. (3) 2. Break crv. (4) 2. Angl'°" e:a;L f3) 2.
3.
4.
S.
D&!lhes (2)
Circlee (8)
No. dolt (2) each
3. Crv. not ccnttt. (1)
4.·Curl, (4)
5. Not joined (8)
3. Anglen misa. (3)
4. E:r.1. scat. (3)
3. Duhes (2)
·4. Ci.rclca (8)
S. No. dot, (2) each
3. Cn. not center. (1) • • • • • •
4. Curls C4)
3. An1dn misa. 13)
-1-. EJ.t. &eat. (3) ..
3.
5.
S. Dbl. line flea.) 5. Not joinrd (8) S. Dbl. line fl ra.)
6. Dbl. row {8) 6. C". rotation (3) 6..Tn-mor (4) 6. Dbl row (8) 6. Crv. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6.
7. Workover (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Di6tortion (8 cL) 7. Worko,oer (2) 7. Touch-up (8} 7. Di!tortion (8 ea.) 7.
8. Sec. allempl (3 e,..) ...... 8. Trr.mor (4) 8. Guide line11 f2) 8. Sec. attempt (3ea.) ..... . 8. Trtmor (4) 8. C'..uide lines (2) 8.
9. RolalioD (8} 9. Distortion (8) 9. Sec. allempl (3 ea.) •.•..• 9. Rotation (8) 9. Di,ionion (8) 9. Sec. an empt (3 ea.) •.•••• 9.
10. Dr.9. misa. (8) 10. Guide lines (2) 10. Rolalion (8) 10. Des. mW. (8) 10. Guide lines (2) 10. RotalioD (8) 10.
Duign Total ...Q. ll. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • . • • • • 11. Dea. misa. (8) De.ign Total •••0. 11. Sec. atlempt (3ea.) ....• : ll. Dee. miu. (8)
12. Rotalion (8) Design Tolal •. .Q.• 12. Rotation (8) Deeign Total .~P. ..
13. Des. miu. (8) 13. Des. miu. (8}
Design Tot■l •• .Q.. Design Total • .0 ..
DESIGN 2 DF.SIGN 5 DESIGN 8 DESIGN J DESIGNS DESIGN 8 DI
1. Wavy line (2) 1. A,ymmetry (3) l. End, no. join. (8) ]. Wavy line (2) t. Asymmetry (3) l. End1 no. join. (8) I.
2. DaMI or dot, {3) 2. Dot, daM, cir. (3) 2. Angles uL (3) 2. Dnh or dots (3) 2. Dot, dash, cir. (3) 2. Ang]es e:rt. ·(3) 2.
3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Da!Ohcs (2) 3. Angles miu. (3) 3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Da,hes (2) 3. Ang]es miu. (3) a
4. Cir. miu., exL (3) 4. Circles (8) 4. U:t. KSt. (3) 4. Cir. raiu., exL (3) 4. Circles (8) 4. EKE. ecaL (3) ~
5. Cir. touch. (5) 5. Ezt. join. dot (2) S. Dhl. line Uea.) S. Cir. touch. (S) • s. EJ.1. join. dot 12) 5. Dbl. line (lea.) 5,
6. DeT. alant (3) 6. Ex1. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6. Dev. slant (3) 6. Exl. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6,
7. No. eel (2 ea.) 7. No. dots (2) 7. Distonlon (8 eL) 7. No. col (2ea.) 7. No. dots (2) 7. Distortion (8 ea.)
8. Fig. on 2 linca (8) 8. Di!tortion (8) 8. Guidr. Jines (2) B. Fig. on 2 lines (8) 8. Di.s1ot1ion (8) 8. C1:1idr. lines (2)
9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide lines 12) 9. Worlr.over (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Worlr.ovcr (2)
10. WOJ"kou:r (2) )0. Workover (2) JO. 5(,c. anempt (3 ea.) •••••• 10. Workover (2) JO. Workover (2) IO. Src. ■ncmpt (3 ea.) •••••• 10
ll. Sec. atlcmpl (3eL). ••.•. 11. 5<-c. o.llempt (3ea.) ..•••• II. Rolalion .(8) IL~ 1ttempl (3u.). •.•.. JI. 5'-c. allempt (3ea.) .•••••. 11. Rolation (8) II
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rolation (8) 12. Des. miu. (8) 12. Rotali.on (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Des. milL (8) 12
13. Des. miss. (8)
De.ign Total jf
13. o~. mi!s. (8)
Deeign Tolal :::z: Design Tolal
13. Des.:: (~olal ::~:: 13. D~ :~:n ~~tal .. O.. lmip Told
13
DESIGN 3 DESfoN 6 CONFIC. DESIGN DESIGN!~ DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN D

1. Asymmetry (3) l. Asymmetry 13) I. Place. Des. A. (2) .1. Asymmetry (3) I. Asymmelry f3) l. Place. Dea. A. (2)
2. Dot, dash, cir. (3) 2. Angles (2) 2. Overlap (2'CL) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Angles (2) 2. Ovrrlap (2ea.)
3. Dubce (2)
4. Circles (8)
3. Pi. croseiiig (2eL)
4. Crv. CJ.Ira (8)
······ 3. Compression (3)·
4. LinN drawn (8)
3. Duhes (2)
4. Cirdea (8)
3. P1. crossing (2u.)
4._Cr,. cxlra (8)
3. Compression (3)
4. Lin~ drawn (8)
5. No. dot, (2) S. Dbl. line (1 eL) S. Order (2) S. No. dola (2) 5. Dhl. line Clea.) S. Order (2)
6. £:ii;tra row. (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) ti. EJ.tra ro.w (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8)
7. Blunting (8) 7. Tremor (4) :::+.: 7. Rel. eiu (8) 7. Bhmting (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rd. 1iu f8)
8. Dietortioii (8) 8. Distortion (8) Told ... 9.. 8. Di.!itonion (8) 8. Di!tonion (8) T01~ ...o.
9. Guide linca (2) 9. Guide lines (2) DESIGN TOTALS 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guidr. lines (2) DESIGN TOTALS
10. WorkoTer (2) ... 7.. IO. Workover (2) t. .. D .. 5. . :Z., .. 10. Workover (2) IO. Workovcr (2) I . ....Q. 5. ..Q.. .
11. Sec. all empt (3 ea.! ...... 1l. Sec. all em pl (3 eL) . • . . • . 2. •. C! • • 6.•. ':f. .. 11. Sec. ■ttcmpt (3 ea.)· . • . . • • ll. Sec. ahempt (3 ea.) •••.•. 2. •••0.. 6. ..o.. .
12. Rotalion (8) 12. Rolalion (8} 3. •. :i.... 7• ••C. .. 12. Ro111ion (8) 12. Rotation (8) 3. •. A .. 7• ..'! .. .
)3. Des. Dll5s. (8) . . • • • • 13. Du. mW. (8) 13. Des. mW. (8) 13. Des. miss. (8) 4••• P. ..
·.·.·.•.r . •· .. IL a. .. ?. .. 8. --~---
Design Tolal .•• t. Design Tolal i:t Config. .• 0... Design Total •• 0 .. Design Total . ..0.. Config. •• 9...
Tolal Raw Score • /. .•

. Siandud S<o,e .'t.f. Total Raw Score ./ •••• S1andud Seo<e 3.7..
Name /l: '? .•. .3. 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age . .3.!!. : Sex .14.. .. Name .... RC/, ... 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age .. ;l.9.. Sex • J4 ..•
Education .~.•.:ii, .... I.Q ....... Diagnosis . ~qJ:i.1.~9:-.• l'll.:t:IIP.Qid. Education .. ~.O.:t:11111~ I.Q. . •.... Diagnosis ... .1l PJ'.ll>IIA .........•.•
DESIGN I DESIGN 4 DF.SIGN 7 DESIGN I DESIGN 4 DESIGN 7

1. Wavy line (2)
2. Dot, dDh, cir. (3)
3. Da!hes (2)
1. Aaym. Crv. (3)
2. Brtak crv. (4)
3.f'~.notcenter.(1) .•..•.
..1. l. Ends no. join.
2. AnglN ext. (3)
3. /I n,:IN mi~. (3)
(8) l. Wavy line (2)
2. Dot, dash, cir. (3)
3. DHhea (2)
1. A,-ym. C". fa)
2. Rrrak crv. (4)
3. Crv. not ccnltr. (]) •.•. ••
I. End, no. join. (8)
2. An1drii eJ.I. (3)
3. An1_dn mi59. (3)
4. Circles (8) 4. Cnrla (4) 4. EJ.t. seal. (3) 4. Circles (8) 4. Curls (4) 4. F.xl. scaL (3)
5. No. dole (2) each 5. Not joined (8) 5. Dbl. Ii~ Uta.) 5. No. do11 (2) each 5. Not joinNI (8) S. Dbl. line (I CL)
6. Dbl row (8) 6. Crv. rolalion (3) 6. Trf'mor (4) 6. Dbl. row (8) 6. Crv. rotation (3} 6. Trrmor (4)
7. Workover (2) .. _:,,_ 7. Touch•up (8) 7. Distortion (Bea.) 7. Work.over (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Di.!tortion (8 ea.)
8. Sec. allempl (3 ea.) . . . . . . 8. Trrmor f4) 8. Gnidf' line• (2) 8. See. allempt (3eL) . .•..• 8. TTrmor (4) 8. Guide lines (2)
9. Rotation (8) 9. Distortion {8) 9. Sec. allempt (3 ea.) •••••• 9. Rotation (8) 9. Dislortion (8) 9. Sec. attempt (3cL) .••.••
10. Dni. mias.. (8) . . . • . • JO. Guide Jin.es (2) 10. Rotation (8) 10. Du. mia. (8) JO. Guide lines (2) JO. Rolalion (8}
Design Total ..• h. 11. Sec. allempt. (3 eL) ••.••. 11. 01!3. min. (8) Deaign. Tolal •••0.. JI. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • • • • • • ll. DtS.. miu. (8)
12. Rotation (8) Oe,ign Total •• •0.. 12.· Roration (8) Deaip, Total • . 0 ..
13. Dea. mias. (8)
13. Dea. mW. {8)
Deaign To1al ::::t: I>c,ign Total .. 0..
DESIGN J DF:SIGN 5 DF.:SIGN 8 DESIGN J DESIGN 5 DESIGN 8
l. Wa"fJ line (2) ... .Z. I. ..\~ymmelry (3) •• 3.. 1. End! no. join. (8) I. Wav,1ine (2) .. ;1,. 1. Asymmetry (3) I. End, no. join. (8)
2. Daeb or do11 (3) 2. Dot, daffl, cir. (3} 2. Angles exL (3) 2. Dash or dots (3) 2. no,. duh, cir. (3) 2. ,\ngles CXL (3}
3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Da~hea (2) 3. Angles mW. (3) 3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Duhea (2) 3. Ang]cs miaL (3)
4. Cir. miss., CXL (3)
5. Cir. loueh. (5)
4. Circle.1 (8)
5. EJ.t. join. dot (2) ...Z,.
4. EJ.t. ecaL (3)
5. Ohl. line (1 ea.)
4. Cir. mias., exL (3)
S. Cir. touch. {S)
6. Du. 11lan1 (3)
4. Circlr, (8)
5. Exr. join. dot (2)
6. EJ.L rot111ion (3)
... l,
4. EJ.t. ac■ L {3}
5. Dbl. 1inc (lea.)
6. Tremor (4)
::::r
... !!:
6. Dev. elant (3) 6. far. ro1a1ion (3) 6. Tremor (4)
7. No. ail (2 ea.) 7. No. dots (2} 7. Di!!olortion (8 ea.) 7. No. ail (2 e.&.) 7. No. doi1 (2) 7. Distortion (Sea.}
8. Fig. on 2 line!J (8) 8. Distortion (8) 8. Cuidr. lines {2) 8. Fig. on 2 lines (ll) 8. Diatonion (8) 8. Guidr. lines (2)
9. Guide line! (2) 9. Cuidr. .lines (2) 9. Workover {2) 9. Cuide linea (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Worko-,cr (2)
10. Worko,cr (2) 10. Workover (2) ... Z..... JO. 5{'C. attempt {3ea.) .••••. 10. Workover (2) ...1.,. 10. Workover (2) 10. Src. an empt (3 ea.) • • • • · •
11. Sec. allempt (3 ea.)...... 11. Src. attemrt (3 ea.) • • . . . • 11. Rorarion (8) Jl. Sec. attempt (3 eL)...... Jl. ~- sllrmpl (3 ea.) . . • . • . 11. Rotalion (8)
~~ ~
1
: . '~~>
Design Total ... .t.
~~ ::~ 1
:;59~
8
!a1
De.1ign Total ... 1..
l2.
0
"·0:~:/~otal :::i 12.. Rotation (8)
13. Dea. miu. (8)
De.ign Tolal
12. Ro1a1ion (8}
••·••. ;/. •• 13. DI'~ mi11- (8)
't:' Design Total
... .. .
.•. 2.
12. D~ mils. (8)
Design Tot.al

l. Asymmetry (3) ...3. 1. Asymmelry (3) l. Place. Des. A. (2) ... 1-t. I. Asymmetry (3) 1. A!;ymmeu-y (3) I. Place. Dea. A. (2)
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Angles (2) 2. Ov,:,rlap (2 CL) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. A11gles (2) 2. Ovf'rlap 12ea.)
3. Dubes (2) 3. Compression (3) 3. Dashes. (2) 3. Pl. crossing (2ea.) 3. Compre!sion (3)
,
3. Pt. crossing (2ea.)
4. Circldl {8)
5. No. do11 (2)
6. Extra row (8)
7. Blunting (8)
8. Distortion (8)
.. l,,
4. Crv.n1ra (8)
5. Dbl. line (lea.)
6. Touch-up (8)
i. Trrmor (4)
8. Oi!lorlion (8)
4. Linn drawn (8)
5. Order f2)
6. No order (8)
7. Rr.l. siv- CS)
Total
... ,.
.. Ill.
4. CirclCI (8)
5. No. dots (2)
6. E:ii;u-1 row (8}
7. Blunting (8)
a Dir.1ortion (8)
4. Crv.
7. Trrmor (4}
r::r.lr■
5. Dbl. line (lea.)

6. Touch-up (8)
8. Distortion (8)
(8)
.. ...
4. Lines dr■"n (8)
S. Order (2)
6. No order (8)
7. Rrl. !;ilW
To11l
(8)
....0.
9. Guide lines (2) DF,S/GN TOTALS
9. Guide linCI (2)
10. Worko,cr (2) ::::z 9. Guide lines (2)
10. Workovcr (2) ... .%.1 ... k
OF.SIGN TOTALS
s... 1;. 10. Worlr.ovcr (2)
9. Guidr. Jina {2)
JO. Workovr.:r (2) l. ..., •. s. .. i. .
11. Sec. attempt (3c■.) ••.••• II. Sec. allempt (3eL) , •.••. 2. .. J,.. 6... 2.. ...
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 3... 7.. 7. .. 0. ..
ll. Sec. anempt (3ea.) ...•.. 11. Src. allcmpt (3ca.) ...••. 2.
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rolation (8)
···*··
3. . . 0..
6. •• .I..
7• ..•Q..
-1-. S..-. ol.~ ,. ... o.. L
13. Dt:1. miss. (8}
Design Total ..•. 1.
13. D.-!. mis!. (8)
Dc~ign Toi.al ... h.
4. .
Config.
8. .
.J.P. ..
13. Des. min. (8)
De!ign To1al :::o.:
13. mi~s. (8)
Design Total ::z:: Config.
8. .•.
• •.0..
Total Raw Score !f-2,.. Standard Score .7S.~ To!al Raw Score 11.... Srandard .Score •~.
[218)
SCORE SHEET-BENDER·GESTALT TEsT SCORE SHEET-BENDER·GESTALT TEST
Name .•.. !i.<!, . .31? ........... , ............ Age .?R .. Sex ..• ¥.. Name .1!'?.•..)9........................... Age .. li!.J,. Sex .• •¥ ..
E~ucation ~~:1-.~'!!I~. I.Q. '.!-~.~ .. Diagnosis .. !i\~Ac;~~'!P!".'!~~_i,y~. Education . )I.,.• :;\.•.. I.Q....... Diagnosis .. ~<;1:l;l.;1;9;-• •l'll.r.11-ll.Q1!1.
DESIGN I DESIGN 4 DESIGN 1 DESIGN J T>ESIGN f DF.SIGN 1
l. W■YJ line (2) 2.. A,ym. Cn. f3) !5.
I. W■VJ
line (2)
2. Qot. dae.b, cir. (3)
3. Dashes (2)
l. A~ym. C". (3)
2. Bruk crv. (4)
3. Cn. not center. (1) ••••••
I. Enda no. join. (8)
2.
3.
Anglei1 exl. (3)
Anglu miss. (3)
::.r: 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3)
3. Dautell (2)
...
•...3 .
1.
2.
3.
Brrak crt. (4)
Crv. not center. (I)
••.
••• ¥-.
. . ••. .
I.
2.
3.
Eada no. join.. (8)
Anglt;1 nL (3)
A.nglta miaa. (3)
4. Circles (8)
1
4. -Curl, (4) 4. F.:rt. scat. (3) f, Circles (8) 4. Curia f4) ... 4. 4. Ex1. acat. (3)
5. No. do11 (2} each 5. Not joined (8) 5.
Dbl. line flea.) .. la .. 5. No. do11 r2) each 5. Nol joined (8) 5. Dbl line fl ea.) .. k.
6. DbL row CS) 6. Crv. rotation (3) Tremor (4) 6. 6. Dbt row (8) 6. Cn. rolatioa CJ) 6. Tn-mor (4)
7. WorkoTCI' (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Distortion (Bea.) 7. Work.over (2} 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Diatortion fBeL)
a Sec. attempt (3 ea.) ; • • • • • 8. Tr"mor (4) 8. Guiflt lines (2) 8. Sec. ■ttempl (3 e■.) • • • • • • 8. Trrmor '4} 8. Guiel.-. Jinea 12)
9. Rotation (8) 9. Dislortion (8) 9. See. attempt (3 ea.) •••• , • 9. Rotation. (8) 9. Dillortion f8) 9. Sec. ■llempl (3 CL) ......
10. Da mW. (8) JO. Guidr, linet (2) IO. Rolalion (8) IO. Dea. miu. (8) • • . • • • 10. Cuidt lines (2) • . • • • • 10. Rot ■tion (8)
Design T0tal .. 0 .. Jl. Sec. attempt (3eL) ...... 11. On. miss. (8) •••••• Design Total ..• 5. ll. Sec. allempt (3ea.} ..• i3. 11. Des. mis■• (8) .•.•••
12. Rotation (8} Deeign Total 9..
•. . 12. Rolation (8) De.ip To11l •• .2.,.
13. De,, miu.. (8) 13. Des. mist. (8}
Design Total •• Q .. Design Total
DESIGN :Z _ DESIGN 5 DESIGN B DESIGN·z T>ESIGN 5 DESIGNS

. . . 2,. .. .2..
1. Wuylinc {2)
2. Duh or dots (3)
3, Shape cir, (3)
l. Aeymm~try (3)
2. Dot, dash, cir. (3)
3. Puhee (2)
2. Angles e:1:t, (3)
3. Angles mia&. (3)
1. W■TY line (2)
2. Dlllh or dG11 (3)
3. Shape cir. (3)
l. Aaymmetry (3)
3. D1ffle11 (2)
:::a: l. Ends no. join. (8) •••••••
2. AnAles exl. (3)
3. Angles miu. (3)
4. Cir. miss., ext. (3) 4. Circlc11 (8) 4. E:1:t. acaL (3) 4. Cir. mlu., es.t. (3) 4. Circle!! (8) 4. E:J.t. scaL (3}
S.
6.
Cir. touch. (S°)
De,,. alant (3) •
5. Ext. join. dot (2)
6. E1t. rotation (3)
:::z::
5. D61. line (lea.)
...3. 6. Tremor (4)
5. C~. touch. (5)
15. Dev. al ■ nt (3)
S. E:1:t, join. dot (2)
... 3. 6. E1.1. rotation (3)
5.
6.
Dhl. line (l CL)
'.J'remM (4)
7. No. cot. (2ea.) 7. No. dote (2} 7. Distortion (Bea.) 7. No-. col. (2u.) 7. No. dots (2) 7. Di,1ortion {8eL)
8. Fig. on 2 lines (8) 8. Di111ortion cs) 8. Cuicle line, (2) 8. Fig. on 2 lines (8} 8. Di1tortion (8) R. Guide lines 12)
9. Guide linc:e (2) 9. Guide linee (2) 9. Work.over (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide linea (2) 9, Workover (2)
10. Workover (2) JO. Workover (2} 10. St-c, allcmpl (3 ea.) •••••'. 10. Worko,er (2} JO. Workovu (2) 10. Src. allernpt (3ea.} ••••••
11. Sec. allempt (3ea.) •.••.• JI. Sr<:: anempt (3eL) .•••.• 11. Rotation (8) 11. Sec. attempt (3eLl. •••.• IL 5'-c. ,nempt (3eL) •••••• ]], Rotation 18)
~~ ~t=~u.(~~) ~~ ~:~t:;ss.(8:8) 12. Des.;~~ (~otal : : :~

12. Rot ■tion (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. On. mUL (8)
:::+.:
Design Total ... 2.,. Deaign Total :::1: 13. De.. min. (8)
Design Total :::f
13. Dea. mW. (8)
Dceign Total ... $..
Oesip Total
DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DF,61GN DESIGN 3 DF.sJGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN

J. A1ymmelry (3) l. Asymmelry (3) ...... •I. Place. Dea. A. (2) I. Asymmetry (3) 1. Asymmelry (3) .. a.. I. Place. Des. A. (2) .. l, .
2. Dot. duh, cir. (3) 2. Anglea (2) 2. Overlap (2e,..)
3. Pi. er.ming (2e,..} ••••.. 3. Compression (3)
2.
3.
Dot, dub, cir. (3)
···'-· 2. Anglce (2)
3. Pt. crossing (2ea.)
2. Ovtrlap (2 ea.)
3. Comprea.sioD (3)
3.
4.
Duhes (2)
Cirdea (8) 4. Crv. ntra (8) 4. Lin« drawn (8) :::r.: 4.
Duhcs (2)
Circles (8)
... .2..
4. Crv. 1:1.lra (8)
:::t: 4. Linn drawn (8)
5.
6.
No. dota (2)
Estn row (8)
5.
6.
Dbl. line (lea.)
Touc:h-up (8)
5. Order (2)
6. No order (8)
5.
6.
No. dota (2)
E:1:tra row (8)
5. Dbl. line UeL)
6. Touch-up (8)
5. Order (2)
6. No order (8) ::a::
7.
8.
Blunting (8)
DUtortion JB)
7.
8.
Tremor (4)
Distortion (B}
7. Rel. ,iu (8)
To1al :::it: 7. Blanting (8)
a DUtortk>a (8)
7. Tremor (4)
8. Distortion (8)
7. Rr.l. size C8)
Total Jo:
9. Guide linea (2)
io. Wwko,er (2)
9.
JO.
Guide lines (2)
Workover (2)
DESIGN TOT A.LS
].... C!. 5• • f .. .
9. Guide lines (2)
10. Workover (2) ... ~. 1:: ~~~:~~=~2~ >
2
:::z:. ~~s~~ T~.5~.
S...
11. Sec. attempt (3ea.) ••.••. ll. Sec. atlempt (3eL) •••••• 2. .•. i. .•. . II-.. . 11. Sec. atlempl (3 ea.) • • • • • • 11. &-c. altempt (3 eL) •••••• 2. -~... 6 .•
12. Rotation (8) 12. Ro111tion (8) 3. ...3.. 7•• '! .. . 12. Rotation (8) 12. Ro1a1ion (8) •••••• 3. .":J_.. 7. . Z., ..
i:t.. H': ..
i3. Dea. ;cai~ <~~ ::J: 13. Des. : ~ <~oial
0
•••••• 4••• Q..
••• ~. Coofi~
a .II,..
.f...
13. Des. miu. (8)
Ddrip Total
• . • • • • 13. Des. ~is.a. (8)
•.• :l. Dcaign Total
. . • • • • 4 . .l
•• , •• Coalig.
8. •
JQ ..
Told Raw S<on ~.f.. Standard Sccre .-:J'J.. Tot,! luw S<on .-.(:). S...ndud S<on .f/.f..
SCORE SHEET-BENDER·GESTALT TEST SCORE SHEET-BENDER·GESTALT TEST
Name ... ljP., .4.Q ......................... Age .4/3... Sex . _I,! ••• Name •...•.~c;>_..)fL....................... Age .+9... Sex ..F: ..•
Education .. 1:1.•.l! .-... I.Q.. ~.~$. Diagnosis •. rl! .. .1!,:t,C.~,:t.Y. ...... . Education .<;9.J,l,!'&'! 1.Q.....•. Diagnosis •.. .IIPJ'Ml. ........... .
DESIGN 1 DESIGN 4 DF.SfGN1 DESIGN I DESIGN 4 D&SIGN 1
-~ :;~d!~: !:. (3) ::z:: 1.

2.
A!-ym. C". f3)
81"t"ak crv, (4)
Crv. not cenler. (l} , .• , . .
l. Ends no. join. (8)
2. Anglt-9 tXI. (3)
}. Wavy line (2)
2. Dot, dai<h, cir. (3)
I. A11ym.. Cr,. (3)
2. Bff"ak uv. (4)
1. Enda no. join. (8)
2. .Anglta ~1.t. (3)
3. Daahea (2) 3. 3. Angles miu. (3) 3. Da9he, (2) 3. Crv. not cenler. fl) ..... . 3. Ani!t• miu. (3)
4. Circlea (8) 4. Curls (4) 4. Ext. scat. (3) 4. Circles (8) 4. Curl, l4) 4. E1.t. IICat, (3)
5. No. do11 f2) each 5. Not joined (8) 5. Dbl. line fl eL) •.• ,1.. S. No. dote (2) ca.ch 5. Not joinr.d (8) S. Dbl. line (l eL)
6. DbL row (8) 6. Cn-. rotation (3) 6.Tmnor f4) 6. DbL row (8) 6. Crv. rotation (3) 6. Tremor C4)
7. Work.over (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Di!tortion (!;lea.) 7. Work.over (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Di11ortion (Sea.I
8. Sec. allempt (3 ea.) •.• , • , 8. Tremor (4) 8. Guide lines (2) 8. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • • . • . • 8. Trrmor (4) 8. Guide lines C2}
9. Rotation (8) 9. Distonion. (8) 9. Sec. allempt (3 ea.) •. , •.• 9. Ro1a1ion (8) 9. Distortion (8) 9. Stt. allempt flea.) ••••••
10. Dta. miu. (8)
Design Total ::.r: n:JO. Guide lines (2) JO. Rotation 18)
Sec. auempt (3ea.) ..•..• 11. On: miu.. (8)
12. Rotation (8) Deaign Total •.• l ..
10. Des, miu. (8)
De.ign Total
JO.
11.
12.
Guide lines (2)
Rotation (8)
10. Rotation (8)
Sec. allempt 13 ea.) • . • • • • ll. Dea. mllL (8)
Dcalp Total •• •Q.,
13. Dea. mW. (8) 13. Dea. milla.. (8)
ln:sign Total .-.C.. Design Total
DESIGN Z OF.SIGN 5 DF,SIGN 8 DESIGN Z DESIGNS DESIGN 8
l. WaYJline (2) l. Asymmetry (3} l. Enda no. join. (8) I. Wavy line (2) .. 2. . l. Asymmetry (3) l. Enda no. join. (8)
2. Dash or dot, (3) 2. D01, d11h, cir. (3) 2. AnRleaexL (3) 2. Duh or dota (3) 2. Doi, duh, cir. (3) 2. Ang)~ ext. (3)
3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Da~hes (2-) 3. Angles miaa. (3) 3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Dafflt11 (2) 3. Anglea miss. (3)
4. Cir. miss.. est. (3)
5. Cir. touch. (5)
fi. Dn. slant {3)
4. Circle, (8)
5. E1.t. join. dot (2)
6, E1.1. rotalion (3)
4-, E1.1. aca.L (3)
5. Ohl. lin.e. Clea.)
6. Tremor (4)
:::t:
...II:-.
4.
5.
6.
Cir. miss., e1.L (3)
Cir. touch. (5)
DeY. 1l~nt (3)
4. Circlt..!1 (8)
5.
6.
E1.t. join. dot (2)
E:1:t, rolalion (3)
4. E:1:L sca.L (3)
S.
6.
Dbl. line Uea.)
Tremor (4)
••• J..
7. No. cot (2ea.) 7. No. dots (2) 7. Distortion (8eL) 7. No. col. (2u.) 7. No. dots (2) 7. Di~tortion (Bea.)
8. Fig. on 2 liaea (8) 8. Dislortion (8) 8. 'Guide lines (2) 8. Fig. on 2 linca (8) 8. Distorlion (8} 8. Guide linea (2)
9. Gui.de lioea (2) 9. Guide line• (2) .•• Z.. 9. Wor\:ovtr (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide lines 12) 9. WorkoYtt (2)
10. Work.over (2) 10. Workov.r (2) , . . . . • JO. Src. allempt 13 ea.) ....•• 10. Workover (2) rn·. Workovr.r (2) JO. St-c. attempt (3ea.) ..••.•
11. Sec. attempt (3 eL)...... IJ. St-c. anempt (3 ea.) .. .3. 11. Rota1ion f8) 11. Sec. 11ttempt (3ea.) ••.•.. ll. Sloe. atttmpt (3eL) ••••.. )]. Ro1a1ion (8)
12. Rotation (8) 12. Ro111tion (8) 12. Dc-s. min. (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. De!. mist. (8)
13. Dea. miu. (8)
Design Total
13. On. miss. (8)
Design Total :::s: Design Total 13. Dea. miu.. (8)
De,ip Told ::i:13. On. mm. 18)
Dw,n Told .•.Q.
Desiga. Total
DESIGN 3 Df.SIGN6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN

L Aaymmetry (3) 1. AaymmNry (3) I. Place. Dea. A. (2) l. As:,mmetty (3) I. Asymmeuy 13) l. Plau. Dea. .A. (2)
2. Dot. duh, cir. (3) •• ~-. 2.. Anglta (2) 2. Ovtrlap {2ea.) 2. Dot, duh. cir. (3) 2. Anglea {2) 2. Ovtrlap (2u.)
3. Duhes (2) 3. Pi. crossing (2ea.) •••..• 3. Compression (3) 3.Dubet (2) 3: Pl. UOMing (2 ea.) 3. Com1,reuioa (3)
-1. Circles (8) 4. Crv. extra (8} 4. Linea drawn (8) 4. Cirdes (8) 4. Cr,. ntra (8) 4. Lines drawn (8}
5. No. dots (2) 5. Dbl. line UCL) 5. Order (2) 5. No. doll (2) 5. Dbl. line UeL} 5. Order (2)
6. Ema row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) 6. UU'a row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8)
7. Blunting (8)
8. Distortion (8)
9. Guide linea (2)
7. Tremor (4)
8. Dis1or1ion (8)
9. Guidr. linc:e (2)
7. Rt!I. !iz.:. (8)
Told
DESfGN TOTALS
:::i 9.
7. Blilnting (8)
8. DUtonion (8)
Guide lines {2)
8.
9.
7. Tremor (4)
Dislortion 18)
Cuidc line.9 12)
7. Rr.L $i~ (8)
Total
DF.SIG.'V TOT A.LS
:::a:
10. Workom- (2) 10. Workover (2) 1. .. 3 .. s. .. 11 .. 10. Worko,er (2) 10. Worko\·c-r (2) I. . -'·.. 5. , .Q ..
ll. Sec. attempt (3ea.) •..... 11. Sec. altcmpt (3ca.) ..... . 2. .. :r.. . •. .. 0 .. 11. Sec. attempt (3e,..) ••.••. 11. St-c, allempl (3ea.) ••••.. 2. ..'J. .. 6. ••Q..
12. Rotalioa (8) 12. Rolalion (8) 3. •• 3 .. 7....1.. 12. Rotation (8) 12. Ro1a1ion (8) .....• ti. •.Q .. 7. ,.Q .•
13. Dea, rni.ss. (8) ·--~· 13. Des. min. (8) •••••• 4... II .. a... i... 13. De,. misa.. (8) 13. Drs. miss. (8) •••••• 4. .. 0 .. 8... I ...
De11ign Total •• -~- Dellign Total .. 0.. Coofig. ..1.. Design Tola! •. 0.. 01'.!!ign Total ••.0.. Conlig. , .Q.,
Total Raw Score-~· Standard Score 5.7.. Total Raw Score- .k .. Standard Score .*.-1.,.
[219)
SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEST SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT Tl<s-r
Name .... ;!!'?,.. 4?........................ Age . ~ .• Sex . .JI .. . Name ..... ~?.~.~.L ..................... Age ..~~ .. Sm: ... ~.
Education );!.•.~,. . . . 1.Q. , . . . . . Diagnosis .. .Normal.. ........... . Education ..I! !!l. ~ ... I.Q...... ." Diagnooia .~~~;~!l::9!'-.~'!-~.C!'!~.c...
DESIG!'/ l DESIGN 4 DF.SIGN 1 DESIGN I DESIGN 4 DESIGN 1
l. Wr,y line (2) l. AIJm. Cn. (3} l. End, no. join. (8} 1.w..,11nem 1. Asym.. Cn. (3) •• J..
1. End, no. jol:a. (I}
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Break en'. (4) 2. Anglea ex!. (3) ~ D«. du!,. el,. (3) 2. Break cn. (4) ,. If.,
2. Ana)e1 m. (S)
1.
4..
6.
7.
Duba (2)
Circ!e'!I (8)
5. No. dots (2) each
DbL row (8)
Workou:r (2) ...:z..
3. Cn. not center. (l)
4. Curl, (4)
5. Not joined (8)
6. Cn. rotation (3)
7. Tocch-up (8)
3, Anglea mi•. (3)
4. Ext. ec.at. (3)
5. Dbl. line (lea.)
6. Tremor (4)
7. Distortion (8ea.)
S. Duhce (2)
~ ~=11(~)2)
6. Dbl row (8)
7. Worli:O't'CI' (2)
each
::i:
3. Cn. not center. (1) ••••• , 3. Anilcs mla (S)
:: ~=~o::~ (8)
6. Cn. rotation (3)
7. Tonch-up (8)
:: :
6. Tremor (.f)
3
~) =(~
7. Diltortio'! {Sea.)
::ij.::
8. Sec. allempt (3 ea.) •••• , , ll. TR-mor (4) 8. Guide lines (2) 8. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • • • • • • 8. Tremor (4) 8. Gulde llne1 (2) ••..••
9. Rotation (8) 9. Distortion (8) 9. Sec. au empt (3 ea.) •• , • , • 9. Rotation (8) 9. Distortion (8) 9. Sec. ■ttempl (Sea.) • ,,3 ..
10. Des. mi.ea. (8)
Desiga Total ::::;: 10. Guide line:e (2)
11. Sec. attempt (3ea.) ......
10.
11.
Rotation (8)
Dee. miu. (8)
10. Dea. miu. (8)
De.Ip Total
• • • • • . 10. Gulde 1ine1 (2)
•.. &-. 11. Sec. ■ttcmpl
10. Rolatlon (8)
(3 ea.) • •• .•• 11. Dea. mi& (8) ••••••
12. Rotation (8) OeaignTotal .. Q .. 12. Rotation (8) Dceip Total • - ~- •
13. ·Dea. mW. (8)
Deaign Total .. 0 ..
13. Dea. mile. (8)
Dcelp Total :::;::
DESIGN 2 D'fSIGN S, DESIGN 8 DESIGN 2 DESIGNS DESIGN 8
.. .z.. 1. w• ..,.Jiae (2) ...2.. .. R..
I. Wa..,. line (2)
2. Dam or dot, (3)
3. Shape cir, (3)
l. Asymmetry (3)
2.
Dot, dub, cir. (J)
3.
D1t11het. (2)
I. End, no. join. (8)
2. Angles exL (3)
3. Angles mies. {3)
:::.t 2. Dub·or dot, (3)
3. Shape cir. (3)
I. A11ymmctry (3)
2. Dot, dub, cir. (3)
3. Dehca (2)
l, End1 no. join. (8)
2. Ang)C11 at. (S)
3. AngJce miaa. CS)
4. Cir. miM.. ext. (3) Circlea (Bl
4. 4. E:11:t. ecat. (3) 4. Cir. miu.., at. (3) 4. Circles (8) 4. E:rt. acat. (3)
5. Cir. touch. (S) fat. join. dot (2)
5. ::::z,:
S. Ohl. line (lea.) 5. Cir. touch. (5) S. E:r.t. join. dot (2) 5, Dhl line Cl CL) ::-s.:
6. De,.. slant (3) 6.
E:11:1. rotslion (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6. DeT. Wint (3) 6. E:i:t. rotation {3) 6. Tremor (4) ...¥:.
7. No. col. (2ea.) No. dot.s (2)
7. 7. Distortion (Bea.) 7. No. col (2ea.) 7. No. dots (2) 7. Dis1ortion (Sea.}
8. Fig. on 2 lines (8) Distortion (8)
8. 8. Guide linCl!I (2) a Fig. on 2 lines (8) 8. Distortion (8) 8. Gulde lines (2)
9.
10.
11.
Guide lines (2)
Workover (2)
9.
Guide lines (2)
10. Work.over (2)
9. Work.over (2)
JO. 5(-c. allcmpt (3ea.) •••..•
Sec. atcC111pt (3cL) •..... 11. Src. altcmpt (3ea.) •.••.. II. Rotation (8)
9.
10.
Guide lines (2)
Workovcr (2)
9.
10.
Guide line, (2)
Work.over (2) :::,f 9. Worko•er (2)
10. SN:. attempt (3ea.) ••••••
11. Sec. attempt (3 ea.)...... 11. Sec. allempt (3 ea.) .. • •• • 11. Rolalion (8)
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rolation (8) 12. Dc11. miu. (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12.. Dea. min. CB)
13: Dea. D~: (iotaI : ~: z: 13, Des. D:7~ ~;tal •.. Z. . Deaign Total
13. Dea. miu. (8)
Dceign Tolal •• ).. •
13. DC$. mi!5. (8)
Design Total 3.:
Design Total

]. Asymmetry (3) ••..3. l. Asymmelry {3) I. Place. Des. A. (2) 1. A11ymmetry (3) I. A11ymmetry (3) I. Plaoc. DCl!I. A. (2) .. 1...
2. Dot, duh. cir. (3) 2. Anglea (2) 2. Overlap (2ea.) 2. Dot, dub, cir. (3) 2. Ang]ee (2) 2. Overlap {2 ea.) .. !t..
3. Duhce (2) 3. P1. a:oMing (2 ea.) 3. Compression (3) 3. Diab.cs (2) 3. Pt. crouing (2 ea.) • , •. , • 3. Compression (3)
4. Circ1ce (8) 4. Crv. extra (8)
5. No. doltl (2) S. Dbl line (1 ea.)
4. Lines drawn (8)
5, Order (2) ; ~=-cl:t,<~>2) :: : : :i:1;ac::>. :::i.f;: :: ~~: ~~a>wn (8)
6. E:marow (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) 6. E:11:tra row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8)
7. Blunting (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rel. size (8) 7. Blunting (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rd. aiz.c (8)
8. Distortion (8)
9. Guide lines (2)
8. Distortion (8)
9. Guide lines (2)
Tolal
DESIGN TOTALS
... A. 8. Distortion (8)
9. Guide lince (2) .
8. Dislortion (8)
9. Guide lines (2)
Total
DESIGN TOTALS
R
~ ~ it::
10. Worko't'el' (2) 10. Work.over (2) l. .1.,. 5. ..7..,: 2
ll. Sec. attempt (3 cL) .. .. . • 11. See. anempt (3 CL) . • . .. . 2. .. a,f. 6• •• D... !~: : : k . : : ; ~3CL) ::~: ;~: :::~~::::)(3ea.) :::~: ::~:
12. Rotation (8)
13. Dea. miH. (8)
12. Rotalion (8)
13. Det. miss. (8) ......
3...~,. 7• .. Q ..
4• ..0... a .. P. ..
12. Rotation (8)
13. Des. mW. (8)
12. Rotation (8)
• • • .. • 13. Des. miss. (8)
3•..
• • • • • • 4. • ••
.2..
7..
7.••
8.•
7.. .
1.. .
R
Design Total :::s.: Design Total , .• 9. ~ Config. .J2.. Design Total .• Z.. Deaign Total •• /~. Cou6g. > J.lf:v-,:
To~ Raw Sc.ore . J.1, \ Standard Score .'!-!t. Total Raw Score . ~ ~-.
B
SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEST SCORE SHEET-BWDER·GESTALT TEST
Name ..... ~~., .!14 ................... , ... Age . •~? .. Sex .If .. , Name ......?! '? .••.4$.. . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . Age .. .JR. Sex ...¥ ..
B
Education . P.'?~;l,'!g!' l.Q ....... Diagnosis .. Jl,qX:1)111,l, ........•.... Education .?.~~~.8.~~ I.Q ....... Diagnosis •••.•••• ~~X:~.~ ....... .
DESIGN l DESIGN 4 DESIGN 7 DESIGN J VESIGN 4 DESIGN 7

:I...
~
3.
::,.,d:~ :~:. (3) ::3::
Dashes (2)
1. Asym. C". (3)
2. Break dT. (4)
.
3.'Crv. not center. (1) •••••.

l. End, no. join, (8)
2. Angles HI, (3)
3. Angle, min. (3)
1. V{av, Jin~ (2)
2. Dot, duh, cir. {3)
3. Duhea (2)
J. Asym. Cn. 13)
2. Break crv. (4)
3. Crv. not ccnler, (1) ••••.•
2. Anglea e:11:t. (3)
3. Angles miu. (3) F
4. Cirdea (8) 4. Curls (4) 4. E:11:t. &ellt. (3) 4. Circlca '8) 4. Curls (4) 4. E:11:1. scat. (3)
S. No. dot, (2) each 5. Nol joined (8) S. Dbl. line (leL) S. No. dola (2) each 5. Not joined (8) 5. Dbl. line fl ea.)
6. Dbl row (8) 6. U"t'. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6. DbL row (8) 6. Crv. rolalion (3) 6. Tremor (4)
7. Workovcr (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Distortion {Bea.) 7. Worko't'er (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Oislorlion (8eL)
8. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • , • • • . 8. Ttrmor {4) 8. Guide lines {2) 8. Sec. attempt (3 eL) . • . • . . 8. Trrmor (4) 8. Guide lines f2)
9. Ro1ation (8) 9. Distortion (8) 9. Sec. allempl (3 ea..) , ••••• 9. Rotation (8) 9. Di5lortion (8) 9. ·Sec. auempl (3 ea.) ••••• ,
JO. D~ ~~ ~~lal ::a:: ~~: JO. Rotation (8) •

:d:t:~::t ~~eL) •... ,. 11. Dea. miaa. (8)
10. Des. miu. .(8)
Dceign Total
10.
.. .Q..
Guide lines (2) In. Ro111ion (8)
11. Sec. attempt (3 ca.) • • • • . • 11. Dea. misa. (8)
12. Rotation (8)
13. Dca. miu. (8)
Deaign Total ::o:: 12. Rotation (8)
13. Dea. miu.. (8)
Design TotaJ •• Q ..
Dcaign Total Deaip Total .. 0 ..

DESIGN: DESIGN 5 DESIGN 8 DESIGN 2 DESIGN 5 DESIGN a
I. Wary line (2) l. Asymmetry (3) 1. Ends no. join. (8) l. Wavy line (2) I. Asymmetry (3) l. Ends no. join. (8)
2. Duh or dots (3) 2. Dot. duh. cil". (3) 2. Ang]cs ext, (3) 2. Dub or dot.a (3) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Angles o.L (3}
3. Shape cir, (3) 3. Dashes (2) 3. AnglC11 miss. (3) 3. Shape cir. (3} 3. Duhes (2) 3. Anglea mW. (3)
4. C'U". min., e::rt. (3) 4. Circles .(8) 4. E:r1. scat. {3) 4. Cir. miu., eJ:L (3) 4. Circles (8) 4. .EJ:t. &eat. (3)
.. 1.. S. Cir. touch. (5) 5. .E:a:L join. dot (2) S. Dbl line (l CL)
S. Cir. touch. {S)
6. De.-. Wint (3)
7. No. col (2ea.)
::a:: 5. E:11:L join. dot (2)
t:. Exl. rotation (3)
7. No. dots (2)
6. Tremor (4)
7. Dislortio11 (Sea.)
S. Dbl. line {lea.)
6. De"f'. el1nt (3)
7. No.' col (2ea.}
6. .Ext. rotation (3)
7. No. dot.s (2)
6.
7.
Tremor (4)
Distortion (Sea.)
... !t.
8. Fig. on 2 linca (8) 8. Distortion (8)8. Guide lines (2) 8. Fig. on 2 lines (8) 8. Distortion (B) 8. Guide lines (2)
9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Workover (2) 9. Guide linea (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Worko\'CJ' (2) ~
10. WorkO'l'er (2) 10. Worlco,cr (2) JO. 5(-c, attempt (3 ea.) •••••• 10. Worko,er (2) 10. Workover (2) 10. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) •· •··•
. lL Sec.. anempl (3ea.). •..•. ll. &c. altempt (3ea.) ..•••• 11. Rotation (8) 11. Sec. auempt (3ea.}. ..•.. 11. Sec. anempt (3CL) ...... ll. Rotation (8)
~~ ::'::nlL(~~) ~~ ::.at:;~8~S) 12. Des. ~~(~otal :~o.: 12. Rotation (8)

13. Dea. mi.u. (8)
12. Rotation (8)
13. Des. mW.. 18)
12. Dea. mW.. (8)
De!ign Total :::~:
Deaign Total :~,:: Dcaign Total • ::r: Design Total .•. Q. Design Total .•. ~.

1. Asymmetry (3) 1. Asymmetry {3) 1. A11J1nmetry (3) l. As)'Jnmelry (3) l. Place. Dea. A. 12)
I. Place. Des. A. (2)
2. Dot, duh. cir. (3) 2. Anglea {2) 2. Ovrrlap {2ea.) 2. Dot, duh. cir. (3) 2. Angles (2) 2. Ovnlap (2 ea.)
3. Duhes (2) 3: Dubcs (2) 3. PL crOWng (2 ea.) 3. Compre55ion (3)
3. Pt. CI'OSlling (2ea.} •••••. 3. Compres.sion (3)
4. Circlce (8) 4. Cn. cxlra (8) 4, Lines drawn (8) 4. Circles (8) 4. Crv. cxlra (8) 4. Lines drawn· (8)
5. No. dots C2} 5. Dbl. line {lea.) 5. Order 12) 5._No. dota (21 5. Dbl. line (lea.) S. Order (2)
6. Ema row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) 6. Extra row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8)
7. Blunting (8) 7. Tremor {4) 7. Rel size (8) 7. Blunting (Bl 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rel size (8)
8. Distortion (8) 8. Dislortion (8) Total 8. Distortion (8) 8. Distortion (8) To1al
9. Guide linea (2) 9. Guide linca (2) DESIGN TOTALS 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide lines (2) DESIGN TOT A.LS
IO. WorJr.o,er (2) 10. Worko-.er (2) l. . .l .. 5• • 1. .. 10. Workovcr (2) 10. Workovcr (2) I. ... 0:. 5. • • ,0. ·
lL Sec. attempt (3 ea.) .•• •. . ll. Sec. attempt (3 eL) ...... 2. ..3 .. 6. ••0... 11. Sec. an empt (3 ea.) .. • • .. I 1. Sec. attempl (3 eL) .. . • .. 2. ... 9.. 6. • · • ~-
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rolation (8) 3•. ~ .. , ...IL 12. RotatioJ:1 (8) 12. Rotalion (8) 3. ... P.. 1.....~.
13. Dea. miH. (8) • • • • •• 13. De,. miu. (8) ...... 4. -~·· 8. ..9. .. 13. Des. miu. (8) 13. D«. miu. (8) ...... 4. .. .0.. 8 . ... !!-.
De,ipTotal .• :!.. DC!lign Total .. ti .. eo,,~· .1. .. • Dcaign Total ... 11 • Deaign Total , •• .If. Config. .0... .
Total Raw Score • J.I,.. Staodud S-o f. ~.. Total Raw Score •. 8.. Standard Score • ,1/-S•.
[220]
~ .. ,t
11e
r·····
;...... .
'
:::;+::
f ......
ATLAS OF SCORED RECORDS
Record 1. Male feeble-minded, M.A. 5-3, C.A. 9-11 (not scored).
Record 2. Male, feeble-minded, M.A. 4-4, C.A. 19-9 (not scored).
Record 3. Male, feeble-minded, M.A. 6-2, C.A. 20 (not scored).
Records 4-25. Practice-to be scored and checked against completed score sheet
after scoring each record.
Records 26--45. All twenty records are to be scored before checking against
completed score sheets to check scorer's reliability and validity..
SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TEST SCORE SHEET-BENDER-GESTALT TBs-r
Name .... ~ '? ! . . 4?.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... Age . ;!h. . Sex ..¥ .. . Name ..... ~~~.!tL ..................... Age ..~~.. Sex ....~.
Education .a...l:I ,. . . . I.Q. . ....• Diagnosis .. li OrJ!lal. ............ _. Education • ~ !!'.~ ... I.Q•..•.• : Diagnoois .l!C?~.~~!'."'.~!'-.t.~~!l.'!~!l.. .
DESIGN I DESlGN 4. DESIGN 1 DESIGN l DESIGN 4 DESIGN 1
1.-w• .,.., line (2) l. Asym. Cn. C3) l. End1 no. join. (8) J. "·"" HDII (2) I. A,ym. Cn. (3) . . ,3.. J. End, no. Join. (8)
2. Dot, duh. cir. (3) 2. Break en, (4) 2. Anglea ext. (3) 2. Dot, duh, dr. (3) 2. B,oak on. (4) .. I/.. 2. Analcs at. (3)
3. Dubea (2) 3. Cn. not cenler. (1) 3, Angles mi.N. (3) S.D..i.e. (2) 3. Cn-. not center. (1) ...... 3. Ansles mt... (3)
'- Cnrlt '4) 4. Ext. seal. (3) 4. Circles (8) 4. Curl, (4) 4. En, IICaL (3)
5. No. dota (2) each S. Not joined (8) S. DbJ. line flea.) S. No. dota (2) each S. Not joined (8) 5. DbL line Cl ea.)
6. Dbl row (8) 6. Cn. rotalion (3) 6. Tremor (4) 6. DbL row (8) 6. Cn-. rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4)
7. Worlr.cm:r (2) ...z..7. Touch-up (8) 7. Dlatort:On (Sea.) 7. Womne, (2) 7. Touch.up (8) 7. Dillortio~ C8ea.)
8. See. attempt (3 eL) , • , ••• I. Tumor (4) 8. Guide linea (2) 8. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • .. .. • 8. Trtmor (4) 8. Guide lille& {2) • , ••••
9. Rotalion (8) 9. Distortion (B) 9. See. attempt (3 ea.) ••••• , 9. Rotation (8) 9. Diatortlon (8) 9. Sec. 1ttempt (!ea.) .,,.,,.
10. Dea. min. (8) JO, Guide lines (2) 10. Rotation (8) 10. Dea. mlaa. (8)
Design Total ::::::
11. See. altempl (3 ea.) • • • • • • 11. Dea. mW. (8) De,ipTot,J
10.
ll.
Guide lines (2) IO. Rotation (8)
Sec. au empt (3 ea.) .. • • • • ll. Dea. mil&. (8)
12. Rotation (8) Dcaiip1 Total , .Q.. 12. Rotation (8) Dai.p Total ::,::
13.-Dea. miu, (8)
Design Total .. 0 ..
13. Ila. m1M. (8)
Design Total :::(
DESIGN 2 DESIGNS DESIGNS DESIGN J DESIGNS DESIGNS
.. 1,. . ..2,.. .. a..
1. Wuy line (2)
2. Dub or do11 (3)
3. Shape cir. (3)
I. A1ymmclry (3)
2. Dot, dub, cir. CJ)
3. DaMcs (2)
2. Angles ext. (3)
3. Angles miN. (3)
:::.r L Wa.,.l.lne (2)
2. Dadl' or dote (3)
3. Shape clr. (3)
I. Aa)"Dlmetry (3)
3. Dashes (2)
J. End, no. Joi11.
2. Anglea ext. (3)
l. Anglea mlu. (3)
(8)
4. 4. Cir. miu., en. (3)

5.
6.
Cir. min., ext. (3)
Cir. touch. (5)
DeT. 1l1nt (3)
4. Circlu. (8)
5. Ext. join. dot (2)
6. Ext. roletion (3)
:::i. 4. ExL ecaL (3)
5. Dbl. line OeL)
6. Tremor (4)
S. Cir. touch. (5)
6. De,,. alllllt (3)
4. Circles (8)
5. E:r.1.join. dot (2)
6. E:r.t. rolation (3)
4. En. IC&l. (3)
5. Dbl. Jin.e (1 ea.)
6. Tremor (4)
7. No. col (2 ea.) 7. No. dot!! (2) 7. Dh,tortion (8 CL) 7. No. coL (2ea.) 7. No. dots (2) 7. Diatortion (Bea.)
8. Fig. on 2 linea (8) 8. Distortion (8) 8. Guide linea (2) 8. Fiir- on 2 linee (8) 8. Distortion (8) 8. Guide liDcs (2)
9. Guide linea (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Workover (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide linea (2) 9. Workonr (2)
10. WorkOTer (2) 10. Workovu (2) 10. Sec. attempt. Uea.) ...... 10. Workover (2) 10. Worko,er (2) 10. ~- au empt (3 ea.) ...•••
11. Sec. attcmpl (3CL). .•_••• }l, St-c. attempt (3ea.) •..•.• ll. Rora1ion (8) 11. Sec. atlempt (Se.a.). ..... U. Sec. attempt (3eL) ...... 11. Ro1alion (8)
12. Rotation (8) 12. Rotation (8) 12. Dea. misa. (8) 12. Rolation (8) 12. Rotalion (8) 12..Dca. mill. (8)
13. Dea. miu. (8) 13. Des. miaa. (8) Deaign Total 13. Dee. miea. (8} 13. Des. mi.as. (8) Design Total
D~gn Total Design Total ... Z.. Deaign Total • • ).. . Design To1al 3.:
DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIGN l DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN
1. A1ymmetry (3) •, .3. 1. Asymmetry (3) l. Place. Dea. A. (2) 1. Aaytnmctry (3) I. Asymmetry (3) I. Place. Des. A. (2) .. 1...
2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Anglea (2) 2. Overlap (2ea.) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Anglea (2) 2. Overlap (2ca.) .. !/:-..
3. Duhea (2) 3. Pi. cz:o!l8ing (2 ea.) 3. Compr~ion (3) 3. Dashes (2) 3. P1. crouing (2 ea.) 3. Compreuion (3)
4. Circlea (8) 4. Crv. extra (8) 4. Lines drawn (8) 4. Circles (8) 4.. Crv. extra (8) 4. Lines drawn (8)
5. No. do11 (2) 5. Dbl. line ( 1 ea.) S. Order (2) 5. No. dota (2) 5. Dbl. line (lea.)· S. Order 12)
6. Ema row (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) 6. Extra ro• (8) 6. Touch,up (8) 6. No order (8)
7. Blunting (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rel. size (8) 7. Blunting (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rd. aiu (8)
B.
9.
Dittor1io1:1 (8)
Guide lines (2)
8. Dis1or1ion (8)
9. Guide linea (2) DESIGN TOTALS
To"1 ... A. 8. DU11ortion (8)
9. Guide linea (2)
8. Distortion (8)
9. Guide lines (2)
To"1
DESIGN TOT .4LS
Recc
10. Workover (2) 10. Workovcr (2) I . . l. .. 5. •• 2..,: IO. Worko,er (2) •• .2..
IO. Worko,er (2) •. , • • • l. .. 5. • a,.. S.. ..
11. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • • • • • • ll. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) .•.... 2. .. 2.·~- 6• •• 0... 11. Sec. auerapt (Se.a.) ...... 11. Sec. Bllcmpt (3eL) .•. ~. 2. .. ,.,. 6. JD .. .
12. Rotation (8)
13. Dea. miss. (8)
Design Total •.•
12. Rotation (8)
• • • • • • 13. Des. miss. (8)
3.. Design Tola]
3. .•5,. 7• •• Q ..
••·••• 4. •.
... 9.;Config..
0... a .. P. ..
.Jl..
12. Rotation (8)
13. Dea. mf&a. (8)
Design Total
12. Rotation (8)
• • • • . • 13. Des. misa. (8)
•• L_. Design Total .. /P..
3• •. .2..
...... •· ... 7..
Con6g. '
a.,1.....
7• •.
Jlf:v.1
Recc
ToJal Raw Score , J.J. .,. Standard Score .l:l-f." Total Raw Score .~~- Stand:. Sco,o . ~•
Rec,
SCORE SHEET-BENDER·GESTALT TEST SCORE .SHEET-B~DER-GESTALT TEST
Name ...• .I.I~., .J.h ....................... Age . •~? .. Sex .l!'... . Name ..... .Ii'?.•..4$....................... Age .• )R. Sex .. JI ..
Education . P.<?i~'!S!l J.Q; .....• Diagnosis •• -~-qz:1)1!1.J, ............ . Education . ~-~;~.8.€;~ I.Q. ...... Diagnosis •....... ~~':~.~ ....... .
DESIGN l DESIGN 4 DESIGN 1 DESIGN 1 DESIGN·4 DESIGN 7

I. Asym. Cn. (3) l. Wavy Jin~ (2) J. A,ym. C". (3) 1. Enda no. join. (8)
I. Wavy line (2)
3. Dashes (2)
:::;:: 2. Break crv. (4)
• -~ .•
3. · Crv. not cen1cr. (]} ..... .

J. Enda no. join. (8)
2. Anglea ext. (3)
3. Angles misa. (3)
3. Dalhes (2)
2. Brealt crv. (4)
3. Crv. nol center. (I) ......
2. Anglea ci:t. (3)
3. Angles mW. (3) Rec,
4. Circles (8) 4. Curl, (4) 4. Ext. ,cat. (3)
4. Circles (8)
S. No. dote (2) each
4. Curls (4)
5. Not joined (8)
4. Ext. sc11t. (3)
5. Dbl. line Of'a.) 5. No. dot, (2) each 5, Nol joined (8) S. Dbl. line U ea.) cc
6. DbL row (8) 6. Cn. rotation (3) 6. Trmior (4) 6. Dbl. row (8) 6. C". rotation (3) 6. Tremor (4)
7. Workover (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Distortion CBea.) 7. Workoft.l' (2) 7. Touch-up (8) 7. Dulortion (8 eL)
8. Sec. attempt (3 ea.) • . • • • . 8. Tumor {4) 8. Guide lines (2) 8. Sec. aUempl (3 tL) , ••. , • 8. Trrmor (4) 11. Guide lines 12)
9. Rolation (8) 9. Distortion (8) 9. Sec. ■ llffllpl (3 ea.) •••••• 9. Rotation (8) 9. Di,1ortion (8) 9. ·Sec. attempt (3 ea.) ••• •. •
10. Des.~ ~~tal ::a:: ~~: :d:,:!::t :~ea.) .••.••

12. Rotation (8)
~~: ~:t::.(~~) ,
Design Total • •0 ..
10. Des. mi.as. (8)
Design Total
10. Guide Jines (2)
12. Rotalion (8)

10. Ro111ion (8)
.. •Q.. 11. Sec. anempt (3 ea.) .. .. .. IJ. Des. miu. (8)
Deaign Total •• Q .•
13. Des. miu. (8) 13. Dea.. miaa. (8)
Design Total Design Total • •0 ..
DESIGN Z DF:SIGN 5 DESIGNS DESIGN 2 DESIGN 5 DESIGN 8
]. Wavy line (2) 1. Asymmetry (3) I. Enda no. join.. (8) I. Wavy line (2) 1. A!ymmetry (3) I. Ende no. join. (8}
2. Duh or dots (3) 2. Dot, dash. cir. (3) 2. Angle, ext. (3) 2. Duh or dots (3) 2. Dot, duh, cir. (3) 2. Angles exL (3)
3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Oll!lhcs (2) 3. Angles mi.sa. (3) 3. Shape cir. (3) 3. Da!'hts (2) 3. Anglea miss. (3)
4. Cir. miu., ert (3) 4. Cirdet .~8) 4. Ext. acat. (3) 4. Cir. miu., cxL (3) 4. Circles (8) 4. Ext. ac■L (3)
(l e■.)
~ ~:~. :~ (~~) :3:: !: :::: !::;i!\!:) .. 1'. !: ~~~~~:n~4~l
S. Cir. touch. (5) 5. E:r.1. join. dot (2) 5. Dbl line
ea.) 6. fkv. ahnt (3) 6, Ei:1. rotation {3) 6. Tremor (4) ... !+.
7. No. cot (2ea.) 7. No. do1s (2) 7. Dislortion (Se■.)
7. No.' col (2 ea.) 7. No. dots (2) 7. Distortion (Bu.)
8. Fig. on 2 lines {8) 8. Distortion (8) 8. Guide Jinet (2) 8, Fig. on 2 linea (8) 8. Ditiortion (8} 8. Guide linee (2)
9. Guide Jines (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Workovll!I' (2) 9. Guide line■ (2) 9. Guide lines (2) 9. Worko,er (2)
10. Worko'fer (2) 10. Work.over (2) 10. Sn:. ■ llempt (3 ea.) •••••• 10. Workover (2) 10. Workover (2) 10. Stt. aUcmpt de■.) •····•
- IL Sec.. allempl (3ea.) .•••.• 11. St-e. allempt (3ea.) .••••. 11. Rotation (8) ll. Sec. 1ncmp1 (3ea.) ...... II. Sec. 11te111pt (3ea.) ...... 11. Rotation (8)
~ :::a.(~~)
o..;,. Toi.,J ::,.: :
~~ ::t:;aa.(S:8)
Do,;gn Tot,! • ::i:
l2. Des.Dmea:(~otal ::er: 12. Rotation (8}
13. Dee. mise. (8)
Design Total •.. Q.
12. Rotation (8)
13. Des. m.isa. (8)
Deaig:n Total ..• 0:.
12. Dea. miss. (8)
Design Total :::ir
DESIGN 3 DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN DESIGN l DESIGN 6 CONFIG. DESIGN
...2,.. I. ASJD1metrJ (3} I. Asymmetry C3) 1. Place. Dea. A. (2)
1.A,ymmotty(3)
3. Duhes (2)
::s:: I. Asymmetry (3)
2. Anglea (2)
3. Pi. crOSBint; {2ea.) ......
I. Place. Des. A. (2)
2. Ovrrlap (2 ea.)
3. Compression (3)
3."Duhcs (2)
2. Angles (2)
3. Pt. crossing (2 ea.) . . • • . •
2. <hrrlap (2 ea.)
3. Compres!oion (3)
4. Circles (8) 4. Crv. c:r.lra (8) 4. Linea drawn (8) 4. Circles (8) 4. Cr,. e:r.tra (8) 4, Linet1 drawn· (8)
5. No. dota (2) 5. Dbl. line Clea.) 5. Order (2) S..No. doll (2) 5. Dbl line (1 ea.) 5. Order (2)
6. Ema ro• (8) 6. Touch-up (8) 6. No order (8) 6.Estrarow(8) 6. Toucb•up (8} 6. No order (8)
7. Blw:iting (8) 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rd. siz.c (8) 7. Blnntin1 (Bl 7. Tremor (4) 7. Rel. siz.c (8)
8. Dittortion (8) 8. Distortion (8) Total 8. Dittortion (8) 8. Dh1onion (8) Total
9. Guide lines (2) 9. Guide lines (2) DESIGN TOT A.l.S 9. Guide linct (2) 9. Guide Jines (2) DESIGN TOT .41.S
10. Workover (2) 10. Work.over (2) I. . .3.. • S. . 2,. . , IO. WorkoTCr (2) 10. Workover (2) J ..•• IL S••• . 0..
11. Sec. ■tlcmpt (3ca.) ••..•• II. Sec. attempt (3ea.) .•.••• 2. .. 6.••0.. . a.. IL Sec. allcmpl (3 ea..) ••••.. II. Sec.. attempt (3c■.) ...... 2. ... 9.. 6...• !t-.
.3...
~~ :::1:::0:s> ::::::_If. !: ::J: ~ :::l
12. Rotalion (8) 12. Rota1ion (8) ••••.• 3. . 7•..0 .. . 12. Rotation (8}
13. Dea. mis&. (8) ...... 13. Des. miS&.. (8) • • • • . • 4.• fl.. . 8. . .9. .. 13. Des. miss. (8)
[J..;gn To"1 .. :! .. Design Total •• Q.• Config... .2.. .. - Design To1al •.•.Q. Design Total .• , Confis- .D. •• ,
Total Raw Score •• J.I,.. Standard Score $.~-. Total Ra• Score .• g.. S1andard Score . • lff.
[220)
ATLAS OF SCORED RECORDS
Record 1. Male feeble-minded, M.A. 5-3, C.A. 9-11 (not scored).
Record 2. Male, feeble-minded, M.A. 4-4, C.A. 19-9 (not scored).
Record 3. Male, feeble-minded, M.A. 6-2, C.A. 20 (not scored).
Records 4-25. Practice--to be scored and checked against completed score sheet
aft.er scoring each record.
Records 26--45. All twenty records are to be scored before checking against
completed score sheets to check scorer's reliability and validity ..
·gltl:?:--...,fUtB::lt:·"·4': "":'5:iF"M) ~
(
2
4.)
----
t
··'[J
.•'.!·.
~
j
;..,•
4.
Record 1
[223]
Record 2
[224]
---
- - . "" ,, 0
-'f ,, I..-_,
0 D 0 0 Oo o 0
0 0 O {5 O O o
6 0 0 0 0 0 (j
, "''//////~,
I .. I I l I t
. -\ " . ' . ,r t If ·• 1
--~ZL ~
c-__
Record 3
t
C7 A. 0
/. G
•
• •
C,
a
•• a
0
0
e>
0
• •
2.c 0 0
<:::>
0 0 <:)
(
6 0
·~•
0 0
G CJ 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
4!!t
• a 0 0 0
s
• • 0
0
• • ••
3.
a
• • • Q
41)
~ 4.
a0cc
&)o~
0
00
•A
00
~
5.
6.
Record 4
[226]
(3
0
6
0
00~19~~ 0~
0
00 ()
0 ~
o 0
" (()
~
~
<a
• • • • • • • 0
O'
0
e
• Q G 0 c» •1tr
0 0
Q, (".!)
0 ct)
D
(()
0 0
G e 0
0 0 0
Q 0 0 e, 0 00
0
Q () C a ~ C 0 0 0 Oo
0 0 C ~
~
e e 6 C
(!/
0
0
~
0 0
t) G
1) ~ 0
0 D
QC> <b
0 0
- Record 5: first sheet

r~ ..... ,..,,
•
Record 5: second sheet

f2281
·-
c:,~9 ~
~
~e
({)
@
())~
0
.~_,
(.:,
&) G 0
(t, Q
0
@
0 ... e;
0 ~
~ ~
e,
e "'c) 0 (!) g <D
{;a 0 t:, fl> 6
-
cO
'
C)
c) C.
0 Q 8
0 • • 0
0
c;, c:,')
~
0
• •• e
CZ,
f)
0
(;
0
•
.:,
0
C,
0 0
0
0
•
6
~
~
• ~
"
e ••
C
e, 0
7.
-l,
Record 6
[229]
'6'A'lftdfF•P&'l'l'!'N.,r:';,W:'.'or ... :':i 1: . . . . --·
0
0
C
Record 7
,_
u '
•
•
•
.
•
•
.-
i
•
•
•
-
•
C, •
• • f!I •
• • '"' . - .. • •
Record 8
f?~ll
Cb .. • • .
''
. \
~
• . . .
\
\
\
'-
''\
"\ '
\
' '\ '
"
'\ '-
\
'' '
\
\
"
\
''
'' \
'\
\
l
' "
' ' 'I I
-
1 'f'
I
u
"
)
I
I '
'
~------=-oi..=>
'-- -
Record 9
[232]
" • r • . • . ,.. 19 . t
~ 0 (t) ~ (> ~
() 0
,_(t> e e ~ 0 C 0
c:,
0
C, 0 <:::> 0
0 © Q () Q \ "
E> ~ ~ ~
D
••
' .
• . • •
·A
• .
. ' ~
l
• '\
\
~ " t
• •
- '
,;
• ., t
I 1
Record 10
[233]
-L - ::2.
- • • • • • • • - - .. • •
0
__sL_
e 0 0 a 0
-• .• • •
tJ,
e>
0
C,
0
6
6
0
C) 0 C) 0 0 0- • • • •
0 0 0 c!) 'C) 0
0 ,0 Cl II • Iii
()
• • 6
(
•
-1
,
,
3-
Record 11
[234]
--
, • I , I I
0 0 d 0 lJ> 6
I) () IJ 0 (J
0
(J (J 6 0 I> 0
I
• ', I
j • ,I
,,
I
i
'
,'
I
I '
I
~:. r-. '

~;
' ,,
•
I
Record 12
1}qartment of JJgyefwh,g;
:(Jentral Institute: • '"',;,, 1~a*if1
P:O. Kai:L., ;J.,.,1..h1-6
O<)
• •• •
• • • .- D
• ••
• -
•
....... . ,
o.
.•
,•• •to
....
Record 13
[236]
\
\ I
'
\ '\
'
\ \ \ \ \ l
' \
\ \
'
'
' \
\ .
\
•
~
'
'' t
' '
"\ ' ~
◊
\
• /
, I ' ' t
/ I
,., I
I
, I'
I
,
I
r
. .' I
Record 14
[237]
I.
• •
" • ~
• • • .. . - ..
0 C:, 0 ~ 0 c)
0- ~ G 0 0 Cl !/:1
0 a 0
C) 0
0 0 4 0 ~ 0 ~ ()
e, 0 0 0 0 a 0
• •
• •.
•
. • ,,
• • ~
• •
•
0
p
• •
. . ,,. ..• ••
•
•
•
.. •f
•
Record 15: first sheet

[238)
Record 15: second shee1
/- . .
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
O> 0 o (Z)
<::> 0
.Z- lb 0 0, a C)
0
0 0
C) 0 0 e
0 C) ~ 0
Q 0 c::,
0
0 0
a- • • . . .
,r,
4- LJ ___
,. ,,
S-
Record 16
[:240]
I , ,
0
e 0 Cb 0 0 0 C 0 0
0 (S 0 0 0 0 0
t:> 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 d> 0 0 0
. •
.
. .
• • .
.• .• •
,,
•
.
rn.a,"1
Record 1
•
• • • • •
"
0
C
0
0
e,
0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 c:, 0
0
i::J 0 0
O 0 0
0 0
0 e,
0
•
• • ..
L
~
,,. • •
• •
•
• . •
. •
,
, ,.
~
,,.
••
• • • • ... • .
,• •
• .• .
• ,,
Record 18
.,.. • • • ,. . " ' ' '
0 ~ C en
0 0 C,
• C t::> 0 C)
0 IO <)
~
p e, e, 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0
◊
0 0 0 0 0
/
0
• -
., • ' ~
.
• •
. •
•
.
. .' .
•
.,
' I
. •
"
fOA'>1
Record 19
• • . -
.
•
ce 0 0 C, c:,
0 a ~
'D G ()
0 0 0 0 0 0 C)
0
0 0 0
0 C 0 c:J ~ CJ
0 0 () 0 0
0
• e,
0 0
0
• " 0 6
• ()
0
c:,
0
•
.•
•
0
. .,
. <> b 0
0
<)
0
0
0
0
• 0
/
)
Record 20 r 'lA Al
• •
C,
0
• • • • • .. •
0
0
0 D (!:)
0 t:;.
0 C. c::,
Cl
0
~
0
0
0
0
-. ~ ~ c::,
~ C. 0 ~
0, '2,
C)
.. 0 0 <21
. •. .
~
J
"•
• •
•
"' .,
\ t/}g~ldP
... r,Sfch];:~tw
,.
• --
... •- •
•
• •.
•
• ••
Record 21
[245]
I I
, I I I
'
CJ 0 0 e:,
C,
6 C,
C, o a 0 0
0 0 <::)
0 Cl
d 0 6 0 0
CJ 0 0 0 c)
0 6 0
0 0 o
C.
Record 22
[246]
,,
C,
L, u
0
C/ D c,
u tJ
0
"'

f247l
2.

[248)
oO
0
' 0 0 r,
I
0 0 0
e
a ocO
0 co 0
Q ~o o
<, co 0
•
~o o
➔
. 't
II!)
I I • •
0 CIC C
•
. • 8 0 o C
8 C>Q 0
It
II
e
•
. t
,. • U'
(
. .)
• '
, •
I
V
Record 24
I ?d.01
-•- - - • ... ... - -0
•
•
•
•
•
-
- -- .. •
• •
.
fi
•
•
-- - - -"' .
• C
~
~
-ca
•
• • ~
•
•
I!$ ,0
~
-
6 0
• • •
CJ & lb
• (:
•
,. •
,.
0
•
_, • • ~
•
• C
Ill
:t: •
t#
Q •
•
V
~
b •
~ •
Q
•
Record 25
[250]
\,)
•
•
'
\
\
0 C, 0
0 ~
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 6 0
0 0 0 C, 0 0
'. ;
0 0 0 0 0 t> 0 0 0 0 C,
•
• •
•
' I .
•
I
•
. . •. ,
_<)
_____ __,>
Record 2{
[251]
·---~-~-~~----.,,~---·~~~-~-
::;;·· - - ,.-~- - =-'~"'
.. ,~>:•'·
0) C
,
0 (::,
-
<:)
,.
I:) ('.) 0 a 0
•
'
0
0
e
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
C!)
0
0
C:>
G
0
0
6
0
0 • I I
0
0 0
,
0
;
.
•
•
, • I
t,
0
•
:, .
6 ..
I
,·
"
Record 27
f2!'i2l
• 0 a, tD 0 0 G •.. <8" p 19 dbl
"
..
C
G
Q, IQ
(I
. (T ~-
()
C
(l!2)
(I}; JJ Ci
()
ca. ~ e
~
"~
Q_
,@__ 6, ca..
~
~
~
Q
Q
~
~
G
1 0 Q
0 0
ti ~
~
G m
(Q
()
G
6
II)
,i.
~-
I
f
f
\
'
!
.,
.,
0 -
Q e p
G 0
r' @
0
t
t: 6 @
!i:
t ([) <O
f
f a
,.~ G
;
<, Record 2:
[253]
,,
.a) • • • • • • 9
• • • • • • p
•
l) 0 • ,, 0
0 0 0 C, 0 C 0 ~ 0
0 0 0 0 C) 0
0
• ct 0 0 0 oo •
•
• •
• •
If) • • •
•
• &)
• • •
• •
•
~;
s) q)( ◊ )
• • -
••
-... •
•• •
•
• •
") •
•
•
•
.••
,
Record 29
[2541
0 C 0 () 0 C
D 0 C
• '\ ,; . \
\ '! 0 0 a 6
' ' 1\
0 0
C
0 C) (.
CJ
0 0 0
0 D
• •
., •
p
9
,, . •
~
. •
• .
•
---
r-n,--,..,
Record 30
• • . • • • . •
0 0
D o ~ O o o
0 0
0 0 o o ~ ()
0 0
O Q C> O O 0
,;
_,., •
• •
,, • --- • •
--------- • •
•
...
l,;
" "----- ~ •
•
"--· '--....
'
•
•
• - •
•
" •
•••

£256]
"
.Jt~,;.
,~
~
'.Ji.
:fl>
------------------------------------------------
11 [257]
I • ' . ' .... • •
'
0 0 0 0 a 0 0
0 ~ 0
0 0 a 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
C, b
0 • () 0
\)
0 0 0 0
. 0 0
. •
I
. ' I '
" &
' . ' ,'

,, ' 4 •
.. I
•
•
•
•
'
.'
Record 32
. •
0 0
0 0
O◊
0 0
0 ,:. 0 (J
.
-
G 0
"'d
t, .
0 0,
.,. 0
<>
d>
<>
"'d
0
~
0
0
a
C)
,
,.
Record 33
[259]
f
• " • . • • •
•
• •
C
0
c;,
C>
u
0
(,)
0
0
6
0 0 () C 0 0
• •
6 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 ~ 0 • • • •
0 Q 0 0 0 0 0
. •
• •• •
• • • • • ••
•
• - •
•
• •
• •
•
Record 34
f260]
• • • • • • • • • • .
• 0 0
• 0 0 0 IQo ~
•
-
0
0 0
• 0 0 0
0 Q G Q Q
0 0 0 • ct 0 0 0
• 0
..
Record 3~
[261]
00 •
" •
~
o oO '
0
. •'
c, o d • C
• ,
O a ai • I
• • •• e, C,
(J
• I
•
•• •
' • •• G
0 (J
•
0
() °' (j)
0 t)
•
•
0
0
co , -+
0
oo It
-£.
() 0
0 •
•
.. , ' ••
•
..
'
'
. ••
,
~
.
I t I I , •
''
Record 36
[262]
• • • • • • • • • •••
0 a c:, 0 0 0
0 Q 0 o
0 0
0 0 C> 0
0 0
•
• •
•
• • • • .
• •
• .•
•
..... .,, ••
••
.•• . • •
'
...• .t
•
.
Record 37
f263l
V
---...
• • •
- • - •
c:, C,
OI C,
0 c::,
0 0 0 6:)
0 0
0
0
0 .s. 0
c::::i
0 ,r:, 0
C,
~ co G c)
0
0
------
0 'O 0
C) 0
. .
. •
0
•
• •
• •
• • .
• ~
., .
...
.
.
,
-
• •
• 0
b
t
• •
ti
•
- "
~ .
Recor d 38 .· first sheet
f264]
V
:·_ • ,_:.
I
JE
Jt
'..
;:·•

[265]
0
0
0
0
C,
0
C>
0
0
0
0
0
0
c>
C)
C>
C)
0
c::>
C:>
C,
0
e:,
0
co
(cl
cO
C)
C)
~
'° C
0
C
~
.
a:,
•
•
. • •
•
6
•
.
,
. ~
t
•
•
.• •
••"'
I
'
... . •0
.
•.
(_J
•
• •
y
, ,
- .. - - •
Record 39
(266]
• "' • ,, p
• ,. C> e, ,. ,. D
r
r
'
0
0
C>
C
0
C
C,
0
0
C,
0
0
0
CJ
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
C)
G
0
0
CJ
C
0
C 0 G
•
•
• . I,
•
' • • •
., ,. . ,I
.. 0
•
0
•
.,
~
. . •
,.
•
iL
•
,, , •
. . . •;.....__
~
• ~
••
• (.: •
~ ....
.:.t--
[: t
/
J
Record 40
[267]
r
i
• , II , , • , .
0 0 0 0
"
0
0
0
C,
0
0
0
• 0
cS
0
0
0
0
0
c:.
0
()
0
0
0
0
•
•
.. -••
• •
•-
•
• •
•
-
.•.
. . ..
.
<--◊.-:--->
', :,
~,·_--_-.·::
\· ;>
I
I'.
ti
,-,_x;;f!,,.. ;
Record 41
[268] ;j,;lib.
• • • • • • . . -•
0
0
0
•
0
0
•
•
0
•
•0 - 0
0
0
0
0
•
•
0
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
Q
0
•
,. -
•
•
•
• ••
• •
.• •
•
•
. . . . ..• • •
.••.
;
,:-:,
I
:
;'
.
'
-..._
rnLn'l
Record,
t •
,,, •
•
•
•• • ·•
-
•
• ••
•.,• 0
• •
•
• ••
• • • • .. • •
0 (D 0
C) C)
0 ©
0 0
() ~ 0 0 0 e,
C> 0 (!)
D 6 0 0
e 6 0
0 0
•
-' .
., r--
• • 'iS '
~
~
&
-~
,''.~'.
f<'.'---
Rewrd 43 ·
r2101
oc-'
' . ' •
;o. 0 • 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
l: G;)
0
0
0 0" 0
0
Q
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
C.
C)
c:,
<.:>
0
0 •
., ',
,
•
. • .
-,
• .. I • • .. , I
•'
Record
~)
f;r·
c~;-
.;.:i,
oO " • • • • -.
~-;
,;,.,.
:.;~
0 b C,
0 c::, 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 u C, C> 0 0 0 u
0 c:, c::. c::, 0
0 0 0 C, 0 0 0 C) C>
. Ask,
Attit
• • efl
• • •
• • • •
• • • Bent
•
• •• Billi
• I
• "Bn
,•
Cari
Chi
Chil
0 a1
i11
SJ
V
Coj,
t Con
i
Cor
"Dt
Rewrd 43
INDEX
Ask, 71 Deviations, major, 77

Attitude, 8, 9 specific
effect on B-G performance, 69, 70 aggression, 93
catatonia, 94
cortical damage, 40, 56
, •• Bender, 3, 4,·5, 6, 7, 10, 22, 41, 57 depression, 93
I Billingslea, 3, 4, 16 hypomania, 93
"Breaks" in performance, 76 maturation, 55
paranoia, 92, 93
psychogenic disorder, 56
Carter, 67
Chi square, 13
Children, performance of on B-G ECT and B-G, 8, 16, 33, 66
age, 23, 42 Ego function, 9
intelligence, 22, 42 Ego strength, 9, 23, 32, 70, 71
vs. performance of psychotic, 56 Eysenck, 68
specific deviations on
configuration, 55
design 1, 45 Fragmentation, 8
design 2, 46, 47 Free assocation and B-G, 68
design 3, 47, 48 Freud, 70
design 4, 49
design 5, 50, 51 Gellkorn, 6
design 6, 51, 52 Glueck, 3
design 7, 53, 54
design 8, 54 ·
validity, 42 Hoagland, 6
Cofer, 6 Hoskins, 6
lt CCom~ressdion, 93 d BG f Hunt, 6
t orllca1 amage an - per ormance,

7, 8, 9, 57, 62, 66
Huston, 6
Hutt, 3, 4, 5, 10
"Design", definition of, 107 Ideomotor aptitude, 68

273
274
Instructions, 10, 11 Reliability

Insulin therapy and B-G, 8 odd-even, 17
Irion, 5 ant. _core, 16
Item analysi~ 13 scoring, 15
test-retest, 17
and time interval, 17
Limits, testing, 77 and validity, 15
Lowenbach, 8 Repetitive visuo-motor task, 16, 17, 33
Riggs, 6
Rorschach, 6, 67, 70, 76
Mental defectives and B-G, 77, 83
records of, 21
B-G performance of, 57, 62 ·
Micrographia, 93 Schilder, 8
Scoring
accuracy of, 12
/.· instruments in, 12
Neurosis and ·B-G performance, 8, 55, 56 score sheet, 12
Normal curve, 35 subjectivity in, 12
Normative population, 19, 20 weighting scores, 13
representativeness of, 20 Screening · ·
limits of, 36
J· use of B-G in, 35, 36
Opposition, 94 Shakow, 6
Orenstein, 8 Sketching, 11
Orientation of designs, 11 Skewness, 25
Social improvement, 31
Stainbrook, 8
P~scal, 8 Stress; 6
Patient population, 27, 28
Perseveration, 56, 57
Phi coefficients, 13 · Time needed to adm_inister test, 11
f,-_
. Practice, effect of, 18
Primitivatioin, 8, 56
Prognosis, 31 Validity
Projective technique and B-G, 68 and childr.cn's riecords, 42
Psychiatric diagnosis and psychiatric diagnnsis, 27
unreliability of, 27, 71 and raw score, 29
validity, 27 . i.
Psjchosis
and B-G performance, 8, 55, 56 Wechsler-Bellevue·~ , 6, 30
regression in, 40 Wertheimer; 3
Wolff, 68
Work-over, 92
Reaction time and complexity of task, 6, Zeaman, 8

7 Z-scores, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 71

Bender Gestalt Test BGT Pascal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bender Gestalt Test BGT Pascal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I

GERALD R. PASCAL, Ph.D.

BARBARA J. SUTTELL, M.S.

Foreword by David G. Wright, M.D.

GRUNE & STRATTON

Printed for Grune & Stratton, Inc. in the U.S.A.

"Could we determine, with certainty, distinctly separated faculties of

fof the organ of the

1ile the au- FOREWORD by David G. Wright, MJJ . ............................... . V

PART II: CLINICAL USE OF THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST

37. Record of psychoneurotic (outpatient) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

I. Item frequencies, weights, and phi~coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

The Bend.er-Gestalt test consists of nine simple designs, each of which is

be presented in this book ( 37), we know of no other published attempts to patie:

In the course of administering several hundred B-G tests we naturally

6 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATION

stimuli as a whole; the response itself being a constellation, a pattern, or

;~·~~~"i~' the figures p11t -also. of the indiy{ef~!~~:i~1~!pr~t~ti~n of them, i.;. /

psychogenic as well as so-called organic disorders ( 29). Deviations from the

r,e ·data, is re- ~·- -~ E

2: ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING :i :t:.:

.r \J ·7thing on that order. In general,· however, ·questions about actual per-

12 !HE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATION

The scoring procedure is simple, perhaps even deceptively simple. With

~vely simple. With i

1 126 251 42.22 < .01

In encountering the problem of reliability we were faced with the net

16 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATION

The Effect of Practice.

18 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATION

important here. Thus, we have found, as we have noted, no practice effect

High School College

15-19 50 18.5 34 19.8 84 19.0 9 12.3 12 11.3 21 11.7

Median 15.0 10.0

We are unable to state, whether or not our population is representative

t~e correlation c~efficient. ~- r~~~-~-~~~es of subjects with some college e~uca-•"·:\:

·: QUANTIFICATION hEsT STANDARDIZATION 25

for mental growthl .

>pe that we might , .

parabl~ subjects '.:.~.-.'.'!it••·

at least one year I

:::::::::~£;;::;i:=i~;;:::::;::~~~ed for two diffu~t I

30 THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: QUANTIFICATIQ

Nonpts. All Pts. PN Psychotic

z f % Cum. f % Cum. f % Cum. f % Cum.

Table 5 shows the Z score frequencies of the patients and nonpatients.

scores and a product moment correlation· coefficient of .37 was obtained (P

Z Scores and Prognosis

,T: QUANTIFICATI0,1' . TEST VALIDITY 33

tat happened to th' :

flm1ss10n were 61.QE

below 72. ';ii;

? admit many subje~

::tinative population, measuring drawing ability or I.Q. within average

!dity of the deviationsf

uring maturation, our 11 X X X X X X X X

For the population of 46 normal children mean scores were calculate4f

adherence to the stimulus. { __ dots. althtn

5 AGE 6-5, IQ 135

1) Wavy rather than straight horizontal line of circles, as in design 1.

AGE 6-11, IQ 101

AGE 7-2, IQ 137 AGE 7-lC

Fie. 11. DESIGN 3. Examples of children's drawings.

Design 5 1 1 ) The substit