A comparison of H-T-P responses of handicapped and non-handicapped children

Abstract

ego defenses of S will be higher when E is present and therefore constriction in performance will result, several predictions were made and confirmed. The I3 present group had a significantly smaller number of interpretable features on the house and person drawings; also the size of the person drawings and the size of all three drawings summed was significantly smaller for the E present group. Since the presence or absence of E seemed to affect the tree drawing least, the data are in accord with the hypothesis that the tree represents a deep level of personality integration and the person and house a more superficial level. Original reliability among the three raters for interpretable features was low and the implications of this are indicated. REFERENCES 1. BUCK, J. X. The 1%-T-P technique: a qualitative and quantitative scoring manual. J . clin.2. HAMMER, E. F. The role of the H-T-P in the prognostic battery.

Chapter VI: Development and Applications of Projective Techniques

“…The investigator described the sample and the criteria of success more adequately than is done in many such attempts. None of the hypotheses underlying the use of the House-Tree-Person Test was supported in a study by Wawrzaszek and others (48) who tested 41 children with severe physical handicaps and compared their scores with a control group which was selected on the basis of age, sex, and IQ. A lighter note was achieved by MeltzofT and Litwin (33) who presented Rorschach cards III and VII together with Spike Jones' "Laughter" record to 68 college students who were told not to smile.…”

Psychologists' judgments of physical handicap from H-T-P drawings.

“…Berreman (1954) looks at the problem from the standpoint of the attitudes shown toward handicapped people, which he says are different from attitudes toward normals, and are likely to affect the self-images of the handicapped. Wawrzaszek, Johnson, and Sciera (1958) found no differences between handicapped and nonhandicapped children on any of 10 variables derived from the House-Tree-Person Test.…”