Drawing conclusions: A re‐examination of empirical and conceptual bases for psychological evaluation of children from their drawings

Thomas, Glyn V.; Jolley, Richard P.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1998.tb01289.x

Cited by 151 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of this study suggest that the majority of effects reported in previous studies are not necessarily an artefact of the methodological limitations noted by Freeman (1976), Cox (1992), Jolley (1995) and Thomas and Jolley (1998). While the precise nature of the mechanisms which are responsible for these effects remains elusive and must be a subject for future research, this experiment has provided unambiguous evidence that, contrary to the assertions of some recent researchers, size and colour changes in relation to affective characterisation do indeed occur, and that these phenomena require further investigation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…As Thomas and Jolley (1998) point out, the interpretation of size changes in children's drawings is a complex process, as a reduction or an increase in the size of a feature may be a positive sign in one child's drawings and a negative sign in the next child's drawing of the same topic. However, the existing literature (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aronsson & Andersson, 1996;Cleeve & Bradbury, 1992;Craddick, 1961;Di Leo, 1973;Hulse, 1951;Sechrest & Wallace, 1964;Solley & Haigh, 1957) and decrease the size of unattractive or threatening topics (Craddick, 1963;Koppitz, 1968Koppitz, , 1969Wilson, 1995) in their drawings. However, Freeman (1976), Cox (1992, Jolley (1995) and Thomas and Jolley (1998) have all criticised the research upon which this conclusion has been based. In particular, they argue that much of this research fails to take into account the cognitive and perceptual-motor difficulties which children have in planning and producing drawings, typically relies upon ad hoc selections of drawings as evidence, fails to utilise proper experimental designs with appropriate controls to test the claims which are made concerning the effects of affective characterisations upon children's drawings, and omits any independent validation or measure of the affect which is supposed to be associated with a given drawing topic.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Barrett, Beaumont & Jennett, 1985;Barrett & Bridson, 1983;Barrett & Eames, 1996;Barrett & Light, 1976;Bremner & Moore, 1984;Cox, 1981Cox, , 1985Cox, , 1992Cox, , 1993Crook, 1984Crook, , 1985Davis, 1983Davis, , 1985aDavis, , 1985bFreeman, 1976Freeman, , 1977Freeman, , 1980Freeman, , 1987Gardner, 1980Gardner, , 1982Goodnow, 1977Goodnow, , 1978Kellogg, 1969;Light & McEwan, 1987;Sitton & Light, 1992;Winner, 1982). However, some researchers have also explored whether the contents of children's drawings can be used as a reliable index of children's feelings concerning the objects which are depicted in their drawings (Burkitt, Barrett & Davis , 2003; in press); Forrest & Thomas, 1991;Hammer, 1997;Joiner, Schmidt & Barnett, 1996;Jolley, 1995;Koppitz, 1968Koppitz, , 1969Thomas, Chaigne & Fox, 1989;Thomas & Jolley, 1998). Situated within the latter tradition, the present experiment was designed to assess whether the size of the objects which are depicted in children's drawings, and the colours which are chosen for drawing those objects, are influenced by the affective characterisations which have been given to those objects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The effect of affective characterizations on the use of size and colour in drawings produced by children in the absence of a model

Burkitt

Barrett

Davis

2004

Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effect of affective characterizations on the use of size and colour in drawings produced by children in the absence of a model

Burkitt

Barrett

Davis

2004

Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The validity of human figure drawing test scores is debated (Gresham, 1993;Motta, Little, & Tobin, 1993a, 1993b, but only with respect to behavioral risk assessment using particular features of the human figure as indicators of disturbed emotions (Aldridge et al, 2004;Bekhit, Thomas, & Jolley, 2005;Lange-Küttner, 1989;ter Laak, de Goede, Aleva, & van Rijswijk, 2005;Thomas & Jolley, 1998). In young children, drawing recognizable human figures requires the ability to follow simple response rules (Riggs, Jolley, & Simpson, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deterioration and recovery of DAP IQ scores in the repeated assessment of the Naglieri Draw-A-Person (DAP) test in 6- to 12-year-old children.

Lange-Küttner¹,

Küttner²,

Chromekova³

2014

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study investigated whether mental age in children, as assessed by the IQ in the Draw-A-Person (DAP) test (Naglieri, 1988), can be improved by practice. In addition, it was tested whether children needed novel content to keep up their performance level during test repetition. The DAP test was given to 6-, 8-, 10-, and 12-year-old children (N ϭ 80) 3 times. In addition, they drew a police figure 2 times, with task sequence counterbalanced. Repeated drawings resulted in significant omission of detail and deterioration of scores, but the novel task instruction temporarily recovered the IQ scores. This did not occur in the reverse sequence of the tasks, with the less specified DAP instruction given in the 2nd half of the drawing series. Furthermore, structural regressions in the human figure drawing could be observed in individual cases. However, 12-year-olds did not need the external introduction of novel content to maintain their IQ score. Correlations showed that this age group redefined their drawing plan on each repetition, and often created unique figures on each occasion, even if the instruction had stayed the same.

show abstract

Clinical Judgment and Mechanical Prediction

Garb

2003

Handbook of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computers can be used to make judgments and decisions. In this chapter, the strengths and limitations of mechanical prediction and clinical judgment are described. Judgments made by computers have generally been more accurate than judgments made by humans. However, only a few present‐day mechanical prediction rules have been shown to be powerful. Mechanical prediction rules will be briefly described, and reasons will be given for why it has been difficult to build ones that are powerful. With regard to clinical judgment, mental health professionals can make reliable and valid judgments if they are careful about the information they use and if they avoid common judgment errors. A large body of research illustrates that it can be difficult to learn from clinical experience. This is because psychologists sometimes use invalid information, their cognitive processes are fallible, and in clinical practice they are unlikely to receive accurate feedback on whether their judgments are right or wrong. Recommendations are made for improving the way that judgments and decisions are made. One recommendation is that psychologists place less emphasis on their clinical experiences and more emphasis on training that is based on scientific research.

show abstract

Drawing conclusions: A re‐examination of empirical and conceptual bases for psychological evaluation of children from their drawings

Cited by 151 publications

References 14 publications

The effect of affective characterizations on the use of size and colour in drawings produced by children in the absence of a model

The effect of affective characterizations on the use of size and colour in drawings produced by children in the absence of a model

Deterioration and recovery of DAP IQ scores in the repeated assessment of the Naglieri Draw-A-Person (DAP) test in 6- to 12-year-old children.

Clinical Judgment and Mechanical Prediction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About