Figure Drawing Anxiety Indexes: A Review of the Literature

Handler, Leonard; Reyher, Joseph

doi:10.1080/0091651x.1965.10120213

Cited by 25 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Handler and Reyher (1965) indicated that both small size and large size extremes indicate anxiety or stress, and that similar findings were found for light and heavy line. These extremes correspond to two different styles of reacting to stress or conflict.…”

Section: Configural Scoringsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…We thus want to counter the claims of Joiner et al by challenging what we see as an oversimplified and therefore invalid research approach. We also want to correct their erroneous description of the Handler and Reyher (1965) article, and to describe some of the experiential and conceptual underpinnings of the technique that seem to have gone unnoticed in their approach. Finally, we present suggestions for future research that we hope will help to end this old debate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Problematic Methods and Unwarranted Conclusions in DAP Research: Suggestions for Improved Research Procedures

Riethmiller¹,

Handler²

1997

Journal of Personality Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Configural Scoringsupporting

confidence: 77%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Problematic Methods and Unwarranted Conclusions in DAP Research: Suggestions for Improved Research Procedures

Riethmiller¹,

Handler²

1997

Journal of Personality Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Of concern is that the many critics do not comment on this application for drawing data. Machover's (1949) methodology of examining single signs subsequently evolved into broader views requiring integration of data beginning with Hammer (1954Hammer ( , 1958 and continuing with Handler and associates (Handler, 1967;Handler & Reyher, 1965, 1966 as well as Buck (1970), Jolles (1971), Burns and Kaufman (1970), Tharinger and Stark (1990), and most recently Handler (1997a, 1997b). One reason there are disparate views regarding the utility of figure drawings is that different interpretations are used.…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Figure drawings: A popular method

Flanagan

Motta

2007

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research, commentary, and interpretive procedures reflecting varied perspectives on figure drawings are presented in order to suggest contemporary practice models for school psychologists. The review of the extensive literature includes measures with scoring systems that are normed and those systems that rely on clinical traditions for interpretation. Available scoring systems demonstrate adequate reliability and validity for screening purposes, but evidence of their utility for diagnosis of an individual by interpretation of drawings is nonexistent. Drawing data can be useful when they are aggregated with other data and interpreted in a configural manner to obtain a description of the individual, or when the focus of assessment is on overarching constructs such as well-being. Finally, figure drawings may aid in establishing rapport with youth and provide a springboard for practitioner hypotheses, guiding the course of the assessment.

show abstract

“…Again contra Machover, Cvetkovic (1979) reported that schizophrenics were less likely than normals to draw disembodied heads. Moreover, in a review of research on human figure drawing signs and anxiety, Handler and Reyher (1965) found that 30 of 255 findings were statistically significant in the direction opposite from those predicted (see Riethmiller & Handler, 1997a, for discussions of these negative findings).…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

603

391

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-AlthoughControversy has been no stranger to the field of personality assessment, and no issue in this field has been more controversial than the scientific status of projective techniques. Indeed, the novice reader attempting to make sense of the sprawling and bewilderingly complex literature on projective techniques is immediately confronted with a striking paradox. On the one hand, during the past four decades a litany of personality assessment researchers (e.g., Anastasi, 1982;Gittelman Klein, 1986;Dawes, 1994) have come forth to decry the reliability and validity of most projective techniques (see Lilienfeld, 1999). Jensen's (1965) famous quotation, although 35 years old, still captures the sentiments of many contemporary scientists toward the Rorschach Inkblot Test and numerous other projective techniques: ". . . the rate of scientific progress in clinical psychology might well be measured by the speed and thoroughness with which it gets over the Rorschach" (p. 238). On the other hand, clinicians in the United States and to a lesser extent those abroad continue to use projective techniques with great regularity, and many contend that these techniques are virtually indispensable to their daily practice (Watkins, Campbell, Neiberding, & Hallmark, 1995). The crux of this paradox was incisively summed up by Anastasi (1982), who observed that "Projective techniques present a curious discrepancy between research and practice. When evaluated as psychometric instruments, the large majority make a poor showing. Yet their popularity in clinical use continues unabated" (p. 564).Indeed, despite the sustained and often withering criticisms directed at projective techniques during the past several decades (Dawes, 1994;Lowenstein, 1987), numerous surveys demonstrate that such techniques continue to enjoy widespread popularity among clinicians. Durand, Blanchard, and Mindell (1988) reported that 49% of the directors of clinical psychology graduate programs and 65% of the directors of clinical psychology internships believed that formal training in projective techniques is important. Watkins et al. (1995) found that 5 projective techniques, including the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), were among the 10 instruments most frequently used by clinical psychologists. For example, 82% of clinical psychologists reported that they administered the Rorschach at least "occasionally" in their test batteries and 43% reported that they "frequently" or "always" administered it. There is some indication, however, that the popularity of certain projective techniques may be waning. In a recent survey of practicing clinicians, Piotrowski, Belter, and Keller (1998) reported that several projective techniques, including the Rorschach and TAT, have been abandoned by a sizeable minority of users. Some authors (e.g., Piotrowski et al., 1998; Piotrowski & Belter, 1989) have attributed the recent decline in the popularity of projective techniques to the advent of managed care, although at least some of this decline may al...

show abstract

Figure Drawing Anxiety Indexes: A Review of the Literature

Cited by 25 publications

References 32 publications

Problematic Methods and Unwarranted Conclusions in DAP Research: Suggestions for Improved Research Procedures

Problematic Methods and Unwarranted Conclusions in DAP Research: Suggestions for Improved Research Procedures

Figure drawings: A popular method

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About