Figure drawings: A popular method

Abstract

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.

Children’s human figure drawings do not measure intellectual ability

“…Over the past few decades, HFD tests have consistently ranked among the most popular assessment techniques used by psychologists and clinicians; in these contexts, HFD tests have been used as part of a test battery, as a screening device, or for ascertaining children's cognitive abilities (e.g., Archer, Maruishm, Imhof, & Piotrowski, 1991;Cosden, 1992;Flanagan & Motta, 2007;Lubin, Larsen, Matarazzo, & Seever, 1985;Motta, Little, & Tobin, 1993). Unlike more conventional measures of intelligence, these drawing tests require only 15 min to complete and can be used to test children with limited productive language skill.…”

Size and emotion or depth and emotion? Evidence, using Matryoshka (Russian) dolls, of children using physical depth as a proxy for emotional charge

“…There is a very clear history of inappropriate interpretation in the use of children's drawings as a diagnostic tool (Cox 2005, p.261). Indeed it is not clear that drawings are the best way to explore extreme emotional stress (Joiner & Schmidt 1997) and evidence for their use as a clinical diagnostic tool does not appear to exist (Flanagan & Motta 2007). Thus the absence of a size and emotion effect for extreme emotion should not be taken as evidence that the children are not trying to express emotional charge in drawings.…”

Can drawing be considered a projective measure for children’s distress in paediatric dentistry?

“…Human figure drawings are quick, inexpensive, and nonthreatening to children 16 , and as assessment tools, have been widely used by clinicians, as early as 1920s by Goodenough and later by Koppitz [20][21][22] . Pelander et al used drawing to estimate children's expectations of an ideal hospital 23 .…”