247strongly suggests that they lack sufficient refinement for purposes of differential diagnosis. Further, item analysis revealed no item from any of the scales capable of significantly distinguishing between HFDs of the ED group and those of the BD group. This finding is not unexpected in view of the fact that the majority of these scoring systems have been presented as tools useful in screening and prediction relative to emotional and school adjustment and not as diagnostic techniques. Thus, it seems safe to conclude that, as general tools capable of screening out children with adjustment and/or learning problems from their non-problem peers, three of the scoring systems considered are equally efficient when applied to HFDs done by children within the ages of five to 12, and no system has given any evidence of differential diagnostic potential regardless of age a t which drawing was done. REFERENCES DILLARD. H. K.. & LANDSMAN. M. The Evanston Earlv Identification Scales. Prediction of school probiems from the human figure drawings of kindirgarten children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1968, 24, 227-228. L. 4NDSMANi M., C % Dillard, H. K. The Evanston Early IdatiJication Scale Manual, field research edition. Chicago: Follett Publishing, 1967. KOPPITZ, ELIZABETH M. Ex ected and exceptional items of human figure drawings and I& scores of children age 5 to 12. ?ournuL of Clinical Psychology, 1967,2S, 81-83. KOPPITZ, ELIZABETH M. Emotional indicators on human figure drawings of children: A validation study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1966a, 28, 313-315. KOPPITZ, ELIZABETH M. Emotional indicators on human figure drawings and school achievement of first and second graders.