1 / 106

Human Figure Drawings in Personality Evaluations: Old Controversy, New Data

Human Figure Drawings in Personality Evaluations: Old Controversy, New Data. Achilles N. Bardos University of Northern Colorado School Psychology Programs (970) 351-1629 e-mail: abardos@edtech.unco.edu. Human Figure Drawing.

yoko
Download Presentation

Human Figure Drawings in Personality Evaluations: Old Controversy, New Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Human Figure Drawings in Personality Evaluations: Old Controversy, New Data Achilles N. Bardos University of Northern Colorado School Psychology Programs (970) 351-1629 e-mail: abardos@edtech.unco.edu Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  2. Human Figure Drawing • What can we say about the girl who drew this picture of herself (9 yrs. old)? • Is she intellectually normal? • Does she have emotional problems? Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  3. 100 years of history • Luquet (1903) • intellectual development • changes in drawings reflect emotional stability Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  4. DAP History (continues) • Goodenough (1926) • Drawings reflect intellectual level and provide information about the emotional aspects of a child (Goodenough, 1926) • Drawing “probably carry profound meaning, had we but the wisdom to understand them (Goodenough, p. 60).” • Conclusion: Human figure drawings are multidimensional in nature Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  5. DAP History (continues) • Lewis (1928) • viewed drawings as more valuable than dreams in understanding interpersonal relationships. • Buck (1948) • The most well known effort to interpretation • H-T-P Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  6. DAP History (continues) • MACHOVER (1948) • “Personality projection in the drawing of the HF” • A one to one relationship was hypothesized to exist between particular signs and areas of conflict the drawer might be experiencing. Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  7. DAP History (continues) • Koppitz (1968) • most recent approach that uses total number of items • first actuarial method attempting to differentiate meaningful from non-meaningful items Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  8. Critical reviews • Machover’s hypothesis lacks empirical support • Koppitz’s system failed the test of diagnostic validity • Literature review conclusions • lack of objectivity in scoring • number of items more important in discriminating normal from clinical groups • global aspects should be used for interpretation • Use DAP as a screening measure Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  9. Frequency of DAP use? • The DAP continues to be ranked in the 10 most frequently used instruments in personality evaluations. Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  10. Popularity should not equate with clinical utility Questions about validity-- can drawing by a person tell about that person’s behavior, personality or emotions? Experts aren’t any more accurate in interpretation than the untrained. Use with other tests won’t give any additional information. Don’t use less valid test with valid. Artistic ability affects the score on these tests. Cites research against and flawed studies-why do studies with the psychiatric population, it is obvious they are disturbed. They are popular due to ease of administration and lower cost. Arguments Against the Use of HFD Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  11. Arguments for the Use of Human Figure Drawing Tests • They utilize a variety of methods, techniques and scoring. It is hard to group all DAP tests together. • Recent tests like DAP:SPED made scoring more objective and standardized. • Psychologists know that using a multi-method approach yields better results. • Literature also supports the use and utility of human figure drawing tests. • Efficiency of resources used(personnel, instruments). Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  12. DAP:SPED Development • We studied over 75 years of research on DAP and found the following needs: • Scoring rules were vague and lacked objectivity and had low reliability (Roback, 1968; Swensen, 1957, 1968) • Items associated with emotional disturbance appear in drawings of nondisturbed children • The number of items found is more important than the presence of any single item (Koppitz, 1968) Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  13. DAP:SPED Development • One-to-one interpretation of one sign to a specific interpretation lacked empirical support • Global interpretation is effective to identify children with emotional problems (Kahill, 1984; Roback, 1968; Swensen, 1957, 1968) • DAPs can be used for screening purposes for gross levels of maladjustment • DAPs can be used for evaluation of emotional and intellectual dimensions (Koppitz, 1968). Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  14. Draw A Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance - DAP:SPED Jack A. Naglieri Timothy J. McNeish Achilles N. Bardos 1991 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  15. DAP:SPED Development Goals • A DAP scoring system should: • have objective items • include experimentally validated items • Be normed on a representative sample • Have good reliability • Show differentiation of known groups Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  16. DAP:SPED Test Construction • Collected many potential items • Subjected the initial items to careful review and revision to ensure objectivity • Tested the items’ rates of occurrence in the normal standardization sample • Only selected items that were unusual (that is equal to or more than 1SD from the mean) Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  17. Item Types • Measurement items • Tall or short Figure • Small or big figure • Top or Bottom placement • Left or Right placement • Slanting figure • Content items • sign is present or not Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  18. Base Rates of Original Items Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  19. How do you know when a child draws a small figure? How do you know when the figure is close to the page? What is normal ! Ages 9-12: Height =105 mm Width = 54 mm Drawing Size 74 mm 93 mm 68 mm 97 mm Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  20. For Ages 9-12 Mean SD Height 105 36 Width 54 25 Top 74 36 Bottom 97 39 Left 68 18 Right 93 20 Mean + or - 1 SD > 1SD Tall > 140 Short < 70 Top Plcmt Top < 39 Bottom > 135 What is Abnormal Size Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  21. DAP:SPED Standardization • 2,260 children (6780 drawings were evaluated on 93 items) • Ages 6 - 17 years • Representative of the US on the basis of • Age • Gender • Race • Geographic Region • Ethnicity • Socioeconomic Status Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  22. Psychometric Properties • Reliability • Internal consistency • Inter-rater reliability • Intra-rater reliability • Test-retest stability Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  23. Reliability • Internal Reliability • Typical projective test reliability is the .20s (Anastasi, 1988) • DAP:SPED Total Test Reliabilities are • Ages 6-8 = .76 • Ages 9-12 = .77 • Ages 13-17 = .71 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  24. Validity evidence for the DAP:SPED Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  25. McNeish & Naglieri (1993) Journal of Special Education, 27, 115-121 81 Special Ed (SED) 81 Regular Ed Matched Groups All males (75% white) 7-13 years of age SED earned significantly higher mean T-score (55.3; SD =10.6) than control group (49.5; SD=8.6) >55 < 55 SED 49% 51% Normal 32% 68% DAP:SPED Validity Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  26. Naglieri, & Pfeiffer, S. I. (1992). Psychological Assessment, 4, 156-159. 54 Subjects in psychiatric day treatment at the Devereux Foundation & 54 matched controls DSM-III-R Disruptive Behavior Disorders Age range 7-17 years, 78% males; 95% white DAP:SPED means significantly different 56.6 (SD 10.3) vs 49.4 (SD =8.7) 78% of controls and 48% of DBD correctly identified SPED improves accuracy of prediction by 25% DAP:SPED Validity Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  27. Additional Studies with the DAP:SPED • Psychiatric Residential Sample • Public School Setting with ED students/New York • Public School Setting with ED students/Colorado • Learning Disabled Students/Ohio • Hearing Impaired Students • 5 recent dissertations Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  28. Study 1.Psychiatric Residential Sample Clinical Group Control Group Males 33 177 Females 16 41 Age 15.3 years 14.5 years Race Black 7 4 White 36 211 Hispanic 3 ` -- Other 3 3 Other Clinical Group Information Court Referral Yes 44 No 5 Court Decision: In Need of Supervision (37), Juvenile Delinquents (7) Committee on Special Education (3) Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  29. Study 1.Psychiatric Residential Sample Age DAP:SPED Percentages Sample N Mean SD Mean SD Males White Clinical 49 15.3 1.1 57.0 6.4 67 33 Normal 218 12.9 2.2 49.1 8.1 81 19 T-test = 7.41, p<.001 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  30. DAP:SPED and Self Concept(study 1) Mean SD Pearson Corr. DAP: SPED 57.0 6.4 MSCS Social 103.9 17.5 .04 Personal Competence 97.8 15.7 .06 Personal Affection 97.6 15.9 -.26* Achievement 97.3 15.3 .14 Family 92.2 15.0 -.43** Physical 100.4 18.6 -.19 Total 95.8 16.8 -.17 Note: * p< .05 ** p< .01 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  31. Study 1.Psychiatric Residential Sample Nonreferred (N=22) Referred (N=26) Mean SD Mean SD DAP:SPED 51.8 2.1 61.3 5.1 MSCS Social 106.3 19.9 101.9 15.3 P. Comp. 97.8 20.3 97.7 11.1 P. Affec. 103.9 18.5 92.5 11.4 Achieve. 95.7 16.1 98.6 14.7 Family 96.0 16.6 88.9 12.9 Physical 106.7 15.5 95.3 19.6 Total 100.4 17.5 92.0 15.4 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  32. Efficiency of Classification with ED Adolescents (study 1) Emotional Classification Normal ED DAP: SPED Decision Do not Refer 160 22 Refer for Further Evaluation 56 27 Sensitivity: .55 55% of children scoring 55 or above will be correctly identified Specificity: .74 Accurate screening predictions were made for 74% of the children Efficiency of .33 There is a 33% chance that a child outcome “refer” referred will have emotional difficulties Efficiency of .85 85% chance that a child referred will be “do not refer” judged as being normal Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  33. Study 2.ED Students In Public School Setting ED Group Control Group Males 50 226 Females 8 38 Age Mean Mean 6-8 7.2 years 6.9 years 9-12 11.5 years 10.8 years 13-17 14.9 years 14.7 years Race Black 7 4 White 36 211 Hispanic 3 -- Other 3 3 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  34. Study 2. Additional Relevant Information Mean SD WISC-R VIQ = 96.3 11.1 PIQ = 95.3 16.8 FSIQ = 94.9 12.4 Program in Special Education Option II 38 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  35. Study 2. Age DAP:SPED Percentages Sample N Mean SD Mean SD Males White ED 58 12.1 1.2 54.8 9.2 86 91 Normal 262 11.3 1.0 49.7 9.0 86 97 t-test = 3.85, p< . 001 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  36. Results of DAP:SPED Classification (study 2). Group’s Emotional Classification Normal Emotionally Disturbed DAP:SPED Decision Do Not Refer 191 30 Refer for Further Evaluation 71 28 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  37. Efficiency of Classification(study 2) Hit Rates What this means: Sensitivity .48 48% of those scoring 55 or above will be correctly identified Specificity: .73 Accurate screening predictions were made for 73% of the children Efficiency of screening outcome “refer” .28 There is a 28% chance that a child referred by DAP:SPED will be judged as having emotional difficulties Efficiency of screening .86 There is a 86% chance that a child not outcome “do not refer” being referred by DAP:SPED will be judged as normal Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  38. Study 3EBD Students in Colorado Subjects: 42 students identified SIEBD (Significant Identifiable Emotional/Behavioral Disorder) Age: 8-17 years Sex: 38 males 4 females Race: Black 6 Hispanic 1 White 34 American Indian 1 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  39. Study 3. Instruments Administered • DAP: SPED • Emotional and Behavior Problem Scale (EBPS) by teacher • Multidimensional Self Concept Scale (MSCS) Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  40. Study 3 DAP:SPED and EBPS DAP:SPED 54.2 10.0 40-80 EBPS--Empirical Interp. Aggre/Conduct Disorder 8.1 3.4 1-12 Emo. Withdrawal/Depress. 8.4 3.1 0-12 Learning Comp. Disorder 8.3 3.2 1-13 Avoidance/Unresponsive 8.0 2.6 1-12 Aggre/Self Destructive 9.0 2.9 0-13 Total (Sum of St. Scores) 41.0 12.0 10-60 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  41. Study 3. DAP: SPED and MSCS Mean SD Range DAP:SPED 54.2 10.0 40-80 MSCS Social 95.0 18.8 47-145 Personal Competence 95.0 18.4 28-145 Personal Affect. 95.0 17.6 63-145 Achievement 92.3 18.3 63-145 Family 97.3 16.2 72-125 Physical 99.2 14.7 66-141 Total 93.6 16.3 64-145 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  42. Study 3. DAP: SPED EBPS Aggression/Conduct disorder -.19 Emotional withdrawal/Depression -.22 Learning Comp. Disorder -.42* Avoidance/Unresponsive -.05 Aggressive/Self Destructive -.02 Total score -.33* Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  43. Study 3. DAP:SPED and MSCS MSCS Social .05 Personal Competence .09 Personal Affection -.11 Achievement -.01 Family -.13 Physical -.03 Total .01 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  44. Study 4Children with Learning Disabilities Normal Learning Disabled Ages N Mean SD N Mean SD t-test 9-12 818 50.0 9.4 78 56.5 9.6 5.88** 13-17 912 49.8 9.7 51 54.8 8.8 3.60* Note: * p< .05, **p<.01 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  45. Study 4.DAP: SPED, DAP:QSS, and WISC R Correlations DAP:QSS DAP:SPED WISC-R M SD VIQ 92.8 9.6 .04 .10 PIQ 100.0 10.1 .25** -.05 FSIQ 95.5 7.8 .11 .04 DAP: QSS 94.1 14.3 .45** Note: **p< .01 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  46. Study 5.Hearing Impaired Students(Colorado) Total Sample N=307 Gender Race Hispanic 61 Males 142 Asian or P. Islander 8 Females 127 Black 18 Missing 38 Native American 7 Age (in years) White 186 5-12 136 Other 19 13& older 113 Missing 69 Missing 58 Classroom Placement (52 missing) Full-time/Regular 24 Part time /Special Ed 94 Full time /Special Ed 137 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  47. Study 5.DAP:SPED and the Devereux Behavior Rating Scales--(Ages 5-12 years) Variable Mean SD IP IBF D PSF Total DAP:SPED 56.17 11.46 -.04 -.05 -.11 -.04 -.05 Devereux Scales IP 10.56 3.03 .86 .64 .70 .92 IBF 10.72 3.06 .56 .74 .91 D 10.77 3.32 .63 .79 PSF 11.17 3.01 .87 Total 104.48 14.84 Note: P=Interpersonal Problems, BF= Inappropriate Behaviors/Feelings, D=Depression, SF=Physical Symptoms/Fears All correlations between the Devereux Subtests were p<.001 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  48. Study 5. DAP:SPED and Devereux Behavior Rating Scales--Ages 13 -18 Variable Mean SD IP IBF D PSF Total DAP:SPED 50.37 8 -.33* -.31* -.19 -.16 -.30* Devereux Scales IP 11.04 3.06 .84 .59 .66 .90 IBF 11.22 3.12 .60 .58 .88 D 11.35 3.30 .74 .83 PSF 11.58 3.20 .85 Total 107.22 14.66 Note: P=Interpersonal Problems, BF= Inappropriate Behaviors/Feelings, D=Depression, SF=Physical Symptoms/Fears All correlations between the Devereux Subtests were p<.001 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  49. Study 5. Present Special Education placement • Learning Disabled 6 • Speech and Language Impaired 9 • Mentally Retarded 8 • Seriously Emotionally Disturbed 6 • Hard of Hearing/Deaf 247 • Orthopedically Handicapped 4 • Deaf/Blind 40 • Other Health Impaired 2 • Other 3 Special Services • Psychological Counseling/Therapy 35 • Psychiatric Hospitalization/Resid. Treatment 2 Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

  50. Results of DAP: SPEDwith Hearing Impaired Students 254 Valid Cases/Student Records show 5 as ED Criterion Number Services Identified Provided 55 or less 135 11 (no need for further evaluation) 55 to 65 74 3 (further evaluation is suggested) >65 45 2 (Evaluation is strongly indicated) Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

More Related