Draw a Person test

Introduction
Florence L. Goodenough developed the Draw-a-Man test for preschoolers and older children
in 1926. It was scored according to criteria that dictated a score of 1 or 0 for the body parts.
Goodenough used it to study the intellectual status of young children. She wanted to find a
way to accompany the Stanford-Binet intelligence test with a non-verbal measure. It was later
called as Draw-a-Person test.
DAP can be used for children between age of 3 to 12 years old. It is not wise to attempt to use
this test with bright children of more than 12 years of age.
History
The first systematic scoring system for children's drawings was developed by Goodenough in
her Draw-A-Man Test (DAMT). In the DAMT, children between 4 to 10 years of age are
asked to draw a single picture of a man. Children's HFDs are scored based on the number of
details in the drawing and the accuracy of the placement of each body part.
DAMT has undergone several revisions of its procedure and scoring system. It was first
revised by Harris and the new test was referred to as the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test
(GHDT). The GHDT was designed to assess both children and adolescents of up to 15 years
of age. In the GHDT, children are asked to draw three pictures: one of a man, one of a
woman, and one of the self. In addition, a new scoring system was developed to estimate
overall maturity, precision of details, and general proportion. Although Harris developed
scoring systems for drawings of a man and a woman, no scoring system was developed for
the self-drawing. To address this issue, Naglieri established the Draw-A-Person: A
Quantitative Scoring System (DAP:QSS), in which he developed a scoring system for the
self-drawing along with a composite scoring system for the three drawings.
Goodenough later realized that the gendered description of Draw-a-Man test made it harder
for young girls. In 1949, Karen Machover developed the first measure of figure drawing as a
personality assessment and called it as the Draw-a-Person Test.
Purpose
The purpose of DAP is to measure the cognitive ability, rough estimate of a nonverbal IQ,
emotional disturbances, personality, and self-esteem of children. It is used to measure the
personality trends and not the disorders.
It has been widely used as a measure of intellectual maturation in children, to elicit
personality type and unconscious material, and as part of neuropsychologic test batteries.
Reliability
Harlen Hayne et al. compared scores on the Draw-A-Person Intellectual Ability Test to scores
on the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence in 100 children and found a
very low correlation (r=0.27).
Evidence suggests that the DAP:QSS generally yields high coefficients for intra- and inter-
rater reliability, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. By contrast, the validity of the
DAP:QSS as an instrument for assessing intelligence has yet to be satisfactorily
demonstrated.
Validity
Researchers have found little support for the validity of the DAP:QSS as a tool for evaluating
children’s intellectual ability and assessing children with mental disabilities
Results found with child and youth psychiatric inpatients failed to support the hypothesized
relationship between human figure drawings and IQ. This suggests that the Draw-a-Person
test should not be used as a substitute for other well-established intelligence tests.
Administration
 It requires that the child draws a whole person at the request of examiner in his
presence.
 DAP can be administered to children between ages of 3 to 12 years.
 There is no time limit for its administration.
 The child must make a drawing of a whole person each time.
 The child can be asked about the name, age, feelings or what his/ her drawing is doing
right now.
Material
 A4 size piece of paper
 Pencil
 Eraser
The children are provided with a piece of paper and pencil. They are provided with the eraser
if they ask for it.
Instructions
The instructions are given as,
“I want you to draw a picture of a person. Make the very best picture that you can. Take your
time and work very carefully. Try very hard and see what a good picture you can make.”
Scoring
According to Goodenough scoring,
 If the feature is correctly drawn, score 0 is given.
 If the feature is incorrectly drawn, score 1 is given.
The score is then added. IQ is calculated by dividing the Mental Age (M.A) by Chronological
Age (C.A) and then multiplying it by 100 i.e., M.A/C.A x 100. The value of IQ is then
interpreted according to the standard Goodenough scoring table.
The Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM) manual of scoring is used to interpret the scores as
well.
Interpretation
The DAP is interpreted as,
‘Mr. B.A age 12 years seems to be having an IQ level of above/ below average at the ABC
Clinic on date 2 April 2022. He appears to be lying in the range of intellectually superior
having Grade 1.’
The report is made according to Goodenough and CPM scoring criteria.
Advantages
 Easy and quick to administer.
 Low of cost.
 No strict formats i.e., it is useful for people who have anxieties taking tests.
 Relatively culture free .
 Can assess people with communication problems.
 Useful and effective for children with hearing damage, developmental, and mental
disability.
Disadvantages
 Restricted amount of hypothesis can be developed.
 Relatively non- verbal but, may have some problems during posttest inquiry.
 Prior drawing experience may serve as a bias and lead to higher scores on DAP.
 Little research backing.
 Human Figure Drawing test
Introduction
Human Figure Drawing test is a non-verbal test, mainly based on visuo-spatial and
constructional abilities. It underlies the theory of Machover (1949), Urban (1963), and
Handler (1985).
It is based on the Freud's theory of 'repression' and Sullivan's theory of interpersonal
relationships (which is based on the belief that people's interactions with other people,
determine their sense of security, sense of self, and the dynamisms that motivate their
behavior).
History
The value of human figure drawings (HFDs) was first recognized as a component of
psychological assessment by Cooke in 1885 and Ricci in 1887, who observed a
developmental sequence in children’s HFDs (Cox, 1993). This developmental progression
has since been well documented by a number of studies (Goodenough, 1926; Harris, 1963;
Koppitz, 1968).
Investigating the developmental sequence observed in children’s HFDs, early researchers
found that the increasing number of details and progressively more realistic proportions of
the body parts are correlated with a child’s chronological age (Schuyten,1904), and
particularly with mental age (Rouma, 1913).
Purpose
HFD reveals 'general conflicts and concerns' of the client when combined with other clinical
information and assessment to determine general cognitive functioning. It is used to measure
and assess personality.
Reliability
HFD tests yield high reliability coefficients. For example, the Draw-A-Person Intellectual
Ability Test for Children, Adolescents, and Adults (DAP:IQ) has a high level of internal
consistency with Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging between 0.73 to 0.88. The inter-rater
reliability and intra-rater reliability coefficients for the DAP:IQ are also high, ranging
between 0.72 to 0.95 and 0.87 to 0.97, respectively. Additionally, the test-retest reliability
coefficient of the DAP:IQ is reported to be 0.86.
Reynolds and Hickman calculated correlations between DAP:IQ scores and children's scores
on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Third Edition (WISC-III). These analyses
yielded correlation coefficients of 0.33 for Verbal IQ, 0.49 for Performance IQ, and 0.46 for
Full Scale IQ. Taken together, these findings suggest that the DAP:IQ is a highly reliable
measure.
Several studies showed low to high correlations between children’s HFD score and their
intelligence score. Gayton et al. (1974) used the WISC and found a correlation of 0.68. Abell
et al. (1996) compared the scores between HFD, the WISC and the Stanford–Binet test.
Between the HFD and the other measures the correlations were maximally 0.29.
Validity
The study of validity and reliability of Koppitz Human Figure Drawing in 1976 revealed that
there were doubts regarding its construct validity. However, it has high level of reliability.
Administration
 This test can be administered individually and in group settings. The individual
administration of HFD is preferable than the group administration as it produces
richer and more revealing drawings.
 It requires that the test taker draws a whole person at the request of examiner in his
presence.
 HFD can be administered to individuals between ages of 4-90 years.
 There is no time limit for its administration.
 The client is then asked to draw a complete person and not a stick figure.
Material
 A4 size piece of paper
 Pencil
 Eraser
The client is provided with a piece of paper and pencil. He is provided with the eraser if he
asks for it.
Instructions
Instruction according to Koppitz states,
“On this piece of paper, I would like you to draw a whole person. It can be any kind of a
person you want to draw, just make sure that it is a whole person and not a stick figure or a
cartoon figure.”
Interpretation
For interpretation, tactful inquiry after completion of HFD is very important. The client is
asked more about the human figure he has drawn. He may be asked to name his drawing,
give it an age, and talk about the feelings and future of the figure drawn.
The interpretation is done based on the human features drawn by the client and the manual of
Machover or Koppitz could be used to interpret these features.
Two main approaches for the interpretation of HFD exist today.
1. To analyze drawings for the signs of unconscious needs, conflicts, and personality
traits.
2. Considered as a developmental test of mental maturity.
Scoring
The drawings will be scored in two different types of objective signs.
 Developmental Items
 Emotional Indicators
‘Developmental Items’ are primarily related to individual’s age and levels of maturation.
‘Emotional indicators’ reflect the individual's anxieties, concerns, and attitudes.
Emotional indicators
 Poor integration appears to be associated with instability, a poorly integrated
personality, poor coordination, or impulsivity. It may be the result of a developmental
lag, neurological impairment, and regression due to serious emotional disturbance.
 Shading is a manifestation of anxiety. The degree of shading is related to the intensity
of anxiety within the person. It also indicates aggression, guilt, poor self-concept or
psychosomatic complaints.
 Omission of body parts indicates helplessness, guilt, anxiety, or insecurity.
 Broken or sketchy lines indicate fearfulness, insecurity, feelings of inadequacy,
anxiety, stubbornness, or negativism.
Koppitz gave importance to following three things for interpretation of Emotional Indicators:
1. What does he draw? (A person has significant value.)
2. How does he draw? (It represents self-image.)
3. Why does he draw? (Expression of emotions.)
Report of HFD
The interpretation is reported as,
The protocol of HFD displays that he manifests the signs of suspiciousness, verbally
aggressive and poorly integrated personality. He also exhibits marks of psychosomatic
complaints and guilt feelings over his aggressive impulses. He also reveals signs of
fearfulness, insecurity, feelings of inadequacy, and stubbornness along with negativism.
Advantages
 Easy to administer.
 Low of cost.
 No strict formats i.e., it is useful for people who have anxieties taking tests.
 Relatively culture free.
 Can assess people with communication problems.
Disadvantages
 Restricted amount of hypothesis can be developed.
 Relatively non- verbal but, may have some problems during posttest inquiry.