View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by South East Academic Libraries System (SEALS)

HUMAN FIGURE DRAWINGS AND THE GENERAL MENTAL DEVELOPMENT OF

SOUTH AFRICAN CHILDREN

By

Reinhart Burger

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Magister Artium in Counselling Psychology at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

December 2011

Supervisor: Prof. G. Howcroft

Co-Supervisor: Prof. L. Stroud

Co-Supervisor: Mr. V. Sack

 i  
 

DECLARATION

I, Reinhart Gerrit Burger (student number: 209096014), hereby declare that the treatise for

Magister Artium in Counselling Psychology is my own work and that it has not previously

been submitted for assessment or completion of any postgraduate qualification to another

university or for another qaulification.

Reinhart Gerrit Burger

Official use:

In accordance with Rule G4.6.3,

4.6.3. A treatise/dissertation/thesis must be accompanied by a written declaration on the part

of the candidate to the effect that it is his/her own work and that it has not previously

been submitted for assessment to another University or for another qualification.

Howver, material from publications by the candidate may be embodied in a

treatise/dissertation/thesis.

 
 
 ii  
 

Acknowledgements

The researcher would like to thank the following people, without whom this study would not

have been possible:

• My supervisor, Prof. Gregory Howcroft, and co-supervisors, Prof. Louise Stroud and

Mr Vernon Sack, for their continued support and guidance.

• My parents, for their emotional and financial support that allowed me to bring this

project to completion.

• Ms Alida Sandison, director of the University Psychology Clinic, who helped me to

gain access to the protocols used in the current study.

• The staff at Research Capacity Development at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan

University for financial assistance through the Post-graduate Research Scholarship.

• My friends – you mean the world to me. I would particularly like to thank Genee

Pienaar, Juazel Pieterse, and Nicky Viviers who played, and continue to play, an

enormously important role in my life.

 
 
 iii  
 

Table of Contents

Declaration......................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... viii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix

Summary ............................................................................................................................ x

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Problem statement ........................................................................................................ 1

1.3. History and uses of human figure drawings ................................................................ 1

1.4. Motivation for research ................................................................................................ 3

1.4.1. The importance and context of developmental assessment ............................... 3

1.4.2. Screening and diagnostic measures ................................................................... 4

1.4.3. The DAP: IQ in the local South African context ............................................... 6

1.5. Primary research objectives ......................................................................................... 9

1.6. Delineation of the study ............................................................................................... 9

1.7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 10

Chapter 2: Theories of Child Development .................................................................... 11

2.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 11

 
 
 iv  
 

2.2. The study of child development ................................................................................... 11

2.3. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development.................................................................... 14

2.3.1. Assimilation, accommodation, equilibrium, and disequilibrium ....................... 15

2.3.2. Piaget’s stages of cognitive development .......................................................... 16

2.3.2.1. Sensorimotor stage ................................................................................ 16

2.3.2.2. Preoperational thought .......................................................................... 17

2.3.2.3. Concrete operations ............................................................................... 19

2.3.2.4. Formal operations .................................................................................. 21

2.3.3. Factors that underlie cognitive development ..................................................... 21

2.3.3.1. Maturation ............................................................................................. 21

2.3.3.2. Experience ............................................................................................. 21

2.3.3.3. Social transmission ................................................................................ 22

2.3.3.4. Equilibration .......................................................................................... 22

2.4. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory .................................................................................. 22

2.4.1. Elementary and higher mental functions ........................................................... 22

2.4.2. Drawing, language, and representational thought ............................................. 24

2.4.3. The zone of proximal development (ZPD) ........................................................ 25

2.4.4. Differences between the theories of Vygotsky and Piaget ................................ 30

2.5. Bruner’s theory of cognitive development .................................................................. 30

 
 
 v  
 

2.5.1. Modes of representation..................................................................................... 32

2.5.1.1. Enactive representation ......................................................................... 32

2.5.1.2. Iconic representation ............................................................................. 32

2.5.1.3. Symbolic representation ........................................................................ 32

2.5.2. The spiral curriculum ......................................................................................... 34

2.6. Neuropsychological and information-processing perspectives ................................... 37

2.7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 40

Chapter 3: The Relationship between Intelligence, Conceptual Maturity, and

Mental Development ......................................................................................................... 42

3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 42

3.2. The psychometric approach to intelligence ................................................................. 43

3.3. Academic skills disorders, mental retardation, and developmental delays ................. 46

3.4. Psychometric evidence of conceptual overlap ............................................................. 49

3.5. A priori evidence of the overlap between key constructs ............................................ 51

3.6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 54

Chapter 4: Research Methodology .................................................................................. 55

4.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 55

4.2. Research design ........................................................................................................... 55

4.3. Participants and sampling ............................................................................................ 57

 
 
 vi  
 

4.3.1 Inclusion criteria ................................................................................................. 60

4.4. Measures used .............................................................................................................. 60

4.4.1. The Griffiths Mental Development Scales – Extended Revised (GMDS-ER) .. 60

4.4.2. An adapted administration of the Draw-a-Person Intellectual Ability Test for

Children, Adolescents, and Adults .............................................................................. 63

4.5. Research procedure ...................................................................................................... 64

4.6. Data analysis ................................................................................................................ 66

4.7. Ethical considerations .................................................................................................. 70

4.8. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 70

Chapter 5: Results and Discussion .................................................................................. 72

5.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 72

5.2. Participants ................................................................................................................... 72

5.3. Descriptive statistics .................................................................................................... 73

5.3.1. Age distribution of the participants ................................................................... 73

5.3.2. Standardized human figure drawing scores ....................................................... 74

5.3.3. GMDS-ER general quotients ............................................................................. 75

5.4. The relationship between standardized human figure drawing scores and GMDS-

ER general quotients ........................................................................................................... 77

5.5. The relationship between chronological age and human figure drawing raw scores .. 88

 
 
 vii  
 

5.6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 91

Chapter 6: Conclusion, Limitations, and Recommendations ....................................... 93

6.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 93

6.2. Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 93

6.3. Limitations ................................................................................................................... 95

6.4. Recommendations for further research ........................................................................ 96

6.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 97

List of References .............................................................................................................. 98

Appendix

Appendix: Consent form

 
 
 viii  
 

List of Tables

Table 1: Age Distribution of the Participants ..................................................................... 73

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Standardized Human Figure Drawing Scores ............... 75

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of GMDS-ER General Quotients ....................................... 75

Table 4: SPSS Output for Curve Estimation between Standardized Human Figure

Drawing Scores and GQ ....................................................................................... 78

Table 5: Correlation between Standardized HFD Scores and GMDS-ER General

Quotients (GQ) ..................................................................................................... 79

 
 
 ix  
 

List of Figures

Figure 1: Scatterplot Representing the Relationship between Standardized HFD

Scores and GQ .................................................................................................... 77

Figure 2: Scatterplot Representing the Relationship between Standardized HFD

Scores and GQ with Line of Best Fit ................................................................. 78

 
 
 x  
 

Summary

This quantitative exploratory-descriptive study investigated the value of human figure

drawing (HFD) tests for developmental testing in the South African context. Due to their

characteristics such tests may be particularly suitable to screen for developmental delays in

the local South African context. The objectives of the research were to explore and describe

the standardized HFD scores and Griffiths Mental Development Scales – Extended Revised

(GMDS-ER) general quotients (GQ) of the sample; to investigate whether a relationship

exists between the standardized HFD scores and GQs; and to investigate the strength and

directionality of this relationship if it was found to exist in the sample. Relevant literature was

discussed and an integration of key constructs was provided. The research sample consisted

of 30 GMDS-ER protocols collected at a University Psychology Clinic in the Nelson

Mandela metropol, Eastern Cape, South Africa. The HFDs of the Draw-a-person items of the

GMDS-ER protocols were scored according to the scoring criteria of the Draw-a-Person

Intellectual Ability Test for Children, Adolescents, and Adults (DAP: IQ). Key findings

included the following: a statistically significant large positive correlation indicative of a

marked relationship existed between standardized HFD scores and GQs. The DAP: IQ might

provide a better indication of mental development than intellectual ability. A statistically

significant medium positive correlation indicative of a small but definite relationship existed

between chronological age and HFD raw scores. In conclusion, the findings suggest that

HFDs follow a developmental progression and that HFD tests may be useful in

developmental testing.

Keywords: Conceptual maturity, Developmental testing, Draw-a-person Intellectual

Ability Test for Children, Adolescents, and Adults, Griffiths Mental Development Scales –
Extended Revised, Human figure drawing test, Mental development

 
 
 1  
 

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1. Overview

This chapter provides an overview of the research. The motivation and rationale for

the research is presented. The history and uses of non-projective human figure drawing tests

as well as the importance and context of developmental assessment in South Africa is

discussed. This is followed by a discussion of the research objectives, and finally a

delineation of the chapters that are to follow is provided.

1.2 Problem Statement

Human figure drawings (HFDs) are often used to assess development since the

characteristics of such tests are particularly well suited to the South African context. This

study aims to explore whether HFDs provide a useful estimate of a child’s mental

developmental level. Contemporary non-projective use of HFDs is based on the principle that

an index of a child’s conceptual maturity, mental maturity and intellectual ability may be

obtained by the systematic analysis and scoring of HFDs. The history and uses of HFDs, as

will be reviewed in the following section, warrants the formulation of the hypothesis that

scores obtained from these drawings are somehow related to scores of mental development

obtained from a well-established, robust and detailed measure with proven validity and

reliability such as the Griffiths Mental Development Scales – Extended Revised (GMDS-ER)

(Luiz et al., 2006a).

1.3 History and Uses of Human Figure Drawings

The psychological use of human figure drawings (HFDs) can be divided into their use

as projective and non-projective measures. In the projective use of HFDs, graphic

 
 
 2  
 

representations of the human figure are used to gain insight into the personality and affect of

the person who made the drawing (Michaelides, 2005). The non-projective use of HFDs

involves the application of standardized administration procedures and quantitative scoring

systems to obtain an estimate of conceptual maturity (Harris, 1963), mental maturity

(Koppitz, 1968), or intellectual ability (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004). This study focuses on

the non-projective use of human figure drawings, with particular reference to their use in

developmental testing.

Developmental differences in children’s drawings have been the subject of scientific

investigation for over a century. The value of human figure drawings (HFDs) was first

recognised 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). At the end of the 20th century

commentary on children’s drawings was included in various baby biographies, articles and

books on child development (Jolley, 2010). These works typically described stage and age

progressions in different forms of drawing representation and occasionally related

representational changes to children’s mental development (Jolley, 2010). Researchers have

since elaborated on this groundbreaking work to produce ever more refined systems for

obtaining and scoring children’s HFDs. This pioneering research allowed Florence

Goodenough to develop the first standardised test based on HFDs, known as the Draw-a-Man

Test (Goodenough, 1926). Drawings obtained through standardised instructions were

 
 
 3  
 

awarded points based on the number of body parts drawn, the proportions of these parts, and

the way they were attached to the main figure (Cox, 1993).

In his revision of the Draw-a-Man Test, Harris (1963) challenged the historical

assumption that HFDs could be used to obtain estimates of intelligence. The terms

intellectual and conceptual maturity were introduced to convey the view that the test

measures the child’s actual rather than potential level of intellectual functioning (Cox, 1993).

In keeping with this more contemporary view, Koppitz (1968) based the scoring of her Draw-

a-Person Test on 30 developmental items (Cox, 1993). This developmental progression is

also recognized by Reynolds and Hickman (2004), the developers of the most recent test

based on HFDs called the Draw-a-Person Intellectual Ability Test for Children, Adolescents,

and Adults (DAP: IQ).

Human figure drawing tests are becoming more valid with the incorporation of

quantitative global scoring systems, particularly when used for the measurement of

intellectual maturity (Sack, 2009). The DAP: IQ (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004) is the latest

human figure drawing test to employ such a scoring system. It also offers the largest

collection of normative data on human figure drawings (Sack, 2009). These characteristics

add to the reliability and validity of the measure and contributed to the decision to use an

adapted administration of the DAP: IQ to obtain human figure drawing scores in the present

study.

1.4 Motivation for Research

1.4.1. The importance and context of developmental assessment. The early

identification of children with developmental delays is essential to ensure that these children

achieve more favourable developmental outcomes. The earlier a child with developmental

difficulties participates in an intervention programme, the greater the gains will be (Rydz,

 
 
 4  
 

Shevell, Majnemer, & Oskoui, 2005). The failure to identify developmental delays and

provide appropriate intervention may also lead to more severe problems and secondary

handicaps (Lifter, 1992). To this end, assessment must aim to gather data that is

representative of the child’s typical functioning (Bondurant-Utz & Luciano, 1994).

Psychometric measures serve a vital purpose in this regard. Cronbach (1990, p. 32)

defines a psychometric test as a “systematic procedure for observing a person’s behavior and

describing it with the aid of a numerical scale or categorical system”. Tests aim only to

provide an indication of an individual’s ability at a given point in time, whereas the term

assessment implies a broader scope including integration and evaluation of the information

obtained (Anastasi, 1988; Cronbach, 1990). Human figure drawings that employ systematic

administration and scoring procedures can therefore be rightly classified as psychometric

tests.

1.4.2. Screening and diagnostic measures. Developmental measures fall into two

categories, namely screening measures and diagnostic measures (Foxcroft & Roodt, 2001).

Screening measures are generally less comprehensive than diagnostic measures, providing

only an indication of the child’s general development. Conversely, diagnostic measures

usually provide numerical scores and age equivalents for a child’s overall performance as

well as for specific domains measured (Luiz & Jansen, 2001). The DAP: IQ is evidently

simpler than the GMDS-ER insofar as the DAP: IQ only provides an indication of the broad

domain that Reynolds and Hickman (2004) call ‘intellectual ability’. Conversely, the GMDS-

ER provides an indication of a child’s development across six domains, or ‘avenues of

learning’ in addition to providing an indication of the child’s general level of mental

development (Griffiths, 1954). In this sense, the DAP: IQ more closely resembles a screening

measure whereas the GMDS-ER fits into the diagnostic measure category.

 
 
 5  
 

The aim of screening is to identify children that require further in-depth assessment

(Widerstrom, Mowder & Sandall, 1997). Brooks-Gunn (1990) outlines the following

characteristics of effective screening measures:

1. such tests should be short;

2. the design of such tests should allow for their use in post-natal clinics,
paediatricians’ offices, community health services and outpatient hospital clinics;

3. the test should be accessible to a broad range of practitioners and require only a
minimal amount of training;

4. the test should be time-efficient so as to better ensure that it is used within the
context of busy clinical practices;

5. such tests should have simple and quick scoring systems;

6. such tests should keep the amount of false negatives to a minimum, since children

incorrectly placed into a non-risk group will not be tested again.

The DAP: IQ and HFD tests of intellectual ability in general meet these requirements,

with the possible exception of the seventh criterion, namely the minimization of false

negatives. Personal correspondence with professionals who have used such tests suggest that

they may overestimate intellectual ability, thereby incorrectly placing at-risk children in a

non-risk group. HFD tests may therefore play an important role in the screening of

developmental delays, although it may be necessary to use them in conjunction with other

brief measures to reduce the risk of obtaining false negatives.

Several screening measures of development are available, including the Denver

Developmental Screening Test 2nd edition (Frankenburg et al., 1990); the Bayley Infant

Neurodevelopmental Screener (Aylward, 1995) and the Batelle Developmental Inventory

Screening Test (Newborg et al., 1984), among others. The DAP: IQ is a popular measure in

South Africa and possesses characteristics that make it particularly attractive within the local

 
 
 6  
 

context. This measure may therefore be of great value in South Africa if it is confirmed to be

useful as a developmental screening test.

1.4.3. The DAP: IQ in the local South African context. The DAP: IQ remains

popular in South Africa. This popularity may be understood in the light of several

distinguishing features of this measure. The total time taken to administer, score, and

interpret the DAP: IQ is usually less than 10 to 12 minutes and the test may also be

administered in a group format (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004). These characteristics make this

an appealing measure to use in the South African context where resources available for

mental healthcare are often very limited.

A serious issue facing psychometry in South Africa is that many of the psychometric

measures in use are not appropriately standardized for use in the local context (Foxcroft,

Roodt & Abrahams, 2001). The difficulty associated with standardization and the

development of appropriate norms for use with the diverse South African population poses a

major challenge with regards to ethical test usage (Murphy, 2002). Davis (2006) established

that the published DAP: IQ norms for children aged 5 to 7 are appropriate for use in the local

South African context. This puts the DAP: IQ at a major advantage over other measures that

have not been appropriately normed for use in the local context. In this regard human figure

drawing tests may be valuable when other measures have not in any way been appropriately

standardized. The present study also contributes to a project to restandardize the GMDS-ER

that is currently being conducted and is therefore valuable in helping to address the issue of

poorly standardized psychometric measures in the local context.

Respondents in Foxcroft, Paterson, Le Roux and Herbst’s (2004) needs analysis of

psychological assessment in South Africa identified culture as the main issue of test

 
 
 7  
 

development and revision. In particular, a need for culture fair and culture reduced measures

surfaced (Foxcroft et. al., 2004).

Reynolds and Hickman (2004) describe the DAP: IQ as a culturally reduced measure.

No test can claim to be culture free because psychological tests sample behaviour that is

affected by the context in which the person was raised (Jansen, 1991). A test may however be

described as ‘culture-fair’ when the test content is based on experiences that are common

across cultures (Baker, 2005). The DAP: IQ is based on the drawing of a human figure,

which is a frequently experienced object to children in all cultures and makes this a

particularly suitable object to include in a test based on drawing. There are however some

noteworthy exceptions to the reduced role of culture in the DAP: IQ that receive remarkably

little attention in the literature. Some religions, including Islam for example, altogether forbid

children from drawing human figures (Carmichael, 2006). Such an exception clearly has a

massive impact on the validity and ethics of using the test with certain populations, but it is

questionable whether many practitioners are aware of such.

South Africa is a multiracial and multi-ethnic society. According to the most recent

census conducted in 2001, the population of South Africa consists of the following

demographic groups: Black African (79%), White (9.6%), Coloured (8.9%), and

Indian/Asian (2.5%) (Statistics South Africa, 2003). These figures may lead the reader to

assume greater cultural homogeny than is in fact the case. Acknowledgement of the diversity

of such groups reduces the risk of bias. This is also important when considering the

establishment of appropriate norms which is an on-going process in South Africa. The ‘Black

African’ group comprises Zulu (22.4%), Xhosa (17.5%), North Sotho (9.8%) Tswana (7.2%),

South Sotho (6.9%), Tsonga (4.2%),Venda (1.7%), and Ndebele (1.5%), while those from

relatively recent European descent including Afrikaners, English speakers from varying

backgrounds and Portuguese are grouped under ‘White’ (Institute for African Development,

 
 
 8  
 

2000). This multiculturalism/multi-ethnicity is further reflected in the language most often

spoken at home. The most recent census provides the following figures: IsiZulu (23.8%),

IsiXhosa (17.6%), Afrikaans (13.3%), Sepedi (9.4%), English (8.2%), Setswana (8.2%),

Sesotho (7.9%), Xitsonga (4.4%), SiSwati (2.7%), Tshivenda (2.3%), IsiNdelbele (1.6%), and

other (0.5%) (Statistics South Africa, 2003). While exceptions like the prohibition on

drawing human figures referred to above are important to investigate, the reduced role of

culture in the DAP: IQ, along with Abell, Wood, and Liebman’s (2001) assertion that this

measure may be used with non-reading or non-English speaking individuals, further explains

the popularity of this measure in South Africa.

Drawing activities may be particularly helpful when working with shy or impulsive

children, children with speech and language difficulties, or those who speak a different

language from the practitioner as these children tend to respond well to such activities

(Klepsch & Logie, 1982). Another contributing factor is that the use of this measure in South

Africa is not restricted to registered psychologists, thus allowing a large number of

individuals from other registration categories in psychology (e.g., psychometrists and

registered counsellors) and other disciplines (e.g., general medical practitioners and

educators) to use this measure.

A short screening test such as the DAP: IQ may be of remarkable value if it is found

to provide an accurate reflection of a child’s mental developmental level. The DAP: IQ is

widely used for this purpose and there is reason to believe that HFDs may be useful in the

screening of developmental delays. Church, Katigbak, and Almario-Velazco (1985), for

example, found that concept formation – as measured by HFD tests - is significantly

correlated with ability in language and mathematics, as well as with overall achievement in

Grade 1. Such evidence suggests that human figure drawing tests can be meaningfully

applied in the screening for developmental delays. The value of this research lies in the

 
 
 9  
 

pressing need to establish whether HFDs such as the DAP: IQ serve this function of

screening for developmental delays.

1.5. Primary Research Objectives

The primary research objectives of this study are summarised in the following four

statements:

• To explore and describe the standardized human figure drawing scores of the sample.

• To explore and describe the GMDS-ER general quotients of the sample.

• To investigate whether there is a relationship between the standardized human figure

drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients of the sample.

• To investigate the directionality and strength of the relationship between standardized

human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients of the sample.

1.6. Delineation of the Study

Chapter 1 serves as an introduction to this study. In this chapter, the context, problem

statement, motivation for the research, and primary objectives of the study are briefly

presented.

Chapter 2 presents conceptual models of mental development and forms the theoretical

framework of this study. Literature from the broad field of developmental research is

reviewed and applied to human figure drawing tests and the Griffiths Mental Development

Scales – Extended Revised.

Chapter 3 presents a discussion in which the relationship between key constructs of the

present study, including conceptual maturity, intelligence, and mental development is

clarified.

 
 
 10  
 

Chapter 4 describes the research methodology and the design utilised in this study. The

methodological considerations made in the study are discussed. Information is presented on

the research design, participants, sampling procedure, measures used and data analysis

techniques used toward achieving the aims of the study.

Chapter 5 provides a presentation and a discussion of the research results of this study. These

results are discussed in the context of the conceptual frameworks presented in earlier chapters

and related to the research objectives.

Chapter 6 presents the conclusions to the present study based on the research results, reviews

limitations, and provides suggestions for further research in this area. The chapter concludes

with an overview of ethical considerations made in the present study.

1.7. Conclusion

This chapter provided an overview of the research. The motivation and rationale for the

research was presented. The history and uses of non-projective human figure drawing tests

was discussed. It was shown that researchers observed a developmental progression in

children’s human figure drawings and that human figure drawings have been used to measure

conceptual maturity, mental maturity and intellectual ability. The importance of

developmental assessment in the South African context was then discussed. It was shown that

specific characteristics of human figure drawing tests may make such tests particularly useful

tools to identify developmental delays in the South African context. This was followed by a

discussion of the research objectives. The chapter concluded with a delineation of the

chapters that are to follow. In the following chapter, the theoretical foundations of this study

are discussed in greater detail.

 
 
 11  
 

Chapter 2

Theories of Child Development

2.1. Introduction

The historical development of human figure drawing (HFD) tests and the recognition

that aspects of human figure drawings are related to a child’s chronological and/or mental age

as well as the developmental progression seen in these drawings was briefly discussed in

Chapter 1. In this chapter relevant literature from the broad field of developmental research is

reviewed and applied to human figure drawing tests and the Griffiths Mental Development

Scales – Extended Revised (GMDS-ER). Important definitions are first provided to orientate

the reader. This is followed by a review of developmental theories, in particular: Piaget’s

theory of cognitive development (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969); Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural

theory; Bruner’s (1960, 1966, 1986, 1990, 2006a; 2006b) theory of cognitive development;

and contributions from neuropsychological and information-processing perspectives (Bensur

& Eliot, 1993; Bensur, Eliot, & Hedge, 1997; Case, 1985; Cherney et al., 2006; Chi, 1977;

Kail, 1992; Kail & Hall, 1994; Kail & Salthouse, 1994; Schneider & Pressley, 1997; Scott,

1981; Zgourides, 2000). Similarities and differences between these views and the

implications of these theoretical contributions to the present study are discussed throughout.

The chapter provides the reader with a framework in which to understand the relationship

between development in general and the developmental progression seen in HFDs. To this

end, Luquet’s (1927) theory of drawing development is integrated with the discussion on

development in general.

2.2. The Study of Child Development

Development has been defined as the “orderly and relatively enduring changes over

time in physical and neurological structures, in thought processes, in emotions, in forms of

 
 
 12  
 

social interaction, and in many other behaviours” (Newcombe, 1996, p.4). Ruth Griffiths

adopted an inclusive view of development, which she defined as “the processes and rates at

which growth and maturation of a child’s attributes and abilities takes place” (Luiz et al.,

2006a, p.1). Di Leo (1970, p.4) defined development as "differentiation and increase in

complexity of function, thereby distinguishing it from "growth", a term used to express

increase in size and weight". Di Leo (1970, p. 4) notes that "these two aspects of maturation

are intimately related and begin inseparably, with life". Both Griffiths’ and Di Leo’s broad

definitions are not particularly helpful for the purposes of operationalization. A final

important definition is that of cognitive development, which is defined as “the appearance,

expansion, and alteration of mental processes from birth until death including sensory and

motor perception and control, all types of memory, consciousness, attention, analyzing,

solving problems, emotional experience and regulation, counterfactuals, and conscious

thought” (Matsumoto, 2009, p. 115). The authors of the most recent human figure drawing

test of intellectual ability, the DAP: IQ, state that “as children mature cognitively and their

thought processes become more complex, their drawings of a person become more detailed,

complete, and complex” (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004, p.2).

The present study is informed by Luquet’s (1927) theory of drawing development.

Luquet described the developmental progression referred to by Reynolds and Hickman

(2004). Luquet’s theory was chosen because it provides a useful introduction to the

development of representational drawing in children, as well as due to its strong influence on

other researchers in the field (Jolley, 2010). Jean Piaget, the Swiss developmental

psychologist and philosopher, incorporated Luquet’s theory of drawing development into his

own theory of cognitive development (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956, 1969). This provides an

invaluable theoretical link between the concepts of representational development and mental

development in general. The importance of studying development will now be discussed,

 
 
 13  
 

after which specific developmental theories are reviewed and discussed in relation to human

figure drawings. Luquet’s (1927) description of the developmental progression of human

figure drawings is integrated throughout the discussion.

Development as the subject of study is important for several reasons. According to

Newcombe (1996) the most prominent of these are:

1. that it allows one to understand changes that are apparently universal in all

cultures;

2. that it contributes to one’s understanding of individual differences;

3. that it allows for a greater appreciation of the way that the environmental context

or situation influences children’s behaviour;

4. the study of development also provides a knowledge base that may be used in the

early identification of children with potential developmental delays.

While all the reasons for studying development listed above are important, the fourth

is the most directly relevant for the purposes of the current study. An understanding of

development allows practitioners to compare children’s development to established

developmental norms. This knowledge is useful in applied psychology as it allows for the

screening of children with developmental delays who may then receive appropriate

interventions. The remainder of this chapter provides an overview of influential theories of

child development. The focus is on particular aspects of these theories that are most relevant

to the present study.

 
 
 14  
 

2.3. Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

Piaget’s (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) theory of cognitive development remains one of

the most well-known and influential theories of child development (Slee & Shute, 2003).

This section provides an overview of the contributions made by Piaget that are most relevant

to the present study. Piaget’s (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) theory is first contextualized within

the constructivist framework. The key concepts that Piaget used to explain intellectual

development, namely: assimilation, accommodation, equilibrium, and disequilibrium are then

explicated. This is followed by an overview of Piaget’s developmental stages, namely:

sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational stages. The

discussion on Piaget concludes with the four factors he believed to underlie cognitive

development.

Piaget’s (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) theory is often described as a constructivist theory.

Constructivism is a cognitive perspective that proposes mental processes to be constructions

produced by the mind in interaction with the environment. Mental processes are then used in

the understanding of new information and the recall of the past (Matsumoto, 2009).

Philosophically, it owes much to the work of Berkeley and Kant who underlined the

subjective nature of perception (Slee & Shute, 2003). This label is applicable to Piaget’s

theory since the role of the child in actively constructing the external world through acting on

it is emphasized (Gelcer & Scharwtzbein, 1989). Gelcer and Schwartzbein highlighted two

assumptions of Piaget’s work that support such a view, namely:

1. The same experience can be known on different levels, and

2. The individual’s problem-solving approach becomes more flexible with higher

levels of abstraction.

 
 
 15  
 

Constructivist theories do not view the individual as merely reactive, as many

mainstream theories do, but rather propose that people actively participate in observation and

that meaning is co-created through this process (Slee & Shute, 2003). The theories of

Vygotsky and Bruner that follow also contain strong elements of constructivism. It must be

noted that while Piaget acknowledged the child’s active role in his own development, he did

not discount the role of biological maturation and that he regarded development in this sense

to be progressive and directional (Slee & Shute, 2003).

2.3.1. Assimilation, accommodation, equilibrium, and disequilibrium. In

agreement with other constructivists, Piaget pitches his theory against the nativist assumption

that children are born with knowledge or ideas about reality or that adults teach them how to

think (Shaffer & Kipp, 2010). Piaget’s constructivist argument proposes that children’s

understanding of the world is actively constructed on the basis of their experiences (Shaffer

& Kipp, 2010). In this process they “experiment with objects they encounter; they make

connections or associations between events; and they are puzzled when their current

understandings (or schemes) fail to explain what they have experienced” (Shaffer & Kipp,

2010, p. 54). Two mechanisms, namely assimilation and accommodation, underlie this

process of active involvement in their own intellectual development. Children make sense of

new experiences by “incorporating them into existing schemes” (Shaffer & Kipp, 2010, p.

54) – a process Piaget termed assimilation. Conversely, children may adapt their existing

cognitive schemes to allow the incorporation of new experiences - which Piaget called

accommodation (Shaffer & Kipp, 2010, p. 54).

Equilibrium and disequilibrium are other important Piagetian concepts. Equilibrium

refers to a state where “a balanced, harmonious relationship [exists] between one’s cognitive

structures and the environment” (Shaffer & Kipp, 2010, p. 54), whereas disequilibrium is

defined as “imbalances or contradictions between one’s thought processes and environmental

 
 
 16  
 

events” (Shaffer & Kipp, 2010, p. 54). A child will use accommodation (that is, modify his

existing schemes) when assimilation is not effective in the incorporation of new experiences

into current cognitive schemes (that is, when the facts contradict a child’s current

understanding thereby creating disequilibrium).

2.3.2. Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. Perhaps the most well-known of

Piaget’s contributions is his description of the stages of cognitive development. Piaget’s four

stages are: (a) sensorimotor, (b) preoperational thought, (c) concrete operations, and (d)

formal operations. Inhelder (1962) described several characteristics of Piaget’s stage theory,

namely: Piaget’s theory describes stages in which mental operations form and become ever

more organized over time; these stages are hierarchical, with each stage building on

preceding stages; individuals show similarities when reaching each stage; and the stages

progress in a fixed direction from lower complexity to higher complexity. These stages are

now discussed in turn.

2.3.2.1. Sensorimotor stage. In this first stage from birth to two years of age infants

learn through the use of their senses and develop motor control by doing, that is, by actively

exploring and interacting with their environment (Sadock & Sadock, 2007; Zgourides, 2000).

Early causal reasoning develops during this stage, as infants progress from simply using their

reflexes towards deliberate goal-directed behaviour (Zgourides, 2000). Object permanence,

referring to the realization that objects still exist even if they cannot be seen, is generally

developed around the age of nine months (Zgourides, 2000). The end of this stage is marked

by the development of symbolization: the process of using mental symbols and words as

mental representations that signify real objects (Sadock & Sadock, 2007). This is the

beginning of representational (symbolic) thought in which symbols are internalized as objects

(Zguorides, 2000). The development of representational thought and growing conceptual

maturity is central to the thesis of this study.

 
 
 17  
 

2.3.2.2. Preoperational thought. The stage of preoperational thought spans the ages

of two to seven years (Sadock & Sadock, 2007; Zgourides, 2000). This stage is of particular

importance as participants in the current study are in this developmental stage. There is an

increase in symbolic thought, namely thought that relies on the use of language and other

symbols (Sadock & Sadock, 2007; Zgourides, 2000). Children’s concepts during this stage

are still primitive, for example, they know the names of objects but cannot classify objects by

grouping them according to features (Sadock & Sadock, 2007; Zgourides, 2000). The

advances in language use that occur at this stage play an important role in drawing

development (Toomela, 2002). The ability to name objects helps a child to select which

aspects to include in his drawing, whereas self-directed speech helps the child to plan

activities and organize elements in his drawing (Toomela, 2002).

Piaget’s description of the semiotic function that develops during the preoperational

period is of particular relevance to the present study (Sadock & Sadock, 2007). The semiotic

function refers to a new ability that allows children to represent things, including objects,

events, or conceptual schemes, by means of a signifier (Sadock & Sadock, 2007). Drawing is

an example of this ability to use signs and symbols to refer to something else (Sadock &

Sadock, 2007). The child’s proficiency in drawing a human figure is therefore dependent on

the degree to which he has mastered the semiotic function.

The attainment of symbolic thought is central to conceptual development. A child can

now operate on a new level by using concepts: “the mental representation of a thing or class

of things so that an individual can decide whether a specific stimulus is an instance of that

object or class of objects and act on the basis of that judgment” (Matsumoto, 2009, p. 123).

The non-projective use of human figure drawings is based on the belief that human figure

drawings measure conceptual maturity (Harris, 1963). Harris (as cited in Cox, 1993) stated

that:

 
 
 18  
 

the child’s drawing of an object is an index of his concept of that object, and his

concept of a frequently experienced object such as a human being is a useful index of

the growing complexity of his concepts in general. (p. 70)

As Cherney, Seiwert, Dickey, and Flichtbeil (2006, p. 127) put it: “children’s

drawings are thought to be a mirror of a child’s representational development”. It may

therefore be hypothesised that human figure drawings measure a child’s mental development

by providing an indication of the degree to which the child has developed the semiotic

function.

Luquet’s Theory of Drawing Development (1927) proposes that children’s drawing is

characterised by different stages of representational development. The scribbling stage of 2 to

4 year olds refers to the initial stage during which a child scribbles without knowing that he

can use his drawings to represent reality (Luquet, 1927). During this scribbling stage the

child’s drawing is simply motor activity without any attempt to create a graphical

representation of an object (Luquet, 1927). This initial non-representative drawing activity

fits with the absence of the ability to use symbols as would be predicted by Piaget’s

description of the sensorimotor stage and the early preoperational stage.

According to Luquet (1927) a child will eventually notice a likeness between his own

scribbles and an aspect of the world, called fortuitous realism. This new knowledge that he

can represent life, subsequently typifies his future drawing development insofar as he

increasingly attempts to create representational drawings from the outset (Luquet, 1927).

Luquet’s (1927) second stage of drawing development which spans the ages of 4 to 7

years is known as the pre-schematic stage. A child at this stage attempts to represent objects

in his drawings, but his increasingly representational drawings are hampered by difficulties

with motor, cognitive, and graphic obstacles. Errors are frequent, including such errors as

 
 
 19  
 

incorrect use of line (due to poor motor control), omission of details (due to poor attention),

problems of position, orientation and proportion, and inaccurate relations between parts of the

drawing (Luquet, 1927). Intellectual realism develops towards the end of this stage (Luquet,

1927). At this stage a child aims to represent as many as possible of the essential details of a

subject in their characteristic shapes. Jolley (2010, p. 17) states that a child at this stage of

development draws “from what he or she knows about the topic, not from what he or she sees

from one viewpoint”. The child’s concept of what he is drawing is therefore crucially related

to the quality of his drawing output. With regard to human figure drawings, it is at this point

where the body appears (that is, not a tadpole drawing anymore), the amount of details

increase, and the relationship between the details becomes increasingly accurate. According

to Luquet (1927) children at this stage are not trying to represent a subject as seen from a

certain angle, but rather are relying on an internal model constituted of features the child

believes to be important to the subject at hand. These internal models become increasingly

detailed over time.

The human figure drawings used in the present study were produced by children in

this age range. The growing ability to create representational drawings that develops during

this stage is consistent with Piaget’s and Inhelder’s (1969) proposal of the emergence of the

semiotic function and the rapid development of representational thought that occur during the

preoperational stage.

2.3.2.3. Concrete operations. The stage of concrete operations spans the ages of 7 to

11 years (Sadock & Sadock, 2007; Zgourides, 2000). This age range exceeds the upper age

limit of the present study, and as such is not as relevant to the present study as the preceding

stages. During this stage children develop a more complete understanding of causal

relationships, become more systematic in their thinking, and develop the ability to take on the

perspective of others (Sadock & Sadock, 2007; Zgourides, 2000). The emergence of concrete

 
 
 20  
 

operations marks “logical thought about specific objects or situations, which involves letting

go of (decentering) one’s perceptually centered viewpoint and thinking in somewhat abstract

terms” (Matsumoto, 2009, p. 124). With this increase in logical thought, children attain

conservation, that is, they come to realise that if the shape of an object changes other

characteristics stay the same and it does not become a different object altogether (Sadock &

Sadock, 2007). A better understanding of the relation between things allow them to recognize

that one thing can take different forms or turn into something else and back again such as is

the case with water and ice (Sadock & Sadock, 2007). Children’s thinking is still concrete at

this stage, but the increase in abstract thought and emergence of conservation and

reversibility distinguish this stage from its predecessor (Sadock & Sadock, 2007; Zgourides,

2000).

Luquet’s (1927) theory of drawing development refers to children between the ages of

7 and 9 years as being in the schematic stage. Visual realism emerges when the child at this

level of drawing development realises that although his drawings include the important

features of his subjects, they do not look realistic (Luquet, 1927). Such a child abandons

“separation, transparency, plan, and folding-out techniques, and instead they begin to get to

grips with the graphic techniques of visual realism that include occlusion, suppression of

details, and perspective” (Jolley, 2010, p. 18). The use of such techniques is more cognitively

demanding than earlier, simpler drawing styles. As such, a higher level of cognitive

development would be necessary for the successful progression to this stage of visual realism.

The child now attempts to draw visual models, rather than internal models. Cherney et al.

(2006) support the progression described by Luquet (1927), stating that the greater amount of

distinctive features included in children’s drawings with advancing age lends a quality of

realism to these drawings.

 
 
 21  
 

2.3.2.4. Formal operations. Piaget’s final stage, that of formal operations, stretches

from the child’s 11th year past the end of adolescence (Sadock & Sadock, 2007). This stage is

characterized by ever more logical, systematic, and symbolic thought, that allow for the

emergence of complex logic and complex, grammatically correct language (Matsumoto,

2009; Sadock & Sadock, 2007). The most organized forms of cognition appear during this

stage (Matsumoto, 2009; Sadock & Sadock, 2007; Zgourides, 2000). Hypothetico-deductive

reasoning involves the ability to form and test hypotheses (Matsumoto, 2009; Sadock &

Sadock, 2007). Individuals in this stage are also able to perform scientific-inductive

reasoning by which they may form generalizations based on multiple observations

(Matumoto, 2009). The ages at which the different developmental stages appear are

approximate and not all individuals reach the stage of formal operational thought (Sadock &

Sadock, 2007).

2.3.3. Factors that underlie cognitive development. In addition to the description of

the stages of intellectual development described above, Piaget also attempted to explain the

processes that account for this developmental progression. Piaget (as cited in Slee & Shute,

2003) outlined four factors that underlie cognitive development, namely (a) maturation; (b)

experience; (c) social transmission; and (d) equilibration. These four factors are now

discussed in turn.

2.3.3.1. Maturation. The biological process of physical brain development, which

begins before birth and extends long into life, allows for the unfolding of increasingly

complex cognitive ability (Slee & Shute, 2003).

2.3.3.2. Experience. Piaget divides experience into direct physical experience and

mathematical experience. The prior involves experience that originates directly through the

use of the five senses, whereas the latter involves logico-mathematical experience that arises

 
 
 22  
 

from the child acting on the world instead of from direct experience in itself (Slee & Shute,

2003).

2.3.3.3. Social transmission. Piaget regarded the child’s interaction with the physical

world to be the main impetus of development, but he also acknowledged the role of

interaction with other children and adults as motivator for development (Slee & Shute, 2003).

In such instances the child has to decentre in order to make sense of conflicting ideas (Slee &

Shute, 2003).

2.3.3.4. Equilibration. Through this most basic underlying factor the child obtains a

new balance between previously understood information and new experience (Slee & Shute,

2003). It involves the processes of assimilation and accommodation referred to earlier.

The broad factors that Piaget believed to account for cognitive development illustrate

the fact that a multitude of influences impact on cognitive development. A discussion of all of

these influences would fill several books and is well beyond the scope of the present study.

The most directly relevant of these were therefore included in the discussion. Specific

theories of development focus more heavily on some of these factors than others, but the

reader is encouraged to bear in mind that a holistic view that takes into account as many as

possible of these influences will lead to the most thorough understanding of the complex

process of development. This concludes the section on Piaget’s (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969)

theory and the discussion now turns to Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory.

2.4. Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory

This section discusses the theory of the Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky. Important

aspects of his theory such as cultural mediation, the centrality of language and social

interaction in cognitive development, and his concepts of elementary and higher mental

 
 
 23  
 

functions are discussed. His concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is also

discussed and applied to the two measures used in the present study. The section concludes

with a description of key differences between the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky.

Vygostky (1978) made important contributions to the understanding of child

development by affording a central role to society and culture as forces that shape cognitive

development. Whereas Piaget believed development to originate in the child’s active

experimentation on the world, Vygotsky (1978) contended that social interaction forms the

foundation of cognitive development. In their classic comparison of Piaget and

Vygotsky’stheories, Cole and Wertsch (1996, p. 2) summarize Vygotsky’s broad

conceptualization of cultural mediation by stating that “the development of mind is the

interweaving of biological development of the human body and the appropriation of the

cultural/ideal/material heritage which exists in the present to coordinate people with each

other and the physical world”. This statement does justice to Vygotsky’s emphasis on the

primacy of social interaction in development, but does not neglect the essential contribution

of biological maturation as acknowledged in Piaget’s theory. The reader is encouraged to

incorporate each new perspective into his or her understanding of child development as these

are discussed. While consolidating such a broad body of work is admittedly no easy task,

such a creative synthesis will allow the reader a more thorough understanding of child

development that goes beyond the limits of dogmatic adherence to any one theory.

Whereas theories such as Piaget’s propose that cognitive development helps an

individual to adapt to his environment, Vygotsky argues from the opposite direction: that

cognitive development begins in social interaction and that these social functions are then

internalized and converted into mental functions (Driscoll, 2000). Vygotsky (1978) stated

that:

 
 
 24  
 

every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, between people

(interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies

equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of ideas. All

the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals. (p. 57)

2.4.1. Elementary and higher mental functions. Vygotsky (1978) drew a distinction

between elementary and higher mental functions. Elementary mental functions are innate and

include such abilities as attention, sensation, perception and memory (Vygotsky, 1978).

Higher mental functions, on the other hand, refer to the creation and use of abilities such as

thought, linguistic ability, mathematical ability and problem-solving (Vygotsky, 1978).

Vygotsky (1978) proposed that culture transforms the elementary mental functions to give

rise to more sophisticated higher mental functions. These higher mental functions are the

tools of the culture in which the individual lives. He believed that higher mental functions

originate externally in social occurrences and that they are only later integrated into a

person’s thinking by means of language (Lutz & Huitt, 2004). In this way society determines

what is to be learned and how it is to be learned, thus society is the main influence behind

cognitive development (Lutz & Huitt, 2004).

This shows that Vygotsky (1978) viewed social interaction not only as one important

factor in cognitive development, but as the central force behind cognitive development.

Vygotsky’s (1978) central tenet is therefore that learning occurs as a result of social

interaction that transforms elementary functions into higher-level functions, thus allowing the

development of more complex thought through the use of signs and symbols.

As mentioned above, Vygotsky distinguished between elementary mental functions

and higher mental functions. He suggested that elementary mental functions are innate while

higher mental functions are socially mediated. It would be incorrect to understand this as

 
 
 25  
 

meaning that higher mental functions do not also rely on biological maturation. It is known

that any learning corresponds to physiological changes. The point to keep in mind here is that

such phenomena as learning may be investigated at different levels of abstraction and that

investigators may choose to focus on neuronal pathways, metabolic activity in the brain,

willed behaviour, or on any of a number of contexts from the micro to the macro-sociological

context, to name but a few influences on learning. These different perspectives do not

necessarily negate one another and together allow for a better understanding of development.

Vygotsky viewed language as the most important cultural tool that allows the

development of thought (Slee & Shute, 2003). Vygotsky also observed qualitatively different

developmental stages (Slee & Shute, 2003). He highlighted the importance of speech and

thought coming together at around the age of two years, which forms the basis of future

conceptual development, and believed that proper abstract thought appears in adolescence,

but that the more concrete thought of previous stages remains present (Slee & Shute, 2003).

Vygotsky’s ideas in this regard are very similar to those of Piaget discussed earlier. Although

both theorists proposed developmental stages, Piaget’s stage theory is more widely

acknowledged whereas the most valuable contribution of Vygotsky’s theory is the

recognition of the role of social interaction and language in cognitive development (Slee &

Shute, 2003). Language is a symbolic system that relies on representational thought. Human

figure drawings also rely on representational thought and may be of value to gauge the

child’s ability to think in terms of abstract symbols that refer to things and his level of

growing conceptual maturity.

2.4.2. Drawing, language, and representational thought. Vygotsky’s (1978) theory

offers valuable insight into children’s drawings. He proposed that children in early stages of

drawing development draw from memory, that is, from what they know instead of from what

they see. He noted that such children would not only ignore perceptual information of the

 
 
 26  
 

object in front of them, but that they in fact contradict such information (Vygotsky, 1978).

This observation supports Luquet’s (1927) assertion that drawing development progresses

from intellectual realism to visual realism. It also underlines the importance of memory in the

creation of graphic representations as well as the fact that internal concepts are essential for

the production of representational drawings. On the subject of concept formation, Vygotsky

(1986, p. 149) wrote: concept formation “is a complex and genuine act of thought that cannot

be taught by drilling, but can be accomplished only when the children’s mental development

itself has reached the requisite level”. Here again, mental development appears to be closely

related to conceptual maturity, as measured by human figure drawing tests.

According to Toomela (2002), Vygosky’s theory provides an explanation of the role

of language in drawing. Vygotsky (as cited in Toomela, 2002) suggested that a direct

relationship between stimulus and response is presupposed in elementary functions but that

this direct link can be semiotically mediated by signs such as verbal language. In this way

“language selects and reorganises information and directs attention to significant aspects of a

situation” (Toomela, 2002, p. 235). Toomela further argues that words are tools that allow the

child to choose which aspects of the object to represent in his drawing. Toomela uses the

example that if a child only has a word (or concept) of a dog, he can differentiate between

dogs and other animals, but only when he learns words such as ‘collie’ and ‘poodle’ the child

becomes able to appreciate the subtle differences between these objects and represent them in

his drawing. Vygotsky’s notion of language as a cultural tool that originates in the social

context and allows for cognitive development when internalized is therefore very useful in

the understanding of children’s representational drawings. This illustrates Vygotsky’s

proposition that culture transforms elementary mental functions into higher mental functions.

As the child learns words such as ‘dog’, ‘collie’ and ‘poodle’ through social interaction and

 
 
 27  
 

internalizes them by means of language, his developing conceptual maturity allows for ever

more advanced ways of thinking.

The link between drawing and language suggested by Toomela (2002) corresponds to

Vygosky’s (1978) description of drawing as graphic speech which is based on verbal speech

and precedes the development of written language. This discussion further illustrates the

relationship between drawing and representational thought. Drawing is clearly an expression

of the semiotic function discussed earlier in relation to Piaget’s preoperational stage. As Ahn

(2007) notes, Piaget and Vygotsky both regard drawings as reflections of children’s

representational abilities. One may understand representational thought as resulting from the

child’s growing cognitive schemes developed through active experimentation, as Piaget

argued, or from the development of higher mental functions as a result of the internalization

of cultural tools such as language as proposed by Vygotsky. In both cases it may be

hypothesized that children’s human figure drawings offer an indication of their development

in terms of this crucial ability.

2.4.3. The zone of proximal development (ZPD). Another famous concept that

originated with Vygotsky is the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The ZPD refers to the

range of a person’s learning potential at a given point in development (Vygotsky, 1978).

Vygotsky (1978) suggested that at any point in development there are things that an

individual can do without help, things that he or she can only do when helped by another, and

things that he or she still cannot do even with the help of others. The ZPD is the gap between

an individual’s actual developmental level – those things he can do without assistance, and

the level of potential – the things an individual can do with guidance or support by others that

are more proficient in the task at hand (Vygotsky, 1978). In the following section the concept

of the zone of proximal development is applied to the two measures used in the present study.

 
 
 28  
 

The GMDS-ER aims to provide an indication of the child’s best possible

performance. Several measures are taken toward this end. Throughout the administration of

the measure, the child is encouraged to perform as well as he possibly can. The test

administrator will first determine a basal, this being a set of six consecutively passed items

(Luiz et al., 2006a). Items are then administered in order of progressing difficulty until the

child fails six consecutive items and a ceiling is thus established (Luiz et al., 2006a). The

basal helps to ensure that the child is credited for items early in the test that he can reasonably

be expected to have mastered granted his developmental level. The ceiling provides him the

opportunity to demonstrate his abilities in items that he has only recently mastered or is

beginning to master.

The items that make up each particular child’s basal and the preceding items can be

considered to correspond to the bottom end of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development.

These items correspond to tasks the child has already mastered and can perform without

assistance. As test items become more difficult, the child progresses toward the higher end of

the zone of proximal development until he finally reaches his ceiling. Since the test

administrator may usually only encourage the child and is generally not allowed to actually

help him, the upper end of the child’s performance on the GMDS-ER is more an indication of

tasks the child can perform without assistance than tasks he can perform with some assistance

or that he cannot master even if helped by others. The child’s performance on the GMDS-ER

therefore does not necessarily reflect the upper end of the child’s zone of proximal

development.

The GMDS-ER does however include items such as “Washes own hands and face,

with some assistance” (Luiz et al., 2006a, p. 35). These items measure the middle range of

Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. The administration instructions for some items on

the GMDS-ER, such as “Builds a tower of 8+ bricks” (Luiz et al., 2006a, p. 52), require that

 
 
 29  
 

the test administrator demonstrate the required task to the child before the child attempts it. In

this item, for example, the examiner may help the child by pointing out where the bricks

should be placed. Some items on the GMDS-ER allow the child two chances to pass the task,

while others such as “4-squares board: 50 seconds” (Luiz et al., 2006a, p. 69) provides the

opportunity for the child to improve his performance with a second attempt. In this timed

task, for example, the best of the two scores is recorded, thus allowing for the child to

demonstrate his best performance. In cases where the examiner may help the child, the test

items measure the middle range of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Failing these

items reflects the upper limits of the zone of proximal development, namely those tasks that

the child cannot complete even with the assistance of others.

With regards to tests of HFD’s the standardized administration of the DAP: IQ does

not permit the administrator to encourage the child or to provide him with guidance or

assistance while he is completing his human figure drawing. This task therefore measures the

lower range of the zone of proximal development, namely tasks the child can complete

without assistance. This does not however imply that this test measures only the most

developed abilities of the child, thereby underestimating his developmental level. Norm

tables are used to obtain standardized test scores and as such the child is positioned relative to

the performance of his peers. This overcomes the apparent problem posed by using a task

where successful completion would indicate mastery in the lower range of the zone of

proximal development.

On the other hand in the standardized administration of the GMDS-ER the examiner

initiates the ‘Draws a person’ item or task by saying to the child: “I want you to draw a man”

(Luiz et. al., 2006a, p. 53). The instructions further state “encourage the child to draw the best

possible person” (Luiz et. al., 2006a, p. 53). The degree to which the examiner is allowed to

assist the child in this task is not clear from the standardized instructions, and the

 
 
 30  
 

administration of this item does therefore not conform to the DAP: IQ standardized

instructions. The most likely interpretation of the GMDS-ER ‘Draws a person’ instructions is

that the examiner must be supportive, but not directive. Instructing the child to include

features such as eyes or arms would in most cases mean that the child would pass later

‘Draws a person’ items that he might not pass without these instructions. Such instructions

would therefore defeat the purpose of these items. It may therefore be concluded that

‘encourage’ does not mean to give specific advice to the child. The human figure drawings

obtained from the GMDS-ER protocols therefore provide an indication of the child’s best

effort to produce a human figure drawing, based on his concept of a person. It follows that

although the GMDS-ER ‘Draws a person’ instructions differ from the DAP: IQ instructions,

the obtained human figure drawings can be expected to be comparable.

2.4.4. Differences between the theories of Vygotsky and Piaget. Vygotsky’s (1978)

social cognitive theory of development departs from Piaget’s (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969)

theory in several respects. Firstly, Vygotsky affords a central role to culture and social

interaction in the process of cognitive development, whereas Piaget’s theory tends to depict

the child as a more autonomous agent that realizes his own development through interaction

with his environment. Vygotsky’s theory also breaks away from the defined milestones set

out in Piaget’s stage theory and instead promotes the view that there always remains some

potential for development that is not actualized. Development is therefore construed as an

ongoing process without a final destination (Lutz & Huitt, 2004). The discussion now turns to

the work of Jerome Bruner.

2.5. Bruner’s Theory of Cognitive Development

The work of the American psychologist and educator Jerome Bruner will now be

discussed. Key assumptions of Bruner’s theory are first presented. This is followed by a more

 
 
 31  
 

detailed discussion of his theory, focussing on such aspects as the role of culture and

language in cognitive development; the enactive, iconic, and symbolic modes of

representation; the spiral curriculum; and cognitive readiness. Throughout the discussion,

these contributions are compared to the ideas of Piaget and Vygotsky presented in the

previous two sections of this chapter.

The first key assumption of Bruner’s (1960, 1966, 1986, 1990, 2006a; 2006b) theory

is that meaning is actively constructed from the world and there is no objective reality that

exists independently of human mental activity and symbolic language (Bruner, 1986). The

implication of this metaphysical position is evident in the observation that the same event can

hold different meanings to different individuals (Slee & Shute, 2003). Secondly, he argued

that development can never occur independently of an individual’s cultural and historical

context (Bruner, 1986). The third assumption inherent in his work is that children play an

active role in constructing their world, but do not do so in isolation (Slee & Shute, 2003).

Instead, it is through social interaction that the child “acquires a framework for interpreting

experience, and learns how to negotiate meaning in a manner congruent with the

requirements of a culture” (Bruner & Haste, 1987, p. 1) and that in this way, “culture gives

shape to our thoughts” (Bruner, 2006b, p. 4). Bruner’s ideas can be seen to occupy a position

between the Piagetian emphasis of the child’s active role in his own development and the

centrality of culture in mental development found in Vygotsky’s thought.

Bruner (1966) believed increases in an individual’s intellectual functioning to be

driven by development in the individual’s language facility as well as exposure to systematic

instruction. From this perspective language is seen as a prerequisite of thought (Slee & Shute,

2003).This illustrates the primacy that he attached to language as an underlying factor of

cognitive development as well as his acknowledgement of social factors in development.

 
 
 32  
 

2.5.1. Modes of representation. Bruner (1966) described three modes of knowing

that form part of development, namely: enactive, iconic and symbolic. These modes of

representation emerge in a developmental sequence, as seen in Bruner’s (2006a, p. 69)

statement that their development “is in that order, each depending upon the previous one for

its development, yet all of them remaining more or less intact throughout life.”

2.5.1.1. Enactive representation. The stage of enactive representation is equivalent to

Piaget’s sensorimotor period (Slee & Shute, 2003). Bruner (1966, p. 17) agrees with Piaget

(1954) that during this stage things are “lived rather than thought”. The non-representational

nature of scribbling in children’s early drawings reflects the fact that early drawing is based

in action rather than goal-directed thought.

2.5.1.2. Iconic representation. The second stage, known as the stage of iconic

representation, involves representing the world through a mental image (Bruner, 1966).

According to Bruner (1966, p. 21), this stage begins when “a child is finally able to represent

the world to himself by an image or spatial schema that is relatively independent of action”.

Such a mental image is a cognitive representation that represents a body of knowledge (Slee

& Shute, 2003). Iconic representation corresponds to the earlier period of Piaget’s

preoperational stage. The emergence of the semiotic function - namely the ability to represent

things by means of a signifier - which occurs later in this Piagetian stage marks the transition

from an iconic mode of representation to the next stage: that of symbolic representation.

2.5.1.3. Symbolic representation. Children in Bruner’s (1966) third stage, termed

symbolic representation, are able to use symbols to represent their experience of the world.

This type of representation is more developed than that found during iconic representation

because symbols such as words can be used that do not resemble their referent, whereas

iconic representations such as pictures are more directly related to their referents (Slee &

 
 
 33  
 

Shute, 2003). Bruner (1966) believed that children’s growing ability to use language is

responsible for advances in symbolic representation. Using Bruner’s framework, the

participants in the present study would have relied on enactive and iconic representation and

some would have reached symbolic representation. It should be noted that although the task

of drawing a human figure at first seems to rely on iconic representation insofar as the figure

resembles an actual person, symbolic representation also plays an important role. As

discussed in the section on Vygotsky, the symbolic system of language serves a mediating

function between stimulus and response and helps the child to plan and organize his activity.

A child who is able to use symbolic representation may therefore be expected to provide a

more detailed, complex, and organized human figure drawing than one who relies solely on

the iconic mode of representation.

Bruner’s theory was strongly influenced by the work of Piaget and Vygotsky (Slee &

Shute, 2003). Bruner (1986, 1990) agrees with Piaget’s concept of cognitive development as

occurring in progressive stages, with each successive stage building on earlier stages. He also

regards categorization and representation to be critical in cognitive development, as does

Piaget. Bruner believes that children develop a representational system and that learning

occurs by comparing new stimuli with existing mental structures (Lutz & Huitt, 2004).

Cognitive development is the development of more sophisticated mental structures resulting

from this ongoing comparison (Driscoll, 2000; Lutz & Huitt, 2004). This aspect of Bruner’s

theory is similar to the dual processes of assimilation and accommodation proposed by

Piaget.

Conceptual development, also known as the development of representational thought,

is a central concept in the present study. Bruner and colleagues (Bruner, Oliver & Greenfield,

1966, p. 1) stated that “conceptual development is characterized by gradually more

 
 
 34  
 

sophisticated representations of the world rather than by the gradual acquisition of separately

identifiable skills that do not necessarily occur in a sequence as the process unfolds”.

Lutz and Huitt (2004) contend that Bruner’s theories may also be linked to

information processing theories in that he believes development to rely on the elaboration and

increased sophistication of mental structures that occurs with interaction and experience. His

theory also places importance on the role of culture in development. In this sense his beliefs

are similar to that of Vygotsky (Lutz & Huitt, 2004). Vygotsky’s influence on Bruner’s views

may be seen in his assertion that children are social beings whose competences “are

interwoven with the competences of others” (Bruner, 1986, p. 11). Bruner emphasized the

role of culture in development, stating that cognitive growth is shaped as much “from the

outside in as the inside out” (Bruner, 1966, p. 13). Furthermore, he highlighted that humans

are well suited to adapt to their environment by social means instead of morphological means

(Bruner, 1986).

2.5.2. The spiral curriculum. Bruner also introduced the concept of a ‘spiral

curriculum’. This term refers to fitting the instructional method to students’ developmental

level and then revisiting this material in more complex forms as the individual’s cognitive

abilities develop (Bruner, 1960). Referring to the spiral curriculum, Bruner (1966, p. 44)

stated that “any idea or problem or body of knowledge can be presented in a form simple

enough so that any particular learner can understand it in a recognizable form” and that “a

curriculum as it develops should revisit these basic ideas repeatedly, building upon them until

the learner has grasped the full formal apparatus that goes with them” (Bruner, 1960, p. 13).

Lutz and Huitt (2004) propose that the principal difference between Bruner (1986)

and Piaget’s (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) theories center around the notion of cognitive

readiness. Piaget argued that learning and development are determined by an individual’s age

 
 
 35  
 

and level of biological maturation, whereas Bruner argued that selected aspects of any

material can be taught to any child (Lutz & Huitt, 2004). This claim is moderated, however,

by adding that it will probably be necessary that this content and material receive additional

attention as the individual attains more knowledge and capacity (Lutz & Huitt, 2004). These

two viewpoints are therefore not necessarily mutually exclusive: while learning may occur if

instruction is tailored to take the individual’s developmental level into account, as Bruner

argued, Piaget’s view cannot be discounted since the individual’s capacity to deal with

increasingly complex material increases as cognitive and biological structures mature and

gain complexity. The impact of biological maturation is supported by the correspondence

between neuronal myelination and stage progression as discussed later in this study.

A striking difference between Piaget and Bruner’s theories lies in the notion of

progression. Piaget’s (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) theory is clearly a stage theory, with

approximate ages assigned to each stage of cognitive development. It is important to reiterate,

however, that Piaget made provision for overlap between stages, and that the stage element of

his theory is not as rigid as some critics have contended.

Bruner (1986, 1990) objected to the notion of invariant stages in cognitive

development. He argued against the Piagetian idea that cognitive development unfolds in a

uniform manner that is unaffected by cultural or social differences. Instead, he held that

“intelligence is to a great extent the internalization of ‘tools’ provided by a given culture”

(Bruner as cited in Driscoll 2000, p. 236). Lutz and Huitt (2004) make a strong point by

arguing that if the tools of a culture are different, categorization and representation would

also be different. This would in turn mean that the skills and types of knowledge required at

different ages would not be the same as in other cultures. This brings into dispute the validity

of the notion of invariant developmental stages as proposed by some stage theorists (Lutz &

Huitt, 2004). Empirical research substantiates Bruner’s claim that exact developmental stages

 
 
 36  
 

do not occur and that development does not progress uniformly regardless of cultural and

societal differences (Renner et al., 1976). This is important for the present study, as it means

that the items on the GMDS-ER and the act of drawing a human figure are not independent of

culture. Children who have not been exposed to bicycles may have difficulty with item

‘AIV.13 Rides a bicycle (two-wheeler)’, for example, and children who have not been taught

to draw or exposed to drawing materials may reasonably be expected to be less proficient in

producing a human figure drawing than those who have had practice in the medium.

The influence of culture on development and intelligence as described by Vygotsky

and Bruner is widely acknowledged. Experience, especially schooling, and contextual factors

exert substantial influence on an individual’s performance on the type of tasks normally

included in intelligence tests (Jansen & Greenop, 2008; Nel, 2000). Sperber and Hirschfeld

(1999, p. cxxvi) claim that it is generally accepted “that cultural factors enable, constrain, and

channel the development of certain cognitive outcomes” and that while “some cultural

environments inhibit normal cognitive development” others “promote the elaboration of

complex knowledge structures such as modern science by providing the appropriate

artifactual and institutional support”.

As is generally true of constructivist thought, Bruner’s theory is critically important

insofar as it opens readers to question the existence of one objective reality. While the

implications afforded by this perspective can be discussed at length, it is sufficient for the

purposes of this study to note the following:

1. The construct of ‘normal development’ is socially constructed and the same term

may denote very different things in various contexts.

2. Culture plays a critical role in determining what is learnt and how this is learnt,

thereby shaping individual development in a qualitative way.

 
 
 37  
 

3. Development is embedded within a socio-historical context. The influence of this

context is so pervasive that it is impossible to think about development in isolation.

2.6. Neuropsychological and Information-Processing Perspectives

The stage progression that Piaget and Bruner described in connection with cognitive

development and Luquet described in children’s drawings of the human figure is partly

dependent on the biological maturation of the brain and nervous system. Such maturation

allows children to form “increasingly complex cognitive schemes that help them to construct

better understandings of what they have experienced” (Piaget as cited in Shaffer & Kipp,

2010, p. 55). This illustrates the interplay between biological growth and children’s active

role in their own development. Over time, if all goes well, this process allows “curious, active

children, who are always forming new schemes and reorganizing their knowledge” to

“progress far enough to think about old issues in entirely new ways; that is, they pass from

one stage of cognitive development to the next higher stage” (Shaffer & Kipp, 2010, p. 54).

As noted earlier, Piaget acknowledged the role of biological maturation in cognitive

development. The following section provides an overview of some of the most important

biological factors that influence development.

It has been hypothesized that there is an increase in processing speed (Kail &

Salthouse, 1994), working memory (Chi, 1977), and “increased dimensional complexity of

representations” (Halford as cited in Morra, 2005, p.319) with development. A thorough

understanding of cognitive development requires knowledge of childhood representational

development (Cherney et al., 2006). Memory performance and cognitive development may

partly be explained by the way that knowledge is represented in long-term memory

(Schneider & Pressley, 1997). Many of the cognitive processes measured by tests of mental

development and intelligence are dependent on representational ability. This “ability to

 
 
 38  
 

understand, use, and produce symbols” (Cherney et al., 2006, p. 137) underlies the capacity

for communication, abstraction, simplification and generalization, holding information far

from the referent, manipulating and transforming information, as well as other skills

(Cherney et al., 2006). Children are able to create increasingly complex drawings as they

grow older and this growing representational complexity is associated with increases in

working memory capacity (Bensur, Eliot, & Hedge 1997; Cherney et al. 2006; Scott, 1981).

Case (1985) suggested that increased cognitive capacity (that is, working memory) allows

children to differentiate between representations with greater ease. This allows for the

progression from simple representations such as stick figures to more complex

representations such as clothed persons with detailed facial features (Cherney et al., 2006).

Increased attention is another mechanism that accounts for the developmental nature of

human figure drawings as seen in Luquet’s (1927) suggestion that the child’s increased

attention allows him to progress from intellectual realism to visual realism.

The increased complexity with development that occurs in children’s drawings where

the manipulation of spatial components is important may be explained by three

developmental variables. These, as discussed by Bensur and Eliot (1993) are:

1. the child’s ability to pay attention to objects’ appearance irrespective of the child’s

internal representation of the object;

2. the child’s capacity for recalling figural configurations and holding them in

working memory; and

3. the influence of fine motor skills.

Such biological maturational and cognitive mechanisms may account for the

improvement seen in children’s human figure drawings, as well as in their performance on

 
 
 39  
 

the GMDS-ER and the items of intelligence tests. The neo-Piagetian theorist Pascual-Leone

(2000, p. 843), for example, proposes that “[t]he concept of mental-processing capacity […]

usually labelled “working memory” […] could be used to explain processing-complexity

growth and thus developmental stages”. This author further contends that developmental

stages do not occur as a result of changes in the structure of children’s logic (as Piaget argued

in his work The Psychology of Intelligence), but rather that “stages index the endogenous

growth of maturationally driven mental-attention mechanisms” (Pascual-Leone, 2000, p.

843). This “mental-attention capacity appears as a set of innate resources growing in power

with chronological age until adolescence” (Pascual-Leone, 2000, p.844) and is more narrowly

defined than working memory since it excludes situational learning. The development of

mental-attention capacity (which allows the processing of complexity) and learning both

increase working memory (Pascual-Leone, 2000). Pascual-Leone argues that the

developmental unfolding of this innate mental-attentional capacity leads to an increase in the

child’s learning potential, which in turn allows for the emergence of Piagetian stages.

Kail (1992) suggests that the increase in the speed with which the mature brain and

nervous system can process information accounts for the important role of biological

maturation in cognitive growth. This gradual improvement that occurs with maturation

explains age-related improvement in diverse tasks. Zgourides (2000) observes that the

attainment of concrete operations, Piaget’s third stage discussed earlier, around the age of 7 is

dependent on the maturation of the brain and nervous systems at this age and that the increase

in neural connections allows children to progress to more advanced ways of thinking. The

importance of this fundamental mechanism is illustrated by Kail and Hall’s (1994) assertion

that age has a direct effect on global processing speed; global processing speed then has a

direct effect on naming speed, and naming speed in turn influences performance on word

recognition tasks. This increase in processing speed that occurs with age may be expected to

 
 
 40  
 

manifest most prominently in timed tasks. HFD tests and most items on the GMDS-ER are

not timed. It may be hypothesized that this improvement spurs cognitive development by

allowing children to process information more effectively thereby speeding up the processes

of assimilation and accommodation.

The research discussed above serves to illustrate the growing acceptance within the

field of developmental psychology that a combination of nativism and constructivism

provides a better fit with reality than either absolute position taken alone. Nativism, in

contrast to constructivism, refers to the idea that intellectual abilities and thought patterns are

inborn (Matsumoto, 2009). Luquet (1927) appreciated the role that increased attention and

the child’s growing ability to hold important aspects of the subject in mind plays in the

production of a more accurate representation. His observation in this respect foreshadowed

recent developments that link cognitive factors such as attention and working memory to

intelligence and mental development. Various underlying biological maturational and

cognitive mechanisms such as those suggested by Pascual-Leone’s work (1970; 1978; 1980)

may therefore account for developmental change in human figure drawings as well as

performance on GMDS-ER and intelligence test items.

2.7. Conclusion

This chapter provided a review of literature from the broad field of developmental

psychology and discussed the relevance of these contributions to human figure drawing tests

and the GMDS-ER. Important definitions were provided to orientate the reader and the

importance of studying child development was discussed. This was followed by a discussion

of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, Bruner’s

theory of cognitive development, and relevant contributions from neuropsychological and

information-processing perspectives. These theories were applied to human figure drawing

 
 
 41  
 

tests and the GMDS-ER. Luquet’s theory of drawing development was integrated into the

discussion as it provided a valuable theoretical link between Piaget’s theory and the study of

human figure drawings. The following chapter provides a discussion of the key constructs

relevant to the present study, namely intelligence, conceptual maturity and mental

development.

 
 
 42  
 

Chapter 3

The Relationship between Intelligence, Conceptual Maturity, and Mental Development

3.1. Introduction

It has been suggested that “any description of child development must include in the

discussion a review of the concept of intelligence” (Stewart, 2005, p. 97). A discussion of the

relationship between the key constructs of the present study is included because it adds depth

to the theoretical foundations of the study, assists in the contextualization of the key

constructs, and provides further motivation for the research objective of exploring the

relationship between human figure drawing test scores and Griffiths Mental Development

Scales – Extended Revised (GMDS-ER) general quotients. This chapter clarifies the

relationship between conceptual maturity, intelligence, and mental development. In

particular, the psychometric approach to intelligence is described and related to human figure

drawing tests and the GMDS-ER. The concepts of academic skills disorders, learning

disorders, and developmental delays are then discussed and it is proposed that human figure

drawings may be useful in the assessment of such conditions. This is followed by

psychometric evidence of the overlap between scores on human figure drawing tests,

intelligence tests, and developmental tests. The chapter concludes with a discussion of a

priori evidence of the relationship between these key concepts.

The study of children’s drawings has been closely linked to the psychometric study of

intelligence from the outset (Bekhit, Thomas & Jolley, 2005). Authors such as Burt (1921)

incorporated drawing into general IQ tests, while Bekhit, Thomas and Jolley (2005) give the

Draw-a-Man test (Goodenough, 1926) the accolade of being the first dedicated IQ test. It was

Harris (1963) who reintroduced the notion of development into human figure drawing tests

by stating that his revision of Goodenough’s test was a measure of conceptual maturity. The

 
 
 43  
 

scope of the current study does not permit a comprehensive discussion of the nature of

intelligence, but the concept of intelligence is now discussed in light of the substantial

theoretical overlap that exists between intelligence and mental development.

3.2. The Psychometric Approach to Intelligence

Highly abstract and multidimensional concepts feature prominently in social scientific

theories. Moreover, such concepts are often linked exclusively to particular theories or

models (Mouton, 1996). Emphasis is placed on the psychometric approach to intelligence, as

it is into this category that the GMDS-ER falls (Jakins, 2009). The psychometric approach

was also chosen because it is currently the dominant perspective in the study of intelligence,

has generated the largest amount of research, received the most attention, and is the main

approach used in practical settings (Neisser et al., 1996). Intelligence as understood from the

psychometric perspective is broadly defined as “how well one scores on an intelligence test”

(Berg, 2000, p. 120). In the psychometric approach the nature of intelligence is examined by

measuring individual performance on intelligence tests and subsequently investigating the

underlying structure of individual performance through statistical techniques (Berg, 2000).

Factors that do not cluster together or that follow different developmental trajectories are

believed to indicate distinct abilities (Berg, 2000). Berg focuses on three such distinct

abilities that have been widely accepted:

1. Fluid intelligence, which refers to “the ability to adapt to new knowledge or

information and think in flexible ways. Fluid intelligence also includes the ability to under-

stand and make conceptual relations” (Matsumoto, 2009, p. 208). Fluid intelligence decreases

during adulthood (Matsumoto, 2009). Psychometric measures tap fluid intelligence through

tasks that require an individual to adapt to a novel situation and tasks in which earlier

experience is of little benefit (Berg, 2000). As noted earlier, Harris (1963) believed HFDs to

 
 
 44  
 

measure conceptual maturity, which he defined as “the ability to perceive and discriminate

similarities and differences, the ability to abstract these, and the ability to generalize or

classify objects correctly” (Harris as cited in Cox, 1993, p. 70). The ability to think in abstract

terms and to work with concepts that is an important aspect of fluid intelligence is therefore

dependent on conceptual maturity. Based on this connection, one might hypothesize that

human figure drawings measure fluid intelligence by gaining an indication of the level of

conceptual maturity that underlies this ability. The earlier section covering Piaget’s

contributions on the development of representational thought illustrated that conceptual

maturity is central to mental development. This understanding of the relationship between

human figure drawings and conceptual maturity therefore not only helps one to understand

the mechanism by which such tests measure intelligence, but also supports the hypothesis that

they may be useful in the identification of developmental delays.

2. Crystallized intelligence is defined as the “set of knowledge or skills that are

developed within the context of experience or education” (Matsumoto, 2009, p. 144).

Crystallized intelligence increases with age but is restricted by an individual’s cultural

exposure (Matsumoto, 2009). Psychometric measures use items that draw on problem solving

acquired by education and/or acculturation to gauge crystallized intelligence (Berg, 2000).

The ability to think in abstract terms and manipulate concepts in novel situations form part of

fluid intelligence, but the knowledge base that relies on the storage of representations in long-

term memory can be regarded as a fundamental aspect of crystallized intelligence.

3. Everyday intelligence. This refers to adaptive ability within certain areas of

everyday functioning, although the extent to which this ability reflects crystallized and fluid

intelligence is still under debate (Berg, 2000). The concept is most often used in relation to

adult intelligence and age-related cognitive decline (Berg, 2000).

 
 
 45  
 

According to Berg (2000) there is currently widespread consensus that intelligence is

best conceptualized in terms of three distinct factors, namely Fluid Intelligence, Crystalized

Intelligence, and Everyday Intelligence as discussed above. Hunt (2005, p. 6) asserts that “the

one-factor versus multifactor debate has very largely been settled”. He justifies this statement

by arguing that Carrol (1993) demonstrated that a three-layer model provides the best fit to

the psychometric data. Hunt (2005) goes on to state that Carrol’s model is very similar to

Cattell (1971) and Horn’s (Horn, 1985; Horn & Noll, 1994) model. The latter model is

comprised of three factors, namely (a) Fluid Intelligence, (b) Crystallized Intelligence; and

(c) Spatial-Visual Intelligence (Hunt, 2005). This model differs from the one proposed by

Berg (2000) discussed above. While both models acknowledge fluid intelligence and

crystallized intelligence, Berg includes everyday intelligence whereas the Cattell-Horn model

replaces this ability with visual-spatial intelligence, defined as “the ability to reason spatially”

(Hunt, 2005, p. 6). The American Psychological Association (APA) established a task force

to consolidate research on the nature of intelligence and released a report stating that the most

widely held conceptualization of intelligence is that of a hierarchy of abilities with general

intelligence (g) at the apex (Neisser et al., 1996).The point here is to show that although some

consensus has been reached, psychometric conceptions of intelligence differ and do not

represent a single conception of intelligence.

Central to the conceptualization of intelligence in the current study is Spearman’s

(1927) g factor. This general factor believed to underlie performance on different cognitive

tasks was discovered through the statistical technique of factor analysis. Although g is well

established within the psychometric approach it remains a murky concept. As Neisser et al.

(1996) put it in their report for the American Psychological Association’s taskforce on

intelligence:

 
 
 46  
 

one common view today envisages something like a hierarchy of factors with g at the

apex, but there is no full agreement on what g actually measures: it has been described

as a mere statistical regularity (Thomson, 1939), a kind of mental energy (Spearman,

1927), a generalized abstract reasoning ability (Gustafsson, 1984), or an index

measure of neural processing speed (Reed & Jensen, 1992). (p. 78)

The general quotient (GQ) of the Griffiths scales was developed by Ruth Griffiths

(1954, 1970, 1984) in accordance with the notion of an underlying general factor (Stewart,

2005). Research supports the view that the GMDS-ER measures a single underlying factor

(Luiz, Foxcroft, & Stewart, 2001a; Munro, 1968). HFD tests of intellectual ability are

similarly based on the belief that performance on a certain task, such as drawing a human

figure, will provide an estimate of overall intelligence (or g). The GMDS-ER is based on the

psychometric approach to intelligence, as may be seen in Griffiths’ statement that in

developing the scales she had to “cast a wide net to include a large number of different

specific abilities, so that g or general intelligence could be measured in as many as possible

of its manifestations” (Griffiths, 1954, p.31). This clearly demonstrates that although the

GMDS-ER is a developmental measure, and not an intelligence test, Ruth Griffiths believed

it to measure intelligence. The reader is reminded of the striking similarity between the

constructs of developmental level and intelligence. An immediate implication is that if

Griffiths believed her scales of mental development measure intelligence, perhaps it would

not be surprising to find that HFD tests purported to measure intellectual ability provide an

estimate of mental developmental level.

3.3. Academic Skills Disorders, Mental Retardation, and Developmental Delays

Academic skills disorders, also referred to as learning disorders, exist when “an

individual’s achievement, as determined by the administration of standardized tests in

 
 
 47  
 

reading, mathematics, or writing, is substantially below what would be expected for the age,

schooling, and level of intelligence for that individual” (Matsumoto, 2009, p. 4). Learning

disorders differ from mental retardation as the achievement deficit in learning disorder is not

the result of a lack of intelligence (Matsumoto, 2009). The DSM-IV-TR groups these

disorders into four diagnostic categories, namely: reading disorder, mathematics disorder,

disorder of written expression, and learning disorder not otherwise specified (American

Psychiatric Association [DSM-IV-TR], 2000). Without remedial educational intervention,

children with learning disorders usually find it exceptionally difficult to keep up with their

classmates by their third year (Sadock & Sadock, 2007). Learning disorders not only cause

psychological distress to an afflicted child, but may also lead to “demoralization, low self-

esteem, chronic frustration, and poor peer relationships” (Sadock & Sadock, 2007, p.1158).

Early diagnosis of such difficulties will allow such children to benefit from appropriate

intervention, thus reducing the risk of negative outcomes. Human figure drawing tests that

provide a global measurement of intelligence or mental development may be useful in the

identification of such difficulties if a child’s academic performance falls markedly short of

that expected from his HFD score. In this case the discrepancy between general intelligence

as measured by the HFD test and academic performance would warrant further assessment to

ascertain whether a learning disorder in the domains of reading, mathematics, or writing

accounts for the individual’s poor academic performance.

Mental retardation refers to the “state of lacking normal levels of intellectual

capacity” (Matsumoto, 2009, p. 305). According to the Cambridge Dictionary of Psychology

(Matsumoto, 2009), mental retardation is synonymous with ‘mental deficiency’ and

‘developmental delay’. This definition again illustrates the close association between the

concepts of intelligence and mental development. The term ‘developmental delay’ is often

used when referring to a deficit in mental developmental level, whereas the term ‘mental

 
 
 48  
 

retardation’ is more closely associated with the concept of intelligence, but both refer to the

same phenomenon. The DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) groups individuals with mental retardation

into four categories according to their IQ scores. These are (a) mild mental retardation (IQ

level of 50-55 to about 70); (b) moderate mental retardation (IQ level of 35-40 to 50-55); (c)

severe mental retardation (IQ level of 20-25 to 35-40) and (d) profound mental retardation

(IQ level below 20 or 25). Mild mental retardation may in some cases represent the low end

of the normal curve of intelligence, whereas more pronounced delays result from brain

abnormalities (Matsumoto, 2009).

Different degrees of mental retardation (or developmental delay) show different

developmental characteristics. Those with mild mental retardation frequently show small

developmental delays in the preschool years but are normally only identified when academic

or behavioural problems appear in the early elementary years (Mash & Wolfe, 2005). Such

individuals generally engage readily with peers, but may have moderate delays in expressive

language during their preschool years with no or only slight sensorimotor impairment (Mash

& Wolfe, 2005). Children with moderate mental retardation are normally identified due to

failure in achieving early developmental milestones in their preschool years (Mash & Wolfe,

2005). At school age, such children typically rely on single words and phrases to

communicate and their self-care and motor skills are comparable to that of a two to three year

old child without developmental delays (Mash & Wolfe, 2005). By adolescence, these

individuals regularly have poor relationships with peers as a result of trouble recognizing

social conventions such as appropriate dress and humour (Mash & Wolfe, 2005). Children

with severe mental retardation are usually identified at an early age due to substantial

developmental delays and visible physical features or abnormalities (Mash & Wolfe, 2005).

These children’s development is markedly delayed as seen in them reaching milestones such

as walking, standing, and toilet training much later than their peers (Mash & Wolfe, 2005).

 
 
 49  
 

Organic causes such as genetic defects normally underlie this form of mental retardation

(Mash & Wolfe, 2005). Individuals falling in the final category of profound mental

retardation show marked developmental delays from infancy, as well as biological

abnormalities such as asymmetrical faces (Mash & Wolfe, 2005). They show serious

impairment in sensorimotor functioning (for example, their responsiveness by the age of four

is similar to that of a one year old without developmental delay) and they can only reach a

rudimentary level of adaptive functioning such as communication skills, eating and self-care

behaviour (Mash & Wolfe, 2005; Sadock & Sadock, 2007).

Human figure drawing tests may play a most significant role in the identification of

individuals with mild mental retardation, since this form is often not easily identified at a

young age, and the majority of children with developmental delays (85%) fall into this

category (Sadock & Sadock, 2007).

3.4. Psychometric Evidence of Conceptual Overlap

Existing psychometric evidence indicates a correlation between the scores of HFD

tests of intellectual ability, individual intelligence tests and developmental tests. Cox (1993)

presented an overview of various studies investigating the relationship between scores on the

Draw-a-Man test and tests of intelligence. Harris (1963) found correlations ranging from .2 to

.8; Goodenough (1926) found correlations between drawing IQ and Stanford-Binet IQ

ranging from .699 to .863; Yepsen (as cited in Cox, 1993) obtained a correlation of .6;

Williams (as cited in Cox, 1993) reported a correlation of .65; and McElwee (as cited in Cox,

1993) reported a correlation of .72 between the Draw-a-Man test and the Stanford-Binet

(Terman, 1916) test. Furthermore, Kline (1993) concluded that Harris’ revision of the Draw-

a-Man test provides a reasonable measure of general intelligence; while Reynolds and

Hickman (2004) report a statistically significant correlation (p ≤ .01) between DAP: IQ

 
 
 50  
 

scores and the three IQ scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Third Edition

(WISC-III, Wechsler, 1991). The Goodenough-Harris Test showed significant correlations

with both the WISC-R and the Stanford-Binet scale (Abell, Von Briesen, & Watz, 1996;

Bensur & Eliot, 1993). Doubt however exists about whether these correlations are high

enough to suggest that such tests provide safe measurements of intelligence (Light & Barnes,

1995). Bekhit, Thomas and Jolley (2005, p. 208) disagree with the test developers’ insistence

that artistic ability does not influence the test results, arguing that “intelligent children may

not draw well, and conversely, some children who are artistically gifted may have a low IQ

score”. These authors further note that the human figure drawing test cannot predict the IQ of

children beyond 10 years of age, since children older than 10 years usually do not include

additional details in their drawings. These results, in general, indicate a clear relationship

between the scores of human figure drawing tests and those of individually administered

intelligence tests, but also show that these scores are not identical. Significant positive

correlations found between these measures may however suggest that they tap similar

constructs.

A comparison between the GMDS-ER and the Termin-Merril Scale (a revision of the

Stanford-Binet) yielded correlations varying from r=.79 to r=.81 (Griffiths, 1984). Another

study conducted in South Africa by Luiz and Heimes (1994) found high positive correlations

between the GQ of the Original Griffiths Scales and the General Intelligence Quotient of the

Junior South African Intelligence Scale (JSAIS). This evidence may indicate that the GMDS-

ER taps constructs similar to those measured by these two intelligence tests. Further

psychometric evidence of a relationship between intelligence and development is found on

Neisser and colleagues’ (1996) finding that when adapted to measure individual differences

the tasks Piaget developed to gauge a child’s developmental level show a reasonable

correlation with psychometric tests of intelligence.

 
 
 51  
 

Correlation coefficients must be interpreted with caution, as they do not give an

indication of the direction of causality (Field, 2005). This means that an inference regarding

which variable causes the other to change cannot be made purely on the basis of statistical

evidence provided by correlation coefficients. Correlations also do not exclude the possibility

of unknown variables being responsible for the observed relationships. This is known as the

third-variable problem, or tertium quid which states that “[i]n any bivariate correlation

causality between two variables cannot be assumed because there may be another measured

or unmeasured variable affecting the results” (Field, 2005, p. 128). These psychometric

findings can therefore not be used as definitive proof of conceptual overlap, although it is

argued here that these empirical observations lend support to the hypothesis of conceptual

overlap when rationally combined with relevant theoretical considerations. Bearing in mind

that the purpose of this study is to investigate the usefulness of a HFD tests in the

measurement of mental development, the possible directionality of causal relationships (if

any in fact exist) or the effects of unknown intervening variables are of little consequence. If

consistent correlations exist between these variables then any one variable may reasonably be

used as an indicator of the other. The usefulness of such an indication is dependent on the

strength of the correlation. The investigation into the possible existence of such a correlation

between HFD test scores and mental development and its strength (if a correlation exists) is

of course the subject of the present research study.

3.5. A Priori Evidence of the Overlap between Key Constructs

Piaget (1950, p. 8), referring to intelligence, stated that “its origins are

indistinguishable from those of sensorimotor adaptation in general or even from those of

biological adaptation itself”. From this early stage then, intelligence and development is

intimately related. Earlier chapters have discussed the important role that conceptual

maturation (the development of representational thought) plays in mental development and

 
 
 52  
 

intelligence. In particular, it has been shown that such conceptual development is crucial for

an individual to progress through the developmental stages as outlined by Piaget and Bruner,

as well as for the acquisition of language. Britton as cited in Nystrand (1977, p.40) said that

“the ability to speak and to reason are … both …dependent upon the ability to generate

symbols, the ability to create representations of actuality”. Another ability- the ability to

produce a drawing of the human figure, is also dependent on representational thought. In this

way, an individual’s drawing of the human figure may provide an indication of both

intelligence and development by gauging the level of the representational ability that

underlies these processes. Considerable overlap exists between mental development and

intelligence on both conceptual and pragmatic levels. These concepts are related toeach other

in the remainder of this chapter.

On a conceptual level this overlap is illustrated by the simple fact that HFD tests

(such as the DAP: IQ), tests of mental development (such as the GMDS-ER), and intelligence

tests (such as the WISC-IV) all aim to measure an individual’s performance on selected test

tasks and to then relate this performance to other individuals from a selected cohort. To

illustrate, the DAP: IQ obtains a raw score providing an absolute indication of performance

on the test. With normal development, children’s absolute performance increases with age.

This is then transformed into a standardized score that places the individual’s performance in

relation to a representative chronological age cohort. The standard score is in turn used to

calculate an IQ score, representing the ratio between the test subject’s performance and the

average performance of said representative age cohort. A higher IQ score therefore indicates

that the subject’s development is relatively advanced, specifically the subject progressed

quicker than expected for his age. With a lower score the inverse is true. In a similar vein, the

GMDS-ER obtains an absolute indication of the test subject’s performance (items passed),

which is then divided by the subject’s chronological age and multiplied by 100. The resultant

 
 
 53  
 

general quotient (GQ) is, again, an expression of the subject’s performance relative to the

expected performance of the representative age cohort. A higher ratio indicates the subject is

relatively well developed and a lower ratio (beneath 100) may be indicative of a

developmental delay. In a similar vein, the first intelligence test was developed by Alfred

Binet in France to identify children with delayed mental development so that they could be

provided with special education (Berk, 1997). The Intelligence Quotient (IQ) was developed

for this purpose. It expressed the child’s performance relative to his peers as the ratio between

his actual performance (Mental Age, which is often abbreviated to MA) and his chronological

age (CA). A ratio IQ is therefore expressed as MA / CA X 100. The concept of mental age,

created by Binet and Simon, is based on the belief that the same developmental pattern is

found in all children, but that the rate at which they develop differs. A person of any age that

performs as well as a nine year old child is therefore said to have a mental age of nine

(Matsumoto, 2009). Mental age is thus defined as the “[l]evel of intellectual development as

measured through a range of cognitive tasks and through comparison with chronological age

peers. […] Mental age can be expressed as the age at which that level of development is

typically attained” (Matsumoto, 2009, p. 21). This method was however of limited use in

estimating the intelligence of adults because raw scores begin to level off from the age of 16

(Eysenck, 1994). The deviation IQ was therefore invented to replace the ratio IQ. The

deviation IQ utilises a raw score representing the subject’s actual performance and places this

performance in relation to a representative age cohort in a normal distribution of IQ scores

with a median of 100 and standard deviation of 15 or 16, depending on the specific test

(Matsumoto, 2009). It follows from the preceding discussion that although these three types

of psychometric tests use different items to measure an individual’s performance relative to

his or her chronological age cohort, the underlying principle is essentially the same in all

three cases.

 
 
 54  
 

3.6. Conclusion

This chapter discussed and clarified the relationship between the key constructs in the

present study, namely those of conceptual maturity, intelligence and mental development.

The psychometric approach to intelligence was described and brought into relation with

human figure drawing tests and the GMDS-ER. Academic skills disorders, mental

retardation, and developmental delays were then discussed and related to each other. It was

proposed that human figure drawing tests may prove to be useful in the assessment of such

conditions. Psychometric evidence was then presented to support the notion that an overlap

exists between scores on human figure drawing tests, intelligence tests, and developmental

tests. The chapter concluded with a discussion of a priori evidence of the relationship

between the key constructs of the present study. The following chapter presents the research

methodology utilized in the current study.

 
 
 55  
 

Chapter 4

Research Methodology

4.1. Introduction

In this chapter the reader is presented with the methodological considerations made in

the study. Information is presented on the research design, participants, sampling procedure,

measures used, data analysis techniques employed toward achieving the aims of the study,

and ethical considerations pertaining to the present study.

4.2. Research Design

The current study utilised a quantitative exploratory-descriptive research design. The

quantitative research paradigm refers to“a formal, objective, systematic process in which

numerical data are utilised to obtain information about the world" (Burns & Grove as cited by

Cormack, 1991, p. 140).As the term suggests, the exploratory-descriptive research design

employed in the present study combines features of exploratory and descriptive research

designs. Exploratory research is recommended when there is little existing research on the

subject of study (Rubin & Babbie, 2001). Exploratory research is defined as “studies of a

field which seek to discover interesting patterns and facts but without preformed hypotheses”

(Matsumoto, 2009, p. 198). The research question, namely whether human figure drawings

can be used to screen for developmental delays informed the exploratory research aim of

investigating whether a linear relationship exists between children’s human figure drawing

scores and their general mental development. The present study includes an extensive

literature review that examined constructs central to the subject of investigation. A literature

review such as is included in this study is one method of exploratory research (Selltiz,

Jahoda, Deutsch, Cook, 1965). A review of the existing literature revealed a lack of

 
 
 56  
 

theoretical work that integrates the concepts of intelligence and development. Insofar as the

limited scope of the study allowed, perspectives from different fields within the broader

discipline of psychology (such as the psychometric study of intelligence, neuropsychology

and developmental psychology) were consolidated to obtain a better understanding of the

core constructs and the way they relate to each other.

Exploratory research is generally conducted for one or more of the following reasons,

according to Babbie and Mouton (2006):

(1) to satisfy the researcher’s curiosity and desire for better understanding,

(2) to test the feasibility of undertaking a more extensive study,

(3) to develop the methods to be employed in any subsequent study,

(4) to explicate the central concepts and constructs of a study,

(5) to determine priorities for future research, and

(6) to develop new hypotheses about an existing phenomenon. (p. 80)

The research question arose from the researcher’s observation that although human

figure drawing tests display a developmental progression, the non-projective use of such tests

is largely limited to estimates of an individual’s intellectual ability. It was also clear that

inferences about children’s mental development are made on the basis of such tests, which

raised the need to determine whether human figure drawing tests are appropriate for this

purpose. A review of pertinent literature did not yield a satisfactory integration of the

important constructs that come together in the present study, namely: intelligence,

development, intellectual ability, and conceptual maturity. Despite the limited scope of the

present study, considerable effort was made to clarify these constructs and to demonstrate

 
 
 57  
 

some of the ways in which they are connected. With regards to the aims of exploratory

research listed above, the study achieved meaningful results despite the relatively small

sample size and unsophisticated methods of data collection. These results are encouraging

and support the feasibility of more extensive studies to investigate the use of human figure

drawings as tools for developmental screening. The study and research process produced

useful recommendations for methods to be employed in future research, which is another

reason that exploratory research is often conducted.

In addition to the exploratory nature of the research discussed above, the research

design is also descriptive insofar as it was a correlation study aimed at investigating the

relationship between human figure drawing scores and general mental development. A

descriptive research design refers to “empirical research which seeks to describe, categorize,

and count usually in naturalistic settings rather than to control situations to test specific

hypotheses” (Matsumoto, 2009, p. 157). In addition to establishing whether a linear

relationship exists between human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients

(an exploratory aim), the study aimed to describe the strength and directionality of such a

relationship if one was found to exist. Explanatory studies, the third category of social

scientific research, chiefly aims to demonstrate causal relationships between variables or

events (Babbie & Mouton, 2006). The present study did not investigate causality and as such

did not enter into the domain of explanatory research. A discussion of the participants and

sampling procedure of the present study follows.

4.3. Participants and Sampling

Sampling is defined as “the process of selecting a part of a population for

measurement” (Matsumoto, 2009, p. 456).The two approaches by which a sample is selected

are called probability and non-probability sampling (Zechmeister, Zechmeister &

 
 
 58  
 

Shaughnessy, 2001). With probability sampling each individual in the population has the

same chance of being included in the sample, whereas with non-probability sampling the

chance of a specific individual being selected from the population is not known (Zechmeister

et al., 2001). Due to the limited scope of the current study a type of non-probability sampling

called convenience sampling was the most feasible method of data collection. Non-

probability sampling such as convenience sampling is often used in exploratory research

where the aim is to generate hypotheses for further investigation (Babbie & Mouton, 2006). It

is the most common sampling method used in psychology (Matsumoto, 2009). Convenience

sampling involves the selection of subjects based on their availability without concern of

their representativeness of the wider population (Matsumoto, 2009). It is more convenient

and cost-effective than probability sampling (Cozby, 2004). This method is contrasted to

probability sampling, which refers to “the technique of selecting a subset of a population by a

random selection from the population so that each member of the population has a known

probability of being chosen” (Matsumoto, 2009, p. 401). The decision to use convenience

sampling was informed by the limited scope of the current study as well as the need to obtain

the maximum amount of data points from the available sampling pool, namely completed

GMDS-ER protocols drawn from a University Psychology Clinic in the Eastern Cape of

South Africa that met the inclusion requirements of the study. This approach had the

substantial benefit of avoiding the time-consuming and difficult process of obtaining

approval from the Eastern Cape Department of Education that would have been necessary to

administer the measures at a local school.

In this type of sampling participants are not systematically selected which places

limits on the confidence that they are representative of the population (Creswell, 2002;

Jackson, 2003). Despite this limitation, non-probability sampling such as convenience

sampling provides valuable information for answering questions and testing hypotheses

 
 
 59  
 

(Creswell, 2002). The principle drawback of this sampling method is that researchers must

“exercise great caution in generalizing from [collected] data” (Babbie & Mouton, 2006, p.

166). When interpreting the results the question of how well the sample represents the

broader population should be taken into account. In practical terms, it should be considered

how well the children who completed the GMDS-ER protocols collected from the specific

Psychology Clinic represent the broader population of five to seven year old children in

South Africa to which the results will be generalized. Probability sampling is not necessary

when research aims to investigate the relationship between variables rather than to generalize

the results (Spata, 2003). As the current study is of an exploratory-descriptive nature the

value of findings do not lie in generalizing beyond the sampling frame, but in the usefulness

of these findings to inform further research into the phenomena under study.

A population is “a collection of objects, events or individuals having some common

characteristic that the researcher is interested in studying” (Roscoe, 1969, p. 155). The

population that the current sample relates to is therefore all South African children between

the ages of 5 and 7 years. The sampling frame “refers to the set of all cases from which the

sample will actually be selected” (Mouton, 1996, p. 135). The sampling frame of the current

study is all children between the ages of 5 and 7 years that have undergone psychological

assessment utilizing the GMDS-ER at the specific University Psychology Clinic in the

Nelson Mandela metropole in the Eastern Cape of South Africa.

The final sample size was 30 participants, and not 60 as originally proposed. Of the

30 participants, 21 were male and 9 were female. This smaller sample size was due to a lower

than anticipated number of suitable participants that met the inclusion criteria. Another factor

is that a preliminary estimate of the obtainable sample size was based on a survey that

included versions of the Griffiths Scales prior to the updated and current GMDS-ER. In the

interest of uniformity, protocols based on earlier versions of the Griffiths Scales were not

 
 
 60  
 

included in the final sample. The large effect size obtained allowed for the detection of a

significant correlation at the .01 alpha level. According to Cohen (1992) a correlation with

the standard α-level of .05 and the recommended power of .8 would require 783 participants

to detect a small effect size (r = .1), 85 participants to detect a medium effect size (r = .3) and

28 participants to detect a large effect size (r = .5). The smaller sample size does therefore not

compromise the results of the obtained correlations.

4.3.1. Inclusion criteria. The minimum age of participants was set at 5 years. This

decision was informed by Reynolds and Hickman’s (2004) statement that a linear relationship

between age and raw DAP: IQ score is observed between the ages of 4 and 14, as well as

Davis’ (2006) finding that the published norms of the DAP: IQ are valid with local South

African children between the ages of five and seven years. The maximum age was set at the 7

year mark in order to reduce the possibility of a ceiling effect on the GMDS-ER. Such an

effect may occur when advanced children younger than 8 years can perform tasks exceeding

the 8 year equivalent ceiling of the GMDS-ER.The age range for inclusion in the sample for

the proposed study was therefore 5 years to7 years of age. This is also the age range at which

children will benefit most from developmental testing in preparation for entrance into the

formal schooling system. Completed GMDS-ER protocols in which the participant did not

reach item ‘DIII.9 Draws a person: Stage 1’ on the eye-hand co-ordination subscale were

excluded as human figure drawings could not be obtained from these protocols.

4.4. Measures Used

4.4.1. The Griffiths Mental Development Scales – Extended Revised. Ruth

Griffiths developed the original Griffiths Scales of Mental Development in 1954. The

original measure’s upper age range has since been extended to allow the assessment of

children up to the age of eight years four months (Luiz et al., 2006a). The measure has also

 
 
 61  
 

been revised, but remains true to Griffith’s original aim insofar as it provides a tool for the

early diagnosis of mental conditions in children. The Griffiths Mental Development Scales –

Extended Revised (Luiz et al., 2004a, 2004b) draws on an extensive study of mental

development in order to assess the developmental level of children from birth to 8 years 4

months of age. Assessment of children up to 2 years of age utilises five subscales, namely

Locomotor, Personal-Social, Hearing-Speech, Hand-Eye Coordination, and Performance;

with a sixth subscale (Practical Reasoning) being added when evaluating children between 2

and 8 years 4 months of age (Luiz et al.,2004b). Material for the test items emerged from the

careful observation of children in their natural environments. This material was then

incorporated into test items that are placed in order of gradually increasing difficulty (Luiz et

al., 2004b). These diverse items tap the main aspects of a child’s development by having each

subscale measure “only one avenue of learning or process of development, but measuring this

one aspect as completely as possible” (Griffiths, 1970, p. 34). Results on the GMDS-ER are

summarised in a global developmental quotient, as well as a developmental quotient for each

subscale. Munro (1968) however noted that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that

each subscale measures an independent aspect of ability and suggested that the subscales may

tend to measure a general factor. This information informed the research design decision of

correlating HFD scores with GMDS-ER GQ scores and not to include the individual

subscales. This decision is in line with the aims of the study which are to investigate the

usefulness of human figure drawing tests in the screening for developmental delays in the

South African context.

Griffiths’ (1954, 1970, 1984, 1986) approach to the measurement of the mental

development of children was innovative in a number of important respects. She was

cognisant of the complex interactions between various avenues of learning and employed a

holistic approach that favoured a broad view of mental development. This approach

 
 
 62  
 

foreshadowed later developments including Gardner’s (1993) multiple intelligences and the

emergence of ecological models (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). Her appreciation of the

interaction between mental development on the one hand and social and emotional influences

on the other prefigured Goleman’s (1996) notion of emotional intelligence. This once novel

approach has since been broadly accepted and has become commonplace in the assessment of

children (Knoesen, 2005). This popularity is underpinned by numerous research studies

which have shown the Griffiths Scales (i.e., both the Original Scales and the GMDS-ER) to

be of value in the evaluation and treatment of infants and young children from various

cultural backgrounds (Allan, 1988, 1992; Bhamjee, 1991; Brandt, 1983, 1984; Cobos,

Rodriques, & De Venegas, 1971; Collins, Jupp, Maberly, Morris, & Eastman, 1987;

Knoesen, 2003; Laroche, Gutz, & Desbiolles, 1974; Luiz et al., 2001a; Luiz et al., 2001b;

Mothuloe, 1990; Ramsay & Fitzharding, 1977; Sletten, 1970, 1977). The Griffiths Scales

have also been extensively researched in South Africa (Allan, 1988; 1992; Barnard, 2000;

Bhamjee, 1991; Jakins, 2009; Knoesen, 2003, 2005; Kotras, 1998; Luiz, 1988a, 1988b,

1988c, 1988d, 1994a, 1994b; Luiz, Folsher & Lombard, 1989; Luiz, Foxcroft & Povey,

2006b; Luiz, Foxcroft & Stewart, 2001a; Luiz, Foxcroft, Worsfold, Kotras & Kotras, 2001b;

Luiz & Heimes, 1994; Moosajee, 2007; Povey, 2008; Sweeney, 1994; Tukulu, 1996; Van

Rooyen, 2005; Ward, 1997; Wills, 2011). In addition to this strong research interest, the

Griffiths Mental Development Scales are also widely used by trained professionals in South

Africa (Povey, 2008). The Original Griffiths Scales are also available in Afrikaans (Allan,

1988) and Xhosa (Tukulu, 1996).

The reliability of the general quotient is .96, with reliability coefficients for the

different subscales ranging from .90 to .97 (Luiz et al., 2004a). Content validity was

investigated by an extensive literature review, interviews with experts, and a facet analysis of

each subscale. This found each item to be representative of its content domain, as well as

 
 
 63  
 

having a satisfactory degree of relevance to the construct being measured. A factor analysis

provided further evidence of the construct validity of the Griffiths Scales (Luiz et al., 2004a).

Further research has confirmed the reliability and validity of the GMDS-ER (Beail, 1985;

Griffiths, 1984; Luiz, 1988c; Mothuloe, 1990; Stewart, 1997; Worsfold, 1993).

The human figure drawings utilized in the present study were obtained from the single

human figure drawing of each protocol used to score items “Draws a person: Stage 1” (Luiz

et al., 2006a, p.53), “Draws a person: Stage 2” (Luiz et al., 2006a, p. 56), and “Draws a

person: Stage 3” (Luiz et al., 2006a, p. 59) on the GMDS-ER. These items contribute to the

child’s subscale score on the eye and hand co-ordination subscale of the GMDS-ER. The

average of the six subscales, including the eye and hand co-ordination subscale, is used to

calculate the general quotient of the GMDS-ER.

4.4.2. An adapted administration of the Draw-a-Person Intellectual Ability Test

for Children, Adolescents, and Adults (DAP: IQ). The human figure drawing (HFD)

scores used in the current study were obtained by scoring HFDs from the collected GMDS-

ER protocols according to the scoring criteria of the Draw-a-Person Intellectual Ability Test

for Children, Adolescents, and Adults (DAP: IQ). This section first provides information on

the DAP: IQ. This is followed by a discussion of differences between the administration of

the HFDs used in the current study and standardized administration guidelines of the DAP:

IQ.

The DAP: IQ (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004) provides a standardised method of

obtaining and scoring human figure drawings. The test is normed for the ages 4 years 0

months 0 days through 89 years 11 months 30 days. The only material required for the

administration and scoring of the DAP: IQ is the examiner’s manual, a scoring form, a

drawing form or blank A4 pages, and 2 sharpened pencils. Scores on the 23 scoring elements

 
 
 64  
 

are summed to obtain a raw score which is then converted to standard scores with a mean of

100 and a standard deviation of 15 using manual tables. The manual also provides percentile

ranks, z-scores, t-scores, stanines, age equivalents and grade equivalents.

The DAP: IQ has been found to demonstrate “very good reliability, especially

considering the brevity of the task and its simple, rapid scoring system” (Reynolds &

Hickman, 2004, p. 20). Research revealed a high internal consistency, with a coefficient

alpha of .82. Test-retest reliability is reported to be .84, and inter-scorer reliability

coefficients were found to range from .91 to .95 (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004).

Validity analysis focussed on correlations between the DAP: IQ and other human

figure drawing tests of conceptual maturity. A correlation between .85 and .86 was obtained

between the DAP: IQ and the Koppitz (1986) system and a correlation coefficient of .86 was

obtained between the DAP: IQ and the Goodenough-Harris (1963) system. Correlations

between the DAP: IQ and the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children Third Edition were

modest, with a coefficient of .49 with Performance IQ and .33 with Verbal IQ. Although

modest, the DAP: IQ correlated at a statistically significant level with all three WISC-III IQs

(p <= .01) (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004).

The published DAP: IQ norms are appropriate for use with children in the local South

African context (Davis, 2006). In light of the issues surrounding appropriate test use in South

Africa as discussed in the introductory chapter, this valuable information further informed the

decision to use the DAP: IQ scoring criteria and norms in the current study.

4.5. Research Procedure

The study utilised secondary data, namely archival data collected at a University

Psychology Clinic in the Nelson Mandela Metropole. Each data set consisted of a completed

 
 
 65  
 

consent form providing permission for the data to be used for research purposes and a

completed GMDS-ER protocol. “Draws a person: Stage 1” (Luiz et al., 2006a, p. 53) on the

GMDS-ER requires the child to draw a human figure. This HFD is then scored on the number

of features present. A circle for a head and two other features is sufficient to ensure a pass at

stage 1, while six additional features allow a pass of item “Draws a person: Stage 2” (Luiz et

al., 2006a, p. 56). Evidence of creativity is used as criteria for a pass on the item “Draws a

person: Stage 3” (Luiz et al., 2006a, p. 59). This simple scoring procedure contributes to the

child’s score on the GMDS-ER Eye and Hand Co-ordination subscale. This procedure was

not used for the purposes of the current study. Instead, human figure drawings obtained from

the GMDS-ER protocols were scored according to the 23 scoring elements provided in the

examiner’s manual of the DAP: IQ (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004). This more refined scoring

system better reflected the current use of human figure drawing tests and as such provided a

more accurate indication of the value of human figure drawing tests in screening for

developmental delays.

Participants’ general quotients were obtained from their completed GMDS-ER

protocols. The human figure drawings in the GMDS-ER protocols were then scored

according to the 23 scoring elements provided in the manual of the Draw-a-Person

Intellectual Ability Test for Children, Adolescents, and Adults (DAP: IQ) (Reynolds &

Hickman, 2004). These raw scores were subsequently converted to standard scores using the

appropriate tables in the DAP: IQ examiner’s manual (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004). DAP: IQ

standard scores and general quotients were chosen as the subjects of analysis because it

reflects the figures on which decisions are based when the DAP: IQ and GMDS-ER are used

in clinical settings. The use of these scores was therefore more appropriate toward meeting

the aims of the current study than the use of raw scores would be. Computerised data analysis

 
 
 66  
 

was then conducted utilizing SPSS for Windows (Version 19), which is a popular statistical

software package.

4.6. Data Analysis

Since the current study utilized an exploratory-descriptive research design, descriptive

statistics were used to summarize relevant information regarding sample characteristics and

participants’ performance on the two research measures. Descriptive statistics are “methods

used to summarize, organize, and describe observations (Sadock & Sadock, 2007, p. 175) by

means of a numerical index (Matsumoto, 2009).Descriptive statistics were used to make

statements regarding the central tendency and variability in the data. The arithmetic mean,

defined as “the sum of a set of numbers divided by how many numbers are in the set”

(Matsumoto, 2009, p. 300) was used as a measure of central tendency. Variability in the data

was described using the standard deviation (SD), a statistic calculated by obtaining “the

square root of the average of the squared differences from the mean of a set of numbers”

(Matsumoto, 2009, p. 516). The standard deviation indicates the degree to which scores differ

from the mean (Cozby, 2007).

A correlation coefficient is “a mathematical index of association between two or more

variables and usually a linear index scaled so that 0 indicates no relationship, +1 indicates a

perfect positive relationship, and -1 indicates a perfect inverse relationship” (Matsumoto,

2009, p. 135). Towards achieving the aims of the study, the appropriate correlation

coefficient was calculated in order to describe the direction and size of the relationship

between participants’ DAP: IQ scores and their GMDS-ER general quotients. The specific

statistic chosen to obtain the correlation coefficient was based on the data’s adherence to the

assumptions of parametric tests. The procedures followed to test these assumptions are now

discussed.

 
 
 67  
 

An important consideration in the initial stage of data analysis was to establish

whether the data conformed to the assumptions of parametric tests. These assumptions must

be met in order to use parametric tests based on the normal distribution (Field, 2005). It is

essential to ensure that data conforms to these assumptions before choosing a test because the

use of a parametric test on nonparametric data will likely yield an inaccurate result (Field,

2005). The assumptions of parametric tests, as discussed in Field (2005) are as follows:

1. Data must be normally distributed. The data must come from one or more normally

distributed populations. This assumption may be tested by calculating whether the sampling

distribution significantly deviates from the skewness and kurtosis of the normal distribution

(Field, 2005). Skewness refers to the degree of asymmetry in a distribution. A distribution is

said to be skewed when the most frequent scores cluster at one end of the scale with the

frequency of scores gradually declining towards the other end of the scale (Field, 2005).

Kurtosis refers to the peaks of a distribution. A platykurtic distribution is a flat distribution

with many scores in the tails while a leptokurtic distribution has fewer scores in the tails and

appears pointy when viewed as a histogram (Field, 2005). This was calculated by obtaining z-

scores for skewness and kurtosis using the skewness and kurtosis values and their respective

standard errors as produced by SPSS. This process is expressed in the following equations:

zSkewness = (S-0)/ SESkewness

zKurtosis = (K – 0)/ SEKurtosis

To test whether the data was normally distributed, these values were then compared to

the absolute value of 1.96 that indicates a significant deviation from the normal distribution at

p< .05 (Field, 2005).

 
 
 68  
 

2. Homogeneity of variance. This assumption requires that the variance of one

variable should remain stable at all levels of the other variable (Field, 2005). Levene’s test

was used to “tests the hypothesis that the variances in different groups are equal” (Field,

2005, p. 736) and whether this assumption was met. Levene’s test was computed for two

pairs of variables, namely: (a) Chronological age and human figure drawing raw score; and

(b) Standardized human figure drawing score and GMDS-ER general quotient.

3. Interval Data. For this assumption to be met the distance between points on the

scale must be equal throughout the scale (Field, 2005). The standardized HFD scores and

GMDS-ER GQ scores adhere to this expectation and this assumption was therefore met.

4. Independence. This assumption requires that the behaviour from one participant

does not influence the behaviour of others (Field, 2005). The current sample consisted of data

from individually administered tests and there was no reason to assume that one participant’s

behaviour influenced that of another. This assumption was therefore met.

As discussed above, it was known that the data conformed to the assumptions of

interval data and independence before data analysis was conducted. Subsequent data analysis

utilizing the statistical package SPSS was conducted to test whether the assumptions of

normally distributed data and homogeneity of variance was met. The results of these analyses

are discussed in relation to particular variables in the results section.Pearson’s product-

moment correlation coefficient is a parametric test that requires the assumptions of such tests

to be met (Field, 2005). It was concluded that the data met the assumptions of parametric

tests. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was therefore the statistic used

for all correlations. Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient is the most commonly used correlation

coefficient (Matsumoto, 2009). It measures the degree of linear relationship between two

integer level variables on a scale with 0 indicating no relationship, +1 indicating a perfect

 
 
 69  
 

positive relationship and -1 indicating a perfect inverse relationship (Matsumoto, 2009). A

Pearson Correlation Coefficient was computed to investigate the relationship between

participants’ chronological age and HFD raw scores. The result was then compared to

literature discussed earlier that suggests a relationship between age and the complexity of

human figure drawings. A second Pearson Correlation Coefficient was then computed to

investigate the relationship between standardized HFD scores and GMDS-ER general

quotients.

The significance of the obtained correlation was tested to investigate whether the

results were due to chance (Matsumoto, 2009). A statistically significant result, that is a result

that is not due to chance, does not mean that the result is practically meaningful. The effect

size was therefore calculated to investigate the size of the relationship between standardized

human figure drawing scores and general quotients. An effect size is “an objective and

standardized measure of the magnitude of the observed effect” (Field, 2005, p. 32). Pearson’s

Correlation Coefficient can also be used as a standardized measure of the effect size (Field,

2005). The use of such a standardized measure allows for the comparison of effect sizes

across different studies that have measured different variables (Field, 2005). With Pearson’s

Correlation Coefficient, a value of 0 indicates no effect, with a value of 1 indicating a perfect

effect (Field, 2005). Cohen (1988, 1992) made the following widely accepted suggestions

regarding effect size, which were used to interpret the resulting statistics in the present study:

r = .10 (small effect): such an effect explains 1% of the total variance

r = .30 (medium effect): an effect of this magnitude accounts for 9% of the variance

r = .50 (large effect): the effect accounts for 25% of the variance

 
 
 70  
 

A factor analytic study by Luiz and colleagues (2001a) found that the subscales of the

GMDS-ER tap one underlying dimension. A subsequent article identified this dimension as

“general intelligence” (Luiz et al., 2006b, p.194). The decision to investigate the relationship

between HFD scores and GMDS-ER general quotients was based on these findings, as well

as Munro’s (1968) finding that the Griffiths Scales tend to measure a general underlying

factor and not distinct abilities as referred to in the section on measures used. The relationship

between HFD scores and specific GMDS-ER subscales was therefore not investigated.

4.7. Ethical Considerations

The present study utilised archival data collected at a University Psychology Clinic in

the Nelson Mandela metropol in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. As such, written informed

consent allowing for the collected data to be used in research had already been obtained when

the measures were originally administered. The Faculty of Health Sciences Research

Technology and Innovations Committee gave ethics approval and granted permission for the

study to be conducted. To ensure confidentiality only the researcher had access to the data

and participants’ identification details were not included in the research report. The inclusion

and exclusion of participants was based on the criteria set out in this document. No person

was inappropriately excluded on the basis of race, gender or religious beliefs.

4.8. Conclusion

This chapter discussed the research methodology of the present study. The study

utilized an exploratory-descriptive research design within the quantitative paradigm.

Considerations that informed the choice of this research design were discussed. The study

may be described as exploratory in terms of the literature review and the research aim to

determine whether a linear relationship exists between children’s human figure drawing

scores and general development. It is also descriptive insofar as the research aimed to

 
 
 71  
 

describe characteristics of the sample and to investigate the strength and directionality of the

relationship between human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients. The

rationale for choosing to employ non-probability convenience sampling and the implications

of this decision were discussed. The chapter also presented information on the population,

sampling frame, and sample size and provided a discussion of the implication of these sample

characteristics on the results of the study. Information was provided on the two research

measures used in the current study, as well as the research procedure. The chapter presented

the reader with an explanation of the data analysis techniques used to describe the data and

draw conclusions towards achieving the objectives of the study. In conclusion, ethical

considerations pertaining to the present study was discussed. The results of the research are

presented in the following chapter.

 
 
 72  
 

Chapter 5

Results and Discussion

5.1. Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the present research study. These results are

discussed in the context of the literature reviewed in earlier chapters and related to the

research objectives. Before the results of the data analysis described in the previous chapter

are provided it is however important to revisit the objectives of the study. The current study

aimed to investigate the usefulness of human figure drawings for the measurement of mental

development. This primary research objective led to four specific objectives, namely: (a) To

explore and describe the mental development scores of the sample; (b) To explore and

describe the human figure drawing scores of the sample; (c) To investigate whether there is a

relationship between the standardized human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general

quotients of the sample; and (d) To investigate the directionality and strength of the

relationship between standardized human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general

quotients of the sample. The remainder of this chapter presents empirical findings relevant to

these objectives and provides a discussion of these findings in relation to literature reviewed

earlier.

5.2. Participants

As noted earlier, the current study utilized archival data collected from a University

Psychology Clinic in the Nelson Mandela metropol in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. All

GMDS-ER protocols that were completed by participants that met the study’s inclusion

criteria were collected during the first half of December 2010. The following results are

based on data from these 30 protocols.

5.3. Descriptive Statistics

 
 
 73  
 

5.3.1. Age distribution of the participants. The age of participants in the sample (n

=30) ranged from 5 years 0 months to 7 years 0 months with a mean age of 6 years 0 months

and a standard deviation of 6 months and 22 days. These results are presented in Table 1

below and will be followed by a discussion of the results.

Table 1

Age Distribution of the Participants

Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Deviation

Chronological
30 60.60 84.00 72.0967 6.74139
age in months

The age distribution of the participants conforms to the inclusion criteria as outlined

in the methodology section. Based on their ages, participants in the present study were in

Piaget’s second stage, which spans the ages of two to seven years and is known as the stage

of preoperational thought (Sadock & Sadock, 2007; Zgourides, 2000). Their mental

development at this stage is marked by an increase in symbolic thought, that is, thought that

relies on the use of language and other symbols (Sadock & Sadock, 2007; Zgourides, 2000).

Children in the preoperational stage still rely on primitive concepts, but their increased

mastery of language allows for improved reasoning ability that is also manifested in their

drawing productions (Sadock & Sadock, 2007; Toomela, 2002, Zgourides, 2000).

In Bruner’s (1966) theory, the participants would have relied mostly on iconic and

symbolic modes of representation. With normal development, the younger participants would

have relied mostly on iconic representation, which involves the ability to represent reality in

 
 
 74  
 

terms of images or spatial schemas (Bruner, 1966). The older participants are expected to

have relied increasingly on symbolic representation, in which they are able to represent their

experience by means of true symbols such as words that do not have to resemble the referent

(Bruner, 1966; Slee & Shute, 2003).

Finally, the participants would have been in the second stage of Luquet’s (1927)

theory of drawing development, namely the pre-schematic stage that includes the ages

between 4 and 7 years. Based on their age, children at this stage would already have noticed

that their drawings can represent aspects of the world – a realization known as fortuitous

realism (Luquet, 1927). These children normally try to make representational drawings

instead of the random scribbling associated with earlier stages (Luquet, 1927).

The age range of participants in the sample falls within the range of 4 years and 14

years in which Reynolds and Hickman (2004) reported a linear relationship to exist between

chronological age and raw DAP: IQ score. It was investigated whether this relationship was

also present in the current sample. The results of this analysis are presented shortly.

5.3.2. Standardized human figure drawing scores. The results presented here

provide a conclusion to the first research objective of the present study, namely ‘To explore

and describe the standardized human figure drawing scores of the sample’. The standardized

human figure drawing scores ranged from 62 to 129 (n=30) with a mean of 95.3 and standard

deviation of 20.74. Skewness was calculated as -.336 with standard error of skewness being

.427. Kurtosis was -1.027 with standard error of kurtosis being .833. The results are presented

in Table 2.

 
 
 75  
 

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics of Standardized Human Figure Drawing Scores

Skewness Kurtosis
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Statistic Std. Statistic Std.
Deviation
Error Error

Std.

HFD 30 62 129 95.30 20.743 -.336 .427 -1.027 .833

Score

5.3.3. GMDS-ER general quotients. The following results meet the second research

objective of the study which was ‘To explore and describe the GMDS-ER general quotients

of the sample’. The GMDS-ER general quotient scores ranged from 31.50 to 120.30 (n=30)

with a mean of 88.635 and standard deviation of 19.73297. This variable had a skewness of -

.665 with standard error of skewness being .427 and a kurtosis of .995 with standard error of

kurtosis at .833. Table 3 summarizes these results.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics of GMDS-ER General Quotients

Skewness Kurtosis
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Statistic Std. Statistic Std.
Deviation
Error Error

GQ 30 31.50 120.30 88.6350 19.73297 -.665 .427 .995 .833

Prior to data analysis, it was already known that the variables ‘standardized human

figure drawing scores’ and GMDS-ER general quotients’ met the assumptions of interval data

 
 
 76  
 

and independence. The assumptions of normally distributed data and homogeneity of

variance remained to be determined. The following calculations, as outlined in the

methodology section, were used to test whether these assumptions were met. The results of

the analysis of the normality of the data distribution is first discussed, which is followed by

the analysis of homogeneity of variance. The standardized human figure drawing score

variable produced a standardized skewness coefficient (calculated by dividing the skewness

value by the standard error of skewness) of -0.787 and a standardized kurtosis coefficient

(calculated by dividing the kurtosis value by the standard error of kurtosis) of -1.233.

Following the same procedure, the GMDS-ER general quotient score variable produced a

standardized skewness coefficient of -1.557 and a standardized kurtosis coefficient of 1.194.

None of the obtained values had an absolute value greater than 1.96, therefore it was

concluded that the variables came from normally distributed populations (as suggested by

Field, 2005). The assumption of normally distributed data was therefore met.

Levene’s test was used to test whether the variances of the variables ‘standardized

human figure drawing score’ and ‘GMDS-ER general quotient’ were equal. The test was

conducted using SPSS for Windows (Version 19). Levene’s test produced a statistic of F =

.318, which was not significant at the standard α-level of .05 (F = .318, p > .05). A non-

significant result on Levene’s test indicates that the variances are not significantly different

(Field, 2005). The assumption of homogeneity of variance was therefore not violated, and it

was concluded that the variables ‘standardized human figure drawing score’ and ‘GMDS-ER

general quotient’ conformed to the assumptions of parametric tests. Based on these results,

Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient was the most appropriate correlation

coefficient to investigate the relationship between human figure drawing scores and GMDS-

ER general quotients. The results of this analysis follow.

 
 
 77  
 

5.4. The Relationship between Standardized Human Figure Drawing Scores and

GMDS-ER General Quotients

The third research objective of the study was to establish whether a linear relationship

exists between human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients. A scatterplot

representing this relationship is provided in Figure 1. This relationship is further illustrated in

Figure 2, where the curve estimation command in SPSS was used to insert a diagonal line

representing the best fitting linear model. The SPSS output for the regression analysis used to

produce this figure is presented in Table 4. Exploration of the data indicated that the variables

met the assumptions of normality and the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient

was therefore used to measure the correlation between standardized HFD scores and GMDS-

ER general quotients. The results of the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient

obtained between standardized human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general

quotients of the sample are presented in Table 5.

Figure 1

Scatterplot representing relationship between standardized HFD scores and GQ

 
 
 78  
 

Figure 2

Scatterplot representing relationship between standardized HFD scores and GQ with line of

best fit

Table 4

SPSS Output for Curve Estimation between Standardized HFD Scores and GQ

Parammeter
Equation
Model Summary Estimates

R Square F df1 df2 Sig. Constant b1

Linear .575 37.915 1 28 .000 19.878 .721

 
 
 79  
 

Table 5

Correlation between Standardized HFD Scores and GMDS-ER General Quotients (GQ)

Std. HFD Score GQ

Std. HFD Score - .758**

Note. ** = p < .01

The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient between standardized HFD

scores and GMDS-ER general quotients produced a correlation of r = .758, and this

correlation was significant at α = .01 (r = .758, p< .01). This result provided an answer to the

third research objective, namely to investigate whether there is a relationship between

standardized human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients of the sample.

This finding indicated that a positive linear relationship existed between standardized human

figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients in the current sample.

According to this finding it is highly unlikely that the correlation was the result of

chance, but it did not however indicate that this amounted to a meaningful or important effect

(Field, 2005). The effect size was therefore calculated to determine the strength of the

relationship between these variables.

Following the guidelines proposed by Cohen and discussed in the methodology

section, the finding was indicative of a correlation with a large effect size (r > .50) between

standardized human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients. Other

guidelines suggested by Guilford (1946) state that a correlation of this magnitude is

indicative of a high correlation with a marked relationship. Squaring the correlation

coefficient provides a measure of the amount of variability in one variable that is explained

by the other (Field, 2005). The amount of variability in GMDS-ER general quotients

 
 
 80  
 

explained by standardized human figure drawing scores was therefore obtained by squaring r

and multiplying by 100 to express this value as a percentage. This revealed that 57.45% of

the variability in GMDS-ER general quotients was explained by standardized human figure

drawing scores and vice versa.

The finding of a statistically significant correlation between standardized human

figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients provided an answer to the third

objective of the study, namely: ‘To investigate whether there is a relationship between the

standardized human figure drawing scores and general mental development quotients of the

sample’. It was concluded that such a relationship did exist in the present sample.

The fourth objective of the study was ‘To investigate the directionality and strength of

the relationship between standardized human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general

quotients of the sample.’ This objective was reached by two findings. Firstly: a positive linear

relationship was found to exist between standardized human figure drawing scores and

GMDS-ER general quotients. Secondly: the obtained correlation between standardized

human figure drawing score and GMDS-ER general quotient had a large effect size and was a

high correlation with a marked relationship.

The literature review chapter of the present study discussed the developmental

theories of Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky, as well as contributions from neuropsychological

and information-processing perspectives. These theoretical contributions were related to the

measures used in the study, namely the GMDS-ER and an adapted administration of the

DAP: IQ. Theoretical contributions from the broader field of developmental psychology was

also applied to human figure drawings in particular and related to Luquet’s theory of drawing

development. As discussed in the literature review, several indications suggest that the

proficiency with which children produce drawings of the human figure is related to mental

 
 
 81  
 

development in general. Statistical and a priori evidence of a relationship between the key

constructs of the study were also discussed. The observed relationship between standardized

human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients may be understood in the

context of the literature reviewed earlier. It is hypothesized that various shared factors

underlie mental development in general and account for the developmental progression seen

in human figure drawings. The theoretical contributions reviewed earlier are now discussed

in relation to the observed relationship between standardized human figure drawing scores

and GMDS-ER general quotients.

Harris (1963) proposed that human figure drawings provide an indication of

conceptual maturity. It has been discussed that conceptual maturity is closely associated with

the development of representational thought. The developmental theories of Piaget,

Vygotsky, Bruner, and Luquet all describe progressive development in representational

thought that allows for cognitive development. Development in representational thought is

based on the increased ability to use concepts and symbolic ways of representing experience.

It is therefore hypothesised that human figure drawings may measure the mental development

of children by measuring their ability to use representational thought that underlies mental

development. This possible explanation for the observed relationship between standardized

human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients will now be discussed in more

detail.

Piaget proposed that the semiotic function develops during the preoperational period

(Sadcock & Sadock, 2007). The emergence of this function allows children to represent

things, including objects, events, or conceptual schemes by means of a signifier (Sadock &

Sadock, 2007). A child’s development of the semiotic function is an important milestone in

conceptual development. Cognitive development is spurred by this new ability to think in

terms of concepts. The degree to which the child has mastered the semiotic function will

 
 
 82  
 

influence his performance on the GMDS-ER because many of the measure’s items, for

example the naming of objects and the ability to count, rely on the ability to use concepts and

think in symbolic terms. Drawing also relies on the ability to use symbols (Sadock & Sadock,

2007). Cherney and colleagues (2006, p. 127) noted that “children’s drawings are thought to

be a mirror of a child’s representational development”. A human figure drawing test therefore

measures the representational development that underlies general mental development. To

this effect, Harris (as cited in Cox, 1993) stated that:

the child’s drawing of an object is an index of his concept of that object, and his

concept of a frequently experienced object such as a human being is a useful index of

the growing complexity of his concepts in general. (p. 70)

The observed relationship between standardized human figure drawing scores and

GMDS-ER general quotients can therefore be explained, at least in part, by the hypothesis

that both measures tap the conceptual maturity that underlies mental development.

With respect to conceptual maturity, Reynolds and Hickman (2004, p. 2) noted that

“as children mature cognitively and their thought processes become more complex, their

drawings of a person become more detailed, complete, and complex”. Harris (as cited in Cox,

1993) believed that a human figure drawing provides an index of a child’s level of conceptual

maturity. Piaget used the mechanisms of accommodation, assimilation, equilibrium, and

disequilibrium to account for cognitive development (Shaffer & Kipp, 2010). Individuals

strive to attain a state of balance between their cognitive structures and the environment – a

state that Piaget referred to equilibrium (Shaffer & Kipp, 2010). This state is maintained by

the simultaneous operation of assimilation and accommodation. New experiences are

incorporated into existing cognitive schemes, but a state of disequilibrium arises when there

is a contradiction between experience and existing thought processes (Shaffer & Kipp, 2010).

 
 
 83  
 

In such cases the existing cognitive schemes are adapted to incorporate the new experiences –

a process known as accommodation (Shaffer & Kipp, 2010). The example of a child’s

drawing of a dog mentioned earlier may serve to illustrate this principle. Such a child will

accommodate his existing cognitive structures by expanding them to include concepts such as

‘collie’ and ‘poodle’ in addition to the more general concept of ‘dog’. This would allow him

to assimilate differences between collies and poodles into his thought processes and account

for cognitive development. Of course the processes discussed here are not only relevant to an

understanding of dogs, but help the child to adapt to all aspects of his environment. The

higher levels of conceptual maturity and increased ability to use representational and abstract

thought will allow him to perform better on human figure drawing tests and developmental

measures such as the GMDS-ER.

Piaget noted that the emergence of the semiotic function during the preoperational

stage allows for rapid progress to be made in the use of language (Sadock & Sadock, 2007;

Zgourides, 2000). Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory proposes that culture transforms

elementary mental functions such as attention, sensation, perception, and memory into higher

mental functions, such as thought, linguistic ability, mathematical ability, and problem-

solving. He believed that these higher mental functions first emerge externally in social

interaction with other individuals and that they are only later internalized by means of

language (Lutz & Huitt, 2004). In Vygotsky’s (1978) theory, the ability to use symbols such

as language is therefore crucial to cognitive development. Vygotsky (1978) referred to

drawing as graphic speech and believed that it is based on verbal speech and precedes written

language. In Vygostky’s (1978) theory, language is the most important cultural tool and

allows the development of thought. Bruner (1966) believed that cognitive development is

driven by language development. The ability to use language, to make representational

drawings, and to use words as symbols to refer to something else both depend on the semiotic

 
 
 84  
 

function that Piaget described. Since Vygostky regarded drawing to be a form of language,

the observed relationship between standardized human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER

general quotients may be due to human figure drawings measuring a child’s proficiency in

using the symbolic thought that underlies language, with language in turn driving mental

development.

Bruner’s (1966; 2006a) description of the sequential emergence of enactive, iconic,

and symbolic modes of thought may further explain the relationship between standardized

human figure drawing scores and general mental development quotients. In the enactive stage

children’s drawings are non-representational and they would therefore perform poorly on

human figure drawing tests. This corresponds to Reynolds and Hickman’s (2004) statement

that the linear relationship between age and human figure drawing score only begins at age 4.

At this age normally developing children begin to rely more heavily on the symbolic mode of

representation than on the iconic mode of representation and begin to develop the semiotic

function described by Piaget (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). As discussed earlier, proficiency in

drawing a human figure is not only dependent on the iconic mode of representation

(representing the world through the use of a mental image) but also on the symbolic mode of

representation that allows a child to select which aspects to include in his drawing and to

organize his efforts by means of self-directed speech. The same principle applies to tasks on

the GMDS-ER that require the child to produce graphic representations, such as the item

“Draws a house: stage 1” (Luiz et al., 2006a, p. 54), and other items such as “Builds ‘gate’ to

model using 3 boxes and lids” (Luiz et al., 2006a, p. 72). As children develop, the enactive

mode of representation is first supplemented by the iconic mode and later by the inclusion of

the symbolic mode of representation (Bruner, 1966; 2006a). This progression may account

for the increase in their human figure drawing scores and their ability to pass more advanced

 
 
 85  
 

items on the GMDS-ER, and as such it helps to explain the relationship between standardized

human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients.

Bruner (1986) believed that development can never occur independently of an

individual’s cultural and historical context. According to Bruner and Haste (1987), social

interaction allows a child to develop a framework that helps him to make sense of his

experience and that this process of meaning-making is dependent on cultural requirements. In

this way, “culture gives shape to our thoughts” (Bruner, 2006b, p. 4). Vygotsky believed that

cognitive development is primarily influenced by society insofar as society determines what

is to be learned and how it is to be learned (Lutz & Huitt, 2004). It is therefore clear that

Bruner and Vygotsky agreed on the important role of culture and social interaction in

cognitive development. Vygotsky (1978) proposed that cultural tools such as language and

mathematics are passed on from one generation to the next through social interaction. It may

be argued that the ability to create a representational drawing is one such cultural tool.

Parents supply children with the materials needed to practice drawing, such as crayons and

paper and may encourage them to make increasingly realistic representations. Likewise,

many items on the GMDS-ER measure a child’s ability to perform tasks that depend on the

individual’s culture and would have been acquired through social interaction. The item

“Names 12 objects in a box” (Luiz et al., 2006a, p. 43) on the language subscale is an

example of such an item that requires a child to name such objects like a knife and a fork. To

pass this item the child would have had to learn the names of these items that occur in his

society by means of language (that relies on the semiotic function) and social interaction.

Another example is the item “Copies 6+ letters” (Luiz et al., 2006a, p. 55) on the Eye and

Hand Co-ordination subscale. It may be reasoned that the ability to make such graphic

representations is a cultural tool that is passed on socially in cultures that place importance on

literacy. The child’s culture and the success with which he has internalized the cultural tools

 
 
 86  
 

of his society therefore influence his performance on human figure drawing tests and the

GMDS-ER.

Cognitive development is also dependent on biological maturation of the brain and

nervous system. This association between cognitive development and biological maturation is

supported by Zgourides’ (2000) observation that concrete operations (Piaget’s third stage) is

dependent on the maturation of the brain and nervous system. He also suggests that the

increase in neural connections that occurs with maturation allow for more advanced ways of

thinking (Zgourides, 2000). Most of the neuronal axons in the brain are insulated by cells

called myelin that allow information to be transferred more quickly and efficiently between

neurons (Webb et al., 2001). Different regions in the brain mature at different times.

Myelinisation occurs earlier in areas associated with vision and motor skills than in areas

responsible for higher cognitive functions (Gibson, 1991). The timing of myelination in the

prefrontal cortex, for example, explains the emergence of higher cognitive skills such as

those referred to in Piaget’s formal operations stage (Couperus & Nelson, 2005; Fuster,

2002). This physiological process of brain maturation may therefore explain developmental

stages and the progression from lower to higher complexity in thought.

Piaget (as cited in Shaffer & Kipp, 2010, p. 55) held that biological maturation allows

for the development of “increasingly complex cognitive schemes that help [children] to

construct better understandings of what they have experienced”. Increases in processing

speed (Kail & Salthouse, 1994) and working memory (Chi, 1977) occur with development.

The increased complexity of children’s drawings that occurs with advancing age is associated

with increased representational complexity (Cherney et al., 2006). Growing representational

complexity is in turn related to increases in working memory (Bensur, Eliot, & Hedge, 1997;

Scott, 1981). Increases in working memory explain developmental advances in processing-

complexity and can therefore account for developmental stages (Pascual-Leone, 2000).

 
 
 87  
 

Developmental increases in working memory might therefore account for the observed

relationship between standardized human figure drawing scores GMDS-ER general quotients,

since working memory is expected to influence performance on human figure drawings as

well as on tasks on the GMDS-ER.

Poor motor control and poor attention are other factors that might influence children’s

performance on human figure drawing tests as well as on the GMDS-ER. According to

Luquet’s (1927) theory, children in the current study are in the pre-schematic stage. He

suggested that poor motor control accounts for the incorrect use of line and that poor

attention underlies the omission of details frequently seen at this stage of drawing

development (Luquet, 1927). Bensur and Eliot (1993) likewise suggest that improved fine

motor skills that occur with development influence children’s drawing ability. Poor motor

control will also be detrimental to a child’s performance on the GMDS-ER, as such a child

may have difficulty with tasks on the GMDS-ER such as the item “Train under bridge

successfully” (Luiz et al., 2006a, p. 71) that requires the child to use fine motor skills to push

a train of blocks under a bridge without knocking the bridge down. It is also clear that poor

attention will impede performance on the GMDS-ER, as such a child will have difficulty

focussing on the tasks at hand that would lead to errors.

The obtained correlation between standardized human figure drawing scores and

GMDS-ER general quotients in the current sample (r = .758) was substantially larger than the

correlations between DAP: IQ scores and WISC-III Performance IQ (r = .40) and between

DAP: IQ scores and WISC-III Verbal IQ (r = .33) reported by Reynolds and Hickman

(2004). This finding suggests that although the test developers purport the DAP: IQ to

measure intellectual ability, this test might provide a better indication of mental development

than of intellectual ability. The hypothesis generated by the present study may be further

investigated by future research.

 
 
 88  
 

5.5. The Relationship between Chronological Age and Human Figure Drawing Raw

Scores

The literature suggests that a linear relationship exists between age and raw DAP: IQ

score for participants between the ages of 4 and 14 (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004).

Exploratory data analysis was conducted to determine whether the variables of human figure

drawing raw score and chronological age in months conform to the requirements of

parametric tests.

Chronological age in months scores ranged from 60.60 months to 84 months with a

mean of 72.1 months and a standard deviation of 6.74 months (n = 30). This variable had a

skewness of -.03 with standard error of skewness being .427 and a kurtosis of -.882 with

standard error of kurtosis being .833. Human figure drawing raw scores ranged from 0 to 24

with a mean of 10.47 and a standard deviation of 7.413 (n = 30). This variable had a

skewness of -.004 with a standard error of skewness of .427. Kurtosis was -1.091 with

standard error of kurtosis being .833. The standardized skewness coefficient for the

chronological age in months variable was calculated by dividing the skewness value of the

variable by the standard error of skewness of the variable. The obtained standardized

skewness coefficient was -0.07. Dividing the variable’s kurtosis value by the standard error

of kurtosis produced a standardized kurtosis coefficient of -1.06 for the chronological age in

months variable. With respect to the human figure drawing raw score variable, the

standardized skewness coefficient obtained by following the same procedure while using this

variable’s skewness value and standard error of skewness was -0.01. The standardized

kurtosis for the human figure drawing raw score calculated by the means described above

was -1.31. It was concluded that the skewness and kurtosis of the variables human figure

drawing raw score and chronological age in months did not differ significantly from that of

 
 
 89  
 

the normal distribution, since the absolute values of none of the obtained statistics exceeded

the critical value of 1.96.

Levene’s test produced a statistic of F = .788, which was not significant at the

standard α-level of .05 (F = .788, p > .05). The assumption of homogeneity of variance was

therefore not violated. The variables were both measured on interval level and because the

tests were administered individually there was no reason to believe that the performance of

one child influenced that of another. The assumptions of interval data and independence were

therefore met.

Based on these results, it was concluded that the variables chronological age in

months and human figure drawing raw score conformed to the assumptions of parametric

tests. Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient was therefore the most appropriate

correlation coefficient to investigate the relationship between chronological age in months

and human figure drawing raw scores.

The Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient between chronological age in months and

human figure drawing raw score produced a result of r = .365, which was significant at α =

.05 (r = .365, p< .05). This result indicated that the observed relationship was most likely not

due to chance. According to Cohen, (1988; 1992) a correlation of this magnitude is indicative

of a medium effect size. Guildford’s (1946) guidelines describe a correlation of this

magnitude as a low correlation with a small but definite relationship.

This finding was consistent with the existing literature. It supports Reynolds and

Hickman’s (2004) assertion that a linear relationship exists between age and raw DAP: IQ

score. The scoring criteria of the DAP: IQ (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004) consider proportions

and placement of body parts, for example, that the head must be smaller in height than the

trunk and that the ears are correctly placed and relative to other features. As such, the

 
 
 90  
 

obtained correlation between chronological age and HFD raw scores was consistent with

Schuyten’s (1904) observation that more realistic proportions of body parts are correlated

with a child’s age, as well as with Cherney and her colleagues’ (2006) assertion that the

amount of distinctive features included in children’s drawings increases with age. The finding

also supports the general notion that children’s drawings of the human figure follow a

developmental progression, as noted by Luquet (1927), Goodenough (1926), Harris (1963)

and Koppitz (1968).

The correlation between participants’ chronological age and their HFD raw scores

was smaller than the correlation between their standardized HFD scores and GMDS-ER

general quotients. A possible explanation for this may be found in the fact that the sample

was drawn from a pool of children who had undergone developmental assessment at a

University Psychology Clinic. It may be reasoned that the psychologists who administered

the GMDS-ER did so because they suspected the presence of a developmental problem. As

such, the participants in the present study might have tended to perform more poorly on the

GMDS-ER than would be expected of the general population. This hypothesis is supported

by participants in the current sample’s mean GMDS-ER general quotient of 88.64, which is

below the general mean of 100, but still within the average range for this measure.The

possibility therefore exists that the presence of developmental delays in some participants led

to a reduced correlation between chronological age and raw HFD score. This might further

explain the finding that standardized HFD score and GMDS-ER general quotient was more

highly correlated than chronological age and HFD score. The results of the study are not

conclusive in this regard and further research will be necessary to come to a more definitive

conclusion. The finding that there is a stronger relationship between standardized human

figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients than there is between chronological

age and human figure drawing raw scores lends support to the hypothesis that human figure

 
 
 91  
 

drawing scores provide an indication of a child’s developmental level. In this regard it is

fortunate that the sample included children with developmental delays, since this is the

population in which human figure drawing tests may be used to identify developmental

delays.

5.6. Conclusion

This chapter presented the results of the present study, integrated these results with

the literature reviewed earlier, and provided conclusions to the research objectives.

Descriptive statistics on participants’ age range, standardized human figure drawings scores

and GMDS-ER general quotients were presented. The relationship between participants’

standardized human figure drawing scores and their GMDS-ER general quotients was

graphically illustrated by means of a scatterplot, as well as by a scatterplot with a regression

line fitted to illustrate the relationship between the general linear model and the actual data

points. This was followed by the results of the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation

Coefficient calculated between standardized human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER

general quotients. The obtained correlation coefficient was significant at the α = .01 level,

which indicated that the result was most likely not due to chance. It was shown that the

correlation represents a large effect size and that this high correlation is indicative of a

marked relationship between standardized human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER

general quotients in the sample. The above results were sufficient to meet the objectives of

the current study, but additional information was provided in the interest of future

researchers. To this end, descriptive statistics were provided for the variables of

chronological age in months and human figure drawing raw scores. The Pearson Product-

Moment Correlation Coefficient calculated to investigate the relationship between these two

variables indicated a positive relationship between the variables. The correlation was

significant at the α-level of .05 and therefore most likely not due to chance. This low

 
 
 92  
 

correlation with a small but definite relationship is consistent with existing literature on the

relationship between chronological age and human figure drawing scores. Calculations used

to test whether the assumptions of parametric tests were met have been provided where

applicable, since these were essential in ensuring the selection of appropriate statistical

techniques. The final chapter of the present study in which the conclusions of the study as

well as its limitations and recommendations are discussed follows.

 
 
 93  
 

Chapter 6

Conclusion, Limitations, and Recommendations

6.1. Introduction

This chapter presents the conclusions of the present study, reviews limitations, and

provides suggestions for further research. The present study utilized a quantitative

exploratory-descriptive research design to explore the relationship between human figure

drawing tests and general mental development in the sample. The present study provided

valuable contributions to this area of research. Key constructs of the study were explicated

and integrated in the extensive literature review. In particular, it was argued that conceptual

development, intelligence, and general mental development are interrelated constructs. The

limitations and recommendations that arose through the research process may be useful to

inform the priorities of further research in this area, and may provide guidance on methods to

be employed in future studies. In general, the present study yielded useful and promising

results that support the feasibility of conducting more extensive studies in the future.

6.2. Conclusions

The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between human figure

drawing tests and general mental development in order to guide clinical practice. More

specifically, the study aimed to explore whether there is value in the practice of using human

figure drawings in developmental assessment and the screening of developmental delays in

children. The first research objective: ‘To explore and describe the standardized human figure

drawing scores of the sample’ was met by descriptive statistics on the standardized human

figure drawing scores of the sample, as provided in the results chapter. The second research

objective: ‘To explore and describe the general mental development quotients of the sample’

was also met by descriptive statistics regarding the general mental development quotients of

 
 
 94  
 

the sample, as provided in the same chapter. With regards to the third research objective: ‘To

investigate whether there is a relationship between the standardized human figure drawing

scores and GMDS-ER general quotients of the sample’ it was found that such a relationship

did exist in the present sample. Specifically, the observed correlation between standardized

human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients was found to exist and this

result was most likely not due to chance. With regards to the fourth research objective: ‘To

investigate the directionality and strength of the relationship between standardized human

figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients of the sample’ it was found that the

observed correlation indicated a positive relationship between standardized human figure

drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients in the sample. The correlation had a large

effect size that indicated a high correlation with a marked relationship. It may therefore be

concluded that a strong relationship existed between human figure drawing scores and

GMDS-ER general quotients in the present sample. The finding that the correlation between

an adapted administration of the DAP: IQ and the GMDS-ER in the present study was larger

than the correlations between the DAP: IQ and WISC-III IQ scores reported by Reynolds and

Hickman (2004) generated the hypothesis that the DAP: IQ measures mental development to

a greater extent than it measures intellectual ability.

Additionally, it was found that a low positive correlation indicative of a small but

definite relationship existed between chronological age and human figure drawing raw scores

in the current sample. This finding was most likely not due to chance and supports the notion

that human figure drawings follow a developmental progression as observed by previous

researchers.

In general, the findings of the present study support the use of non-projective human

figure drawing tests for the purpose of developmental testing. These tests may be particularly

useful in the local South African context where resources available for mental healthcare are

 
 
 95  
 

often scarce. This is because they are quick to administer, score, and interpret; may be

administered in group format, and their use is not limited to registered psychologists thus

allowing more people to assist in the identification of developmental delays. Furthermore, the

norms for children aged between 5 to 7 years of the DAP: IQ have been found to be

appropriate for use in the local context which places this test at an advantage over many tests

that are not appropriately standardized for use in South Africa. Given the multicultural and

multi-lingual nature of South African society, a culturally reduced test such as the DAP: IQ

that minimizes the effect of language differences between test-taker and test-administrator

has strong merits. Finally, the fact that human figure drawing tests may be used with non-

reading and non-English speaking children further adds to the suitability of such tests in

South Africa. Additional research is needed to ensure confidence in these conclusions, but the

findings of the present research suggest that non-projective human figure drawing tests may

be immensely valuable in the early identification of South African children with

developmental delays. This is a very positive finding as it can help to ensure that these

children are provided with appropriate interventions early enough to change the course of

their lives for the better.

6.3. Limitations

This section outlines the limitations of the present study. These limitations and the

following recommendations may be seen as an outcome of the exploratory research process

and may be valuable to future researchers. The limitations of the present study are as follow:

1. The use of non-probability sampling limited the degree to which findings may be

generalised.

2. The GMDS-ER instructions for obtaining a HFD are less formalised than that of

the DAP: IQ. As explained in chapter 4 the obtained scores are believed to be comparable to

 
 
 96  
 

scores that would have been obtained had the standardized administration instruction of the

DAP: IQ been followed. Nonetheless, due to this limitation the resultant human figure

drawing scores are not true DAP: IQ scores.

3. The study did not include a screening procedure to exclude individuals with severe

motor problems that could have rendered candidates unsuitable for human figure drawing

tests. The extent to which this affected the findings of the present study is unknown.

6.4. Recommendations for Further Research

Although the DAP: IQ scoring criteria were used, the HFDs used in the current study

were not obtained through the standardized administration instructions as outlined in the

DAP: IQ manual (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004). For this reason the resulting scores are

therefore referred to as human figure drawing scores instead of DAP: IQ scores. Future

researchers who wish to make inferences regarding a specific human figure drawing test

should exercise more control in obtaining the HFDs. The DAP: IQ is not indicated for

individuals with severe motor problems (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004). Future studies will

benefit from employing a screening procedure to exclude participants with severe motor

problems. Subsequent studies may benefit from the use of probability sampling, as this will

allow the results to be generalized to broader populations. Future research may benefit from

drawing separate samples or splitting larger samples to allow the investigation of the

relationship between human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER general quotients to be

carried out on subgroups. Such studies will be able to build on the findings of the present

study by investigating the relationship between HFD scores and GQ in individuals with

identified developmental delays as opposed to those with normal development. The sample

included children with and without developmental delays and no categorical distinction was

made between these groups in the present study. Finally, future studies may contribute to the

 
 
 97  
 

research base by investigating the role of culture and ethnicity in the use of human figure

drawing tests.

6.5. Conclusion

The present study adds to the knowledge base on human figure drawing (HFD) tests

and contributes to a broader restandardization project of the GMDS-ER that is currently

being conducted. The findings indicate that HFD tests may be useful to obtain estimates of

the mental developmental levels of South African children. These tests are attractive as

screening measures in the local South African context due to the existence of appropriate

norms for 5 to 7 year old children, the culturally reduced nature of these tests, the ability to

use the tests with non-reading or non-English speaking children, and the fact that they may be

administered quickly and easily. The study demonstrated the feasibility of further research to

investigate the usefulness of HFD tests in the measurement of the mental development of

South African children. In general, the findings of the present study suggest that HFDs may

be useful in the developmental screening of South African children. If children with

developmental delays who could not have been tested with other measures are identified

using HFD tests these children can benefit from appropriate interventions. The finding that a

higher correlation existed between standardized human figure drawing scores and GMDS-ER

general quotients in the sample than the correlation between DAP: IQ scores and WISC-III

IQ scores reported by Reynolds and Hickman (2004) is particularly interesting. Although

further research is needed, the findings of the present study indicate that HFD tests may

provide a better indication of mental developmental level than of intelligence. Subsequent

studies to investigate this finding further can provide valuable information that will help to

inform the appropriate use of these measures in South Africa.

 
 
 98  
 

List of References

Abell, S. C., Von Briesen, P. D., & Watz, L. S. (1996). Intellectual evaluations of children

using human figure drawings: An empirical investigation of two methods. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 52, 67–74.

Abell, S. C., Wood, W. & Liebman, S. J. (2001). Children’s Human Figure Drawings as

Measures of Intelligence: The Comparative Validity of Three Scoring Systems.

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19 (3),204–215.

Ahn, H. (2007). Visual pedagogy for student's learning of culture in world language classes:

a Piagetian interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Allan, M. M. (1988). A comparison of the performance of normal preschool South African

and British children on the Griffiths Scales of Mental Development. Unpublished

master’s treatise, University of Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

Allan, M. M. (1992). The performance of South African normal preschool children on the

Griffiths Scales of Mental Development: A comparative study. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Aylward, G. P. (1995). Bayley Infant Neurodevelopmental Screener. San Antonio: The

Psychological Corporation.

 
 
 99  
 

Babbie, E., & Mouton, J. (2006).The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford

University Press.

Baker, S. C. (2005). The performance of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder on the Griffiths Mental Development Scales-Extended Revised.

Unpublished master’s treatise, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port

Elizabeth, South Africa.

Barnard, A. (2000). The Griffiths’ Practical Reasoning Scale: A revision. Unpublished

master’s treatise, University of Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

Barnes, E. (1893). A study of children’s drawings. Pedagogical seminary, 1, 445-447.

Beail, N. (1985). A comparative study of profoundly multiply handicapped children's scores

on the Bayley and Griffiths Development Scales. Child care health and development, 11,
31-36.

Bekhit, N. S., Thomas, G. V., & Jolley, R. P. ( 2005). The use of drawing for psychological

assessment in Britain: Survey findings. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory,

Research and Practice, 78, 205–217.

Bensur, B., & Eliot, J. (1993). Case’s developmental model and children’s drawings.

Perceptual andMotor Skills, 76, 371–375.

Bensur, B. J., Eliot, J., & Hedge, L. (1997). Cognitive correlates of complexity of children’s

drawings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1079–1089.

Berg, C. A. (2000). Intellectual development in adulthood. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),

Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 117-137). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Berk, L. E. (1997). Child Development (4th ed.). Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

 
 
 100  
 

Bhamjee, R. A. (1991). A comparison of the performance of normal British and South

African Indian children on the Griffiths Scales of Mental Development. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

Bondurant-Utz, J. A. & Luciano, L. B. (1994). A Practical guide to infant and preschool

assessment in special education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Brandt, I. (1983). Griffiths entwicklungsskalen (GES) zurbeurteilung derentwicklung in den

erstenbeidenledensjahren. Weinheim und Basel: BeltzVerlag.

Brandt, I. (1984). Früherkennung geistiger behinderung im sauglingsalter- Ergebnisse einer

Langsschnittstudie. In J. W. Dudenhausen, & E. Saling (Eds.), Perinatale Medizin,

11. Deutscher Kongres für Perinatale Medizin. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental

perspective: A biological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568-586.

Brooks-Gunn, J. (1990). Identifying the vulnerable young children. In D. E. Rogers & E.

Ginsberg (Eds.),Improving the life chances of children at risk (pp. 104-124).

Boulder: Westview Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 
 
 101  
 

Bruner, J. S. (2006a). The selected works of Jerome S. Bruner: 1957-1978: In Search of

Pedagogy Volume 1. London: Routledge.

Bruner, J. S. (2006b). The selected works of Jerome S. Bruner: 1957-1978: In Search of

Pedagogy Volume 2. London: Routledge.

Bruner, J. S. & Haste, H. (1987). Making sense. The child's construction of the world.

London: Methuen.

Bruner, J. S., Oliver, R. R., & Greenfield, P. M. (1966). Studies in cognitive growth. New

York: John Wiley & Sons.

Burt, C. (1921). Mental and scholastic tests. London: P. S. King and Son.

Carmichael, K. D. (2006). Play therapy: An introduction. Glenview: Prentice Hall.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to childhood. Orlando: Academic Press.

Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Cherney, I. D., Seiwert, C. S., Dickey, T. M., & Flichtbeil, J. D. (2006). Children’s drawings:

A mirror to their minds. Educational Psychology, 26 (1), 127–142.

Chi, M. T. H. (1977). Age differences in memory span. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 23, 266–281.

Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., & Almario-Velazco, G. (1985). Psychometric intelligence

and adaptive competence in rural Phillipine children. Intelligence, 9, 317-340.

 
 
 102  
 

Cobos, F., Rodrigues, C., & De Venegas, A. V. (1971). Practical use of the Griffiths Scales in
older children. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 5 (3-4), 163-166.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). New
York: Academic Press.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 155-159.

Cole, M. & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of

Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250–256.

Collins, J. K., Jupp, J. J., Maberly, G. F., Morris, J. G., & Eastman, C. J. (1987). An
exploratory study of the intellectual functioning of neurological and myxoedematous
cretins in China. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Development Disabilities, 19,
13-20.

Cormack, D. F., (1991). The research process in nursing. Victoria: Blackwell Scientific
Publications.

Couperus, J. W. & Nelson, C. A. (2005). Early Brain Development and Plasticity. In K.

McCartney and D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Early Childhood

Development. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Cox, M. V. (1993). Children’s drawings of the human figure. East Sussex: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associated Ltd.

Cozby, P. C. (2004). Methods in behavioural research (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cozby, P. C. (2007). Methods in behavioural research (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychometric testing (5th ed.). New York: Harper

Collins.

 
 
 103  
 

Davis, D. L. (2006). South African normative data on human figure drawings of 5-7 year
old’s: A comparative study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

Di Leo, J. H. (1970). Young children and their drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Eysenck, H. (1994). Test your IQ. Toronto: Penguin Books.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Foxcroft, C. & Roodt, G. (2001). An introduction to psychological assessment in the South

African context. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Foxcroft, C., Paterson, H., Le Roux, N., & Herbst, D. (2004). Psychological assessment in

South Africa: A needs analysis. The test use patterns and needs of psychological

assessment practitioners. Pretoria: HSRC.

Foxcroft, C., Roodt, G., & Abrahams, F. (2001). Psychological assessment: A brief

retrospective overview. In C. Foxcroft & G. Roodt (Eds.), An introduction to

psychological assessment in the South African context (pp. 11-33). Cape Town:

Oxford University Press.

Frankenburg, W. K., Dodds, J., Archer, P., Bresnick, B., Maschka, P., Edelman, N., &
Shapiro, H. (1990). Denver II. Denver: Denver Developmental Materials.

Fuster, J. M. (2002). Frontal lobe and cognitive development. Journal of Neurocytology, 31

(3–5), 373–385.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.

 
 
 104  
 

Gelcer, E., & Schwartzbein, D. (1989). A Piagetian view of family therapy: Selvini-Palazzoli

and the invariant approach. Family Process, 28, 439-56.

Gibson, K. R. (1991). Myelination and behavioral development: A comparative perspective

on questions of neoteny, altriciality and intelligence. In K. R. Gibson & A. C.

Petersen (Eds.), Brain maturation and cognitive development: Comparative and

cross-cultural perspectives. Foundations of human behaviour (pp. 29–63). New

York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ. London;

Bloomsbury Publishing.

Goodenough, F. L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. New York: Harcourt

Brace and World.

Goodenough, F. L. & Harris, D. B. (1963). The Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. London:

Psychological Corporation.

Griffiths, R. (1954). The abilities of babies. London: Child Development Research Centre.

Griffiths, R. (1970). The abilities of young children. London: Child Development Research
Centre.

Griffiths, R. (1984). The abilities of young children. Amersham: A.R.I.C.D.

Griffiths, R. (1986). The abilities of babies. High Wycombe, U.K.: A.R.I.C.D.

Guilford, J. P. (1946). New standards for test evaluation. Educational Psychology

Measurement, 10, 427–428.

Gustafsson, J. E. (1984). A unifying model for the structure of intellectual abilities.

Intelligence, 8, 179-203.

 
 
 105  
 

Harris, D. B. (1963). Children’s drawings as measures of intellectual maturity: A revision

and extension of the Goodenough draw-a-man test. New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.

Horn, J. L. (1985). Remodelling old models of intelligence. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.),

Handbook of intelligence. Theories, measurements, and applications (pp. 267-300).

New York: Wiley.

Horn, J. L. & Noll, J. (1994). A system for understanding cognitive capabilities: A theory and

the evidence on which it is based. In D. K. Detterman (Ed.), Current Topics in

Human Intelligence (Vol. 4): Theories of Intelligence (pp. 151-204). New Jersey:

Ablex.

Hunt, E. (2005). Information processing and intelligence: Where we are and where we are

going. In R. Sternberg and J. Pretz (Eds.), Cognition and Intelligence (pp. 1-25).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Inhelder, B. (1962). Some aspects of Piaget’s genetic approach to cognition. Monographs of

the Society for Research in Child Development, 27 (2), 19-40.

Institute for African Development. (2000). Profile – South Africa. Retrieved on 16 May 2011

from http://www.inadev.org/profile_-_south_africa.htm

Jackson, S. L. (2003). Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach.

Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Jakins, T. A. (2009). Comparing the development of a sample of South African pre-school

boys and girls utilizing the Griffiths Mental Development Scales – Extended Revised.

Unpublished master’s treatise, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port

Elizabeth, South Africa.

 
 
 106  
 

Jansen, J. M. (1991). Stress and coping in families with physically handicapped children.

Unpublished master’s treatise, University of Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, South

Africa.

Jansen, P. & Greenop, K. (2008). Factor analysis of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for

Children assessed longitudinally at 5 and 10 years. South African Journal of

Psychology, 38, 355-365.

Jolley, R. P. (2010). Children and pictures: Drawing and understanding. Oxford: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Kail, R. V. (1992). Processing speed, speech rate, and memory. Developmental Psychology,

28, 899–904.

Kail, R. & Hall, L.K. (1994). Processing speed, naming speed, and reading. Developmental

Psychology, 30, 949–954.

Kail, R. & Salthouse, T. A. (1994). Processing speed as a mental capacity: Life span changes

in human performance. Acta Psychologica, 86, 199–225.

Klepsch, M. & Logie, L. (1982). Children draw and tell: an introduction to projective uses of

children’s human figure drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.

Knoesen, N. (2003). An exploration of the relationship between the Revised Griffiths Scales
and grade one scholastic development. Unpublished master’s treatise, University of
Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

Knoesen, N. (2005). Exploring the reliability and construct-related validity of the Locomotor

Subscale of the Griffiths Mental Developmental Scales – Extended Revised (GMDS-

 
 
 107  
 

ER). Unpublished doctoral thesis, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port

Elizabeth, South Africa.

Koppitz, E. M. (1968). Psychological evaluation of children’s human drawings. New York:

Crune and Stratton.

Kotras, N. (1998). A revision of a section of the Hearing and Speech scales of the Griffiths

Scales of Mental Development. Unpublished master’s treatise, University of Port

Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

Laroche, J. L., Gutz, H., & Desbiolles, M. (1974). Differenciation entre mere etranger chez

jeune enfant. Communication au XVIIeCongres International de Psychologie

Appliquee. Montreal.

Light, P. H., & Barnes, P. (1995). Development in drawing. In V. Lee & P. Das Gupta (Eds.),

Cognitive and language development (pp. 231–268). Milton Keynes: Open

University Press.

Lifter, K. (1992). Descriptions of Preschool Children with Disabilities or At-Risk for

Developmental Delay: How Should a Child Be Called? In E. V. Nuttall, I. Romero &

J. Kalesnik (Eds.), Assessing and Screening Preschoolers (pp. 9-25). Boston: Allyn

and Bacon.

Luiz, D. M. (1988a). A battered child: A follow-up study. In D. M. Luiz (Ed.), Griffiths

Scales of Mental Development: South African studies (Research papers No. C25)

(pp. 52-58). Port Elizabeth: University of Port Elizabeth.

Luiz, D. M. (1988b). A child with a hearing loss: A longitudinal study. In D. M. Luiz (Ed.),

Griffiths Scales of Mental Development: South African studies (Research papers No.

C25) (pp. 44-51). Port Elizabeth: University of Port Elizabeth.

 
 
 108  
 

Luiz, D. M. (1988c). A comparative study of two scales of language development. The

Reynell and Griffiths. In D. M. Luiz (Ed.), Griffiths Scales of Mental Development:

South African Studies (Research Paper No. C25) (pp.16-20). Port Elizabeth:

University of Port Elizabeth.

Luiz, D. M. (1988d). Developmental profiles of young children. In D. M. Luiz (Ed.), Griffiths

Scales of Mental Development: South African studies (Research papers No. C25)

(pp. 33-38). Port Elizabeth: University of Port Elizabeth.

Luiz, D. M. (1994a). Children of South Africa: In Search of a Developmental Profile.

Inaugural lecture. University of Port Elizabeth.

Luiz, D. M. (1994b). Multicultural Factors in the use of the Griffiths Scales: A comparative

study. Paper presented at the Tutor Conference of the ARICD, Manchester.

Luiz, D. M., Barnard, A., Knoesen, N., & Kotras, N. (2004a). Griffiths Mental Development

Scales Extended Revised (GMDS-ER): Technical Manual. Amersham: A.R.I.C.D.

Luiz, D. M., Barnard, A., Knoesen, N., Kotras, N., McAlinden, P., & O’ Connell, R. (2004b).

Griffiths Mental Development Scales – Extended Revised. Two to Eight Years.

Administrative Manual. Amersham: A.R.I.C.D.

Luiz, D., Barnard, A., Knoesen, N., Kotras, N., Horrocks, S., McAlinden, P., Challis, D., &

O’Connell, R. (2006a). GMDS-ER: Griffiths Mental Development Scales- Extended

Revised: Two to eight years: Administration Manual. Oxford: Hogrefe – The Test

Agency Ltd.

Luiz, D. M., Folsher, A. C., & Lombard, M. (1989). The SETT and the Griffiths Scales of

Mental Development: A correlative study. Durban: Paper delivered at PASA

conference.

 
 
 109  
 

Luiz, D. M., Foxcroft, C. D., & Stewart, R. (2001a). The construct validity of the Griffiths

Scales of Mental Development. Child: Care, Health and Development, 27, 73-83.

Luiz, D. M., Foxcroft, C. D., Worsfold, L. B.., Kotras, N., & Kotras, H. (2001b). The

Griffiths Scales of Mental Development: An evaluation of their prediction of

scholastic achievement. South African Journal of Education, 21 (2), 81-83.

Luiz, D. M., Foxcroft, C. D., & Povey, J. L. (2006b). The construct validity of the Griffiths

Scales of Mental Development: factorial validity study. South African Journal of

Psychology, 36 (1), 1062-1084.

Luiz, D. M. & Heimes, L. (1994). The Junior South African Intelligence Scales and the

Griffiths Scales of Mental Development: A correlative study. In R. van Eeden, M.

Robinson, & A. B. Posthuma (Eds.), Studies on South African Intelligence Scales.

(pp.2-13). Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.

Luiz, D. M. & Jansen, J. (2001). Assessment of young children, physically disabled and

mentally handicapped individuals. In C. D. Foxcroft & G. Roodt (Eds.), An

introduction to psychological assessment in the South African context (pp. 153-174).

Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Lutz, S., & Huitt, W. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism:

Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the

Human Sciences, 9 (1), 67-90.

Luquet, G. H. (1927). Le dessinenfantin. Paris: Alcan.

Mash, E. J. & Wolfe, D. A. (2005). Abnormal Child Psychology (3rd ed.). London: Thomson

Learning.

 
 
 110  
 

Matsumoto, D. R. (Ed.). (2009). The Cambridge dictionary of psychology. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Michaelides, E. P. (2005). Children’s Drawings: An Alternative Avenue of Communication.

In M. Misztal & M. Trawiński (Eds.), Studies in teacher education: Psychopedagogy

(pp. 155-168). Krakow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe AP.

Moosajee, S. (2007). Exploring the construct-related validity of the Personal-Social Subscale

of the Griffiths Mental Developmental Scales – Extended Revised (GMDS-ER).

Unpublished doctoral thesis, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port

Elizabeth, South Africa.

Morra, S. (2005). Cognitive aspects of change in drawings: A neo-Piagetian theoretical

account. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 317–341.

Mothuloe, V. B. (1990). The Aptitude Test for Beginners and the Griffiths Scales of Mental

development: An investigation into the assessment of the cognitive abilities of grade

1 children. Unpublished master’s treatise, Medical University of South Africa,

Pretoria, South Africa.

Mouton, J. (1996). Understanding social research. Pretoria: Van Schaick Publishers.

Munro, J. A. (1968). Early abilities and their later development. Advancement of Science, 24,

464-468.

Murphy, R. (2002). A review of South African research in the field of dynamic assessment.

Unpublished master’s treatise: University of Pretoria, South Africa.

 
 
 111  
 

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D.

F., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence:

Knowns and Unknowns. American Psychologist, 51 (2), 77-101.

Nell, V. (2000). Cross-cultural neuropsychological assessment: Theory and practice.

London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Newborg, J., Stock, J. R., Wneck, L., Guidabaldi, J., & Svinicki, J. (1984). Battelle
Developmental Inventory Screening Test. Chicago: Riverside.

Newcombe, N. (1996). Child development: Change over time (8th ed.). New York: Harper

Collins College Publishers.

Nystrand, M. (1977). Language as a way of knowing. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies

in Education Press.

Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget’s

developmental stages. Acta Psychologica, 32, 301-345.

Pascual-Leone, J. (1978). Compounds, confounds and models in developmental information

processing: A reply to Trabasso and Foellinger. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 26, 18-40.

Pascual-Leone, J. (1980). Constructive problems for constructive theories: The current

relevance of Piaget’s work and a critique of information-processing simulation

psychology. In R. Kluwe & H. Spada (Eds.), Developmental models of thinking (pp.

263-296). New York: Academic Press.

Pascual-Leone, J. (2000). Is the French Connection Neo-Piagetian? Not Nearly Enough!

Child Development, 71 (4), 843-845.

Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge.

 
 
 112  
 

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conception of space. London: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.

Povey, J. L. (2008). Exploring the construct-related validity of the eye and hand coordination

subscale of the Griffiths Mental Development Scales – Extended Revised.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port

Elizabeth, South Africa.

Ramsay, M., & Fitzharding, P. M. (1977). A comparative study of two developmental scales:

The Bayley and the Griffiths. Early Human Development, 1, 151-157.

Reed, T. E., & Jensen, A. R. (1992). Conduction velocity in a brain nerve pathway of normal

adults correlates with intelligence level. Intelligence, 16, 259-272.

Renner, J. Stafford, D., Lawson, A. McKinnon, J., Friot, E., Kellogg, D. (1976). Research,

teaching, and learning with the Piaget model. Norman: University of Oklahoma

Press.

Reynolds, C. R., & Hickman, J. A. (2004). Draw-a-Person Intellectual Ability Test for

Children, Adolescents, and Adults. Examiner’s Manual. Texas: Pro-Ed International

Publisher.

Roscoe, J. T. (1969). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioural sciences. New

York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Rouma, G. (1913). Le langagegraphique de l’enfant. Paris: Misch. Et Thron.

 
 
 113  
 

Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2001). Research methods for social work (4th ed.). Belmont:

Wadsworth.

Rydz, D., Shevell, M., Majnemer, A., & Oskoui, M. (2005). Developmental Screening.
Journal of Child Neurology, 20 (1), 4-21.

Sack, V. (2009). SP504 Assessment of childhood and adolescence: Human figure drawings

as non-projective measures. Class notes. Department of Psychology, Nelson Mandela

Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth.

Sadock, B. J., & Sadock, V. A. (2007). Kaplan & Sadock’s Synopsis of Psychiatry:

behavioural sciences/clinical psychiatry (10th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott

Williams & Wilkins.

Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between two and twenty (2nd

ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Schuyten, M. C. (1904). De oorspronkelijke ‘Ventjes’ der antwerpscheschoolkindern.

Paedologische Jaarboek, 5, 1-87.

Scott, L. H. (1981). Measuring intelligence with the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test.

Psychological Bulletin, 89, 483–505.

Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M., & Cook, S. W. (1965). Research methods in social

relations (Revised edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Shaffer, D. R., & Kipp, K. (2010). Developmental Psychology: Childhood and Adolescence.

Canada: Wadsworth.

Slee, P. T., & Shute, R. H. (2003). Child Development: Thinking about Theories. London:

Arnold.

 
 
 114  
 

Sletten, T. (1970). Psykologiskvurdering I smabarnalderen. Tisskriftnorske Laegeforening,

90, 1794-1797.

Sletten, T. (1977). Intensive treatment of babies and infants based on the Griffiths Mental

Development Scales. Unpublished, address to ARICD.

Spata, A. V. (2003). Research methods: Science and diversity. New York: Wiley.

Spearman, C. E. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan.

Sperber, D. & Hirschfeld, L. R. (1999). Culture, cognition, and evolution. In R. Wilson & F.

Keil (Eds.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp. cxi-cxxxii).

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Statistics South Africa. (2003). Census 2001: Census in brief. Pretoria: Statistics South

Africa.

Stewart, R. (1997). The Griffiths Scales of Mental Development: A South African pilot

validity study. Unpublished master’s treatise, University of Port Elizabeth, Port

Elizabeth, South Africa.

Stewart, R. (2005). The Griffiths Scales of Mental Development: Proposed new items for the

revision of subscales A, B, C, D and E. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nelson

Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

Sweeney, K. (1994). Cluster analysis of the Griffiths profiles of a white South African

population. Unpublished master’s treatise, University of Port Elizabeth, Port

Elizabeth, South Africa.

 
 
 115  
 

Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete

guide for the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon

Intelligence Scale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Thomson, G. H. (1939). The factorial analysis of human ability. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Toomela, A. (2002). Drawing as verbally mediated activity: A study of relationships between

verbal, motor, and visuospatial skills and drawing in children. International Journal

of Behavioral Development, 26 (3), 234-247.

Tukulu, A. N. (1996). The Denver II Scale and the Griffiths Scales of Mental Development: A

correlative study. Unpublished master’s treatise, University of Port Elizabeth, Port

Elizabeth, South Africa.

Van Rooyen, K. (2005). The performance of South African and British children on the

Griffiths Mental Development Scales- extended revised: a comparative study.

Unpublished master’s treatise, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port

Elizabeth, South Africa.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ward, N. (1997). The use of the Denver II Scales and the Griffiths Scales of Mental

Development with South African, Coloured, pre-school children. Unpublished

master’s treatise, University of Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

 
 
 116  
 

Webb, S. J., Monk, C. S., & Nelson, C.A. (2001). Mechanisms of postnatal neurobiological

development: Implications for human development. Developmental

Neuropsychology, 19 (2), 147–171.

Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd ed.). New
York: The Psychological Corporation.

Widerstrom, A. H., Mowder, B. A., & Sandall, S. R. (1997). Infant development and risk: An

introduction (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Wills, N. (2011). The general and emotional development of a sample of South African

children in residential care. Unpublished master’s treatise, Nelson Mandela

Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

Worsfold, L. B. (1993). The Griffiths Scales of Mental Development: An evaluation of their

prediction of scholastic achievement. Unpublished master’s treatise, University of

Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

Zechmeister, J. S., Zechmeister, E. B. & Shaughnessy, J. J. (2001). Essentials of research

methods in psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Zgourides, G. (2000). Developmental Psychology. Foster City: IDG Books Worldwide.

 
 
  

Appendix

Consent Form

 
 
  

UCLIN Informed Consent Form

NELSON MANDELA METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

PSYCHOLOGY CLINIC (UCLIN)

SOUTH CAMPUS

APPLICATION FOR PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES

1. I, …………………………………………………………, the undersigned, hereby

declare that I am:

1.1 * the client; or

1.2 * that I make this Application in my capacity as ……………………… of the

client, whose full names, Identity No. and residential address are

Name………………………………………………………………………...

Identity No. …………………………………………………………………

Residential Address…………………………………………………………

*Delete where not applicable

2. I understand that UCLIN is a Psychology Clinic as well as a Psychology Training and

Research Unit, and can therefore not engage in any psycho legal developments (in this
case the services of a Professionally Registered Practicing Psychologist must be sought).

3. I agree that:

3.1 all records and information of whatsoever nature which is obtained by or on

behalf of UCLIN in rendering any professional services to the client, may be
made available to all Psychological Practitioners and Trainee Practitioners
who practice at UCLIN from time to time;

 
 
  

3.2. recordings may be made of the consultations and that such information may be
used for professional and training purposes, for the facilitation of professional
intervention or enquiry, and for the compliance with law;

3.3 UCLIN may contact General Practitioners, other professional persons and/or
Clinics to obtain or supply information which UCLIN may regard as being in
the interest of the client.

4. I confirm that:

4.1 it is my responsibility to pay all UCLIN accounts regardless of whether I

request UCLIN to render invoices to my Medical Aid;

4.2 UCLIN will be entitled to charge me for any consultations which are cancelled
less than 24 hours before the scheduled time thereof;

4.3 if legal action is taken by UCLIN for the recovery of any monies owing by
me, I shall be responsible for all costs which are thereby incurred, on the
attorney and client scale, and to include tracing costs;

4.4 I know and understand the contents of this Agreement, which has been
explained to me and is in a language that I understand. I have signed this
Agreement on a voluntary basis and I have been given the opportunity to ask
questions regarding the contents and the implications hereof.

5. I undertake to promptly notify UCLIN of any change of my residential address.

APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ...................................................................................................

 
 
  

(client, parent, or guardian responsible for the account)

Identity No. .................................................................................................................................

Address .......................................................................................................................................

Medical Aid Details ....................................................................................................................

DATE