2 Facts Author: John N Buck Developed in 1947 with revisions in 1948, 1949, and (Buck and Warren) 1992Originally developed as an outgrowth of the Goodenough Scale* utilized to access intellectual functioning
3 *Florence Goodenough developed Measurement of Intelligence by Drawings in The instrument focus was on the human figure and its purpose was to derive a measure of I.Q.
4 Facts (cont.) Publisher: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire BlvdLos Angeles, CA
5 Cost Many types of packages available H-T-P Interpretation Booklet: 4 page booklet that allows administrator to record, score, and interpret all information from a drawing session$19.92/package of 25
6 Purpose*Designed to aid clinician in obtaining information concerning an individual’s sensitivity, maturity, flexibility, efficiency, degree of personality integration, and interaction with the environment.*Provides a structured context for the projection of unconscious material.*http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/psychtests.htm
7 Purpose (cont)*Buck felt that artistic creativity represents a stream of flow onto graphic art. He believed that through drawings, subjects objectified unconscious differences by sketching the inner image of the primary process.*www.guidetopsychology.com/testing.htm
8 Recommended UseUse in combination with other projective measurement instruments, usually given first as an “ice-breaker”Anyone over 3 years of ageEspecially appropriate for individuals who are non-English-speaking, culturally different, educationally deprived, or developmentally disabled.
9 AdministrationClient draws three objects: a house, a tree, a person on plain paperAdministrator then uses a Post-Drawing Inquiry checklist (specific questions) to enable client to describe, define, and interpret his/her drawingsClient responses are organized under 8 categories
10 Administration (cont.) 8 categories for client responses:General ObservationsProportionPerspectiveDetailingNonessential DetailsIrrelevant DetailsLine QualityUse of Color
11 Drawing AnalysisDrawings are interpreted using two “paths”; intra-subjective and inter-subjectiveFirst path, intra-subjective, considers the content and quality of the three drawings; also explores the depth of material behind the drawingsSecond path, inter-subjective, considers features indicative of a certain emotional tendency
12 Time Factors and Considerations No time limit (is based on average time)Paper given to client to draw on should be blankThis is a projective, not a diagnostic, testNot “standardized”Can purchase a supplemental interrogation form which derives an IQ score
13 Reliability/Validity *Reliability and validity studies have been most supportive of the cognitive uses of the test in 3 to 10 year old children.*http://www.psychpage.com/projective/proj_draw_notes.html
14 Normative DataNot used/appropriate for this type of test as every drawing is different for every person (individualized)No norms/no standardization data availableSome aspects of drawings may be indicative of psychological trends
16 Personal Evaluation Limitations: original test written in 1970’s; Family/cultural values, trends, ideas have changedInterpretation may be influenced by clinician bias/prejudice
17 Personal Evaluation(cont) Advantages:Good ice-breaker to use in preparation for other testsGood for engaging reluctant clientsUsed for any ages over 3Useful for non-verbal clientsUseful for non-English speaking clients
18 BibliographyPaul Jerry, Ph.D., Centre for Graduate Education in Applied Psychology, Notes on Projective DrawingsRichard Niolon, Ph.D., Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Notes on Projective DrawingsWestern Psychological Services (WPS)