In the early days of art therapy education when art therapists of my generation were trained, many art therapy students were taught the more popular projective drawing techniques developed by psychologists. In my case, these were the DAP and the HTP (already mentioned) and the Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD; Burns & Kaufman, 1972). In addition, newly minted practitioners of the time were likely to find them-selves in settings in which the ideal art therapy assessment could not be conducted.
Again in my case, I found myself in a psychiatric institution where I had to do group—rather than individual—assessments and only had time to collect one ing per participant. Frequently, there was minimal (or no) time to discuss the draw-ings with those who drew them. I relied on the KFD—the directive for which is
“draw your family doing something”—because I reasoned that it was sufficiently complex to give me maximum information.
The drawing shown in Figure 3.1 was obtained during that relatively early phase of my working life. (It is also the “exceptional” drawing mentioned previously that tended to reinforce my adherence to conventional drawing interpretations.) This drawing is a KFD produced by a man in his late 20s who was a resident in a nonpsy-chiatric alcohol rehabilitation program connected with the psynonpsy-chiatric hospital where I worked. Herein I indicate the least and most questionable of the interpretations I made based on that drawing.
Looking at the picture from a global point of view, I found something vaguely bizarre about it. It was out of the mainstream of the drawings I usually obtained from the rehab population. It was more colorful, somewhat idiosyncratically so;
more detailed; and rather oddly structured, presenting what seemed to be both above- and below-ground perspectives. There was also a dark cloud that appeared to be moving toward the self-figure. (Indeed, I found out this was an intentional repre-sentation of increasing difficulties from the few words I was able to exchange with the young man who drew it.) As a result of noting these features, I speculated that the drawer was a candidate for the dual-diagnosis unit within the hospital. I was
cor-30 THE ART AND SCIENCE OF ART THERAPY
rect, and a few days later, he was moved into the hospital proper, with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder in addition to his initial diagnosis of alcohol dependence.
In my write-up of the assessment, I recommended that the client receive art ther-apy along with his other therapies. I came to this conclusion by observing that he had used the drawing activity in a thoughtful and expressive manner and that he seemed to have some capacity for visual creativity and visual metaphor. Again, I was not wrong—although he did not use art therapy quite as well as I had hoped. Possibility, the medication and other treatments he was receiving leveled his mood to the extent that his normal defenses were restored; therefore, he felt less compelled to reveal himself through creative activity.
After this, I went seriously off the track. I reviewed the young man’s hospital chart and compared the psychological testing results, social history, and chart notes to the drawing. I had a field day. For instance, his history revealed that there had been sexual abuse by his father. I then decided that the fishing pole held by the father was more than a pole (in contrast to the cigar that is “just a cigar”) and that the cli-ent was about to be “caught” by his father’s fishing line. I also learned from the chart that the client had described his brother as “an intellectual and we have nothing in common.” Aha, I said, the brother is in a tree which suggests that from the client’s viewpoint, he puts himself “above” the client. And so I proceeded, reading virtually everything I found in the chart into the drawing. I even went so far as to decide that
Art-Based Assessments 31
FIGURE 3.1. Family drawing by 28-year-old man (certain lines enhanced for clarity).
the apparent layers in the earth under the groundline in the drawing (probable a con-sequence of lack of skill in rendering pictorial perspective) reflected the fact that the client lived in the basement of his parents’ home!
Although it can be argued that my latter set of interpretations were plausible, they were made after I had increased knowledge of the client and can be explained by the ambiguous nature of visual imagery. Although this very ambiguity is part of what makes art images therapeutic, it also renders them problematic for assessment pur-poses. Advantages stem from the fact that art can stimulate a wide range of associa-tions in the client, and assessment difficulties arise because attempts to interpret con-tent without client input are largely guesswork. As we have seen (Chapman &
Chapman, 1971; Smith & Dumont, 1995), it is quite easy to discover what one ex-pects in drawings. And it is quite likely that this was exactly what I was doing.
Although not an example of an ideal art therapy assessment (I did not provide a variety of media, nor did I obtain more than one piece of art), the drawing shown in Figure 3.2 exemplifies a more appropriate use of an art-based assessment. The client in this case was a young woman of 23 who was seeking outpatient treatment for re-curring bouts of anxiety. The directive for the drawing was again that for the KFD.
The client is pictured at the left end of the table with her parents at the right. Her younger brother and sister are behind her on the left side of the page. Whereas one
32 THE ART AND SCIENCE OF ART THERAPY
FIGURE 3.2.Family drawing by 23-year-old woman.
might speculate based on KFD interpretive guidelines that the client was at least as close to her siblings as to her parents, this was not the case. (Indeed, Motta et al., 1993, cite a study that failed to find a relationship between closeness of figures in KFDs and interpersonal closeness.) The client revealed while discussing the drawing that she felt closest to her mother and more like a parental figure in regard to her sib-lings. Certainly, in regard to interpersonal relations, there is no obvious indication in the drawing of the secret she disclosed—that she had recently taken a woman lover.
In any event, because this was individual treatment, there was sufficient time to discuss this drawing in depth with the client and little need for me to speculate about possible meanings. In the process of the discussion, I learned a great deal about the client and her family background. I also learned that she was willing to engage in the art-making process as part of therapy and that she had the imaginative ability to make good use of visual metaphor. A revealing instance of the latter was her response to my question, “If the trees were people, who might they be?” This prompted her to tell me about a couple of important members of her extended family who had not been previously mentioned. Beyond what the client had to tell, I concluded based on my overall impression of her drawing—and on the coherence and quality of her ver-balizations—that she was not suffering from any serious pathology or cognitive defi-cits. Long-term, insight-oriented art therapy treatment of this client ultimately backed up my deductions.
CONCLUSION
Taken together, the studies and examples presented in this chapter supply compelling evidence that much is wrong with traditional drawing tests. On the other hand, a case has also been made that art-based assessments are an important prerequisite to art therapy or art-facilitated treatment. Significant findings can be derived from this latter type of assessment based on global features of the art and on the client’s reac-tions to engaging in art activity. Furthermore, a wealth of information can be gath-ered just by discussing the art with the client. As Groth-Marnat (1997) has reported,
“Some authors have . . . suggested that drawing techniques be considered not so much a formal test but rather a way to increase understanding of the client based on client/clinician interaction related to the drawing” (p. 504).
REFERENCES
Anderson, F. E. (1992). Art for all the children: Approaches to art therapy for children with disabil-ities (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Burns, R. C., & Kaufman, S. H. (1972). Actions, styles and symbols in Kinetic Family Drawings (K-F-D): An interpretative manual. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. (1971). Test results are what you think they are. Psychology To-day, 5(6), 18–22, 106–107.
Cohen, B. M., Mills, A., & Kijak, A. K. (1994). An introduction to the Diagnostic Drawing Series:
A standardized tool for diagnostic and clinical use. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 11(2), 105–110.
Art-Based Assessments 33
Cressen, R. (1975). Artistic quality of drawings and judges’ evaluations of the DAP. Journal of Per-sonality Assessment, 39(2), 132–137.
Gantt, L., & Tabone, C. (1998). The Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale: The rating manual.
Morgantown, WV: Gargoyle Press.
Golomb, C. (1992). The child’s creation of a pictorial world. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Groth-Marnat, G. (1997). Handbook of psychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Hagood, M. M. (2002). A correlational study of art-based measures of cognitive development:
Clinical and research implications for art therapists working with children. Art Therapy: Jour-nal of the American Art Therapy Association, 19(2), 63–68.
Joiner, T. E., Jr., Schmidt, K. L., & Barnett, J. (1996). Size, detail, and line heaviness in children’s drawings as correlates of emotional distress: (More) negative evidence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67(1), 127–141.
Kahill, S. (1984). Human figure drawing in adults: An update of the empirical evidence, 1967–
1982. Canadian Psychology 2(4), 269–292.
Kaplan, F. F. (1991). Drawing assessment and artistic skill. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 18(4), 347–
352.
Knoff, H. M. (1993). The utility of human figure drawings in personality and intellectual assess-ment: Why ask why? School Psychology Quarterly, 8(3), 191–196.
Koppitz, E. M. (1984). Psychological evaluation of human figure drawings by middle school pu-pils. Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton.
Marsh, D. T., Linberg, L. M., & Smeltzer, J. K. (1991). Human figure drawings of adjudicated and nonadjudicated adolescents. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 77–86.
Motta, R. W., Little, S. G., & Tobin, M. I. (1993). The use and abuse of human figure drawings.
School Psychology Quarterly, 8(3), 162–169.
Munley, M. (2002). Comparing the PPAT drawings of boys with AD/HD and age-matched controls using the Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Ther-apy Association, 19(2), 69–76.
Rankin, A. (1994). Tree drawings and trauma indicators: A comparison of past research with cur-rent findings from the Diagnostic Drawing Series. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 11(2), 127–130.
Riethmiller, R. J., & Handler, L. (1997). Problematic methods and unwarranted conclusions in DAP research: Suggestions for improved research procedures. Journal of Personality Assess-ment, 69(3), 459–475.
Silver, R. (1996). Silver Drawing Test of Cognition and Emotion (3rd ed.). Sarasota, FL: Ablin Press.
Silver, R. (1998). Updating the Silver Drawing Test and Draw A Story manuals: New studies and summaries of previous research. Sarasota, FL: Ablin Press.
Smith, D., & Dumont, F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the Draw-A-Person Test. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26(3), 298–303.
Swensen, C. H. (1957). Empirical evaluations of human figure drawings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 431–466.
Swensen, C. H. (1968). Empirical evaluations of human figure drawings: 1957–1966. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 70(1), 20–44.
Tharinger, D. J., & Stark, K. (1990). A qualitative versus quantitative approach to evaluating the Draw-A-Person and Kinetic Family Drawing: A study of mood- and anxiety-disorder children.
Psychological Assessment, 2(4), 365–375.
Vyse, S. A. (1997). Believing in magic: The psychology of superstition. New York & Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Wadeson, H. (1980). Art psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.
Wadeson, H. (2000). Art therapy practice: Innovative approaches with diverse populations. New York: Wiley.
Waehler, C. A. (1997). Drawing bridges between science and practice. Journal of Personality As-sessment, 69(3), 482–487.
34 THE ART AND SCIENCE OF ART THERAPY
Waldman, T. L., Silber, D. E., Holmstrom, R. W., & Karp, S. A. (1994). Personality characteristics of incest survivors on the Draw-A-Person Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(1), 97–104.
Wanderer, Z. W. (1969/1997). Validity of clinical judgments based on human figure drawings. In E.
F. Hammer (with contributors), Advances in projective drawing interpretation (pp. 301–315).
Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Williams, K. J., Agell, G., Gantt, L., & Goodman, R. F. (1996). Art-based diagnosis: Fact or fan-tasy? American Journal of Art Therapy, 35(1), 9–31.
Art-Based Assessments 35