• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

A Validity Study of Projective Drawings

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2011
Dissertation
Author: Claude Jay Jr Robinson
Abstract:
The present work attempts to improve the validity and reliability of the Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (DAP:SPED). By examining the theories and practices inherent in the global use of human figure drawings, the DAP:SPED may be improved upon so that drawings can detect three specific classes of mental disorders: depression, anxiety, and psychoses. A novel technological approach, the Psychological Study of Images Captured and Electronically Measured (PSICEM), which provides for empirical, actuarial analysis, is offered. The PSICEM provides quantification and analysis of the most basic structural elements of the drawing. An archival data set was used. Participants contributing to the data set were 100 male and female adolescents (ages 12-18) receiving long-term inpatient treatment in a "wilderness" setting for emotional and behavioral problems. This work attempted to surpass the invalidated method of the signs approach (or equating a particular drawing element with a specific diagnosis) and provide a more theoretically supported, psychometrically sound method of capturing and using human figure drawing data. The significance of this study then, is twofold: a) projective assessment of drawings will be enhanced by the provision of a unifying methodology for the administration, scoring, and interpretation of these tests, and b) clinicians and researchers will be able to use projective assessment in clinical and research inquiry based on reliable and valid empirical data.

Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….1 Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………………..3 The Use of Projective Drawings…………………………………………………………..4 Three Extant Literatures: Art Therapy, Emotional/Ego Maturity and th e Psychoanalytic.16 Psychoanalytic Literature-The Projective Hypothesis…………………………...16 Ego Maturity/Emotional Functioning Literature-Assessment of Developme ntal Delay……………………………………………………………………… ……..17 Art Therapy- Engagement & Rapport via Shared Experience & Co-Creation…..19

Current Related Research………………………………………………………………..21 PSICEM…………………………...…………………………………………………….28 Components of Drawings………………………………………………………..28 A Brief Note Regarding Pixels…………………………………………………..28 Four PSICEM Drawing Determinants…………………………………………...29 Drawing Size……………………………………………………………..29 Shading…………………………………………………………………..30 Circularity………………………………………………………………..31 Integrated Density………………………………………………………..31 Diagnoses and Proposed PSICEM Determinants………………………………………..32 Depression and PSICEM Determinants………………………………………….32 Total Area and Depression……………………………………………….32 Shading and Depression………………………………………………….33 Circularity and Depression…………………………………………… …34 Integrated Density and Depression………………………………………35 Anxiety and PSICEM Determinants………………………….………………….35 Total Area/Figure Placement…………………………………………….35 Shading Discrepancies Such as Restarting or Low Shading Level Mean…..…………………………………………………………… ……37

v Circularity for Arms and Hair……………………………………………38 Total Integrated Density >75% or <25% for overall image……………..40 Psychoses and PSICEM Determinants…………………………………………..42 Failed Integration………………………………………………………..42 Transparencies/Nude Figures……… ……………………………………44 Omissions of head, eyes, torso, arms, or crotch………………………...45 Insufficient Head-to-Torso ratio………………………………………...46 Grey Mean Value inconsistent from man-to-woman-to-self drawings…47

Research Question………………………………………………………………………48 Hypotheses………………………………………………………………………48 Constructs/Definition of Terms………………………………………………….49 Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations……………………………………50 Methods…………………………………………………………………………..52 Description of the Research Design……………………………………...52 Example of DAP:SPED Analysis………………………………………..52 Analysis using PSICEM…………………………………………………53 PSICEM Study…..……………………………………………………………………....54 Participants………………………………………………………………………55 Instruments and Measures……………………………………………………….55 Procedures………………………………… …………………………………….55 Procedure for Analyzing Depression-Bound Syntax Errors.....…………57 Procedure for Analyzing Anxiety-Bound Syntax Errors….…………….58 Procedure of Analyzing Psychosis/Thought Disorder-Bound Syntax Errors……………………………………………………………………59 Methods and Specific Procedures……………………………………………………….60 Proposed Statistical Analyses/Methodology…………………………………………….64 Proposed Methodology for Specific Hypotheses………………………………………..67 Results……………………………………………………………………………………77

vi Hypothesis 1………………………………………………..…… ……………….77 Hypothesis 2……………………………………………………………………...79 Hypothesis 3……………………………………………………………………...80 Hypothesis 4……………………………………………………………………...81 Hypothesis 5……………………………………………………………………...82 Hypothesis 6……………………………………………………………………...83 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..84 Overview of Findings……………………………………………………………84 Implications………………………………………………………………………88 Unsupported Hypotheses………………………………………………………...91 Limitations Regarding Validity and Generalizability……………………………91 Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………….93 References………………………………………………………………………………..95 Appendix………………………………………………………………………………..111

1

Introduction:

The use of projective tests has a long history in psychological assessment and the treatment of psychological disorders (Anastasi & Foley, 1940, 1941; Billig & Burton-Bradley , 1978; Fox, Davidson, Lighthall, Waite, & Sarason, 1958; Koppitz, 1968; Milne, Greenway, & Best, 2005; Roback, 1698). Since the earliest uses of projective tests, the debate has been whet her or not projective drawings are valid and if reliable inferences can be drawn from the m. These tests have been administered by and interpreted by psychologists and psychiatrists lar gely based on a clinical tradition or collection of small studies or case studies passed on from one generation of practitioners to the next. As a result, one of the most persistent criticisms of the use of projective drawings as an assessment tool is that they lack validity and reliability (Groth-Marnat & Roberts, 1998; Ter Laak, De Goede, Aleva, & Van Rijswijk, 2005; Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb, 2000; Naglieri, McNeish, & Bardos, 1991; Smith & Dumont, 1995), the two hallmarks of psychometrics that any test must have in order to be used in an ethical, conscientious , and predictable manner. The dissertation topic is a validity study that atte mpts to understand how human figure drawings can assess or detect emotional disturbance, defined her e as anxiety, depression, or a psychotic process, in light of a new method of validation that the author has

developed. By comparing how people perform on the Draw-a-Person Test from a psychometrically driven standpoint, it is possible to improve the use of the Draw-A -Person test in the detection and diagnosis of various mood and thought disorders. Essentially, the primary research question is whether the Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance can be improved by improving the level of assessment and quantificat ion. A second goal, to develop a method to analyze and use drawings in a way that is empirically founded, is prime. One may question the need to undertake this proposed study, or to determine if human figure projective drawings can detect mood and thought disorders when there already ex ist very

2

psychometrically sound instruments capable of the task. Simply put, figure drawi ngs are ideal for young children or nonverbal adolescents, and are much shorter and much more cost-effec tive to administer than known measures of mood and thought disorder, generally speaking. In all , it would take less than 20 minutes for a person to produce three drawings, and the only necess ary materials are three pieces of standard 8.5”x11” white paper, and a standard number 2 pencil. In contrast, the measures which are well-known to be accurate measures of mood and thought

disorder can take much longer, and may be contraindicated for young children, nonverbal children and adolescents, victims of abuse, or defiant young people. If the DAP:S PED protocol can be further developed into a relatively accurate screener for thought or m ood disorders, then professionals and the people they serve will benefit. Furthermore, the DAP:SPE D in its present form lacks specificity, and is a global screening tool for “emotional dist urbance.” The methodology may well improve the specificity of the Draw-a-Person Test i n that it could determine the type of mood or thought disorder, and not just a general indication of emotional disturbance. Finally, the benefit to the scientific community, by extensi on, is obvious in that if the projective literature base can be psychometrically improved, the use of projectives will be further validated. The present study then, will determine if the diagnostic capabilities of the pre sent DAP:SPED can be improved upon when the novel scoring and interpretative rubric is use d. Furthermore, it may be possible that the issue of disproportionate body parts servi ng as indicators of emotional disturbance and mood or thought disorders can be confirmed when a strong quantitative approach to measurement and analysis is used. Toward this end, a novel technological approach was used to render the data obtained from projective drawings in a quantifiable, universally obtainable, and consistent m anner. As a

3

result, it is proposed that test validity and reliability for the human figure dr awing projective test will be improved. As well, it is expected that this study will enrich the cur rent theoretical knowledge base by addressing the concerns associated with interpretation and, by e xtension test reliability and validity. Therefore, the significance of the project, re levant references of the literature base, and project feasibility will be briefly discussed. Research suggests that the representation of a figure drawing with rega rd to parts can reliably be used to indicate disturbance (Koppitz, 1968; McNeish & Naglieri, 1993; Motta, Little, &

Tobin, 1993; Naglieri, 1988; Naglieri & Pfeiffer, 1992). Otherwise, the signific ance of shading and other drawing components when used as a measure of cognitive processing is t he focus. Review of the Literature:

Though there has been an ongoing controversy over the use of projective tests in psychological assessment, recent survey results show that these tests continue to be popular with a large number of psychologists (Bekhit, Glyn, & Richard, 2005; Hojonski, Morrison, Brown, &

Matthews, 2006), with usage rates ranging from one third to one half of all those surveye d. However, given the apparent lack of validity and reliability in the use of projec tive assessments, their use is considered circumspect in formalized assessment (Lilienfel d, Wood, & Garb, 2000) and inappropriate in forensic settings (Naglieri, 1992). Given that practitioners continue to use these tests to some degree, and given that there is no present, obvious, and irrefutable

methodology for administration, scoring, and interpretation, the proposed study could offe r substantive support to validate their use. This substantiation would provide an ethical and psychometrically sound approach to allow for the use of projective assessments.

4

The use of projective tests is predicated on the psychoanalytic premise that projec tive drawings may provide insight into parts of the personality that are not accessibl e by conscious processes, and therefore that they provide insight into the person’s “inner world.” T his “inner world” is usually defined as the person’s intrapersonal themes, conflicts, psychol ogical and emotional defenses, and indications of a psychological disorder (Groth-Marnat & R oberts, 1998). Given that projective assessments have been used to determine everything from i ntelligence quotient (Goodenough, 1926) to marital conflict (Groth-Marnat & Roberts, 1998), the present

work is conservatively confined to the most common use of the tests, that is, indicat ions of a psychological illness, specifically a mood disorder such as anxiety or depres sion, or a thought disorder such as schizophrenia. In so doing, the scope of the project is made manageable , and the theoretical literature base that best supports or argues for the use of projecti ve tests is utilized and enhanced.

The use of projective drawings:

Beginning in the insane asylums of Europe around the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, caregivers of the mentally ill began to take interest in the drawings and a rtistic productions of those in their care. It was hoped that these productions could help treatment providers det ermine the specific nature of the person’s problems. Drawings were of particular interest given the typical nonverbal or confused presentation of the person being treated. Drawings w ere noninvasive, nonthreatening, and ideal for people who would not or could not speak of their troubles. Projective drawings have been used to capture and describe emotional and psychological processes over the past century. Developed within the psychoanalytic and psychodynamic literature, drawings were used as a way to view the inner wor ld of the individual. Drawings were used to not only assess a person’s emotional state, but also his or her inner

5

conflicts. Drawings were used to assess unconscious processes such as wishes, des ires, and fears. As a result of this interest, projective drawings drew together the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and art and art therapy. Interest in children’s drawings manifested as early as 1885 when Ebenezer C ooke detailed the changes typical of normative childhood development (Harrison, 1954). Specifi cally, he indicated that there were universal changes in how children draw. First, children s cribble and doodle. Later they use outlines and rough shapes and crude lines and then move to draw more defined shapes and indications of motion, for example, tension and inaction, to draw picture s from memory and their imaginations. Finally, the use of shading, line control, and pers pective lets children convey a message through their drawings that speaks of the differe nt elements in the drawing and how those elements relate to one another. Interest in children’s drawings increased during the 1920’s when treatment provi ders were trying to seriously develop a means to help young children, those children who wer e nonverbal, or who couldn’t talk about specific problems such as sexual abuse (Hutton, 1994) or related trauma (Hibbard & Hartman, 1990). It was during this time that Goodenough (1926) a nd Harris (1963) began developing the first objective system for administering , scoring, and interpreting children’s drawings—the Draw–a-Man Test. It was during the early 1920’s and 1930’s that Freud (1976) began examining the work of famous artists (i.e., Michelangelo) and posited that there were indications o r signs in the works of these masters which were indicative of intrapsychic conflict or neuroses . Freud further added that the artistic endeavor was in itself cathartic, and helped the artist de al with this inner turmoil. Freud’s interpretation was that the artist couldn’t simply draw or paint the t hing that troubled him or her. Instead, the artist’s psyche had to provide a disguise or “sign” that r epresented the

6

actual anxiety-provoking object or process. The process of disguising the “sign” prot ected the artist from being overwhelmed with anxiety. Carl Jung (1968) posited a theory similar to that of Freud’s. Whereas Freud worke d mainly with dreams, Jung encouraged his patients to actively engage in creati ng artwork that was representative of their problems. Jung noticed that when he asked his patients to draw i n session, they drew images which were universally meaningful and symbolic, or what he termed archetypal (Jung, 1968). These archetypes were a type of sign that Jung felt was indicati ve of the person’s psychological problems. It was with Freud’s and Jung’s work and study of these images and symbols that the signs approach seriously began to develop. The signs approach held as the accepted clinical viewpoint for many practiti oners up through the first half of the 20 th century. It wasn’t until about the late 1940’s and early 1950’s when experts began to seriously develop diverging views of the value of projective drawings and to question the validity of the signs approach. The central basis for argument develope d over whether projective drawings were more appropriate as measures of emotional pr oblems or cognitive and intellectual development (Anastasi, 1988; Bandeira, Costa, & Arteche, 200 8; Clark, 1995; Goodenough, 1926; Harris, 1963; Hood & Atkinson, 1991; Koppitz, 1968). In the 1950’s and 1960’s, two primary camps within the projective drawing arena emerged. One group of researchers and clinicians was interested in using the drawings as indicators of emotional disturbance. Primary proponents of this school of thought include Machover (1949, 1953), Hammer (1958), Levy (1958), and Jolles (1952). The primary product was Machover’s Draw-A-Person Test. This test was largely based in the ps ychoanalytic literature that proposed the signs approach. While this particular way of working with emotional

7

disturbance was deemed to have a great level of individualized flexibility, it lacked diagnostic certainty. The opposing group included those clinicians and researchers (i.e., Harris, 1963) who felt

that projective drawings should only be used as an indicator of a child’s psychologica l and motor development, and held that the signs approach was not founded. Instead, Harris and his colleagues focused on an examination of developmental items within the drawing and c ompared the presence or absence of these developmental items to the child’s chronologica l age. The comparison group was normal children of the same age and what they tended to produce. It was not until Elizabeth Koppitz (1968) developed her system of using human figure drawings to address both cognitive and developmental delays and to diagnose emoti onal problems, that more refined means of using projective drawings became possible. It is her work and the system she developed that have been the most informative for modern-day usage of the general human figure drawings, including the Draw-A-Person Test. Koppitz hel d the following view with regard to human figure drawing (HFD): [The present system] is primarily interested in exploring a child’s devel opmental stage and his interpersonal attitudes. In this volume, it is hypothesized that HFDs ref lect primarily a child’s level of development and his interpersonal relationships, tha t is, his attitudes toward himself and toward the significant others in his life. It i s further maintained that HFDs may reveal a child’s attitudes toward life’s stre sses and strains and his way of meeting them; drawings may also reflect strong fears and anx ieties which may concern the child, consciously or unconsciously, at that given moment. (Koppitz, 1968, pp. 3-4)

8

It should be noted that while Koppitz’s (1968) work continues to inform the practice of projective drawings to this day, researchers and clinicians alike still c ontinue to argue for the projective vs. developmental dichotomy, with some (Goodenough, 1926) holding that different types of projective drawing tests are best for emotional issues, and other draw ing tests (Machover, 1949) are best for the assessment of development. These divergent views led to a great deal of study, research, and debate up to the present day as to the proper use of projective methods. As a result, researchers and clinicians must carefully examine t he literature and decide which test is best to use. A second response would be to develop a projective measure that

assesses for indicators of pathology, such as the Draw-A-Person Test (Nagl ieri, McNeish, & Bardos, 1991). The Draw A Man/Draw A Person Test had its beginnings initially in the work of Florence Goodenough (1926). Goodenough was interested in human figure drawings (HFDs) i n that she felt that how children draw pictures of people could provide a general estima tion of their intellectual and cognitive development. Named the Draw-A-Man Test, this method w as based on examining 73 general characteristics of the drawings; primarily an acc ounting of whether or not body parts were rendered in a recognizable manner, if the body parts were in t he correct places, and if the different parts of the body were connected. This system was the first attempt to move from a subjective assessment of drawings and into a more objective scoring s ystem. Though very popular among clinicians, school teachers, and pediatricians, psychologi st Dale Harris (1963) realized the need to further improve the Goodenough system. In 1963, h e modified Goodenough’s work to include three drawings (Man, Woman, and Self). Harris fel t that the addition of two more drawings provided more data for the examiner and that the developmental themes (i.e., gender or sex-role development), could be captured and used for

9

analysis. Thus, the Goodenough-Harris drawing procedure (Harris, 1963) was born. This tool was used as a means to quickly screen children who may have developmental delays and to roughly assess their intellectual level. While Harris firmly states t hat the system does not provide an unequivocal IQ score, the system does provide a rough estimation of intelle ctual ability based on comparisons of over 2,600 schoolchildren and adolescents, ages 5-17. Harris (1963) was able to extend Goodenough’s (1926) earlier work to include a more specific, less subjective scoring method. The Goodenough-Harris test requires c hildren to draw three drawings (Man, Woman, and Self). This method was the first attempt to extend Goodenough’s earlier work, or to have some criteria reference to compare agai nst what children draw to a collection of known “good” or appropriate type scores. For example, one scorin g criterion would be how the child rendered the hands and fingers. Hands and fingers that were

rendered as dagger-like or stick-like fingers and a circle for the palm w ere scored as developmentally inappropriate, or a 0. There are 71dichotomously scored items for Man a nd 73 dichotomously scored items for the Woman. Depending on the sex of the child, the Man/Woman scoring rubric would be repeated for the third drawing. Total scores were then c onverted to compare to known IQ scores of children whose drawings were representative of that sex, age, and developmental background. While a valiant effort, there were many problems with t his system. For one, there was an acknowledgement that raters were highly susce ptible to subjective interpretation of the scoring examples provided in the manual. Harris (1963) plainly s tates, “Because subjective judgment is required to score some items, perfect agree ment between two scorings cannot be expected” (p. 242). This statement is a clear presentation of t he psychometric limitations inherent in the Goodenough-Harris drawing test. A second issue is the f act that the Goodenough-Harris drawing test lacked the technological capacity and theor etical sophistication

10

to allow measurement of the formal elements of the drawings themselves. H arris (1963) explains that Various qualitative aspects of the drawings, such as pressure of the pencil, pla cement on the page, size, and erasures, are not scored, but should be noted. In the absence of other evidence, it is better to interpret erasures as a sign of the child’s dissati sfaction with his work than as evidence of personal insecurity or self-dissatisfaction. (246) It is here that the problem with understanding the formal elements of drawings is f irst admitted. While this situation improved to a small extent in later versions of the hum an figure drawing class of projective tests, the problem has never been fully resolved. T he technology and the clinical theoretical basis now exist to help researchers and clinicians capture these data accurately and move toward diagnostic utility. The current study proposes to util ize technology in the interest of this greater diagnostic utility. To better appreciate t he proposed method’s contribution, further investigation of the HFD stable of tests is required. Human Figure Drawings During the mid 1920’s up through the late 1940’s Goodenough (1926) collected and codified HFD protocols in an effort to provide psychometric validity and reliabilit y for her intellectual screening drawing assessment. During the same period, Karen Machover (1949) was also working to understand how children’s drawings can be used in diagnosis. Whereas Goodenough was concerned with screening for developmental delay and approximate intellectual ability, Machover was interested in understanding how drawings c ould be used to help diagnose children’s mental health problems. Machover’s Draw-A-Person te st (DAP) was the result.

11

Machover’s (1949, 1953) Draw-A-Person test (DAPt) was the first systematic a ttempt to understand children’s drawings from a diagnostic standpoint: namely, personality c omponents and emotional functioning. Machover held that graphic depictions equated to specific personality and emotional characteristics and problems. Machover was heavily influenced by the psychodynamic/psychoanalytic model of diagnosis which was the prevalent school of t hought for psychology at the time. Machover proposed that graphic indicators provide secr et inroads to the unconscious material—desires, wishes, fears, conflicts—that were otherwi se unavailable to the conscious mind. Machover used psychoanalytic principles to understand how different par ts of the body were rendered. For example, from the psychoanalytic literature, the hands are the main way that most people interact with and manipulate the world around them—at least i n the western, modernized time period and people Machover studied. According to Machover (1949; 1953), drawings that depict the hands drawn behind the back are indicative of someone hiding something; hands drawn so that they are in the pockets indicate that the person is shy or feels s/he is ineffective socially. Obviously, this approach is very heavily bound within t he signs approach literature. As mentioned earlier, this approach has been found to be generally i nvalid (Anastasi & Foley, 1940, 1941; Billig & Burton-Bradley, 1978; Fox, Davidson, Lighthall , Waite, & Sarason, 1958; Koppitz, 1968; Milne, Greenway, & Best, 2005; Reithmiller & Handler, 1997). This drawing system has been deemed incapable of accurate, objective diagnosi s. This method is mentioned, however, for more than just historical relevance. The Machover DAPt w as the first attempt to use HFDs in a systematic, though limited, approach to diagnose e motional problems. More modern HFDs, for example, the Draw-A-Person: Screening Proce dure for Emotional Disturbance (DAP:SPED), have found that the emotional indicators first mentioned in the Machover system have some clinical relevance. They just need an objective mea sure (Jolles, 1952; Mitchell, Trent & McArthur, 1994). These indicators include Quality of Integ ration,

12

Shading, Line quality, Figure slanting, Small size, Large size, Transpare ncies, Exaggerated teeth, Short arms, Long arms, Large hands, Hand cut off, Profile drawings, Disheve led hair, Opposite sex drawn first, and Elaborate belt/crotch area. Machover ‘s (1949) rendition and t he more recent revision of the Human Figure Drawing test (HFDT; Mitchell, T rent, & McArthur, 1994) both heavily rely on psychoanalytic principles and the signs approach. Machover’s rendit ion and the HFDT have extensive structured clinical interviews that accompan y each drawing. Machover’s test has structured interviews for both the child participant (31 questi ons per drawing) and the adult participant form. This latter form was driven more by a free-association type of semi-structured interview. The current HFDT by Mitchell, Trent, and Mc Arthur (1993) includes a much more elaborate semi-structured interview for both children a nd adults and encourages clinicians to heavily correlate drawing signs with interview dat a. The signs approach inherent in the earlier Machover (1949; 1953) DAPt and the current HFDT (Mitchell, Trent, & McArthur, 1993) methods are based on the assumption that personality develops not in a vacuum, but through the movement, feeling, and thinking of a specific body. It is because the body, with its visceral tensions and muscular strains, is the battleground for the warring factions of needs and presses (to use Murray’s te rms) that it provides the focus for the study of personality. In general terms, the dr awing of the person represents the expression of self, or the body, in the environment. (Anderson & Anderson, 1951, p. 348) While this premise initially made sense during the analytic heyday of the 19 30’s, 1940’s and 1950’s, current research has determined that this model of personality development and t he resulting assessment venue provided conflicting results. Drawings are best understood as productions dependent on developmental level (Falk, 1981), organicity (Bellak & Bernak, 1949),

Full document contains 131 pages
Abstract: The present work attempts to improve the validity and reliability of the Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (DAP:SPED). By examining the theories and practices inherent in the global use of human figure drawings, the DAP:SPED may be improved upon so that drawings can detect three specific classes of mental disorders: depression, anxiety, and psychoses. A novel technological approach, the Psychological Study of Images Captured and Electronically Measured (PSICEM), which provides for empirical, actuarial analysis, is offered. The PSICEM provides quantification and analysis of the most basic structural elements of the drawing. An archival data set was used. Participants contributing to the data set were 100 male and female adolescents (ages 12-18) receiving long-term inpatient treatment in a "wilderness" setting for emotional and behavioral problems. This work attempted to surpass the invalidated method of the signs approach (or equating a particular drawing element with a specific diagnosis) and provide a more theoretically supported, psychometrically sound method of capturing and using human figure drawing data. The significance of this study then, is twofold: a) projective assessment of drawings will be enhanced by the provision of a unifying methodology for the administration, scoring, and interpretation of these tests, and b) clinicians and researchers will be able to use projective assessment in clinical and research inquiry based on reliable and valid empirical data.