Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 44(3), 2007 © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/pits.20221

FIGURE DRAWINGS: A POPULAR METHOD

ROSEMARY FLANAGAN
Adelphi University
ROBERT W. MOTTA
Hofstra University

Research, commentary, and interpretive procedures reflecting varied perspectives on figure draw-
ings are presented in order to suggest contemporary practice models for school psychologists.
The review of the extensive literature includes measures with scoring systems that are normed
and those systems that rely on clinical traditions for interpretation. Available scoring systems
demonstrate adequate reliability and validity for screening purposes, but evidence of their utility
for diagnosis of an individual by interpretation of drawings is nonexistent. Drawing data can be
useful when they are aggregated with other data and interpreted in a configural manner to obtain
a description of the individual, or when the focus of assessment is on overarching constructs
such as well-being. Finally, figure drawings may aid in establishing rapport with youth and
provide a springboard for practitioner hypotheses, guiding the course of the assessment. © 2007
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The purposes of this article are to examine the literature on figure drawings, review the
interpretive procedures associated with varied perspectives, and suggest appropriate procedures
that are compatible with current evidence.
The use of Human Figure Drawings (HFD) for assessment is common Although research has
emphasized interpretation (Hammer, 1954, 1958; Joiner, Schmidt, & Barnett, 1996; Reithmiller &
Handler, 1997a, 1997b), other aspects of the assessment process have been investigated, such as
the qualifications of those evaluating the drawings (e.g., Stricker, 1967), the psychometric prop-
erties of various scoring systems (e.g., Joiner, Schmidt, & Barnett, 1996; Naglieri, & Pfeiffer,
1992), and the impact of artistic ability (Feher, VanderCreek, & Teglasi, 1983; Handler, 1967;
Swensen, 1968). There have been legions of individual studies and numerous summary papers
(e.g., Kahill, 1984; Klopfer & Taulbee, 1976; Suinn & Oskamp, 1969) that compile individual
studies. The commentary on the utility of drawings crosses practice settings, as both school psy-
chologists and clinical psychologists (e.g., Joiner, Schmidt, & Barnett, 1996; Motta, Little, &
Tobin, 1993) have questioned the utility of the use of the figure drawings as an assessment tech-
nique. Views vary; some believe that it is pointless to instruct future psychologists in the use of
these devices because they have little clinical utility (Gresham, 1993), whereas others find them
useful (e.g., Hammer, 1954, 1958; Holtzman, 1993; Reithmiller and Handler, 1997a, 1997b). The
latter researchers generally identify individual studies that lend support for the method while also
pointing out the various deficiencies of the less supportive studies and study summaries.
Rank-order surveys of test usage by school psychologists (Goh & Fuller, 1983; Kennedy,
Faust, Willis, & Piotrowski, 1994; Wilson & Reschly, 1996) indicate that the sign approach (e.g,.
Machover, 1949) remains popular, despite concerns about validity. Survey data are less informa-
tive than desirable because the exact scoring/interpretive procedures used by practitioners respond-
ing to the surveys are not specified. Rather, the data are reported as percentages of practitioners
using variations of drawing tests (Human Figure Drawings, the House-Tree-Person, or Kinetic
Family Drawings). Merrell (2003) indicates that figure drawing techniques are “wildly popular”
(p. 183) but offers little explanation for this popularity. Wilson and Reschly (1996) further noted

Correspondence to: Rosemary Flanagan, Derner Institute for Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi University,
P.O. Box 701, 1 South Avenue, Garden City, NY 11530-0701. E-mail: Flanagan@adelphi.edu

257
258 Flanagan and Motta

that over 60% of school psychology training programs teach some variation of drawing tech-
niques. A subsequent investigation (Culross & Nelson, 1997) found that figure drawings
techniques are taught in 70% of specialist level school psychology programs; again, information
about preferred interpretive procedures was unavailable.

Perspectives
There is no universal figure drawing test; rather, it is a technique with numerous variations in
method and interpretation. An overview may be helpful to the reader. The use of figure drawings
began with Goodenough (1926), who used it to estimate the cognitive ability of children. Harris
(1963) expanded upon this work by including more items in the scoring system and by standard-
izing it. The basis for the scoring system is that an increase in the number of features (generally
body parts) in the drawings of children, adolescents, and adults of any age is associated with
higher ability. Further, the sophistication of drawings is expected to follow a developmental tra-
jectory. With the advent of well standardized brief measures of cognitive ability (e.g., Kaufman &
Kaufman, 2004) that blend well with contemporary school psychology practice, there now appears
to be little reason to use figure drawings to estimate cognitive ability. A notable exception is for
those individuals for whom English is not the primary language; the HFD can be useful in pro-
viding cognitive developmental data. Matto and Naglieri (2005) reexamined the Draw-A-Person:
Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (DAP: SPED) (Naglieri, McNeish, & Bardos,
1991) standardization data and did not find racial/ethnic differences for the scoring system, because
all groups studied scored similarly to White youth. Thus, a structured screening method relying
upon multiple signs may provide useful information and limit errors when assessing diverse pop-
ulations. Additional direction and information on cultural variation are provided by a number of
authors (e.g., Handler & Habenicht, 1994).
The most popular use of Figure Drawings is to assess personality or social-emotional func-
tioning (Buck, 1970; Burns & Kaufman, 1970; Hammer, 1954, 1958; Jolles 1971; Koppitz, 1968,
1984; Machover, 1949; Naglieri et al., 1991). Drawings are either scored for the presence of
features or interpreted according to clinician judgment. Objective scoring systems generally dem-
onstrate high interscorer agreement (e.g., Koppitz, 1968, 1984) because these are frequency counts
of features present (such as eyes or a nose), yet validity concerns remain. Reviews of Machover’s
work (e.g., Kahill, 1984; Swensen, 1957, 1968) indicate inconsistent support for the validity of
scored emotional indicators. Roback (1968) commented on Swensen’s (1957) work, expanded it,
and urged that the variables that impact interpretation be identified. Klopfer and Taulbee (1976)
commented that research conducted on figure drawings indicates little usefulness. Kamphaus (1993)
categorized the validity coefficients for single signs as consistently weak. Lilienfeld (2000) pre-
sented meta-analytic data on projective instruments and reported that the validity evidence for
HFD as a diagnostic tool, when interpreted according to the purported meaning of individual
signs, was virtually nonexistent. Recognition of weak validity evidence for the sign approach for
figure drawing is important because the method remains popular (Groth-Marnat, 1999). What may
not be fully appreciated by the critics is that most interpretation methods do not exclusively rely
on the single sign approach; nor do most practitioners rely on the exclusive use of drawings to
make diagnoses.
An important issue that has received less attention is research methodology. Roback (1968)
called for the use of more rigorous research methods and statistical analyses, and this call contin-
ues to be echoed almost 30 years later (Reithmiller & Handler 1997a, 1997b). When studies are
conceptually sound and well executed, evidence of validity emerges (e.g., Tharinger & Stark,
1990). Positive findings support data aggregation (Reithmiller & Handler, 1997a, 1997b) or
demonstrate validity in regard to the assessment of specific constructs (e.g., Matto, Naglieri, &

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Figure Drawings 259

Claussen, 2005). Important to note, however, is that drawings should not be used with the expec-
tation that they will add to the validity of a psychological assessment that contains standardized,
reliable, and valid measures of social-emotional functioning (Motta, Little, & Tobin, 1993). How-
ever, this question has not been empirically addressed with adequate methods.

Review of Methods
A review of strengths and weaknesses of differing approaches, more specifically illustrat-
ing the evolution of the method, provides the reader with an understanding of the diversity in
the interpretation of human figure drawings. This review of various approaches is followed by
a discussion of psychometric issues.

Scoring Systems that Emphasize Drawing Features

Machover. The Machover system was the first to utilize figure drawings as a means of
assessing personality on the basis of the projective hypothesis. Machover (1949) hypothesized
that various features that might appear in a drawing were indicative of aspects of the person’s
emotional life and personality. Her use of the projective hypothesis (Frank, 1939) was seminal in
sparking a great deal of HFD research. In regard to drawings, the projective hypothesis states that
when one is asked to render a human figure, one projects self-concerns onto the drawing and these
inner issues can be unearthed by examining the drawing itself. The person examined is asked to
draw a picture of a person, and then to draw a picture of a person of the opposite sex. Although
primarily intended for adults, the system has been used with youth. Inquiries are often made about
the drawing such as what the emotions and thoughts of the depicted person might be. This system
relies on intuitive judgments that follow from the hypothesized meaning of particular drawing
features to develop a description of an individual’s personality functioning. The hypothesized
meanings are discussed within the context of normality and appropriateness to the age of the
person drawing the picture. It is the most frequently used system (Groth-Marnat, 1999) by
practitioners.

Koppitz. Koppitz provides an example of a scoring system for children’s figure drawings
that can be considered a quick screener for cognitive and emotional functioning. Koppitz (1968,
1984) developed a system that is a downward age extension of Machover’s work that is objec-
tively scored. Normative data (Koppitz, 1968) were obtained on a sample of 1,856 children aged
5 through 12 years, illustrating a normative developmental pathway. The sample was drawn from
the Midwest and was believed to be socioeconomically diverse. To provide data on early adoles-
cents (age 11 to 14), an additional sample (Koppitz, 1984) of over 1,000 youngsters placed in
regular education as well as special education was obtained from the suburbs of New York City.
Scoring is completed by determining which of the 30 listed emotional indicators (drawing
features) are present. Data are summarized according to the problem the emotional indicator is
believed to reflect; they are impulsivity, insecurity/feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, shyness/
timidity, and anger/aggressiveness (Koppitz, 1984). The emotional indicators are reported in ref-
erence tables according to age norms (Koppitz, 1968, 1984), permitting interpretation according
to developmental trajectory. The emotional indicators were selected on the basis of Koppitz’
clinical experience, earlier work on figure drawings suggesting that they were not significantly
related to age, ability of the indicators to differentiate children who have emotional problems from
those who do not have emotional problems, and occurrence of the indicator in less than 15%
(corresponding to approximately one standard deviation below the mean) of the normative sample
of 1,856 children aged 5 thorough 12 years.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

260 Flanagan and Motta

Koppitz (1968) reports interscorer agreement of 95% for a sample of 25 protocols. Validity
data are less strong. Three individuals rated protocols obtained from normal and disturbed young-
sters and found that classification accuracy for disturbed group was 71% versus 84% for the
normal group (Fuller, Preuss, & Hawkins, 1970). Although these data indicate the respective
percentages of youngsters correctly identified in the normal and clinical groups, they are unimpres-
sive because the scoring system does not effectively differentiate normal from disturbed young-
sters. Moreover, Arkell (1976) found that special training of raters did not improve the accuracy of
the classification of youngsters as normal or disturbed. Data indicate that teachers, school admin-
istrators, secretaries, and students were correct 79–81% of the time; professionals were correct
83% of the time! The evidence suggests that data obtained from figure drawings should not be
used for diagnosis but may assist in the determination of whether further assessment is indicated.
The data may also aid in developing a description of the child because interpretation is an aggre-
gated stepwise process that yields qualitative information. This includes consideration of the child’s
behavior while completing the drawing, the overall clinician impression of what the drawing
might be expressing, the maturity of the child in terms of age and cognitive ability (i.e., consis-
tency with other available data), the number and kinds of emotional indicators, and the child’s
verbalizations and responses to examiner questioning.

Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance Naglieri, McNeish, and

Bardos (1991) offer a system with defensible psychometric properties that incorporates a multiple
sign approach. Statistical differences were found between clinical and nonclinical groups, but the
correct identification rate for group membership was found to be 48% for disturbed children and
78% for normal children (Naglieri & Pfeiffer, 1992).Therefore the DAP: SPED is more effective
for correctly identifying normal as opposed to disturbed children. Inspection of the validity data
indicates that the mean t scores were 57 and 49 for the clinical group and normal groups, respec-
tively. A subsequent investigation (McNeish & Naglieri, 1993) yielded similar results for differ-
entiating those who are designated emotionally disturbed within the special education system
from those who are not. Although a statistically significant difference between groups was found
(t ⫽ 4.0; p ⫽ .001), the mean t score for the special education group was 55.3 and the mean t score
for the regular education group was 49.5. Thus, data obtained from two samples in two different
studies place all individuals studied within commonly accepted normal limits for t scores falling
between 40 and 60. It appears that if a practitioner uses the DAP: SPED there is considerable
chance of failure to identify a potentially disturbed child who needs additional assessment and
intervention.
Additional data (Matto, 2002) indicate that the DAP: SPED is moderately correlated with the
Internalizing Scales (.30 ⬍ r ⬍ .50), but not the Externalizing Scale of the Shortform Assessment
for Children (Dukes, 1998) for a clinical sample of youngsters. A later study (Matto et al., 2005)
suggests utility of the scoring system in screening for public school youth who may need addi-
tional attention because the DAP: SPED was shown to account for 21–27% of the variance in
strength-based measures. Although these data are encouraging, they do not apply equally for all
groups studied and therefore warrant additional research. In each of these situations, the need for
additional assessment data was noted. These data underscore the point that scoring systems for
figure drawings that rely upon a multiple sign approach (such as the DAP: SPED) offer some
utility as a screening measure for global psychopathology; however, caution is indicated because
the number of classification errors (Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld, & Nezworski, 2002) found by Naglieri
and Pfeiffer (1992) varies from 25% to 50%. Thus, a multiple sign approach should be limited to
determining whether additional assessment is indicated, should not be the only screening tool, and
should not be used as an in-depth assessment device.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Figure Drawings 261

Systems That Relate Drawing Features to One Another or External Criteria

Buck. Buck (1970) maintained that more information could be obtained by asking the per-
son to draw a house, a tree, and a person. The standardization (Buck, 1970) was on an adult sample
such that the test might function as a gross estimate of cognitive ability. A secondary standardiza-
tion was attempted to develop normative data for personality functioning, but data that clearly and
consistently differentiated among diagnostic groups were not observed, and the standardization
could not be accomplished. Jolles (1971) refined the system by organizing the material into a
catalog that would assist the practitioner in finding possible meanings of drawing features. He
stressed, as did Buck (1970), that no single sign should carry significant diagnostic weight. Rather,
the pieces of information are considered in relation to one another and within the context of the
evaluation that leads to an impression of an individual. He also pointed out that no manual should
be a replacement for clinical skills and knowledge. A unique feature of this approach is that there
is a specific set of questions that are to be asked of the person examined in regard to the drawings
made. Again, one conclusion that may be drawn from these data is that it is difficult to develop
normative data for figure drawings that those who rely upon clinical traditions to interpret figure
drawings will find useful because the type of information obtained does not readily lend itself to
standardization.
Hammer. Hammer (1958) contended that drawing techniques are a means for assessing an
individual’s deeper needs. According to Hammer, relative emphasis of different aspects of the
drawing and the overall drawing performance provide considerable information about what is
important to the individual, how the environment is negotiated, and what is the impact of the
environment on the individual. Among the tools that are used to evaluate and interpret the draw-
ings are psychodynamic concepts and clinical experience. From a theoretical point of view, inter-
pretation is based on three notions: Individuals tend to view the world in their own image, the core
of one’s view of the world is the mechanism of projection, and projection serves as a defense
mechanism in service of the ego. Hammer’s more recent work (1997) compiles papers previously
published elsewhere with some new papers. Little new material is offered that might allay the
concerns that critics of figure drawings have advanced. Critiques of earlier works that question the
validity of scoring systems (e.g., Swensen, 1957) in Hammer’s work are provided. To Hammer’s
credit, papers are provided on topics that have received little attention in the literature such as the
possibility that clinicians may project themselves into their interpretations (Hammer & Piotrowski,
1997) and findings that trained clinicians differ in their interpretive skill as a function of personal
qualities: empathy, intuition, and cognitive flexibility (Burley & Handler, 1997). Vane and Guar-
naccia (1989) previously indicated that it is difficult to teach the clinical skills that guide the
interpretation of projectives. Taking these points together, it would appear that is could be difficult
to reach agreement on the meaning of drawing data if interpretation depends on clinician judgment.
Family Drawings. Hulse (1951) developed the Draw-A-Family Test in order to assess inter-
personal relationships. Burns and Kaufman (1970) expanded upon Hulse’s work by requiring that
everyone in the family drawing be doing something. This requirement is said to provide more
information about family dynamics. A family-based scoring system has been shown to be reliable
(Klopfer & Taulbee, 1976). The system scores features of the drawings in a matrix that assigns
weights to the identity of the figure (mother, father, or self ) and for the severity of the figure’s
action for 29 dimensions, such as masochism and narcissism. There are also some weighted scores
for the specific features of the figure. Although norms for comparison are not available, higher
scores are associated with the presence of greater concerns. Regression equations that are offered
may be helpful for the prediction (O’Brien & Patton, 1974) of dimensions such as anxiety. This
scoring system was subsequently adapted and refined by Burns (1982), among others (e.g., Handler

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

262 Flanagan and Motta

& Habenicht, 1994). Nevertheless, the comparison of validity studies for the Kinetic Family
Drawing (KFD) is difficult because the data that might be relied upon to provide norms were
obtained from the efforts of a variety of researchers and there is no evidence that a systematic
research plan was given consideration by the researchers (Handler, Campbell, & Martin, 2003).
This situation is unfortunate because the scoring system focuses on unique information such as the
actions of the figures and their proximities and might be helpful for suggesting information about
the child’s perception of family life
Tharinger and Stark. Tharinger and Stark (1990) developed an integrative system to eval-
uate drawings and reported its use with youngsters with no diagnosis as well as youngsters who
were diagnosed as having a mood and/or anxiety disorder. Well-defined qualitative dimensions
were used: inhumanness of the drawing, lack of agency, lack of well-being in the depicted indi-
vidual, and a vacant, hollow, or stilted sense in the individual in the drawing. Ratings for each
dimension were made on a 5-point scale (1 ⫽ absence of psychopathology, 5 ⫽ severe psycho-
pathology), and the ratings were integrated to yield an overall impression of the youngster’s
functioning. Interrater reliability was .84. Validity data include significant correlations between
scores on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1975) and ratings of the draw-
ing, with higher self-esteem related to better overall healthiness of the drawing (r ⫽ .41; p ⬍ .001).
The Tharinger and Stark study was important because it used a multiple-gating approach
(Kendall, Hollon, Beck, Hammen, & Ingram, 1987) to assign diagnoses. The multiple gates included
two administrations each of the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1983) and the
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS; Reynolds & Richmond, 1985), along with
an interview procedure, Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Chil-
dren (K-SADS; Puig-Antich & Ryan, 1986). Drawing data were considered after the assignment
of diagnoses. The data suggest that the use of figure drawings can yield useful information if the
manner of rating the drawings is holistic and the ratings are integrated with other information.
Important is that the exact contribution of the drawing data to the overall result is not known. The
drawing data corroborated the overall impression of the anxious children that was developed from
the multiple gating procedure described earlier and was used to provide information about over-
arching constructs such as well-being. Tharinger and Stark concluded that projective drawings can
be useful adjuncts in the assessment of internalizing disorders.

Summary of Psychometric Evidence

Reliability
High interscorer reliability can be achieved with figure drawings (Buck, 1970; Joiner et al.,
1996; Jolles, 1971; Koppitz, 1968, 1984; Naglieri, McNeish & Bardos, 1991). The literature is
replete with references attesting to the reliability of the scoring systems. The high reliabilities
reflect the ability of raters to agree that particular features in the drawings are indeed present (e.g.,
mouth, nose). At issue is that these reliability data for single signs are not useful because construct
validity and criterion validity are weak.
Validity
The many critics (e.g., Gresham, 1993; Kamphaus, 1993; Lilienfeld, 2000; Swensen, 1957,
1968) of figure drawings appropriately focus on the validity issue. Klopfer and Taulbee (1976)
commented that there is little useful yield with the figure drawing technique, given the amount of
research conducted on figure drawings. Kahill (1984), in a review of figure drawings, concluded
that the majority of the hypotheses regarding specific features of the drawings varied from mixed
support to no support, although global ratings of drawings can have clinical utility (using adult

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Figure Drawings 263

samples), as shown by Maloney and Glasser (1982). Joiner, Schmidt, and Barnett (1996) con-
cluded that the HFD did not assess anxiety effectively because significant correlations were not
found between (single sign) figure drawing indices of anxiety and other measures of anxiety.
Taken together, the data suggest that the single sign scoring systems for the HFD as an instrument
to determine group membership or to assign a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis-
orders, fourth edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) (American Psychiatric Association, 2000)
diagnosis are unremarkable. However, there are validity data to support multiple sign approaches
for standardized procedures (Koppitz, 1974, 1984; Naglieri et al., 1991), but these approaches are
probably best used to determine whether additional assessment is needed.
These disappointing conclusions about the validity of scoring systems would appear to limit
the use of figure drawings, but this need not be the case because the most effective documented
uses of figure drawings involve providing descriptive information rather than a diagnosis. Of
concern is that the many critics do not comment on this application for drawing data. Machover’s
(1949) methodology of examining single signs subsequently evolved into broader views requiring
integration of data beginning with Hammer (1954, 1958) and continuing with Handler and asso-
ciates (Handler, 1967; Handler & Reyher, 1965, 1966) as well as Buck (1970), Jolles (1971),
Burns and Kaufman (1970), Tharinger and Stark (1990), and most recently Reithmiller and Han-
dler (1997a, 1997b). One reason there are disparate views regarding the utility of figure drawings
is that different interpretations are used. Some studies investigate the meaning of individual signs,
while other studies are based on case histories and use a configural mode of interpretation (Rei-
thmiller & Handler, 1997a, 1997b). These latter studies emphasize the use of figure drawings as
providing descriptive data whereas the former focus on diagnosis.
Reithmiller and Handler’s (1997a, 1997b) critique of Joiner, Schmidt, and Barnett’s (1996)
work that dismissed figure drawings as having minimal utility focused on methodology. This
critique outlines a rationale for a configural approach to interpretation. Joiner, Schmidt, and Bar-
nett (1996) had concluded that on the basis of three indices (size, detail, line heaviness), figure
drawings are not valid. Little convergence was found among three highly reliable (.91–95 in the
present study) drawing indices believed related to emotional distress (i.e., anxiety and depression)
because the criterion measures of anxiety and depression were multiple item measures and may
not have been assessing the same constructs that were suggested by single drawing features.
Joiner, Schmidt, and Barnett (1996) compared drawing indices to a narrative measure and a ques-
tionnaire. This finding raises an additional question that is important to consider when critically
reading the literature and when making recommendations for practice. How, if at all, do assess-
ment devices of substantially different formats relate to one another? Literature on narratives as
the projective measure and questionnaires as the objective measure suggests that objective and
projective measures assess different aspects of a given construct (McClelland, Koestner, & Wein-
berger, 1989). Moreover, neither these objective nor projective measures alone will necessarily
yield a thorough assessment (Bornstein, Bowers, & Robinson, 1995). Parallel literature involving
figure drawings as the projective measure is unavailable, leaving a gap in the knowledge base for
practitioners and an unanswered question for researchers. Thus, practitioners should rely upon
multiple measures and methods in assessment practice as a matter of course so as to provide
checks and balances. Research is needed to determine which combinations of measures prove
most effective. In considering these points to develop a conclusion, Reithmiller and Handler (1997a,
1997b) maintained that configural scoring (Handler, 1967; Handler & Reyher, 1966), along with
the use of aggregated data (Rushton, Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983) is the appropriate method with
which to generate data from drawings. The validity issues associated with the single sign approach
do not emerge when aggregated data are used and may increase the utility of figure drawings
beyond that of a screening device.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

264 Flanagan and Motta

More on Addressing the Validity Concerns

There have been varied recommendations to address the validity concerns raised by the
drawing data while still obtaining useful information. They involve shifting the emphasis from the
limitations of drawing data to the purposes and conditions under which figure drawings may
provide valid data. Kahill (1984) found little empirical support for the scoring systems for human
figure drawings but was not willing to dismiss the method as not helpful. It was recommended that
these devices be used to generate hypotheses that might serve as a springboard for discussion with
the client. In addition, figure drawings may yield useful data when considered globally to generate
clinical impressions. Martin (1988) recommended that drawings be used only as rapport-building
devices or as gross screening devices. Variables such as artistic ability may be confounding (Feher
et al., 1983; Handler & Rehyer, 1965; Swensen, 1968) and may negatively impact conclusions as
to adjustment. However, Handler and Rehyer (1966) developed a procedure to control for artistic
ability.
Figure drawings may be used as a means of observing how a youngster deals with an unstruc-
tured and unfamiliar situation. Klopfer and Taulbee (1976) commented that using the technique to
provide a sample of observable behavior in the assessment setting may be useful. It is generally
difficult to interview a young child in a direct manner because of limitations in language skills that
are a function of age (Sattler, 1998). Using a drawing as a visual prompt to guide conversation may
facilitate these observations because being asked to draw a picture of a person is a relatively
nonthreatening and familiar task. Young children are self-focused and are often eager to tell an
adult about their drawing. Thus, when the figure drawing is used as an aid to conversation, an
opportunity is provided to obtain information and to observe the child’s performance in regard to
conversational skills, relatedness, and spontaneity. The organization or disorganization may reflect
the child’s inner or outer experience. It can be noted how a child concerned about his or her artistic
ability manages those feelings. It is also important to note whether a child is persistent. Informa-
tion may be provided about the child’s self-confidence and acceptance of his or her limitations.
This is a common situation that can be used to observe a child’s functioning in what has now
become a standard situation (Flanagan, 2003); such information is important for making compar-
isons to other children.
Reithmiller and Handler (1997a) maintained that figure drawings are useful in the assess-
ment of performance-based constructs. Examples of performance-based constructs that may be
assessed using drawing data are the representation of the self in the world, along with the innate
skills and strategies for daily living (Handler, 1996). Performance-based domains are guided by
schema, which are the cognitive blueprints that guide thinking and affect on the basis of previ-
ous experiences. The dynamic and clinical meaning of the drawing is deemphasized. Therefore,
performance-based constructs do not necessarily have a direct connection to the presence or
absence of pathology but reflect the child’s schema or personal templates that guide thinking and
behavior (Teglasi, 1998).
Performance-based constructs relate to the way a child approaches a drawing task, not to the
meaning of the individual signs. The manner in which a child approaches the task reflects the
child’s schemas (Teglasi, 1998), and these schemas provide the basis of the child’s thoughts and
behaviors. Thus, we can make hypotheses about the ways in which the child approaches, responds
to, and completes the drawing task. For example, a child who responds with gusto and draws a
large figure might have an expansive or uninhibited style. Moreover, children’s drawings that are
highly unusual overall or that contain unusual features as compared to existing tabled data (Groth-
Marnat, 1990; Reynolds, 1978; Vane, 1968) merit further consideration. The concerns suggested
by unusual drawings can be confirmed or tested by other observations of behavior and by other

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Figure Drawings 265

assessment devices. Therefore, figure drawings can be seen as having value for the hypotheses
they suggest, rather than providing individual signs that indicate pathological processes.
The production of a drawing can also be considered a problem-solving task that reflects
internal representations (Teglasi, 1998). Broad performance standards for a drawing can be set by
emphasizing the individual signs that are most reliable (Teglasi, 1998). Important to note is that
artistic quality may impact clinical interpretation (Feher et al., & Teglasi, 1983).
Common to each approach addressed in this section is a possible way to address the validity
concerns, which is complex because the most useful unique data gathered are not readily measured
by rating scales or numerical scores. Indeed, it makes little sense to use figure drawings to assess
constructs for which psychometrically sound questionnaires are available. Rather, drawing data in
combination with other data may reflect the relationships among constructs and subconstructs that
are dimensions of behavior and affect. Information about constructs such as overall well-being
(and their components or subconstructs) is more readily related to referral questions and can
address functioning in broad ways. This consideration is quite important for school-based practice
as referrals are not necessarily for the detection of psychopathology (Dana, this issue), but as a
part of the comprehensive evaluation process that is required by special education regulations. It
is quite possible that there are subclinical concerns in evidence that negatively impact school
functioning and overall adjustment. A description of the process and conditions under which
particular concerns occur provides information that is far more useful for intervention planning
and development than whether a particular diagnostic criterion is met. This point speaks to the
importance of placing and interpreting assessment data within a context (Teglasi, Simcox, & Kim,
this issue). Figure drawings could have a role in such an assessment process.
An illustrative example that could be incorporated into school-based practice might be help-
ful. Consider the example of a young child who is having academic difficulty but is referred for an
evaluation to explore her reticence, as her teacher is concerned that this child seems not to ask
for help when having difficulty. Given the reticence (Is it a social skills deficit? Does she have
cognitive deficits?), interviewing such a child to understand her concerns may not be particularly
productive, although she readily produced several detailed drawings of individuals. Using the
drawings to guide conversation is a reasonable strategy because the conversation is about
the drawing rather than this shy child. Responses to questions to determine who is depicted in the
drawing, what the person is doing, how the person is feeling, and what the person is thinking about
can provide useful information. Suppose the child indicates that she is the individual in the draw-
ing and that she is worried because she believes she did not produce a good drawing. Such a
comment opens the door to exploring whether the child is prone to anxiety in other situations,
what her history of achievement is, and whether obtaining adult approval is a frequent concern;
this example of interpretation yields information about related constructs and subconstructs. More-
over, her anxiety and its extent can be assessed using questionnaires completed by multiple infor-
mants, providing information on the context of the anxiety. Additional assessment using other
measures (such as performance measures) would then enable the practitioner to determine whether
the child would benefit from some strategies to manage anxiety, assertion training, cognitive
restructuring, or a psychoeducational intervention. It is also possible that consultation with sig-
nificant adults to assist them in relating to her more effectively may be indicated.

Comment on Validity
Common to the applications of drawing data reviewed in the previous section is shifting
the emphasis from the validity concerns associated with drawing data to advancing practice by
using drawings in ways that provide valid data. Central to the traditional conception of validity
are reliability and the purpose of the assessment. Although drawing data have been repeatedly

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

266 Flanagan and Motta

shown to be reliable, the validity question is considerably more complex and should be approached
as such.
Conceptual frameworks that transcend major theoretical orientations are needed to advance
the field by making it possible for researchers to develop a knowledge base of practice applica-
tions for figure drawings (within the context of an overall assessment) that meet validity standards
because the data are presumed to assess a construct (or variable) under a particular set of condi-
tions for a particular purpose. This approach to the validity question is distinctly different from
reducing drawing data to molecular units and relating single variables to constructs, as in the sign
approaches. It cannot be expected that single sign data can be related to an external criterion in a
lawful manner that is applicable across situations; the complexity of an individual’s functioning
cannot be captured with a simplistic approach. Thus, the primary reason that the single sign
approaches do not meet validity standards is that the underlying premise is flawed (Reithmiller &
Handler, 1997a).

Conclusions

The literature on human figure drawings poses as many questions as it answers. Concerns
about validity need to be considered in the context of generally weak research methods (Reith-
miller & Handler, 1997a, 1997b; Roback, 1968), differing theoretical orientations, varied pur-
poses of the assessment, and varied interpretive procedures. It is not necessary for the field to
adopt a single correct approach to figure drawing interpretation, although recent trends in the
literature suggest several substantiated practices for those who wish to use drawing data. How-
ever, in compiling evidence about validity, reviews of the literature need to sort out the variations
in rigor, purpose, and interpretation.
Figure drawings may be used to generate hypotheses to be investigated (Kahill, 1984) and to
provide a global impression of functioning (Kahill, 1984; Swensen, 1968). As such, these devices
may be more appropriate for determining whether additional assessment is indicated. Despite
improved standardization procedures, the utility of the multiple sign scoring systems is limited to
screening (e.g., Koppitz, 1968; Naglieri et al., 1991) to determine whether additional assessment
is indicated. For both of these uses, figure drawings should be used early in the assessment process.
When figure drawings are used as a part of a comprehensive assessment process that involves
several steps, the classification accuracy (of drawing data) improves (e.g., Tharinger & Stark
1990). Thus, figure drawings could be used as a technique that yields data that either guide addi-
tional assessment or are integrated with other data (e.g., Matto et al., 2005; Reithmiller & Handler,
1997a, 1997b; Tharinger & Stark, 1990). Although the research to date provides an encouraging
beginning, additional studies are needed before specific practice guidelines for the field can be
proposed.
Important to practice is that research to date does not specify the exact contribution of draw-
ing data to the overall conclusion, nor whether the overall assessment is improved because of the
addition of drawing data. It remains unclear whether drawing data can add to an assessment.
Rather, they may provide an overarching view that provides a context to facilitate the integration
of data obtained from a variety of methods and sources. Thus, drawing data should not be used to
support a more valid measure (Motta et al., 1993) but may be used in conjunction with and in
relation to other data, consistently with the configural approach (Handler, 1967; Reithmiller &
Handler, 1997a, 1997b). Given that the configural approach places data within a context of other
data, the substantiation of conclusions may be facilitated. Moreover, global interpretation of related
elements is more valid than interpretation of single signs (Teglasi, 1998) by allowing one to
consider how given constructs covary for an individual.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Figure Drawings 267

No current researcher is recommending that figure drawing data be used in isolation; nor does
the exclusive use of figure drawings accurately represent practitioner assessment practices. Although
there are other well-standardized assessment techniques available today that can accomplish sim-
ilar assessment goals with more certain clinical utility and validity, figure drawings may have a
role within an assessment battery. Moreover, data suggest that drawings can be appropriately used
with diverse populations (e.g., Handler & Habenicht, 1984; Matto & Naglieri, 2005).
Drawings have a place in assessment as a tool for establishing conversation with children, for
reaching those who are intellectually limited, and for examining those whose English proficiency
and/or reading skills are such that the use of questionnaires is not feasible. The information
obtained from drawings and the conversation that these stimulate can provide a performance-
based assessment of the child’s relatedness and social skills in qualitative terms; information of
this variety is not obtainable from questionnaires that generate numerical scores. When a child is
asked to “draw a person,” that child is likely engaging in an activity that he or she has done many
times and is therefore often not threatened by this task. The child is being asked to do something
that is within his or her range of competence and in most instances produces a reasonable drawing.
The examiner can then judge the drawing in terms of line quality and overall artistry. Initial data
on visual-motor skills and possible artistic skills have thus been obtained. Also, the drawing can
serve as an “ice breaker.” The examiner and child can discuss the drawing. This discussion often
serves to enhance rapport and can provide additional information to the examiner in making an
overall assessment of the child.
Numerous uses for drawing data that address validity concerns by describing better practices
than the interpretation of single signs have been suggested. It is recommended that practitioners
who wish to use drawing data refrain from basing interpretations on individual pieces of data;
rather they should consider the drawing data within the context of other data. It is more appropri-
ate to consider using drawing data to aid in developing a description of a youngster and his or her
functioning. The descriptive data provide an understanding of the child rather than leading to a
specific diagnosis. This descriptive information could be used to facilitate the development and
planning of individualized interventions, which may permit further investigation of the link between
assessment and intervention.

References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of psychiatric disorders, text revision. Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
Arkell, R.N. (1976). Naive prediction of pathology from figure drawings. Journal of School Psychology, 14, 75–78.
Bornstein, R.F., Bowers, S.K., & Robinson, K.J. (1995). Differential relationships of objective and projective dependency
scores to self-reports of interpersonal life events in college student subjects. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65,
255–269.
Buck, J.N. (1970). The House-Tree-Person Technique: Revised manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Burley, T., & Handler, L. (1997). Personality factors in the accurate interpretation of projective tests. In E.F. Hammer
(Ed.), Advances in projective drawing interpretation (pp. 359–377). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Burns, R. (1982). Self-growth in families: Kinetic Family Drawings (K-F-D) research and application. New York:
Brunner-Mazel.
Burns, R.C., & Kaufman, S.H. (1970). Kinetic Family Drawings (K-F-D): An introduction to understanding children
through kinetic drawings. New York: Brunner-Mazel.
Coopersmith, S. (1975). Self-Esteem Inventory Form B. Lafayette, CA: Self-Esteem Institute.
Culross, R.R., & Nelson, S. (1997). Training in personality assessment in specialist-level school psychology programs.
Psychological Reports, 81, 119–124.
Dukes, D. (1998). Shortform Assessment for Children. Knoxville, TN: Children’s Mental Health Research Center.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

268 Flanagan and Motta

Feher, E., VanderCreek, L., & Teglasi, H. (1983). The problem of art quality in the use of the Human Figure Drawing Test.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 268–275.
Flanagan, R. (2003). A place for projective assessment in school psychology practice. School Psychologist, 57, 116–118,
121.
Frank, L.D. (1939). Projective methods for the study of personality. Journal of Psychology, 8, 389– 413.
Fuller, G.G., Preuss, M., & Hawkins, W.F. (1970). The validity of human figure drawings with disturbed and normal
children. Journal of School Psychology, 8, 54–56.
Garb, H.N., Wood, J.M., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Nezworski, M.T. (2002). Effective use of projective techniques in clinical
practice: Let the data help with selection and interpretation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33,
454– 463.
Goh, D.S., & Fuller, G.B. (1983). Current practices in the assessment of personality and behavior by school psychologists.
School Psychology Review, 12, 240–243.
Goodenough, F.L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Gresham, F.M. (1993). “What’s wrong in this picture?”: Response to Motta et al.’s review of human figure drawings.
School Psychology Quarterly, 8, 182–187.
Groth-Marnat, G. (1990). Handbook of psychological assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Groth-Marnat, G. (1999). Handbook of psychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Hammer, E.F. (1954). Guide for qualitative research with the H-T-P. Journal of General Psychology, 51, 41– 60.
Hammer, E.F. (1958). The clinical application of projective drawings. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Hammer, E.F. (Ed.). (1997). Advances in projective drawing interpretation. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Hammer, E.F., & Piotrowski, Z.A. (1997). Hostility as a factor in the clinician’s personality as it affects his interpretation
of projective drawings. In E.F. Hammer (Ed.) Advances in projective drawing interpretation (pp. 349–358). Springfield,
IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Handler, L. (1967). Anxiety indexes in the Draw-A-Person test: A scoring manual. Journal of Projective Techniques and
Personality Assessment, 31, 46–57.
Handler, L. (1996). The clinical use of drawings: Draw-A-Person, House-Tree-Person, and Kinetic Family Drawings. In
C.S. Newmark (Ed.), Major psychological assessment instruments (2nd ed., pp. 203–293). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Handler, L., Campbell, A., & Martin, B. (2003). Use of graphic techniques in personality assessment: Reliability, validity
and clinical utility. In M.H. Hilsenroth & D.L. Siegel (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment
(Vol. 2, pp. 387– 404). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Handler, L., & Habenicht, D. (1994). The Kinetic Family Drawing Technique: A review of the literature. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 62, 440– 464.
Handler, L., & Reyher, J. (1965). Figure drawing anxiety indices: A review of the literature. Journal of Projective Tech-
niques, 29, 305–313.
Handler, L., & Reyher, J. (1966). Relationship between GSR and anxiety indexes in projective drawings. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 30, 60– 67.
Harris, D.B. (1963). Children’s drawings as measures of intellectual maturity. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Holtzman, W.H. (1993). An unjustified, sweeping indictment by Motta et al. of Human Figure Drawings for assessing
psychological functioning. School Psychology Quarterly, 8, 189–190.
Hulse, W.C. (1951). The emotionally disturbed child draws his family. Quarterly Journal of Child Behavior, 3, 152–174.
Joiner, T.E., 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, 127–141.
Jolles, I. (1971). A catalog for the qualitative interpretation of the House-Tree-Person (H-T-P). Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
Kahill, S. (1984). Human figure drawings in adults: An update of the empirical evidence, 1967–1982. Canadian Psychol-
ogy, 25, 269–292.
Kamphaus, R.W. (1993). Comment on “The Use and Abuse of Human Figure Drawings.” School Psychology Quarterly, 8,
187–188.
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.E. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guid-
ance Services.
Kendall, P.C., Hollon, S.D., Beck, A.T., Hammen, C.L., & Ingram, R.E. (1987). Issues and recommendations regarding use
of the Beck Depression Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 289–299.
Kennedy, M.L., Faust, D., Willis, W.G., & Piotrowski, C. (1994). Social-emotional assessment practices in school psy-
chology. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 228–240.
Klopfer, W.G., & Taulbee, E.S. (1976). Projective tests. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 543–567.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Figure Drawings 269

Koppitz, E.M. (1968). Psychological evaluation of children’s human figure drawings. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Koppitz, E.M. (1984). Psychological evaluation of human figure drawings by middle school pupils. New York: Grune &
Stratton.
Kovacs, M. (1983). The Children’s Depression Inventory: A self-rated depression scale for school-aged youngsters. Uni-
versity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Unpublished manuscript.
Lilienfeld, S.O. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1,
27– 66.
Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing of a human figure. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Maloney, M.P., & Glasser, A. (1982). An evaluation of the clinical utility of the Draw-A-Person test. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 38, 183–190.
Martin, R.P. (1988). Assessment of personality and behavior problems: Infancy through adolescence. New York: Guilford
Press.
Matto, H.C. (2002). Investigation of the validity of the Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance:
A measurement validity study with high-risk youth. Psychological Assessment, 14, 221–225.
Matto, H.C., & Naglieri, J.A. (2005). Race and ethnic differences and human figure drawings: Clinical utility of the DAP:
SPED. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 706–711.
Matto, H.C., Naglieri, J.A., & Claussen, C. (2005). Validity of the Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional
Disturbance (DAP: SPED) in strength-based assessment. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 41– 46.
McClelland, D.M., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psycholog-
ical Review, 96, 690–702.
McNeish, T.J., & Naglieri, J.A. (1993) Identification of individuals with serious emotional disturbance using the Draw-A-
Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance. Journal of Special Education, 27, 115–121.
Merrell, K.W. (2003). Behavioral, social and emotional assessment of children and adolescents. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Motta, R.W., Little, S.G., & Tobin, M.I. (1993). The use and abuse of human figure drawings. School Psychology Quar-
terly, 8, 162–169.
Naglieri, J.A., McNeish, R.J., & Bardos, A.N. (1991). Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance.
Austin, TX: ProEd.
Naglieri, J.A., & Pfeiffer, S.I. (1992). Performance of disruptive behavior disordered and normal samples on the Draw-A-
Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance. Psychological Assessment, 4, 156–159.
O’Brien, R.P., & Patton, W.F. (1974). Development of an objective scoring method for the Kinetic Family Drawing.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 156–164.
Puig-Antich, J., & Ryan, N. (1986). Schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia for school-age children (K-SADS).
Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, Pittsburgh, PA. Unpublished manuscript.
Reithmiller, R.J., & Handler, L. (1997a). Problematic methods and unwarranted conclusions in DAP research: Suggestions
for improved research procedures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 459– 475.
Reithmiller, R.J., & Handler, L. (1997b). The great figure drawing controversy: The integration of research and clinical
practice. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 488– 496.
Reynolds, C.R. (1978). A quick scoring guide to the interpretation of children’s Kinetic Family Drawings. Psychology in
the Schools, 15, 513–526.
Reynolds, C.R., & Richmond, B.O. (1985). Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS). Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
Roback, H. (1968). Human Figure Drawings: Their utility in the clinical psychologist’s armamentarium for personality
assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 1–19.
Rushton, J.P., Brainerd, C., & Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral development and construct validity: The principle of aggre-
gation. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 18–38.
Stricker, G. (1967). Actuarial, naive clinical, and sophisticated clinical prediction of pathology from figure drawings.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 13, 492– 494.
Suinn, R.M., & Oskamp, S. (1969). The predictive validity of projective measures: A fifteen year evaluative review of
research. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Swensen, C. (1957). Empirical evaluations of human figure drawings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 431– 466.
Swensen, C. (1968). Empirical evaluation of human figure drawings: 1957–1966. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 20– 44.
Teglasi, H. (1998). Assessment of schema and problem-solving strategies with projective techniques. In M. Hersen & A.
Bellack (Series Eds.) & C. Reynolds (Vol. Ed.), Comprehensive clinical psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 559–599). London:
Elsevier.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

270 Flanagan and Motta

Tharinger, D.J., & Stark, K.D. (1990). A qualitative versus quantitative approach to evaluating the Draw-A-Person and
Kinetic Family Drawings: A study of mood and anxiety disorder children. Psychological Assessment, 2, 365–375.
Vane, J.R. (1968). Vane Kindergarten Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 121–154.
Vane, J.R., & Guarnaccia, V. (1989). Personality theory and personality assessment measures: How useful to the clinician?
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 5–19.
Wilson, M.S., & Reschly, D.J. (1996). Assessment in school psychology training and practice. School Psychology Review,
25, 9–23.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits