Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Interpreting Drawings and Paintings for Diagnostic Purposes

No description
by

Curls Twirls

on 30 November 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Interpreting Drawings and Paintings for Diagnostic Purposes

Debate
Over-interpret or under-interpret?
Interpreting Drawings and Paintings for Diagnostic Purposes

Test Examples
Results/Criticism
Simple and fun test that takes little time to carry out
Reliability and validity are highly disputed
Little correlation between diagnoses and the interpretation of certain drawing features.
Connection between colours and emotions
Risk for illusory correlation = seeing two things as correlating more often than they do
Successful use of global ratings = looking at a drawing as a whole rather than interpreting certain details
useful for people who are less comfortable with speaking
Children's Drawings
Measures a child cognitive level but not intelligence
Good way to start talking about trauma
Ice breaker
Definition
1. Definition
2. Test Examples
3. Children's Art
4. Results/Criticism
5. Debate
House-Tree-Person
H-T-P
Draw-A-Person
D-A-P
Rorschach Inkblot Method
RIM
“The H-T-P (freehand drawing of
H
ouse,
T
ree, and
P
erson) is a technique designed to aid the clinician in obtaining information concerning the sensitivity, maturity, and integration of a subject's personality, and the interaction of that personality with its environment (both specific and general).” (Buck, J. N., 1948)
Projective Techniques
References
"[…] projective techniques typically present respondents with an ambiguous stimulus, such as an inkblot, and ask them to disambiguate this stimulus. In other cases, projective techniques require participants to generate a response (e.g., a drawing) following open-ended instructions (e.g., “Draw a person in any way you wish”). In addition, most projective techniques permit respondents considerable flexibility in the nature and sometimes even number of their responses.” (Lilienfeld et al., 2000)
The projective hypothesis
(Originally from S. Freud (1911)):
“[...] respondents project aspects of their personalities in the process of disambiguating unstructured Test stimuli. As a consequence, the projective technique interpreter can ostensibly “work in reverse” by examining respondents' answers to these stimuli for insights regarding their personality dispositions." (Lilienfeld et al., 2000)

"[...] a) bypass or circumvent the conscious defenses of respondents and b) allow clinicians to gain privileged access to important psychological information of which the respondents are not consciously aware" (Lilienfeld et al., 2000)
Outline
(Hermann Rorschach Archives and Museum, University of Bern)

Connections
persons home life
interpersonal dynamics within family setting
Theory is that house represents:
“main place of affection and security”
“sources of nurture and support”
“figures associated with home”
Also environment
Developmental differences can also be expressed:
children reflect personal position towards parents or siblings
married adults focus on relationship
emotional indicators only provide "limited insight"
“related to one's life role and one's capacity to obtain perceived reinforcement from the environment”
considered to give “insights to life content”
according to Oster and Crone interpretations can illustrate “accurate biographical situations as well as offer personal characteristics” of the examinee
seems to mirror “longstanding, unconscious feelings toward the self”
emotions reside outside of primitive basic level of functioning
apparently is is easier to project bad feelings → not connected to person or home
Person represents “[...] perceptions of themselves or who they wish to be.”
triggers “[...] conscious awareness of bodily image and self-concept”
often the most difficult for client to draw
According to Oster and Crome (2004) the HTP is useful as a:
"screening device for detecting maladjustment"
"evaluative aid for children entering school"
"appraisal device in screening applicants for employment"
"research instrument to locate common factors in an identified group of people." (Oster, Crone, 2004)
General
“The H-T-P is a two-phased approach to the personality.
The first phase
is non-verbal, creative, almost completely unstructured; the medium of expression is a relatively primitive one, drawing.
The second phase
is verbal, apperceptive, and more formally structured; in it the subject is provided with an opportunity to define, describe, and interpret the objects drawn and their respective environments and to associate concerning them.” (Buck, J. N. (1948)
Instructions
:
draw a house, a tree, and a person on separate papers.
No more additional comments (size etc.). (Oster, Crone, 2004)
While the participant is drawing the person testing has a more passive role which involves
observing and documenting
the order, any comments, emotions, the latency period any pauses as well as the time spent on the drawing. (Killian, G. A. (1984)
Method
Interpreting
“[...] perceptions of themselves or who they wish to be.”
triggers “[...] conscious awareness of bodily image and self-concept”
often the most difficult for client to draw
Originally, "Draw-a-Man" from Goodenough (Harris) (1926) to estimate children’s mental development.
General:
The test was adjusted by Machover (1949) and became the
D
raw-
a
-
P
erson Test. (Laak et al., 2005)
In the D-A-P Test the examiner asks the client to draw a person and afterward to draw a person of the opposite gender to that of the first drawing.
The drawing is evaluated based on different subjective interpretations of certain aspects of the drawing
Method and Interpretation
which gender was drawn first
different characteristics in the two drawings
(Bekhit et al. 2005)
“The
R
orschach
I
nkblot
M
ethod (RIM) is a psychometrically sound performance-based personality assessment instrument that consists of 10 inkblots printed individually [...].
General
Hermann Rorschach developed 10 two-sided symmetrical cards and published the first German version (1921). (Corsini Vol. 4)
First Phase:
“The RIM is administered by showing people the cards one at a time and asking them to say what they see in them.”
1. “[...] example of how they customarily deal with decision-making and problem-solving situations in their lives.”
2. “[...] clues to a person's underlying needs, attitudes, and concerns.”
3. “[…] provides some indications of how they are generally likely to to conduct themselves in task-orientated and interpersonal situations.”
Second Phase:
In this phase the clients are asked to explain in which part of the inkblots they saw their association and what part made them associate with their response.
Results can provide:
Method and Interpretation
(Oster, Crone, 2004)
(Oster, Crone, 2004)
(Oster, Crone, 2004)
Example Drawing
(Malchiodi, 1998 Copyrighted material, 1997)
Arteche, Adriane, Bandeira, Denise & Hutz, Claudio S. 2010. Draw-a-Person test: The sex of the first-drawn figure revisited. The Arts in Psychotherapy 37(1), 65–69.
Bekhit, Nawal S., Thomas, Glyn V. & Jolley, Richard P. 2005. The use of drawing for psychological assessment in Britain: Survey findings. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 78(2), 205–217.
Buck, John N. 1948. The H-T-P test. J. Clin. Psychol. 4(2), 151–159.
Craighead, W. E. & Weiner, Irving B. 2010a. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. 4. ed., rev. ed. of: The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology and behavioral science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Craighead, W. E. & Weiner, Irving B. 2010b. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. 4. ed., rev. ed. of: The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology and behavioral science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hunsley, John, Lee, Catherine M. & Wood, James M. 2003. Controversial and Questionable Assessment Techniques, in Lilienfeld, Scott O., Lynn, Steven J. & Lohr, Jeffrey M. (Hg.): Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. New York: Guilford Press, 39–76.
Kellogg, Rhoda 1970. Analyzing children's art. Palo Alto, Calif: Mayfield Pub. Co.
Killian, G. A. 1984. House-Tree-Person Technique, in Keyser, Daniel J. & Sweetland, Richard C. (Hg.): Test critiques. Kansas City, Mo: Test Corporation of America, 338–351. URL: http://www.killianphd.com/Portals/0/House-Tree-Person%20(H-T-P).pdf [Stand 11.18.2013].
Laak, J. T., u.a. 2005. The Draw-A-Person Test: An Indicator of Children's Cognitive and Socioemotional Adaptation? The Journal of Genetic Psychology 166(1), 77–93.
Lilienfeld, Scott O., Wood, James M. & Garb, Howard N. 2000. The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques. Psych Science Public Interest 1(2), 27–66.
Malchiodi, Cathy A. (Hg.) 2012. Handbook of art therapy. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
Meyer, Gregory J. & Viglione, Donald J. 2008. An Introduction to Rorschach Assessment, in Archer, Robert P. & Smith, Steven R. (Hg.): Personality assessment. New York: Routledge, 281–336.
Oster, Gerald D. & Crone, Patricia G. 2004. Using drawings in assessment and therapy: A guide for mental health professionals. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Palmer, L., u.a. 2000 // 1998. An investigation of the clinical use of the house-tree-person projective drawings in the psychological evaluation of child sexual abuse // Drawing conclusions: a re-examination of empirical and conceptual bases for psychological evaluation of children from their drawings. Child Maltreat 5 // 37 (Pt 2)(2), 169–175 // 127–139.
Thomas, G. V. & Jolley, R. P. 1998. Drawing conclusions: a re-examination of empirical and conceptual bases for psychological evaluation of children from their drawings. Br J Clin Psychol 37 (Pt 2), 127–139.
Full transcript