Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


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.


PPAT Assessment

No description

Whitney Flanigan

on 29 April 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of PPAT Assessment

PPAT Person Picking an Apple from a Tree
Assessment History of the PPAT Viktor Lowenfeld used the PPAT with children beginning in the 1930s.

In 1987 Linda Gantt and Carmello Tabone began using the PPAT as a standardized drawing assessment along with the Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale (FEATS) which they were developing.

Gantt wanted to create a standardized formal assessment that focused on the objective form of the drawing rather than the subjective content of the drawing.

With the same directive they were able to see what formal elements changed within groups of people.

In other words there was an "emphasis on how people drew rather than what they drew." (Gant & Mills, 2001) FEATS FEATS Uses a 14 scale variable from 0 to 5 with half point increments. The features on the rating manual are prominence of color, problem-solving, space, color fit, developmental level, integration, implied energy, details of objects and environment, logic, realism, line quality, perseveration, rotation, and person.

These formal attributes are global so this assessment can be used with various people of different ages, gender, cultures, and artistic ability.

The FEATS was developed using art therapy and psychology literature, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM- IV) and the American Psychiatric Association. PPAT & FEATS The PPAT requires the standardized materials of white paper size 12" X 18" and a set of MR. SKETCH markers. The 12 colors in the set are black, brown, orange, yellow, red, hot pink, magenta, purple, turquoise, dark blue, green, and dark green.

The instructions are simply to "Draw a person picking an apple from a tree."

The client is given as much time as she or he needs to work on the drawing.

The artwork is assessed when the client is finished. The PPAT is assessed only using the fEATS. Observations or interviews about the final art product are not used.

When Gantt and Tabone started collecting these drawing in psychiatric hospitals they made sure to assess their patients as soon as they arrived at the hospital and then again right before they were discharged. PPAT & FEAT Gantt and Tabone collected 5,000 PPAT drawings for over 14 years from psychiatric hospitals.

They were able to group together drawings with similar "graphic equivalent of symptoms" (Gantt et. al. 1999) from patients with the diagnosis of schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar disorder (manic phase), and organic disorders.

People who are depressed often use less color, do not use much space on the paper and do not have many details in their drawing. They have a low score for these areas but are known to score high on logic and problem-solving.

People with the diagnosis of schizophrenia often use less color or inappropriate colors, few details, unrealistic or poorly drawn people, erratic line quality, and show poor problem solving such as drawing an abnormally large apple or drawing an abnormally long arm to reach for the apple. PPAT & FEATS 1. Prominence of color
2. Color fit
3. Implied energy
4. Space
5. Integration
6. Logic
7. Realism
8. Problem. solving
9. Developmental level
10. Details of objects and environment
11. Line quality
12. Person
13. Rotation
14. Perseveration

Total FEATS score Figure 1 Figure 2
1.0 3.0
1.5 3.0
2.0 3.0
1.5 2.5
1.5 3.5
1.5 3.5
0 3.0
0 3.5
2.0 3.5
0 1.5
3.0 3.0
0 2.5
2.0 5.0
4.0 5.0

20.0 45.0 Other Examples Gantt & Tinnin, 2007 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019745560600092X Malchiodi, 2003
Full transcript