The psychopathology of everyday art: a quantitative Study - World ...

eported differences between patients/controls or between subgroups. So, generally,
findings of difference increased with the number of judges 167 .
Summary: Whether or not studies found differences, they were poorly controlled, but
control was even poorer in studies finding no difference. Generally, all studies used test
items which measured more content than they intended to, but the studies finding
differences used mostly formal or mixed test measures which were consistent with the
aims of the study. The majority of 1 rater tests found differences, but of studies which
found differences, more multi-rater tests and more established tests were used, although
they used less criterion measures, more mixed measures than those finding no difference.
The studies finding no difference predominantly used instruments which measured
content qualities only, but were usually described as formal or mixed. They used less
raters, but slightly more criterion measures, more content tests, more behaviour tests and
many more self-developed tests (although all result levels had high percentages of self-
developed tests). A validity note is that as more criterion measures were added, the use
of form-only measures increased and mixed comparisons and content measures decreased.
This probably reflects the rigour of the studies.
Validity analysis of the literature
Tests designed for study: Very little evidence has yet been produced that characteristic
symptoms, which, when associated, lead to diagnostic categorisation of psychiatric status
167 If we assume that established tests have already been reliability tested.
105