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

There were more reliable elements than unreliable, but the studies examined here do not
represent the major part of the literature in their clear, and mostly objective, definitions
of search criteria. Only 27% of the controlled test situations are represented here and
1.8% from the case studies. There were 15 formal and 37 content categories, split
between 21 subjective and 16 objective decisions. 5 subcategories were found to be
unreliable, all of them subjective.
Unreliable elements of pictures seemed to predominate in interpretation, fine
distinctions between two similar elements and global judgements. Raters could not
identify symbols, themes or the continuity of themes between pictures, whether several
ideas were expressed, differentiate ordinary from bizarre content, identify childlike
elements, incest markers or self images or use their own criteria for patient versus non
patient status judgements. They could not describe a painting, whether it was unified,
organised or coherent, nor decide whether elements were used structurally, agree on care
or craftsmanship (although they recognised quality). Detail decisions were inconsistent:
although raters could identify length of lines they could not tell if particular types
predominated, whether lines were jagged or used for fill in, whether shapes were more
regular than other shapes, amount of single colours, whether colours were thick or pure
(although they could differentiate watery or mixed colour) and the consistency or
intensity of colour. They did not agree on errors of size and placing, on omission, lack
of detail or decoration, perseveration, whether motion was conveyed by colour, line by
blotches or whether dabs were used for form, mass, texture or decoration (although they
could for blotches).
157