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

ange of tests administered. They also presented figures for patients cross classified by
diagnosis, but they gave no group numbers or indication of the range of tests performed).
This left a total of 11 studies (69, 56, 75, 35, 46, 44, 21, 57, 38, 36, 33) for meta analysis
of variables between group categories of measurable drawing elements.
There were 5 further departures from the tabulated discursive elements between
these 11 studies:
1. Unreliable variables were removed from the analysis.
2. Non significant results were included in the analysis. The procedure for
studies which did not quote figures for non-significant variables (studies
38, 69, 56 216 , 35, and 44) was to assume a significance value of 1.000 217
(Study 38 did note frequent signs and these are marked and noted in the
table).
3. Study 44 reported p levels only for their positive results, and these were
converted to Z scores and then into effect sizes, along with results from
tests other than Chi-square or t-tests, which were converted directly to
effect sizes 218 .
4. Study 36 and 46 listed but did not test individual variables (they were
grouped and discussed with the other tests under the tabulated areas of
216 Study 56 also reported significant results from other tests on covered space, yellow, blending and
variety of colour, but gave no reliability figures or indication of the range of tests which proved
nonsignificant, so these results were not included.
217 Recommended by Rosenthal (1984) op.cit. p.33.
218 Rosenthal (1984) op.cit. Recommended procedure to convert t or _ 2 to effect size - using broad theory:
Test of = Size of x Size of p.20-21 gives examples of relationships and equations.
significance Effect Study
169