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

The common focus has been in the interpretation of the meaning of a message but
there are no agreements as to what form the message takes. Problems occur when the
associations of the rater or therapist are not clearly distinguished from those of the
patient, which likely alternative explanation is largely ignored by the literature. It is
dangerous to make assumptions about content, especially when dealing with psychosis.
The nature of the illness affects the verbal expulsions of psychotic people and therefore
ratings based on what they say may be inconsistent and fallacious. The distinction
between response and record is important because it is a primary assumption that what
is measured comes from the patient, otherwise discriminatory properties could be due to
other related issues than to what is described, thus producing erratic results.
The majority of the literature is of poor quality especially the reliability and
consistency of terminology in previous studies because though what is measured across
studies is described similarly, for example: line quality, heaviness of line, articulation,
what is understood by the term digresses from study to study. If we cannot assume
studies measure the same aspects because they use the same terms, studies, or variables
within studies, are not comparable.
There was a demonstrable and significant form effect, although it was low.
Content measures, such as bizarre imagery, disconnections, inappropriate or disordered
colour, perseveration, inessential detail and subject matter require judgments of intention
or meaning, are difficult to validate, difficult to define, unreliable and not specific to
psychiatric populations. Formal characteristics may be seem to have differentiating
183