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

favoured (12% n=6) over post measures (6% n=3) for therapy state of patients. 12%
compared spontaneous pictures retrospectively.
No. of measures: 61% (n=31) of studies used only the test described and the diagnosis;
18% (n=9) used one other measure and 22% (n=11) used 3 or more.
Derivation of measure: 69% (n=35) of tests were either; designed for the study (23),
were adaptions of an existing test (8), or were observed or clinical ratings (4), and only
31% of studies used an established test.
The orientation variable shows 84% (n=43) of studies measured drawings produced for
the study and not as part of a therapy programme.
Measurement method: Scales have not been contrasted on this review as many studies
failed to provide coherent definitions of what they did measure, relying on common art
terms. Most studies included present or countable items, but this form of measurement
is not always objective as it often requires interpretation, if only in the sense that marks
must be recognised and judged against an internal model by the rater. For example, to
note that a head is or is not unusually large, a head must be reconstructed from the marks
on the paper and compared with what the rater thinks is normal.
This category brings together what is generally accepted as observable criteria: i.e.
those generally recorded in draw-a-person tests that there is little disagreement in
recognising. In applying the main test measure to the drawings, 41% (n=21) of tests
used a comparison requiring both subjective and objective judgments; 37% (n=19) used
a direct comparison of observable detail (e.g. draw a person tests); 12% used non art tests
(e.g. IQ, achievement, behavioural tests etc.).
98