A Cautionary Study: A Cautionary Study: Unwarranted Interpretations of Unwarranted Interpretations of

the Draw-A-Person Testthe Draw-A-Person Test

Professional Psychology:Professional Psychology:

Research and PracticeResearch and Practice

By: Lauren Hood, Olivia Flach, By: Lauren Hood, Olivia Flach,

Katie Champagne & Vanessa FloresKatie Champagne & Vanessa Flores

Smith, D., & Dumont F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the draw-a-person test. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 298-303.

ObjectivesObjectives Often, clinicians use tests that they have no Often, clinicians use tests that they have no

training in or that have uncertain validity. The training in or that have uncertain validity. The APA guidelines list that clinicians only give APA guidelines list that clinicians only give services in areas that they have an adequate level services in areas that they have an adequate level of experience and training in. A second obligation of experience and training in. A second obligation that clinicians have is that they interpret and place that clinicians have is that they interpret and place weights on assessments based on the test’s validity. weights on assessments based on the test’s validity.

This study was concerned with whether clinicians This study was concerned with whether clinicians were following APA guidelines or were were following APA guidelines or were interpreting assessments without adequate training interpreting assessments without adequate training or validity of the assessment. or validity of the assessment.

Smith, D., & Dumont F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the draw-a-person test. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 298-303.

HypothesesHypotheses The researchers hypothesized that The researchers hypothesized that

clinicians, inexperienced and experienced, clinicians, inexperienced and experienced, would form interpretations of a draw-a-would form interpretations of a draw-a-person test that was included in a case study person test that was included in a case study they were asked to review. they were asked to review.

The researchers also hypothesized that The researchers also hypothesized that clinicians would not express concerns with clinicians would not express concerns with the lack of validity of the draw-a-person the lack of validity of the draw-a-person test.test.

Smith, D., & Dumont F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the draw-a-person test. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 298-303.

MethodMethod The study looked at 18 clinical psychologists The study looked at 18 clinical psychologists

and 18 counseling psychologists. Half were and 18 counseling psychologists. Half were psychologists with at least 5 years experience psychologists with at least 5 years experience as a practicing clinician and the other half were as a practicing clinician and the other half were in a doctorial or masters program in counseling in a doctorial or masters program in counseling psychology. None of the students had training psychology. None of the students had training in projective tests and only half of the in projective tests and only half of the experienced group had training in projective experienced group had training in projective testing. testing.

Smith, D., & Dumont F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the draw-a-person test. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 298-303.

Draw-A-Person TestDraw-A-Person Test Grand scale: inferences that are based on Grand scale: inferences that are based on

large generalizations.large generalizations.o Ex. “The drawing is organized; it’s got all the Ex. “The drawing is organized; it’s got all the

parts where they are. No psychosis,” (Smith parts where they are. No psychosis,” (Smith and Dumont, 1995; pg. 301).and Dumont, 1995; pg. 301).

Feature specific: inferences that are explicit.Feature specific: inferences that are explicit.o Ex. “I see big shoulders. He must carry a heavy Ex. “I see big shoulders. He must carry a heavy

load,” (Smith and Dumont, 1995; pg. 301).load,” (Smith and Dumont, 1995; pg. 301).

Smith, D., & Dumont F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the draw-a-person test. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 298-303.

ResultsResults

22 of the 36 participants used the draw-a-22 of the 36 participants used the draw-a-person test in their assessment of a case file.person test in their assessment of a case file.

Of the 22, 7 used global measures and 20 Of the 22, 7 used global measures and 20 used feature specific measures (note 5 of used feature specific measures (note 5 of the 7 participants used both measures).the 7 participants used both measures).

Only 1 of the 36 participants said there was Only 1 of the 36 participants said there was a lack of validity in draw-a-person tests. a lack of validity in draw-a-person tests.

Smith, D., & Dumont F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the draw-a-person test. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 298-303.

Critical ReviewCritical Review The picture used in this study was drawn by The picture used in this study was drawn by

someone unrelated to the case file, which someone unrelated to the case file, which should have eliminated any possible should have eliminated any possible connection to the case file. connection to the case file.

The authors found that participants tended The authors found that participants tended to look for evidence in the draw-a-person to look for evidence in the draw-a-person test to substantiate their hypothesizes. test to substantiate their hypothesizes.

The study has convergent validity because The study has convergent validity because its results concurred with previous research.its results concurred with previous research.

Smith, D., & Dumont F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the draw-a-person test. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 298-303.

Critical ReviewCritical Review The results might have been influenced by The results might have been influenced by

demand characteristics to draw inferences on the demand characteristics to draw inferences on the draw-a-person test.draw-a-person test.

The study did not use random sampling, random The study did not use random sampling, random assignment, or have a control group.assignment, or have a control group.

The results are not necessarily correlated with The results are not necessarily correlated with whether participants would actually use projective whether participants would actually use projective testing in their own practicestesting in their own practices. The participants . The participants might have used the draw-a-person test just might have used the draw-a-person test just because it was there and available.because it was there and available.

Smith, D., & Dumont F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the draw-a-person test. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 298-303.