1 / 8

A Cautionary Study: Unwarranted Interpretations of the Draw-A-Person Test

A Cautionary Study: Unwarranted Interpretations of the Draw-A-Person Test. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice By: Lauren Hood, Olivia Flach, Katie Champagne & Vanessa Flores.

tao
Download Presentation

A Cautionary Study: Unwarranted Interpretations of the Draw-A-Person Test

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Cautionary Study: Unwarranted Interpretations of the Draw-A-Person Test Professional Psychology: Research and Practice By: Lauren Hood, Olivia Flach, Katie 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.

  2. Objectives • Often, clinicians use tests that they have no training in or that have uncertain validity. The APA guidelines list that clinicians only give services in areas that they have an adequate level of experience and training in. A second obligation that clinicians have is that they interpret and place weights on assessments based on the test’s validity. • This study was concerned with whether clinicians were following APA guidelines or were interpreting assessments without adequate training 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.

  3. Hypotheses • The researchers hypothesized that clinicians, inexperienced and experienced, would form interpretations of a draw-a-person test that was included in a case study they were asked to review. • The researchers also hypothesized that clinicians would not express concerns with the lack of validity of the draw-a-person 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.

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

  5. Draw-A-Person Test • Grand scale: inferences that are based on large generalizations. • Ex. “The drawing is organized; it’s got all the parts where they are. No psychosis,” (Smith and Dumont, 1995; pg. 301). • Feature specific: inferences that are explicit. • Ex. “I see big shoulders. He must carry a heavy 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.

  6. Results • 22 of the 36 participants used the draw-a-person test in their assessment of a case file. • Of the 22, 7 used global measures and 20 used feature specific measures (note 5 of the 7 participants used both measures). • Only 1 of the 36 participants said there was 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.

  7. Critical Review • The picture used in this study was drawn by someone unrelated to the case file, which should have eliminated any possible connection to the case file. • The authors found that participants tended to look for evidence in the draw-a-person test to substantiate their hypothesizes. • The study has convergent validity because 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.

  8. Critical Review • The results might have been influenced by demand characteristics to draw inferences on the draw-a-person test. • The study did not use random sampling, random assignment, or have a control group. • The results are not necessarily correlated with whether participants would actually use projective testing in their own practices. The participants might have used the draw-a-person test just 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.

More Related