See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/51122866

Validation Study of Human Figure Drawing Test in a Colombian School

Children Population

Article  in  The Spanish Journal of Psychology · May 2011

DOI: 10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.42 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

3 689

6 authors, including:

Alberto Velez-van-Meerbeke Claudia Talero-Gutiérrez

Universidad del Rosario Universidad del Rosario
105 PUBLICATIONS   416 CITATIONS    57 PUBLICATIONS   272 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Karen J Halliday
The University of Edinburgh
144 PUBLICATIONS   3,801 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Neurodesarrollo View project

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Claudia Talero-Gutiérrez on 07 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Spanish Journal of Psychology Copyright 2011 by The Spanish Journal of Psychology
2011, Vol. 14 No. 1, 464-477 ISSN 1138-7416
doi:10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.42

Validation Study of Human Figure Drawing Test

in a Colombian School Children Population

Alberto Vélez van Meerbeke, Carolina Sandoval-Garcia,

Milciades Ibáñez, Claudia Talero-Gutiérrez,
Dolly Fiallo, and Karen Halliday
Universidad del Rosario (Colombia)

The aim of this article was to assess the validity of the emotional and developmental components of the Koppitz human
figure drawing test. 2420 children’s drawings available in a database resulting from a previous cross sectional study
designed to determine the prevalence of neurological diseases in children between 0 and 12 years old in Bogota schools
were evaluated. They were scored using the criteria proposed by Koppitz, and classified into 16 groups according to
age, gender, and presence/absence of learning or attention problems. The overall results were then compared with the
normative study to assess whether descriptive parameters of the two populations were significantly different. There were
no significant differences associated with presence/absence of learning and attention disorders or school attended within
the overall sample. An Interrater reliability test has been made to assure the homogeneity of scoring by the evaluator team.
There were significant differences between this population and that of the original study. New scoring tables contextualized
for our population based on the frequency of appearance in this sample are presented. We can conclude that various ethnic,
social, and cultural factors can influence the way children draw the human figure. It is thus important to establish local
reference values to adequately distinguish between normality and abnormality. The new scoring tables proposed here
should be followed up with a clinical study to corroborate their validity.
Keywords: children, validation, concordance, human figure drawing test.

El trabajo tiene como objetivo fue validar los componentes evolutivos y emocionales del test de Koppitz del dibujo de la figura
humana. Se revisaron 2420 dibujos de niños de la base de datos de un estudio de corte transversal realizado previamente
para evaluar la prevalencia de enfermedades neuropediátricas en niños de 0 a 12 años de colegios de Bogotá y fueron
divididos en 16 grupos organizados de acuerdo a edad, género y de presentación o no de problemas del aprendizaje o
de la atención y evaluados bajo los parámetros propuestos por Koppitz. No se encontraron diferencias entre los grupos
por la presencia o no de trastornos, ni entre el tipo de establecimiento educativo. Se realizó una prueba de concordancia
interevaluador para homogenizar la calificación. Se encontraron diferencias con la clasificación propuesta por Koppitz por lo
que se construyeron nuevas tablas de calificación, teniendo en cuenta los porcentajes de presentación en el presente estudio.
A manera de conclusiones se puede decir que diferentes factores socioculturales y étnicos influyen en ítems específicos
del dibujo de la figura humana en el niño. Es de gran importancia tener valores referenciales locales para poder establecer
diferencias reales entre lo normal y lo anormal. Se debe realizar un estudio para validar clínicamente las tablas propuestas.
Palabras clave: niños, validación, concordancia, test del dibujo de la figura humana.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alberto Velez Van Meerbeke. Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la
Salud. Universidad del Rosario. Carrera 24 N° 63C-69. Bogotá. (Colombia). Phone: +57-1-3474560/70 ext. 380. Fax: +57-1-3499410.
E-mail: [email protected]

464

14.1.indb 464 10/03/2011 19:59:00

 VALIDATING THE HUMAN FIGURE DRAWING TEST 465

The development of the ability to draw the human Even so, Catte and Cox (1999) are emphatic that the
figure in children is closely allied with neurodevelopment interpretation of the emotional items should be done with
in general, especially the development of the visual caution. They emphasize that despite the statistically
and motor skills associated with drawing and writing greater number of indicators in the drawings of children
(Goodenough, 1964). with some emotional disturbances, the differences
The evaluation of the Human figure drawings (HFD) in between the drawings of emotionally affected and well-
children dates from several centuries back and has served adapted children are not sufficiently significant to be used
not only as a tool for assessment of maturity, with the clinically. It is more important to analyze how the items
idea of characterizing the relation between drawing and are integrated into the drawing, their occurrence in several
intellectual capacity, but also to evaluate some traits and drawings separated in time, and compare the findings with
projective aspects of personality (Cox, 1993; Goodenough, additional psychological tests as well as the children’s own
1964; Koppitz, 2004). commentaries about the drawing. It is essential as well,
One of the most influential works in this context has to take into account potential cultural differences before
been the Human figure drawing Test (HFD) designed diagnosis (Colom et al., 2007; Skybo et al., 2007).
by Elizabeth Koppitz (2004), whose results correlated Notwithstanding that the Human figure drawing test is
significantly with other tests and Intellectual Quotient widely used in Colombia and has been used in previous
(IQ) percentiles. In general, the correlation between the studies (Aptekar, 1989; González, 1982; Pérez-Olmos,
developmental items with mental maturity (Groves & Pinzón, Gonzalez-Reyes, & Sánchez-Molano, 2005),
Fried, 1991) and the validity of the test as an approximate there is no validation or standardization of the test in this
measure of a child’s intelligence has been corroborated in context. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the
various studies in which the test has been used as part of normative values and parameters are valid in a population
a child neuropsychological evaluation (Abell, Von Briesen, geographically, linguistically and culturally different from
& Watz, 1996; Brito, Alfradique, Pereira, Porto, & Santos, that of Koppitz’s (2004) original work.
1998; Rae & Hyland, 2001). Nevertheless, several studies
have questioned this connection, considering a potential Methods
confounding effect of early enriching experiences, social
stereotypes, socioeconomic differences (Colom, Flores- Participants
Mendoza, & Abad, 2007; Flores-Mendoza, Abad, & Lele,
2005), presence of external stressors in the child’s history, A preliminary group of 3802 children between 5 and 12
learning experiences and formal or informal educational years old who had been suspected by parents or teachers
stimulation, among other factors (Merino Soto, Honores of some neurological disturbances was studied. This non-
Mendoza, García Ramirez, & Salazar Alvarez, 2007). probabilistic cross sectional sample was derived from a
The emotional indicators were defined by Koppitz previous analysis of the prevalence of pediatric neurological
(2004) as objective signs reflecting children’s worries diseases in an overall population of about 10,500 from
or anxieties. To be considered as valid they have to meet Bogotá schools. This group was studied with a battery of
the following characteristics: they are clinically valid, that neuropsychological tests selected for the purpose of this
is, they differentiate children with and without emotional investigation, composed of: screening checklist for TDAH
problems; they are considered as exceptional according of the DSM IV (Pineda et al., 1999; Pineda et al., 2001),
to the child’s age, that is, they occur in 15% or less of all Test of Visual Motor Integration VMI (Beery, Buktenica,
drawings; and they are not related to developmental stage & Beery, 2004), BADYG differential and general aptitude
hence they do not increase with age. The normative study test (Yuste Herranz, 1998), and a clinical evaluation by a
found that 30 items of a group of 38 initially proposed neurologist, occupational therapist, and audiologist.
(derived from the work of Machover (1949) and Hammer According to the results of the tests and the clinical
(1958) and the author’s own clinical experience) have a evaluations, a subgroup of 939 children was identified as
clinical validity (Koppitz, 2004). In general, emotional “with disorders”. A random sample of the children of the
indicators do not show a direct correlation with any same age and sex with normal performances constituted
objective scale (different from the case of developmental a control group of 1481 designated “without disorders”.
items with IQ); nevertheless they have been highlighted The overall group on which this analysis is based is thus
as a possible tool in multiple stressful situations, including 2458 school children, whom we classified according to
psychiatric upsets or sexual abuse and some consider their sex, age, and with disorder/without disorder (Table 1).
usefulness in screening for anxiety and depression and even An uncorrected Pearson’s Chi –squared test was used to
as a tool in the initial pediatric consultation (Skybo, Ryan- evaluate the homogeneity of the sample; there were no
Wenger, & Su, 2007; Sturner, Rothbaum, Visintainer, & significant differences between groups when evaluated for
Wolfer, 1980; Tielsch & Allen, 2005). age, sex, disturbance, and type of school attended.

14.1.indb 465 10/03/2011 19:59:00

 466 VÉLEZ VAN MEERBEKE, SANDOVAL-GARCIA, IBÁÑEZ, TALERO-GUTIÉRREZ, FIALLO, AND HALLIDAY

Sample size Instruments

The calculation of the sample size for this group was In this study we used the Human figure drawing Test
carried out by the hypothesis method for a proportion of designed by Elizabeth Koppitz (2004), as a simplification
a population for boys and girls in each grade between 5 of the test initially proposed by Goodenough (1964), which
and 12 years, based on the following criteria: variability has been used widely in several countries. Then main
measured by the variance by estimators of the proportions, characteristics evaluated with the Koppitz test are: A set
taking as interval the minimum and maximum value of the of items mostly related to the level of mental maturity
Koppitz proportions and as a reference value to evaluate of the child without taking into account school level or
the hypothesis of goodness of fit, the maximum sample artistic aptitude, denoted “Developmental Items”; and a
size. The minimum expected difference was made based series of characteristics or attributes of the drawings which
on the difference in the value of the normal parameter correspond to attitudes, fears or worries denoted “Emotional
(null hypothesis) and the expected value according to the Indicators”. In this author’s study 30 Developmental
null hypothesis ( ∂ = Po − Pa ), which was .07 (7%). Items were selected for evaluation in 1856 drawings with
For the estimation processes, the relative precision of the the purpose of analyzing the frequency of appearance
estimators and the relative standard error (er) were taken according to age (5-12 years) and to gender. According to
into account. This estimation precision indicator was the percentage found, each item was classified in one of
defined as the quotient between the standard error and four categories: Expected (86-100%), Common (51-85%),
the estimation obtained. An er ≤ 20% was expected to be Fairly Common (16-50%), and Exceptional (0-15%). It was
considered a precise estimator with a 95% confiability and proposed that the absence of an expected item indicated
a power of 83%. There was an adjustment of 10% for the immaturity, developmental delay or cognitive disorder.
expected losses. It was considered that the Common and Fairly Common

Table 1
Relationships among age, gender, and presence/absence of disorders
Without disorder With disorder Total
Age group Gender
N° % N° % N° %

5 years M 84 5.7 62 6.6 146 6.0

F 74 5.0 41 4.4 115 4.8
M 120 8.1 70 7.5 190 7.9
6 years
F 80 5.4 50 5.3 130 5.4
M 137* 9.3 56 6.0 193 8.0
7 years
F 80 5.4 64 6.8 144 6.0
M 128 8.6 86 9.2 214 8.8
8 years
F 96 6.5 62 6.6 158 6.5
M 118 8.0 76 8.1 194 8.0
9 years
F 116 7.8 72 7.7 188 7.8
M 107 7.2 75 8.0 182 7.5
10 years
F 109 7.4 60 6.4 169 7.0
M 76 5.1 60 6.4 136 5.6
11 years
F 76 5.1 49 5.2 125 5.2
M 45 3.0 34 3.6 79 3.3
12 years
F 35 2.4 22 2.3 57 2.4
Total 1481 939 2420

* p = .003

14.1.indb 466 10/03/2011 19:59:00

 VALIDATING THE HUMAN FIGURE DRAWING TEST 467

categories were not important for the diagnosis and that the For the emotional indicators, a frequency analysis of the
final category, Exceptional, was important as a potential appearance of each item has been used and the results of the
indicator of above-average mental maturity. general sample with those of the subgroups were analyzed
Each child was asked for a drawing according to Koppitz’s for possible differences.
instruction (2004). The evaluator gave the following order:
“Please draw a whole person on this sheet of paper. It can Results
be any person you want to draw, as long as it is a whole
person, and not a cartoon or a stick figure.” Each child was From the initial total sample of 2458 children, 38
given a pencil, an eraser and a piece of letter-size paper. The drawings were excluded for the following reasons: absence
questions that arose from the children were answered vaguely. of the drawing, one of the psychological tests missing or
The author’s hypothesis was that the scores obtained insufficient personal information. These lost data were
with the test can be considered equivalent to IQ ranges. analyzed by sex, grade level, and disturbance category
These results correlated significantly with the scores and no significant reduction was found in the number of
obtained in different test and formal IQ percentiles (Groves drawings needed for the analysis in any of these categories;
& Fried, 1991). This validity of the HFD analysis to estimate the numbers were within the expected losses and were
intelligence quotient or as an approximate measure of a adjusted for in the design of the sample.
child’s intelligence proposed initially by Koppitz (2004) The study sample comprised 2420 children, 1086 girls
has been corroborated in several studies in which the test (44.9%) and 1334 boys (55.1%) with an average age of
has been used as part of children’s neuropsychological 8.27 +/- 2.04 years (range 5-12 years). 1265 attended public
assessment (Abell et al., 1996; Brito et al., 1998; Rae & schools and 1155 attended private schools (or public schools
Hyland, 2001). Abell’s (1994) study shows a significant in concession to private education enterprises). There was
correlation between the HFD score analyzed with Koppitz’s no difference in the presence or absence of disorders with
and Goodenough’s (1964) systems with the IQ scores using relation to this parameter (p = .44).
specific tests like WISC-R or Stanford-Binet. As a first step The statistical analysis of the evaluator consistency was
in evaluating validity, an inter-scorer reliability must be initially less than the minimal acceptable standards (Kappa
made. (Abell et al., 1996). Hyland and Rae (2001) carried coefficient of .80) in some of the developmental items
out a study with the test proposed by Koppitz(2004) and and in all of the emotional items. Therefore, the drawings
found a high inter-observer concordance. with the greatest number of discrepancies were selected
and evaluators re-scored them; at the same time, weekly
Data analysis meetings to discuss the criteria for each item of the test
were carried out. Later on, another concordance analysis
Drawings were evaluated using the Koppitz test in a sample of 25 drawings was done and there was an
parameters. First, four evaluators were trained to score improvement in Kappa indices to good or to very good in
the drawings. Then they evaluated a random subsample of 83% of the developmental items and in 70% of the emotional
347 drawings as a pilot study, to analyze inter-observers items. Only three developmental items and five emotional
concordance for each of the 30 developmental and 30 items had Kappa values less than 40%. Nevertheless, with
emotional items, applying the unweighted Kappa coefficient only one exception, all items had concordance scores
and a confidence interval of 95%. greater than 80%, which was considered adequate to begin
After scoring all the drawings, the validity of the test the scoring of the total sample, with weekly team meetings
was assessed by an adjusted goodness of fit test for each to discuss cases in which there were ambiguities in the
developmental item, relating Koppitz’s (2004) results with score and collectively define them more precisely. The
the findings of the general sample by direct calculation of Colombian sample and the normative Koppitz sample
exact binomial probabilities or binomial approximation were compared with reference to each item by age group
of the normal distribution for one sample (n > 100). Then, and gender. An overall analysis of all individual items and
using the same methodology, the Koppitz table and the independently for age group and gender yielded strong and
general sample were analyzed with the subgroups of significant Spearman rank correlation coefficients (rs > .80;
children classified as “with disorder” or “without disorder” p < .001) in the majority of the groups; two groups were
to evaluate whether there might be significant differences slightly lower with values of .765 and .799 (Table 2).
between them. Adjustment for the multiple hypothesis in There were significant differences in the percentages of
the study group of 5-12 year olds of both sexes, (16 groups occurrence of developmental items in the Colombian and
for each item of the human figure) was done using the Koppitz populations (Appendices A and B). There were
Bonferroni adjustment, in which each individual hypothesis some small but significant differences between Colombian
increases the significance level from 5% (p < .05) to p = .55. children classified as “with disorder” or “without-disorder”,
Thus the equivalent Bonferroni-adjusted significance level, but we felt these were not large enough to account for the
instead of 5%, is p = .0031, or p ≤ .003. former differences.

14.1.indb 467 10/03/2011 19:59:01

 468 VÉLEZ VAN MEERBEKE, SANDOVAL-GARCIA, IBÁÑEZ, TALERO-GUTIÉRREZ, FIALLO, AND HALLIDAY

Table 2
Spearman rank correlation coefficients between age group and gender
Age (years) Girls Boys

5 .813 .855
6 .800 .838
7 .855 .888
8 .813 .878
9 .840 .876
10 .846 .849
11 .799 .856
12 .765 .838
Note: p < .001 for all correlation coefficients.

Taking into account the assignment of categories and The differences found in Koppitz’s (2004) normative
percentages of occurrence of items in the population study and the present sample might be due to a variety
described by Dr. Koppitz, a new table of data and of factors. The following aspects were taken into account
qualification is proposed according to the results obtained when the validation was considered: the evaluation team
from the sample of the present study (Appendices C and D). consisted in a group of professionals and medical students
For the normative study of emotional items, two of trained by an experienced psychologist in the application of
the three premises proposed by Koppitz were considered: the test. By the end of an initial period for clarifying criteria,
occurrence in 15% or less of studied individuals and no an inter-observer correlation coefficient of 80% was
increase with age. The third premise, (there must be clinical achieved, similar to others studies (Williams, Fall, Eaves,
validity in order to discriminate children with and without & Woods-Groves, 2006). Lack of precision in the criteria
emotional problems), was not taken into account since for some of the items (for example “good proportions”) and
there was no psycho-behavioral study of the children in the resulting differences in interpretation can probably account
sample. Differences between general, “with disorder” and for some of the remaining inconsistencies.
“without disorder” groups were analyzed. Homogeneity was On the other hand, there might be some variations
found, with some small exceptions that did not interfere
attributable to ethnic or cultural differences between the
with the general scoring or alter the inclusion of each item
Colombian children evaluated and the white North American
as an emotional indicator (Appendices E and F).
children characterized in Koppitz’s (2004) study. Although
In both boys and girls there were four items that
not considered in Koppitz’s (2004) original work, it has
exceeded the proposed limits: short arms, Legs pressed
been demonstrated that those differences, are important
together, no nose, and no neck; for this reason these items
in the interpretation of intelligence or developmental tests
were excluded from the final table. Other items occurred
at different ages from the Koppitz group (Table 3). “Arms (Catte & Cox, 1999). In addition, our results and Merino
clinging to body” behaved as an emotional indicator before Soto reports (2007) could be explained by the Flynn
12 years of age, although in the group of nine-year old boys effect (Flynn, 2007), which consider changes in cognitive
there was a percentage greater than 16. skills, across time, influenced by social, cultural, and
environmental factors. As a result, this is a hypothesis that
Discussion can be the basis for future studies.
We agree with Merino Soto (2007) that other condition
Since drawing is an activity that usually delights which can explain the variations, is that the first study
children, it provides an easily-applied study method for (Koppitz) was carried out and normalized at the end of
evaluating skills or emotions. Specifically, the Human the 1960’s and the other two in the first decade of the 21st
figure drawing Test has frequently been used for clinical century. Television, internet access, and various socio-
psychological evaluation or to study learning disabilities. cultural situations are clear and decisive influences on a
Its use can be extended as a screening tool in primary child’s development and, concomitantly, in the human
care consultations or at school, since it does not involve drawing figure and its evolution (Colom et al., 2007;
complicated procedures or techniques. Nevertheless, Flores-Mendoza et al., 2005). Tanaka (2004) shows that
baseline studies contextualizing the test are necessary, since even children’s physical characteristics can affect their
results can vary depending on the population under study drawing and according to statistics, the height and weight
(Merino Soto et al., 2007). of children has increased in recent decades.

14.1.indb 468 10/03/2011 19:59:01

 VALIDATING THE HUMAN FIGURE DRAWING TEST 469

Table 3
Modifications in the age of occurrence of emotional indicators
Koppitz This Sample
Emotional Indicators in the HFD
Boys Girls Boys Girls
Poor integration of parts 7 6 8 8
Shading of Face 5 5 5 5
Shading of body and limbs 9 8 5 5
Shading of hands and neck 8 7 5 5
Gross asymmetry of limbs 5 5 5 5
Slanting figure 5 5 8 8
Tiny figure 5 5 6 6
Big figure 8 8 5 5
Transparencies 5 5 5 5
Tiny head 5 5 5 5
Crossed or diverted Eyes 5 5 5 5
Teeth 5 5 5 5
Long arms 5 5 5 5
Arms clinging to body 5 5 <12 <12
Big hands 5 5 5 5
Hands cut off 5 5 8 8
Genitals 5 5 5 5
Monster or grotesque figure 5 5 5 5
Three or more figures Spontaneously drawn 5 5 5 5
Clouds 5 5 5 5
No eyes 5 5 5 5
No mouth 5 5 5 5
No body 5 5 5 5
No arms 6 5 5 5
No legs 5 5 5 5
No feet 9 7 6 6
Legs pressed together 5 5 EXCLUDED
Short arms 5 5 EXCLUDED
No Nose 6 5 EXCLUDED
No Neck 10 9 EXCLUDED

Overall, children develop their execution of the human It is necessary to mention as well, the possible
drawing figure, including universal items of the structure of methodological differences in the conformation of
the human body and successively add specific items as they Koppitz’s normative sample and this one: the former
advance in their recognition of themselves (Merino Soto included all the boys and girls in selected public schools
et al., 2007). There are elements that count in the scoring from all socioeconomic strata while ours evaluated boys
that are the product of the environment in which the child and girls from low and middle-class public and private
lives (dresses, accessories, hair, etc.) and that vary among schools. In both studies, convenience samples were used:
cultures, which could be responsible for some differences in the original study, the entire school group comprised
found (Colom et al., 2007; Merino Soto et al., 2007). the sample; the present one is based on a group identified
In this sense, the results of the present study, as well as with learning or attention disorders using specific tests,
those carried out in London by Catte and Fox (1999) and in and another without these disorders selected by random
Peru by Merino Soto (2007) corroborate that the use of the sampling in a proportion of 1:1.5. Although the distribution
Human figure drawing Test, as an important evaluating tool by sex and age was similar to Koppitz’s (2004), it would
for children, should be interpreted with reference to current be necessary to know the prevalence of these problems in
and locally validated scoring parameters. the author’s group to confirm that the samples were truly

14.1.indb 469 10/03/2011 19:59:01

 470 VÉLEZ VAN MEERBEKE, SANDOVAL-GARCIA, IBÁÑEZ, TALERO-GUTIÉRREZ, FIALLO, AND HALLIDAY

similar. It is worth mentioning that all the children included investigators keep in mind the results presented, and carry
in our study are in regular schools and had undergone the out a local validation in order to have appropriate normative
Human figure drawing Test before the diagnosis of their data, since the parameters set by Dr. Koppitz may not be
learning and attention difficulties; therefore all of them valid at the time of evaluating our children
might have been included in the sample “without disorder”. These local reference scores are of great importance for
Moreover, according to these evaluations there were no perceiving real differences between normal and abnormal.
children with severe learning or attention disorders or with In the present work we propose new tables that will serve
incapacitating neurological syndromes. as a basis for analysis of potential correlations between the
When we first found out that our results were different human figure drawing test and other intelligence, learning,
from Koppitz’s (2004), we decided to evaluate whether or and developmental tests.
not the results obtained from the children with and without Even so, it is important to emphasize that interpretation
disorders would account for this. We found that there must be done cautiously, due to the large subjective
were no significant differences between the subgroups component that exists in the scoring of Koppitz’s criteria.
in the percentages of the appearance of developmental It is also important to continue working in this area in
items. In the case of the emotional items we did the same order to validate clinically the potential association among
comparison with the total sample and the groups with and the findings of the human figure drawing test and other
without disorders. There were some small disparities, but specific tests of cognitive, linguistic, and learning skills,
there were no overall significant differences between the as well as those directly related to affective aspects of
subgroups and the general sample. neuropsychological development.
We present a new table of normalized data based
on the results of this study. This would result in a new References
index following the steps described by Koppitz (2004) to
establish a score for mental maturity. Her original index of Abell, S. C., Von Briesen, P. D., & Watz, L. S. (1996). Intellectual
intellectual function was found to be highly correlated with evaluations of children using human figure drawings:
intellectual quotients as measured by the WISC test. an empirical investigation of two methods. Journal of
Some of the emotional items were present at different Clinical Psychology, 52, 67-74. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-
ages in relation to Koppitz’s normalization, so they have 4679(199601)52:1<67::AID-JCLP9>3.0.CO;2-T
been modified; others were withdrawn because the frequency Aptekar, L. (1989). Characteristics of the street children of
exceeded the established percentage. As a result, it would be Colombia. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13, 427-437. doi:10.
necessary to verify the criterion of clinical validity through 1016/0145-2134(89)90083-5
an analysis of a group of normal and psychologically Beery, K. E., Buktenica, N. A., & Beery, N. A. (2004). Beery VMI:
disturbed children to determine the usefulness of these The Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor
emotional items’ modifications. Catte and Cox (1999) Integration, (5th ed.). Parsippany, NJ: Modern Curriculum
described in a similar way their modifications in emotional Press.
items: only 16 items remained unchanged; five (shading Brito, G., Alfradique, G., Pereira, C., Porto, C., & Santos, T.
of the face, shading of body and limbs, big figure, short (1998). Developmental norms for eight instruments used in
arms, and Legs pressed together) had unusual distributions the neuropsychological assessment of children: studies in
and were considered not valid, two indicators (teeth and Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research,
omission of the neck) did not fulfill the criteria in boys and 31, 399-412. doi:10.1590/S0100-879X1998000300012
so were only considered in girls; and eight items changed Catte, M., & Cox, M. (1999). Emotional indicators in children’s
the age at which they could be considered as indicators. human figure drawings. European Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 8, 86-91. doi:10.1007/s007870050089
Conclusions Colom, R., Flores-Mendoza, C. E., & Abad, F. J. (2007).
Generational changes on the draw-a-man test: a comparison
The Human figure drawing test continues to be a basic of Brazilian urban and rural children tested in 1930, 2002 and
evaluation instrument because of the information it provides 2004. Journal of Biosocial Science, 39, 79-89. doi:10.1017/
with regards to maturity and emotional states, as well as the S0021932005001173
natural tendency of children to draw. This easy to apply test Cox, M. V. (Ed.). (1993). Children’s drawings of the human figure.
can be a useful tool for teachers and professionals of child Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
development to screen children suspected of maturational, Flores-Mendoza, C., Abad, F., & Lele, A. (2005). Análise de itens
emotional, attention, or learning problems. Nevertheless, do desenho da figura humana: aplicação de TRI. [Item analysis
several different socio-cultural and ethnic factors influence of human figure drawings test: aplication of IRT]. Psicologia.
the evolution of specific items in the human drawing figure Teoria e Pesquisa (Online), 21, 243-254. doi:10.1590/S0102-
in a child. It is therefore important that clinicians and 37722005000200015

14.1.indb 470 10/03/2011 19:59:01

 VALIDATING THE HUMAN FIGURE DRAWING TEST 471

Flynn, J. R. (2007) Beyond the Flynn Effect. In J. R Flynn, What is Pineda, D. A., Lopera, F., Henao, G. C., Palacio, J. D., Castellanos,
Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect (pp 4-47). Cambridge, F. X., & Grupo de Investigación Fundema. (2001).
MA: Cambridge University Press. Confirmación de la alta prevalencia del trastorno por déficit de
Gonzalez, E. (1982). A cross-cultural comparison of the atención en una comunidad colombiana. [Confirmation of the
developmental items of five ethnic groups in the southwest. high prevalence of attention deficit disorder in a colombian
Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 26-31. doi:10.1207/ community]. Revista de Neurología, 32, 217-222.
s15327752jpa4601_6 Rae, G., & Hyland, P. (2001). Generalisability and classical test
Goodenough, F. (1964). Test de Inteligencia Infantil por medio del theory analyses of Koppitz’s scoring system for human figure
dibujo de la figura humana. [Measurement of intelligence by drawings. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71,
drawings] Buenos Aires: Paidos. 369-382. doi:10.1348/000709901158569
Groves, J. R., & Fried, P. A. (1991). Developmental items on Skybo, T., Ryan-Wenger, N., & Su, Y. H. (2007). Human figure
children’s human figure drawings: a replication and extension drawings as a measure of children’s emotional status: critical
of Koppitz to younger children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, review for practice. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 22, 15-28.
47, 140-148. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199101)47:1<140::AID- doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2006.05.006
JCLP2270470123>3.0.CO;2-L Sturner, R., Rothbaum, F., Visintainer, M., & Wolfer, J. (1980).
Hyland, P., & Rae, G. (2001). Generalisability and classical test The Effects of Stress on Children´s Human Figure Drawings.
theory analyses of Koppitz’s Scoring System for Human Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 324-331. doi:10.1002/1097-
Figure Drawings. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 4679(198001)36:1<324::AID-JCLP2270360146>3.0.CO;2-6
71, 369-382. doi:10.1348/000709901158569 Tanaka, C., & Sakuma, H. (2004). Human figure drawing size
Koppitz, E. (2004). El dibujo de la figura humana. [Human figure and body image in preschool children from a self-physique
drawing test]. Buenos Aires: Editorial Guadalupe perspective. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 691-700.
Merino Soto, C., Honores Mendoza, L., García Ramirez, W., & doi:10.2466/PMS.99.5.691-700
Tielsch, A. H., & Allen, P. J. (2005). Listen to them draw:
Salazar Alvarez, G. (2007). Una evaluación normativa de los
screening children in primary care through the use of human
ítems evolutivos en el dibujo de la figura humana de Koppitz.
figure drawings. Pediatric Nursing, 31, 320-327.
[Normative evaluation of Koppitz’s Human Figure Drawing
Williams, T. O., Fall, A. M., Eaves, R. C., & Woods-Groves, S.
test developmental items scoring]. Nuevos Paradigmas, 1,
(2006). The reliability of scores for the Human figure drawing
77-95.
intellectual ability test for children, adolescents, and adults.
Pérez-Olmos, I., Pinzón, A. M., Gonzalez-Reyes, R., & Sánchez-
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 137-144.
Molano, J. (2005). Influencia de la televisión violenta en
doi:10.1177/0734282905285249
niños de una escuela pública de Bogotá, Colombia. [Influence
Yuste Herranz, C. (1998). Batería de aptitudes diferenciales y
of violent TV upon children of a public school in Bogotá,
generales BADYG E1. [BADYG E1 differential and general
Colombia]. Revista de Salud pública, 7, 70-88. doi:10.1590/
aptitude test] Madrid: CEPE SL.
S0124-00642005000100006
Pineda, D., Henao, G., Puerta, I., Mejía, S., Gómez, L., Miranda,
L., et al. (1999). Uso de un cuestionario breve para el
diagnóstico de deficiencia atencional. [The usefulness of a Received April 29, 2009
short questionnaire for the diagnosis of attention deficiency]. Revision received June 21, 2010
Revista de Neurología, 28, 365-372. Accepted July 1, 2010

14.1.indb 471 10/03/2011 19:59:02

14.1.indb 472
APPENDIX A 472

RESULTS OF THE VALIDATION STUDY OF DEVELOPMENTAL ITEMS IN BOYS FROM THE HUMAN FIGURE DRAWING TEST ACCORDING
TO KOPPITZ (K) AND THIS SAMPLE (HFD).

5 years 6 years 7 years 8 years 9 years 10 years 11 years 12 years

Developmental items
K HFD p K HFD p K HFD p K HFD p K HFD p K HFD p K HFD p K HFD p

n 128 146 131 190 134 193 138 214 134 194 109 182 105 136 52 79
Head 100 97 1 100 100 1 100 100 1 100 99,5 1 100 99 1 100 100 1 100 100 1 100 100 1
Eyes 98 95 .009 99 98 .124 99 97 .046 99 98 .168 100 99 1 100 99 1 100 100 1 100 100 1
Nose 87 59 .000 91 79 .000 91 73 .000 91 80 .000 100 82 .000 97 87 .000 97 90 .000 100 89 .000
Mouth 92 88 .044 97 95 .062 97 96 .359 95 98 .016 99 97 .014 98 97 .301 97 99 .083 100 100 .999
Body 89 93 .064 97 96 .345 98 97 .192 99 99 .361 100 98 .000 100 99 .000 99 98 .156 100 97 .000
Legs 97 92 .005 98 98 .528 99 98 .13 97 99 .043 99 99 .579 99 100 .161 98 96 .138 100 95 .000
Arms 84 86 .264 95 96 .262 96 98 .048 96 98 .068 100 98 .000 98 98 .505 99 98 .156 100 95 .000
Feet 73 73 .512 80 90 .025 87 85 .229 86 94 .000 90 90 .176 96 98 .144 95 88 .001 94 91 .195
Fingers 61 61 .527 60 80 .000 86 95 .000 96 95 .354 98 97 .195 97 96 .183 99 95 .000 100 95 .000
Hair 54 62 .026 72 83 .000 84 93 .000 93 95 .177 98 98 .545 99 99 .544 97 94 .053 100 94 .000
Arms in two dimensions 48 64 .000 62 90 .000 76 87 .000 78 84 .016 81 93 .000 89 92 .141 88 96 .002 90 90 .186
Legs in two dimensions 37 62 .000 70 90 .000 57 65 .017 71 75 .097 78 84 .023 86 79 .007 93 82 .000 94 84 .001
Arms pointing downwards 21 32 .001 35 55 .000 55 63 .013 60 70 .000 81 74 .008 89 74 .000 93 76 .000 98 78 .000
Neck 26 36 .006 27 59 .000 76 78 .263 72 82 .000 81 87 .025 84 86 .304 83 77 .050 94 84 .001
Hands 33 36 .222 42 48 .058 50 63 .001 55 70 .000 70 70 .186 58 76 .000 69 80 .002 56 71 .005
Ears 25 20 .088 33 22 .001 42 27 .000 40 20 .000 52 60 .018 54 64 .005 79 64 .000 77 84 .103
Eyebrows or eyelashes 21 7 .000 28 12 .000 37 19 .000 37 21 .000 59 28 .000 59 35 .000 67 29 .000 65 29 .000
Pupils 11 36 .000 22 34 .001 38 40 .267 38 51 .000 69 92 .000 52 40 .001 54 41 .002 58 41 .001
Feet in two dimensions 8 67 .000 22 86 .000 43 84 .000 50 95 .000 56 59 .199 51 63 .001 57 68 .007 58 56 .380
Correct number of fingers 13 5 .001 26 9 .000 38 12 .000 40 20 .000 50 24 .000 72 98 .000 74 88 .000 75 90 .001
Arms correctly attached to
3 8 .005 14 22 .002 24 39 .000 40 50 .014 42 34 .009 50 20 .000 55 21 .000 46 25 .000
shoulders
Good proportions 2 82 .000 5 95 .000 23 95 .000 26 96 .000 31 96 .000 42 99 .000 38 98 .000 50 97 .000
Nostrils 2 3 .335 5 7 .096 15 0 .000 25 2 .000 18 5 .000 29 3 .000 29 3 .000 29 0 .000
Profile 1 2 .181 3 1 .074 10 0 .000 15 6 .000 15 7 .001 28 9 .000 16 15 .394 21 14 .075
Elbows 1 1 .571 6 2 .010 4 5 .368 11 4 .000 15 5 .011 23 8 .000 20 10 .000 35 9 .000
Two lips 2 0 .052 2 1 .105 6 1 .001 8 2 .000 8 4 .001 15 8 .002 17 7 .001 19 5 .000
Knees 0 0 1 3 1 .074 1 0 .144 4 1 .027 10 0 .000 10 0 .000 11 0 .000 15 1 .000
Clothing: 0-1 items 90 89 .389 70 83 .000 46 70 .000 37 74 .000 32 56 .000 30 52 .000 23 43 .000 4 52 .000
Clothing: 2-3 items 9 11 .241 25 14 .000 31 25 .052 37 22 .000 37 37 .486 27 41 .000 39 50 .006 46 43 .340
VÉLEZ VAN MEERBEKE, SANDOVAL-GARCIA, IBÁÑEZ, TALERO-GUTIÉRREZ, FIALLO, AND HALLIDAY

Clothing: 4 or more items 1 0 .231 5 3 .083 23 5 .000 26 5 .000 31 8 .000 43 7 .000 38 7 .000 50 5 .000

10/03/2011 19:59:03
14.1.indb 473
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF THE VALIDATION STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL ITEMS IN GIRLS FROM THE HUMAN FIGURE DRAWING TEST
ACCORDING TO KOPPITZ (K) AND THIS SAMPLE (HFD).

5 years 6 years 7 years 8 years 9 years 10 years 11 years 12 years

Developmental items
K HFD p K HFD p K HFD p K HFD p K HFD p K HFD p K HFD p K HFD p

n 128 115 131 130 134 144   138 158 134 188 109 169 105 125 52 57
Head 100 100 1 100 100 1 100 100 1 100 100 1 99 100 1 100 100 1 100 100 1 100 100 1
Eyes 100 100 1 100 100 1 100 100 1 100 98 1 99 100 1 100 100 1 98 100 .080 100 100 1
Nose 90 70 .000 95 63 .000 92 74 .000 92 72 .000 93 78 .000 95 80 .000 97 85 .000 98 82 .003
Mouth 91 96 .047 100 95 .000 100 100 1 98 97 .211 99 98 .291 99 99 .505 97 99 .108 98 100 .316
Body 91 97 .006 94 97 .104 100 100 1 99 99 .530 99 99 .019 100 99 1 100 100 1 100 98 1
Legs 97 92 .008 93 98 .005 99 96 .003 94 99 .003 99 98 .516 95 97 .147 96 98 .120 96 98 .329
Arms 91 90 .340 98 95 .016 99 95 .001 100 100 1 99 98 1 100 98 1 100 99 1 100 100 1
Feet 85 90 .104 91 95 .046 94 96 .233 97 97 .906 99 97 .012 98 99 .341 96 98 .120 96 100 .098
fingers 75 77 .400 89 86 .183 94 91 .093 90 100 .008 99 97 .012 94 96 .114 96 100 .006 95 98 .25
Hair 2 70 .000 77 85 .021 91 81 .003 96 89 .004 99 87 .000 99 88 .000 100 86 .000 100 93 .000
Arms in two dimensions 59 59 .529 68 71 .283 86 81 .043 86 88 .280 92 87 .016 92 85 .001 96 86 .001 96 88 .008
Legs in two dimensions 46 66 .000 67 84 .000 71 69 .370 65 81 .000 93 67 .000 94 66 .000 96 68 .000 100 70 .000
Arms pointing downwards 25 37 .004 37 60 .000 62 56 .092 76 65 .001 76 79 .169 94 72 .000 96 82 .000 100 86 .004
Neck 39 47 .050 44 55 .010 59 54 .137 73 70 .192 78 73 .056 71 48 .000 85 50 .000 93 54 .000
Hands 33 24 .028 48 27 .000 57 54 .220 59 74 .000 60 70 .001 63 76 .000 72 79 .042 73 79 .196
Ears 19 37 .000 34 37 .269 60 30 .000 70 40 .000 79 49 .000 74 43 .000 84 49 .000 76 53 .001
VALIDATING THE HUMAN FIGURE DRAWING TEST

Eyebrows or eyelashes 29 30 .482 38 55 .000 51 41 .010 59 45 .001 74 51 .000 78 59 .000 67 57 .011 76 58 .002
Pupils 29 11 .000 19 8 .001 18 8 .000 16 6 .000 53 95 .000 65 95 .000 70 100 .000 75 95 .000
Feet in two dimensions 18 3 .000 24 6 .000 38 15 .000 44 12 .000 52 49 .221 82 83 .357 77 86 .012 71 86 .007
Correct number of fingers 7 71 .000 19 82 .000 34 85 .000 33 94 .000 19 13 .015 19 14 .042 61 99 .000 60 100 .000
Arms correctly attached to shoulders 2 93 .000 2 95 .000 27 27 .523 33 46 .001 46 16 .000 82 22 .000 38 29 .020 27 21 .196
Good proportions 6 5 .460 14 5 .000 17 92 .000 19 98 .000 26 98 .000 43 98 .000 24 20 .173 20 20 .272
Nostrils 4 3 .320 5 5 .475 20 0 .000 21 7 .000 26 11 .000 17 8 .000 19 11 .013 25 4 .000
Profile 0 3 .001 7 2 .005 5 3 .269 17 2 .000 28 4 .000 21 7 .000 25 11 .000 27 11 .002
Elbows 1 1 .680 7 2 .017 11 1 .000 8 0 .000 19 11 .001 24 8 .000 40 10 .000 45 12 .000
Two lips 5 8 .123 11 25 .000 7 4 .058 5 6 .268 13 1 .000 15 1 .000 9 0 .000 16 0 .000
Knees 2 0 .098 2 1 .264 1 1 .577 3 2 .299 4 4 .480 5 3 .147 12 6 .013 9 5 .234
Clothing: 0-1 items 70 89 .011 52 69 .000 35 62 .000 27 50 .000 16 38 .000 15 30 .000 14 30 .000 9 21 .004
473

Clothing: 2-3 items 27 11 .019 40 29 .007 42 34 .031 46 45 .426 40 51 .001 35 50 .000 30 54 .000 25 53 .000
Clothing: 4 or more items 3 0 .326 8 2 .001 23 4 .000 27 5 .000 44 11 .000 50 20 .000 56 16 .000 66 26 .000

10/03/2011 19:59:04
 474 VÉLEZ VAN MEERBEKE, SANDOVAL-GARCIA, IBÁÑEZ, TALERO-GUTIÉRREZ, FIALLO, AND HALLIDAY

APPENDIX C
PERCENTAGES OF BOYS THAT INCLUDE EACH DEVELOPMENTAL ITEM IN THE HFD, ACCORDING TO
THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY.

5 years 6 years 7 years 8 years 9 years 10 years 11 years 12 years

Expected Expected Expected Expected Expected Expected Expected Expected
Head 97 Head 100 Head 100 Head 100 Head 99 Head 100 Head 100 Head 100
Eyes 95 Eyes 98 Eyes 97 Eyes 98 Eyes 99 Eyes 99 Eyes 100 Eyes 100
Body 93 Body 96 Body 97 Body 99 Body 98 Body 99 Body 98 Body 97
Legs 92 Legs 98 Legs 98 Legs 99 Legs 99 Legs 100 Legs 96 Legs 95
Mouth 88 Mouth 95 Mouth 96 Mouth 98 Mouth 97 Mouth 97 Mouth 99 Mouth 100
Arms 86 Arms 96 Arms 98 Arms 98 Arms 98 Arms 98 Arms 98 Arms 95
Common Feet 86 2D Arms 95 Feet 98 Feet 92 Feet 98 Feet 88 Feet 91
Feet 73 2D Feet 86 2D Legs 93 2D Feet 95 2D Feet 92 2D Feet 98 2D Feet 88 2D Feet 90
2D Feet 67 2D Arms 90 Hair 87 2D Arms 95 2D Arms 97 2D Arms 96 2D Arms 95 2D Arms 95
2D Arms 64 2D Legs 88 Common 2D Legs 95 2D Legs 98 2D Legs 99 2D Legs 94 2D Legs 94
2D Legs 62 Common Feet 85 Common Hair 93 Hair 92 Hair 96 Hair 94
Hair 62 Hair 83 2D Feet 84 Hair 84 Fingers 87 Fingers 86 Nose 90 Nose 89
Fingers 61 Fingers 78 Fingers 78 Fingers 82 Common Nose 87 Common Common
Nose 59 Nose 79 Nose 73 Nose 80 Nose 82 Common Fingers 77 Fingers 84
Fairly common Neck 59 Neck 63 Neck 72 Neck 74 Neck 74 Neck 76 Neck 78
Neck 36 APD 55 APD 65 APD 75 APD 84 APD 79 APD 82 APD 84
APD 32 Fairly common Hands 63 Hands 70 Hands 73 Hands 76 Hands 80 Hands 71
Hands 36 Hands 48 Fairly common Pupils 51 Pupils 59 Pupils 63 Pupils 68 Pupils 56
Pupils 36 Pupils 34 Pupils 40 Fairly common ACAS 60 ACAS 64 ACAS 64 ACAS 65
Ears 20 Ears 22 Ears 27 Ears 19 Fairly common Fairly common Fairly common Fairly common
Exceptional ACAS 22 ACAS 39 ACAS 48 Ears 28 Ears 35 Ears 29 Ears. 29
ACAS 8 Exceptional Eyebrows 19 Eyebrows 21 Eyebrows 34 Eyebrows 40 Eyebrows 41 Eyebrows 41
Eyebrows 7 Eyebrows 12 Exceptional CNF 21 CNF 24 CNF 20 CNF 21 CNF 25
CNF 5 CNF 9 CNF 12 Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional
Nostrils 3 Nostrils 7 Nostrils 3 Nostrils 6 Nostrils 7 Nostrils 9 Nostrils 15 Nostrils 14
Profile 2 Profile 1 Profile 0 Profile 2 Profile 5 Profile 3 Profile 3 Profile 0
Elbows 1 Elbows 2 Elbows 5 Elbows 4 Elbows 5 Elbows 8 Elbows 5 Elbows 9
Two lips 0 Two lips 1 Two lips 1 Two lips 2 Two lips 4 Two lips 8 Two lips 7 Two lips 5
Knees 0 Knees 1 Knees 0 Knees 1 Knees 2 Knees 0 Knees 0 Knees 1
Clothing Clothing Clothing Clothing Clothing Clothing Clothing Clothing
0-1 item 89 0-1 ítem 83 0-1 ítem 69 0-1 ítem 73 0-1 ítem 55 0-1 ítem 52 0-1 ítem 42 0-1 ítem 52
Expected Common Common Common Common Common Fairly common Common
2-3 items 11 2-3 items 14 2-3 items 25 2-3 items 22 2-3 items 37 2-3 items 41 2-3 items 50 2-3 items 43
Fairly Fairly Fairly Fairly Fairly Fairly
Exceptional Exceptional common   common   common   common   common   common  
4 items 0 4 items 3 4 items 5 4 items 5 4 items 8 4 items 7 4 items 8 4 items 5
Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional

APD: Arms pointing downwards; ACAS: Arms correctly attached to shoulders; CNF: Correct number of fingers; 2D Feet: feet in tywo
dimensions; 2D Arm: arms in two dimensions; 2D legs: legs in two dimensions; 0-1 item: clothing 0-1 items; 2-3 items: clothing 2-3 items;
4 items: clothing 4 or more items

14.1.indb 474 10/03/2011 19:59:05

 VALIDATING THE HUMAN FIGURE DRAWING TEST 475

APPENDIX D
PERCENTAGES OF GIRLS THAT INCLUDE EACH DEVELOPMENTAL ITEM IN THE HFD, ACCORDING
TO THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY.

5 years 6 years 7 years 8 years 9 years 10 years 11 years 12 years

Expected Expected Expected Expected Expected Expected Expected Expected

Head 99 Head 100 Head 99 Head 100 Head 100 Head 100 Head 100 Head 100
Eyes 99 Eyes 98 Eyes 100 Eyes 98 Eyes 100 Eyes 100 Eyes 100 Eyes 100
Mouth 96 Mouth 95 Mouth 100 Mouth 97 Mouth 98 Mouth 99 Mouth 99 Mouth 100
Body 97 Body 97 Body 98 Body 99 Body 99 Body 99 Body 100 Body 98
Legs 92 Legs 98 Legs 96 Legs 99 Legs 98 Legs 97 Legs 98 Legs 98
Arms 90 Arms 95 Arms 95 Arms 99 Arms 98 Arms 98 Arms 99 Arms 100
Hair 90 Hair 95 Hair 96 Hair 97 Hair 97 Hair 99 Hair 98 Hair 100
Common Feet 86 Feet 91 Feet 96 Feet 97 Feet 96 Feet 100 Feet 98
Feet 77 Common Common 2D Feet. 94 2D Feet 95 2D Feet 95 2D Feet 98 2D Feet 95
2D Feet 71 2D Feet 82 2D Feet 85 2D Arms 89 2D Arms 87 2D Arms 88 2D Arms 86 2D Arms 93
2D Arms 70 2D Arms 85 2D Arms 81 2D Legs 88 2D Legs. 87 Common 2D Legs 86 2D Legs 88
2D Legs 66 2D Legs 84 2D Legs. 81 Common Common 2D Legs 85 Fingers 86 Fingers 86
Fingers 59 Fingers 71 Fingers 69 Fingers 81 Fingers 79 Fingers 83 Common APD 86
Nose 65 Nose 63 Nose 74 Nose 72 Nose 78 Nose 80 Nose 85 Common
Fairly common APD 55 APD 54 APD 70 APD 73 APD 72 APD 82 Nose 82

APD 30 Hands 55 Hands 53 Hands 74 Hands 71 Hands 76 Hands 79 Hands 79

Hands 47 Neck 60 Neck 56 Neck 65 Neck 67 Neck 66 Neck 68 Neck 70
Neck 37 Fairly common Fairly common Fairly common Pupils 51 Pupils 59 Pupils 57 Pupils 58
Pupils 37 Pupils 37 Pupils 41 Pupils 45 Fairly common Fairly common Fairly common Eyebrows 53

Eyebrows 24 Eyebrows 27 Eyebrows 33 Eyebrows 45 Eyebrows 49 Eyebrows 43 Eyebrows 48 ACAS 54

Exceptional ACAS 25 ACAS 27 ACAS 46 ACAS 49 ACAS 48 ACAS 50 Fairly common

ACAS 8 Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional CNF 16 CNF 22 CNF 29 CNF 21

CNF 3 CNF 6 CNF 15 CNF 12 Exceptional Exceptional Ears 20 Ears 16
Ears 11 Ears 8 Ears 8 Ears 6 Ears 13 Ears 14 Exceptional Exceptional
Nostrils 5 Nostrils 5 Nostrils 4 Nostrils 7 Nostrils 11 Nostrils 8 Nostrils 11 Nostrils 4
Two lips 3 Two lips 5 Two lips 3 Two lips 2 Two lips 4 Two lips 7 Two lips 11 Two lips 11
Elbows 3 Elbows 2 Elbows 3 Elbows 6 Elbows 11 Elbows 8 Elbows 10 Elbows 12
Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 1 Profile 0 Profile 1 Profile 1 Profile 0 Profile 0
Knees 0 Knees 1 Knees 1 Knees 2 Knees 4 Knees 3 Knees 6 Knees 5
Clothing   Clothing   Clothing   Clothing   Clothing   Clothing   Clothing   Clothing  
0-1 item 79 0-1 item 69 0-1 item 61 0-1 item 50 0.1 item 38 0-1 item 30 0.1 item 30 0-1 item 21
Common Common Common Fairly common Fairly common Fairly common Fairly common Fairly common
2-3 items 18 2-3 items 29 2-3 items 34 2-3 items 45 2.3 items 51 2-3 items 50 2-3 items 54 2-3 items 53
Fairly common Fairly common Fairly common Fairly common Common Fairly common Common Common
4 items 3 4 items 2 4 items 5 4 items 5 4 items 11 4 items 20 4 items 16 4 items 26
Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional Exceptional Fairly common Fairly common Fairly common

APD: Arms pointing downwards; ACAS: Arms correctly attached to shoulders; CNF: Correct number of fingers; 2D Feet: feet in tywo dimensions; 2D Arm:
arms in two dimensions; 2D legs: legs in two dimensions; 0-1 item: clothing 0-1 items; 2-3 items: clothing 2-3 items; 4 items: clothing 4 or more items.

14.1.indb 475 10/03/2011 19:59:06

 476 VÉLEZ VAN MEERBEKE, SANDOVAL-GARCIA, IBÁÑEZ, TALERO-GUTIÉRREZ, FIALLO, AND HALLIDAY

APPENDIX E
RESULTS OF THE VALIDATION STUDY OF EMOTIONAL ITEMS OF THE HFD TEST IN BOYS BY
AGE (YEARS).

Item 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Poor integration of parts 25.3 24.2 17.1 14.0 6.2 8.2 3.7 8.9
Shading of Face 4.8 3.7 9.8 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.2 5.1
Shading of body and limbs 2.1 3.7 3.1 1.4 4.1 4.4 4.4 7.6
Shading of hands and neck 2.7 3.2 2.1 .9 .5 .5 .0 1.3
Gross asymmetry of limbs 5.5 6.8 2.6 .9 .5 1.6 1.5 1.3
Slanting figure 25.3 18.4 14.0 10.3 7.1 3.7 11.4
Tiny figure 17.1 14.7 8.8 9.8 4.6 8.2 8.8 .0
Big figure 2.1 1.6 3.6 4.7 2.6 1.1 1.5 .0
Transparencies 4.1 3.2 1.6 2.3 3.1 3.8 2.2 5.1
Tiny head 1.4 .0 .0 .9 .0 .0 .0 .0
Crossed eyes 1.4 .5 2.6 3.7 4.6 6.0 5.1 5.1
Teeth 2.1 4.2 8.8 7.5 8.2 12.1 8.1 6.3
Short arms 22.1 21.8 15.9 14.4 14.8 8.8 21.5
Long arms 2.7 6.3 4.1 7.0 4.1 2.2 2.2 2.5
Arms clinging to body 4.1 3.7 10.4 6.1 16.5 11.0 8.8 19.0
Big hands 1.4 1.1 2.1 .0 1.0 .5 1.5 1.3
Hands cut off 34.9 16.8 17.1 14.0 9.3 8.2 8.8 13.9
Legs pressed together 8.2 15.8 3.6 29.9 38.1 3.8 3.1 31.6
Genitals .7 1.1 1.6 1.4 2.1 2.2 .7 3.8
Monster or grotesque figure .7 .5 2.1 .5 1.5 2.2 .0 .0
Three or more figures Spontaneously drawn 2.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 1.5 .0
Clouds 7.5 8.4 4.1 4.7 4.1 2.2 3.7 1.3
No eyes 5.5 2.1 2.6 2.3 1.0 1.1 .0 .0
No nose 41.1 21.1 25.9 19.2 17.5 11.5 9.6 12.7
No mouth 12.3 4.7 3.6 1.9 2.6 2.2 .7 .0
No body 6.8 1.6 1.0 .5 1.5 .0 2.2 2.5
No arms 13.7 3.7 1.6 1.4 2.1 1.6 2.2 3.8
No legs 6.8 2.6 2.1 .9 1.0 .0 3.7 5.1
No feet 25.3 13.2 15.0 5.6 7.7 2.2 11.8 8.9
No neck 64 38 37 27 24 26 25 19

14.1.indb 476 10/03/2011 19:59:06

 VALIDATING THE HUMAN FIGURE DRAWING TEST 477

APPENDIX F
RESULTS OF THE VALIDATION STUDY OF EMOTIONAL ITEMS OF THE HFD TEST IN GIRLS BY
AGE (YEARS).

Item 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Poor integration of parts 26.1 23.1 17.4 13.9 14.9 13.0 11.2 8.8
Shading of Face 1.7 1.5 3.5 2.5 3.7 7.1 4.0 5.3
Shading of body and limbs 1.7 2.3 2.8 1.9 3.2 4.1 1.6 3.5
Shading of hands and neck .0 .0 .0 1.9 .0 .6 .8 .0
Gross asymmetry of limbs 3.5 1.5 .7 1.9 1.1 .6 .0 .0
Slanting figure 25.2 14.6 16.7 14.6 8.5 6.5 4.8 7.0
Tiny figure 19.1 11.5 5.6 7.6 3.7 3.6 4.0 1.8
Big figure .9 3.8 2.8 .6 .5 1.2 1.6 .0
Transparencies 1.7 1.5 2.8 3.2 3.2 1.2 2.4 1.8
Tiny head .9   .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Crossed eyes 1.7 1.5 2.1 4.4 3.2 8.3 5.6 5.3
Teeth 3.5 2.3 2.8 3.8 1.1 2.4 1.6 3.5
Short arms 27.8 36.2 34.7 31.0 26.1 16.0 17.6 15.8
Long arms 6.1 2.3 2.1 1.3 .0 1.2 .0 1.8
Arms clinging to body 1.7 10.0 10.4 9.5 12.2 13.6 9.6 19.3
Big hands .9 1.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Hands cut off 28.7 2.8 25.0 12.0 9.0 8.9 5.6 1.8
Legs pressed together 6.1 13.1 16.7 17.7 21.8 26.0 25.6 28.1
Genitals 2.6 1.5 1.4 .6 .5 2.4 3.2 1.8
Monster or grotesque figure 1.7 .0 .0 .6 .0 .6 .0 .0
Three or more figures Spontaneously drawn .9 1.5 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Clouds 4.3 6.2 6.9 7.6 6.9 7.1 3.2 1.8
No eyes .9 .8 .0 2.5 .0 .0 .0 1.8
No nose 33.0 36.2 25.0 27.2 2.7 19.5 15.2 15.8
No mouth 3.5 4.6 .7 3.2 1.6 1.2 .0 .0
No body 2.6 2.3 1.4 .0 .5 .6 .0 .0
No arms 8.7 4.6 4.9 .6 1.6 1.8 .8 .0
No legs 7.8 2.3 4.2 .6 1.6 1.8 .0 1.8
No feet 22.6 13.8 9.0 4.4 3.2 2.4 .0 1.8
No neck 64.3 4.8 41.0 34.2 3.9 3.8 29.6 29.8

14.1.indb
View477
publication stats 10/03/2011 19:59:06