Introduction
Almost everyone occasionally uses art and creativity to relax, to express themselves, or for enjoyment. The question therefore often arises as to whether one can detect a specific emotional problem or negative experience in students from their drawings. Images are forms of non-verbal communication. The study of drawing has a long historical tradition. There are many viewpoints on how drawing can be assessed. Drawing can be a means of projecting attitudes and motives, an expression of sensory-motor abilities, an expression of a particular developmental stage or level of intelligence, an expressive means of perceiving one’s own body, and signs of organic brain damage can also be recognized from drawing (Švancara, Švancarová, 1972). Švancara (1972) notes, for example, that the human figure drawing test should not be used to assess intelligence but only as a tool for refining the clinical picture of organic brain damage. Drawing should, however, also be part of diagnosis and of artefiletic activity itself. Orientationally, it shows intellectual development and can indicate impairment in visual perception, fine motor skills, sensorimotor orientation, and the interrelation of these areas. It also points to the development of visual memory and imagination (Škodová, Jedlička, 2003). For inclusive education, drawing is an appropriate diagnostic tool (Přinosilová, 2007; Müller, 2014). Through drawing, we can assess three levels of complexity. The first two levels can be linked to non-projective techniques, where psychometric considerations are applied most strongly (Šturma, Vágnerová, 2010). Examples include the graphomotor development level test, pattern tracing, and clock drawing test, among others. Thus, drawing is used to estimate the overall level of a child’s intellectual abilities. For these purposes, however, it is recommended to assess drawing only up to the age of 10–11. After that, drawing abilities usually do not develop much further (unless the child is gifted), and there is a simplification and reduction of details. The last level involves projective techniques, which are more demanding to evaluate (Müller, 2014). This includes, for example, drawing a person tearing an apple from a tree, drawing a family, drawing a magical family, drawing a house and a tree, drawing a story, and similar methods. In this contribution, we focus on the task of interpreting drawings and visual artefacts. We will offer useful information on the limitations and advantages of using visual expressions in diagnosis. We will describe promising trends in using drawings to understand students’ mental states and cognitive levels.
Drawing psychometric tests
A. Bender Gestalt test (T-92, 1938) This is one of the most popular drawing methods in clinical psychodiagnostics. It is a developmental diagnostic method for perceptual-motor functions and neurological injuries. It allows more sensitive interindividual differentiation. It can be used as part of a test battery when determining mental level, for example, in the diagnosis of delayed cognitive development, assessment of school maturity, identifying causes of school failure, and above all differential diagnosis of organic changes in the central nervous system. Its advantage is that it can also be used with students with hearing and speech disorders. The test is suitable to administer at the beginning of psychological assessment. It is designed for children from 5 to 11 years old and is used individually. The Rutgers Drawing Test (RDT) operates on a similar principle.
B. Tracing test (Matějček, Strnadová, T-32, 1974) This test assesses maturation, or disorders, of basic functions that participate in drawing imitation. It involves tracing geometric figures from a template; tasks do not have a thematic dimension as in human figure or family drawing. The performance does not require interpretation on additional levels. At the same time, the test allows easy and rapid assessment of fine motor control and visual perception, the level of their calibration, and it gives provisional information about lateralization. Neither analysis of the template nor drawing is time-limited; the client always has the model before them and can compare it during tracing with their emerging drawing, thereby reducing the load on visual memory and imagination. Tracing is done with the same means (drawn lines) and in the same two-dimensional form as the template. It still requires some general analytic-synthetic abilities. The test contains twelve geometric figures, combinations of triangles and squares representing flat and spatial forms. Templates are presented to children in increasing order of complexity. Quantitative scoring is based on a qualitatively defined line-tracing procedure. Symptomatic value regarding cerebral dysfunction may be identified from excessive tremor, incomplete lines, double lines, insufficient rendering of angles, as well as the overall grasp of the figure. The manual includes normed scores for children from 5 to 13 years. The authors report reduced performance (between 1st and 3rd percentiles) in children with diagnosed mild cerebral dysfunction compared with intact peers (Mikulajová, 2009).
C. Graphomotor Development Level Test (LTG, Lauster, Lauster, 1974) This test is intended to determine the current level of graphomotor skills and can also be used to map further development. A student is asked to reproduce 9 drawings from a model in sequence: circle, triangle, rectangle, wave, spiral, flower, and house. Scoring is done by comparing quality and similarity with the template; up to two points can be awarded for each drawing. It is designed for children from 4 to 7.5 years old.
D. Test of stars and waves (Avé-Lallemant, 1979) In creating this test, the author drew on graphology. The prerequisite for working with this test is that the student can understand the concept of star and wave and can represent that concept. The drawing is then done from memory, only from their own ideas and imagination. The instruction for children younger than 10 is: “Draw stars above the waves of the sea”; for older clients: “Draw a starry sky above the waves of the sea.” The stars are then evaluated by the form, and the waves by the depiction of movement. Overall spatial placement and quality of line are also assessed. For Czech conditions, this method was standardized in the 1990s by Kucharská and Šturma. It can be administered from age three. It includes three scoring scales: two focus on assessment of formal processing and one on correctness of the underlying image. It is used for diagnosing developmental level, graphomotor skills, and differential diagnostic purposes (organic CNS damage, learning disorders, children with NKS, and students with special educational needs).
E. Shape Discrimination Test (Švancara, T-105, 1976) The test builds on Bourdon attention tests and is based on simple geometric shape discrimination. On an A3 sheet of paper, 1,250 geometric shapes are arranged in 50 columns and 25 rows. The test uses five types of shapes, each of which can appear in any orientation (base position, rotated 90°, 180°, or 270°). The task for the student is to find and check the target shape in the rows, which the test administrator shows on a card before testing and which is used as the comparison standard. Speed and accuracy of searching are evaluated. The tasks focus on assessing perceptual capacity and perceptual changes during continuous activity that taxes attention. Norms were created for ages 8.6 to 17.6 years. The test has proven useful in clinical and counseling practice for diagnosing organic brain damage, attention disorders, learning disorders, and poor academic achievement (Mikulajová, 2009).
F. Clock Drawing Test The Clock Drawing Test (CDT) is a non-verbal screening tool in which the examinee is asked to draw a clock, or clock face. Placing the numbers around the circle requires visuospatial, numerical sequencing, and planning abilities. The student should then draw the clock hands to show “ten minutes after 11 o’clock.” The test also evaluates sustained attention, memory, auditory processing, motor programming, and frustration tolerance. There are multiple scoring approaches to CDT. One advantage of this test is the absence of language and cultural stereotypes (Konstam, Lehmann, 2011).
G. Goodenough-Harris Human Figure Drawing Test Goodenough created the human figure drawing test in 1926, based on the assumption that children’s drawings develop primarily through the addition of details. Harris expanded and revised her version in 1963 and placed emphasis also on the accuracy of reality representation. He created a scoring system with 73 items and assessed female and male figures separately. A modification is also Machover’s Human Figure Drawing Test (1949).
H. Figure Drawing Test (Šturma, Vágnerová, T-76, 1992) As mentioned earlier, there are many figure-drawing tests. Here we describe in more detail the test by Šturma and Vágnerová (2010), which suitably demonstrates drawing examination from a psychometric perspective. It focuses on partial abilities in visual perception, fine motor skills, sensorimotor coordination, concentration, imagination, memory, planar and spatial orientation, seriality, and intermodality. The test is designed for children from 3.5 to 11 years. For young children, individual administration is recommended. In group administration, the group should not exceed 8 to 12 children. The drawing is done on A4 paper and has 35 items divided into two areas. Fifteen items focus on the content section, within which individual details are evaluated. The formal section assesses overall processing and includes 20 items. In evaluating content items, we assess how the torso is represented. It should be drawn two-dimensionally; the head and torso may not merge. The neck should also be two-dimensional. Scoring is based on whether the child draws an item correctly (1 point); if it is omitted or inadequately drawn, 0 points are given. One point is awarded for each correctly drawn mouth, nose, eyebrows, eyes, eyelashes, and hair. Another point is awarded if the hair is drawn so that the head outline is not visible. Arms and fingers may be drawn in any form, but their number and placement must be correct. In evaluating shoes and feet, one-dimensional representation is also credited positively. The last three points are given for clothing, which should be opaque and complete. The formal part focuses on head proportion, where one compares whether the head is smaller than half the body and simultaneously larger than one-tenth of the torso. If the figure is drawn in profile, the whole body should be represented. Next, we assess proportions of eyes, arms, torso, legs, and feet, awarding one point for correct width and length representation. We also evaluate how the arms connect to the torso and whether shoulders are recognizable. The angle between arms and torso is assessed and should not exceed 90 degrees. In determining symmetry, we assess whether both arms and legs are equally long, and so on. In the figure drawing, sensorimotor coordination is also assessed qualitatively, with one point awarded for successful execution of line and stroke movements.
I. Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (Košč, Novák, T-65, 1997) This drawing test was originally intended primarily to assess the level of organization of perceptual activity, visuomotor attention and control, and immediate visual memory capacity. Today it is more often used to test specific abilities—perception and memorization of spatial relations, and mental manipulation of space. The material consists of one geometric figure presented on a template. The figure represents an unusual geometric structure made up of different parts. The individual elements can be easily reproduced separately, and drawing does not require any special graphic prerequisites. The challenge lies in organizing them into a whole. The student’s task is first to copy the figure from the model and then, after a short break, to draw it from memory. Time is not limited, but evaluation is based on qualitative analysis. Scoring is performed using point values for each of the 18 elements that make up the figure. Not only the number of drawn elements but also their quality and position relative to the whole, as well as degree of accuracy and line quality, are assessed. Norms are provided for ages 5.6 to 17.6 years (Mikulajová, 2009).
J. School Maturity Drawing Test This test was adapted to our conditions by Gajdošová and Herényiová (1996) and serves for orientational assessment of school readiness before entering primary school. It is based on projection: the child draws precisely defined forms and shapes. Through this test, we can obtain information about the child’s working style and pace, level of concept comprehension, memory level, movement coordination, visual abilities, understanding of mathematical concepts and relations, and general developmental level.
Drawing projective tests and creativity tests
A. Human Figure Drawing It can be both an inner and outer self-portrait of the student. In drawing, one should particularly attend to size, placement, pressure, line quality, spontaneity, or in contrast, rigidity. For diagnosis, the most important elements are the face, clothing, bizarre elements, and also hands. Kopitz (In: Šicková, 2005) identifies 30 most common emotional disturbances in drawing: integration, shading, figure size, asymmetry, disproportionate limb length, pointedness, depiction of genitals, hands without fingers, and others.
B. Draw a Person Tearing an Apple off a Tree (DPAT, Gantt) This test was created by Linda Gantt (1997), a current American art therapist. The manual includes the instruction: “Draw a person who is tearing an apple from a tree.” The drawing is then scored using a 0 to 5 point scale according to the formal elements of the drawing.
C. Silver Drawing Test (SDT) and Draw a Story (DAS) The test consists of three parts. The first part of the SDT focuses on determining sequence, and working with horizontal and vertical lines. The second part assesses the ability to depict objects positioned before the respondent. In the third part, which forms a separate method (DAS), the respondent creates a story using images. The test can be administered to children from age 5, with no upper age limit. It lasts about 20 to 30 minutes.
D. Body Image Test (Šicková-Fabrici 2002) Created by Jaroslava Šicková-Fabrici, this test consists of a pre-drawn outline of the human body on A4 format. The body is positioned frontally, with legs slightly apart and arms in an open-arms gesture. The instruction is: “Color this figure with 12 colored pencils and tell who it represents.” The diagnostic intention is to monitor the test-taker’s psychomotor abilities, fine motor status, identification with one’s own sex, and relationship to the opposite sex.
E. Tree Drawing Test (Baum Test) according to Koch (1952) Many authors have worked with this projective method. Koch (1949) is the best known; he built on speculative traditions in German psychology and was inspired by graphology. The core idea is that the student represents themselves in tree drawing. Most often, they draw a tree that most strongly reflects their emotions. The trunk represents inner strength, while branches represent communication and relationships. Students with hearing impairments and students with NKS usually do not draw branches on the tree. Roots indicate personality stability or lability. Jung considered the tree a symbol of the archetype of the Self. The Czech manual was prepared by Altman (1998). The drawing should be evaluated from the whole toward analysis of dominant signs.
F. House Drawing In drawing, a house symbolizes the student’s self-image, their maturity, body image, contact with reality, and emotional maturity. Wohl and Kaufman (1985) believe it also represents a reflection of the home upbringing environment.
G. House-Tree-Person Test (T-H-P) Created by Buck and Hammer (1969), this test has not yet been standardized locally. It is used for diagnosing personality image, body schema, and neurotic conflicts.
H. Family Drawing This is a highly popular method in child psychodiagnostics, as shown also by works by Matějček from the 1960s. Family drawing can be understood as symbolic processing of the constellation of this primary social group, as the student perceives and experiences it.
I. Enchanted Family Drawing For this test, the instruction is as follows: “Imagine a magician came to your home and turned all members of your family into animals. Draw what they would look like and into which animals they would change.” Students with low self-esteem or CAN syndrome draw themselves as small animals or insects. The size and characteristics of the animals can reveal much about the status of individual family members.
J. Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD) The creators of this method are Burns and Kaufman (1970). The instruction is: “Draw all members of your family while doing something together.”
K. Wartegge drawing test (WZT - Wartegge-Zeigen-Test, 1939) It was very popular especially in the 1960s. It offers a projective completion of certain lines placed in empty squares. It has several variants, is based on Gestalt psychology, and is suitable especially for students with adjustment and emotional disorders.
L. Torrance Figural Test of Creative Thinking (1966) The test focuses on assessing creativity level. In our context, a figural version (B form) was published in 1978 with Slovak norms for children aged 10 to 13. The author based its design on Guilford’s conception of creative thinking.
M. KREATOS Projective Test of Creativity and Personality a test battery for students with exceptional giftedness.
N. Urban Creative Thinking Test – figural version Developed by Urban and Jellen (1993); in Slovakia by Kováč in 2003. It is a non-verbal test based on the principle of unfinished shapes that need to be completed.
The Significance of Formal Drawing Elements in Diagnosis
In artefiletics, symbolism of colors also makes it possible to better understand students’ symbolic color expressions. A pedagogical or specialist staff member should be able to orient themselves in laws of color perception, effects of colors, and color properties such as warmth and coolness, lightness and darkness. It is also useful to know the categories of basic and complementary colors. If a pedagogical worker is aware of the rule of complementary colors, their ability to diagnose a student’s visual artistic product increases. They can then distinguish harmony and, conversely, disharmony in the student’s color combinations. Color contrast arises when two colors are placed next to one another on the same area. Simultaneous contrast is created when each of two adjacent colors tints the other with its complementary color. For example, the complementary color of yellow is purple. Then green placed next to a yellow area will appear purplish (Šicková, 2016). In general, we can say that color reflects the irrational, unconscious layers of a person’s personality. Traumatized, abused, and depressed children and adults often refuse to use any color other than black. Color tests (e.g., Luscher) are based on the assumption that a student responds to colors according to unconscious regularities and can be analyzed through such specific responses. Color is therefore understood in artefiletics as an indicator of emotion (black, or shading, is a projection of fear, the unknown, suggesting dark thoughts). A color test was also created by the Czech art therapist Kyzour (In: Šicková, 2016), called KTC (kvinterncolor). The test consists of colored dots, color self-projection, and evaluates mainly the mutual relationship and spatial segmentation of colors. The instruction reads: “On A5 format, create 5 colored crayon spots and place them in the corners and center of the paper. Use colors of your choice and number the order of the spots you created. If you want to use white, pick any crayon and draw only an empty circle.” T. Novák (2004), among others, discusses interpretation of family drawings, where it is important to observe the overall impression, the persons and their representation or non-representation in the drawing, size, sequence, manner of depiction, facial expression of each character, and the depiction of body parts. Interpretation must follow certain principles and rules.
The Significance of Line and Object Placement in Drawing Diagnosis
Priehradná (2019) describes general approaches to drawing interpretation as follows:
- Placement of the drawing A. In the left part: focus on the past or fear of the future, emphasis on emotion, focus on self, high impulsivity, effort to satisfy needs immediately, compulsive behavior tendencies. B. In the right part: focus on the future or trying to escape the past, emphasis on reason, focus on the surrounding world, ability to postpone immediate need satisfaction, stability/rigidity, tendencies to tightly control behavior. C. In the upper part: escape into fantasy. D. In the lower part: pressure from above—the surrounding world, effort to maintain personal integrity, tendencies toward “outbursts.”
- Size of the drawing A. The drawing is too large—does not fit the page: frustration caused by pressure from the environment, accompanied by anger and a tendency toward aggressive behavior, feelings of inner tension and irritability. B. The drawing is too small: uncertainty, withdrawal into oneself, dissatisfaction, tendencies toward regressive behavior.
- Amount of detail A. The drawing is sparse, containing only basic elements (with normal intelligence): high emotional load, high anxiety, little interest, lack of willingness to cooperate. B. Excessive amount of detail: compulsive need to give the world order and structure.
- Lines, strength, and shape of lines by which the drawing is drawn or outlined A. Weak lines: loss of sense of safety, indecision or fear of failure, feeling of anxiety, loss of control. B. Strong lines in all drawings: high degree of anxiety. C. Some parts of the drawing are drawn more strongly than others: fixation on the depicted object, explicit or repressed hostility toward what the emphasized part symbolizes.
Fig. 1 Example of a possible interpretation of a tree drawing (own adaptation, 2023)
The drawing of tree I. K. was made by a student in the first year of secondary vocational school. He is registered as a student with special educational needs—learning disorder, dyslexia and dysgraphia, and impaired communication ability. At home, he lives with his father and older brother. Their mother left when I. K. was about one year old. She currently lives abroad and occasionally sends the children gifts; I. K. communicates with her periodically by phone. His older brother rejects his mother and is not in contact with her. Until age 12, I. K. lived with his grandparents. About a year ago, he moved with his father and older brother. I. K. has a very close relationship with his grandparents. His father is a driver by profession, works a lot, and spends little time at home with his sons. I. K. appears very insecure, often wearing a hood on his head, headphones in his ears, walking hunched over with his hands in his pockets. He avoids eye contact and, because of a speech disorder (and also because of an ongoing voice change—muting), he is unwilling to communicate; he constantly tries to hide his face (full of acne) with his hands, his hood, and a lowered head. Teachers at the school I. K. attends complain that his behavior has worsened recently: he is insolent in class and refuses to cooperate. During the tree drawing itself, however, I. K. was calm. Hatching in the drawing suggests anxious traits. The depiction of the animal and its hiding place expresses a wish to return to the womb-like safety and also speaks of trauma from his mother’s departure in early childhood and her ongoing absence. The drawing also indicates current missing significant persons in the form of grandparents. Branches on the tree are thick but without leaves, suggesting a lack of meaningful and quality relationships and communication difficulties. The roots are above the surface, indicating weak grounding in his family and in life.
Conclusion
The most important condition in pedagogical orienting diagnosis is to be careful in analysis, discuss all depicted objects with the student, and never interpret a drawing in the student’s absence. Drawing is an extraordinary communication tool; it contributes to the creation of a unique life story and is an expression of the student’s subjective dimension. Through drawing, the student gives the teacher an opportunity to gain insight into their experience, and through expressive activity, drawing becomes a tool that supports their mutual relationship. Because it is very difficult to create final interpretations regarding the concept, it is appropriate to use a phenomenological approach to understanding student production (Malchiodi, 2012). This means looking at the created artefacts in terms of variations in meaning, the context in which they were created, and the way the student understands life meaning. The student must be taken as an expert within their own experiences and encouraged to develop narrative and reflective dialogue. Artefiletics offers an unparalleled space for observing, communicating, and analyzing the resulting products and the entire creative process.
Author: PaedDr. Barbora Sender, PhD. University Constantine the Philosopher in Nitra, Faculty of Education, Department of Pedagogy Project: KEGA 011UKF-4/2023 - Supporting an artefiletic program for secondary school students with developmental learning disorders
List of Bibliographic References
ALTMAN, Z. (1998). Working Material. Prague.
BUCK, J. N., HAMMER, E. F. (Eds.). (1969). Advances in House-Tree-Person techniques: Variations and applications. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
GAJDOŠOVÁ, E., HERÉNYIOVÁ, G. (2006). Development of students’ emotional intelligence: prevention of bullying, intolerance, and violence among adolescents. Praha: Portál, 2006. ISBN 80-7367-115-8.
GANTT, L., TABONE, M. (1997). The Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale: A measurement system for global variables in art. In: Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association. Volume 18, 2001 - Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421656.2001.10129453
KONSTAM, V., LEHMANN, I., S. (2011). Emerging adults at work and at play: Leisure, work engagement, and career indecision. Journal of Career Assessment, 19(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072710385546
MACHOVER, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure: A method of personality investigation. Charles C Thomas Publisher. https://doi.org/10.1037/11147-000
MALCHIODI, C. (2012). Handbook of Art Therapy. Guilford Press, ISBN 978-160-918-975-4.
MIKULAJOVÁ, M. (2009). Methods of dyslexia diagnostics. Bratislava: MABAG spol. s r. o. ISBN 978-80-89113-73-6.
MÜLLER, O. (2014). Terapie ve speciální pedagogice. Praha: Grada. ISBN 978-80-247-4172-7.
NOVÁK, T. (2004). What a child communicates when drawing a family. Praha: Rubico. ISBN 80-7346-037-8.
PRIEHRADNÁ, D. (2019). Možnosti diagnostiky vzťahovej väzby. Martin: Edugraf. ISBN 978-80-97-333-70-6.
PŘINOSILOVÁ, D. (2007). Diagnostika ve speciální pedagogice. Brno: Paido. ISBN 80-731-5157-7.
ŠICKOVÁ – FABRICI, J. (2002). Základy arteterapie. Praha : Portál, ISBN 80-7178-616-0.
ŠICKOVÁ, J. (2005). Význam výtvarných materiálov a médií v arteterapii. Bratislava, ISBN 80-969376—-6.
ŠICKOVÁ – FABRICI, J. (2016). Arteterapia – užitkové umenie? Martin : Petrus, ISBN 80-8923-310-4.
ŠKODOVÁ, E., JEDLIČKA, I. (2003). Klinická logopedie. Praha: Portál. ISBN 80-736-73-40-6.
ŠTURMA, J., VÁGNEROVÁ, M. (1982). Kresba ľudskej postavy. Bratislava: Psychodiagnostické a didaktické testy, n. p. 1982
ŠVANCARA J, ŠVANCAROVÁ L. (1972). Longitudinal follow-up of drawing development. Československá psychologie, 1972; 16: 1–14.
URBAN, K., K., JELLEN, H., G. (1993). Test for Creative Thinking - Drawing Production (TCTDP). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
WOHL, A., KAUFMAN, B. (1985). An Interpretation Of Artwork By Children From Violent Homes. New York: Brunner/Mazel.