Running head: GRAPHIC DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING ...

Running head: GRAPHIC DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING DISABILITIES 1

Graphic Development of Children with Learning Disabilities: A Systematic Literature Review

Heather Glenn Hayes, BA

Professional Contribution Submitted in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirement

for the Master of Arts Degree

Department of Art Therapy

in the Graduate School

Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College

Saint Mary-of-the-Woods, Indiana

February 2015

GRAPHIC DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING DISABILITIES 2

Abstract

Art therapists and related mental health fields have long been operating under the assumption

that graphic development and the mental development of children are linked (Malchiodi, 1998).

To date, most of the research done in art therapy, psychology, and related fields was not

specifically designed to establish a correlation between the graphic development and learning

disabilities, but focuses on related ideas such as intelligence. This systematic literature review

analyzes the existing research in order to synthesize related findings to create a comprehensive

picture of the current state of knowledge in the area of graphic development and learning

disabilities. Recommendations for further study are given.


Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. 2

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. 5

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... 6

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 7 Explanation and Purpose of Comprehensive Literature Review .................................. 8 Basic Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 8

Hypothesis..................................................................................................................... 8 Definitions..................................................................................................................... 9

Limitations .................................................................................................................. 10 Merits of the Systematic Review ................................................................................ 10

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 12 Intelligence and Specific Learning Disability ............................................................. 12 Graphic Development ................................................................................................. 17

Models of graphic development...................................................................... 17 Influences on graphic development. ............................................................... 20

Cognitive processes used in graphic development. ........................................ 21 Assessments of Graphic Development ....................................................................... 22

Human figure drawings................................................................................... 22

Goodenough Draw-A-Man. ............................................................................ 23

Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. ................................................................. 24 House-Tree-Person (HTP). ............................................................................. 25 Koppitz Developmental Items. ....................................................................... 25

Naglieri Draw a Person. .................................................................................. 26 Draw-A-Person Intellectual Ability Test for Children, Adolescents, and Adults.

......................................................................................................................... 27 Problems with human figure drawing assessments. ....................................... 28

Other Art-based Cognition Tests ................................................................................ 30 Bender-Gestalt Test. ....................................................................................... 30 Silver Drawing Test of Cognition and Emotion. ............................................ 31 Clock Drawing Test. ....................................................................................... 32 Controlled Drawing Observation. ................................................................... 33

III. METHODOLOGY/PROCEDURES ................................................................................ 35 Search ......................................................................................................................... 35

Screening..................................................................................................................... 36 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 36

IV. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 39


V. CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. 41

Conclusions and Discussion ....................................................................................... 41 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 41

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 43

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 55


List of Figures

Figure 1. Organization of Cattell–Horn–Carroll model, with examples ..................................... 14

Figure 2. Lowenfeld’s model of graphic development ................................................................ 18

Figure 3. Publication Dates .......................................................................................................... 37

Figure 4. Types of Resources....................................................................................................... 38


List of Tables

Table 1. Databases searched ........................................................................................................ 35

Table 2. Search Terms ................................................................................................................. 36


CHAPTER I

Introduction

Drawings created by children have been the subject of much study and research. Since

the late 1800’s, drawings made by children have been examined and analyzed for various

reasons (Malchiodi, 1998). Based on these studies of children’s drawings, researchers have

created models and theories of stages of graphic development of children. These theories state

that children generally follow a predictable pattern of graphic development, with stages in

drawing roughly coinciding with stages of development in social and cognitive skills.

Lowenfeld (1947) noted that graphic development and cognitive development are linked, and

children with delayed graphic development may have corresponding impairment of intellectual

development. Some researchers have tried to develop ways to use the children’s drawings as a

way to assess their level of intelligence, notably Goodenough (1931), Koppitz (1967), and Silver

(2007).

In psychology and art therapy, there is a general assumption that graphic development of

a child corresponds to cognitive development and intelligence (Kaplan, 2003; Lowenfeld, 1947;

Malchiodi, 1998). If a client has significant delays in development compared to peers, it is seen

as a sign that a specific learning disorder (SLD) and/or lower cognitive functioning may be an

issue. The alternate is assumed to be true as well, i.e. that advanced graphic development is a

sign of intelligence. While many researchers have studied the drawings of children with learning

disorders for various reasons, to date very little research has been conducted that specifically

establishes the relationship between graphic development and SLD.


Explanation and Purpose of Comprehensive Literature Review

This comprehensive literature review analyzes the existing research in related areas in

order to synthesize findings and create a comprehensive view of the current state of knowledge

in the areas of graphic development and specific learning disorders. Articles from the fields of

art therapy, psychology, art education, and other related fields were reviewed for the information

about to graphic development and its correlation with SLD. Gaps in knowledge and suggestions

for future research are identified and explained.

Basic Assumptions

Graphic development of children follows a relatively predictable pattern, and children of

similar age and cognitive ability have similar graphic development (Lowenfeld, 1947;

Malchiodi, 1998; Rubin, 1984). Despite the lack of research studies specifically designed to

examine the correlation between SLD and graphic development, researchers of children’s

drawings have noted a connection between cognitive development and the rate of graphic

development (Lowenfeld, 1947).

Research in areas related to art therapy, such as psychology and art education, can inform

the scope of knowledge and practice of art therapy. Discoveries in one field may be applicable

to other disciplines.

Hypothesis

This comprehensive literature review examined related information across professional

disciplines in order to discover if there is a reported relationship between graphic development

and learning disorders.


Definitions

Art-Based Psychological instruments are “tests that involve the use of imagery” in

order to assess a person’s level of functioning (Hagood, 2002, p. 63).

Bender-Gestalt Test is a drawing-based test developed by Bender in 1938 to assess

visual-motor acuity, which is associated with intelligence (Brannigan & Decker, 2006). The test

consists of a series of drawings of geometric figures that the examinee is directed to copy.

Clock Drawing Test is a test that has traditionally been used with adults to assess

cognitive deficits (Eden, Wood, & Stein, 2003). Examinees are directed to draw the face of a

traditional analog clock.

Graphic development refers to the process by which a child learns to draw, consisting of

several stages that correspond to age and general development.

House-Tree-Person is a drawing assessment developed by Buck (1948) where the

examinee is directed to draw a person, house, and then a tree on separate papers. Clinicians use

it to assess “personality integration, cognitive maturity, and interpersonal connectedness” (Oster

& Crone, 2004, p. 92).

Human Figure Drawings (HFD) refer to any of several drawing tests that use drawings

of a person to assess the psychological function of a client. Well-known HFD scoring tests

include the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test (GHDT) (Harris, 1963), the Naglieri (1988)

Draw-A-Person: Quantitative Scoring System (DAP: QSS), and the Koppitz Developmental

Items (Koppitz, 1968).

Intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are standardized tests that measure a person’s

intellectual ability as compared to the established norms. Examples of these tests include the


Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (SB), the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), and

the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). These tests include measurements of

ability in many areas including knowledge, memory, visual-spatial processing, and reasoning

(Baron, 2005; Mleko & Burns, 2005).

Specific learning disorder (SLD), formerly known as a learning disability, is diagnosed

when:

current academic skills [of a child are] well below the average range of scores in

culturally and linguistically appropriate tests of reading, writing, or mathematics. The

individual’s difficulties must not be better explained by developmental, neurological,

sensory (vision or hearing), or motor disorders and must significantly interfere with

academic achievement, occupational performance, or activities of daily living. (American

Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 1)

Limitations

Because there are not many studies, to date, that are specifically designed to assess the

correlation of SLD and graphic development, the literature reviewed in this analysis will be

selected from studies designed to explore a related research question. The information,

therefore, may not be fully applicable to the relationship between SLD and graphic development.

Only findings that are applicable to the topic of graphic development and SLD are discussed.

Merits of the Systematic Review

The National Center for Learning Disabilities (2014) recommends intervention as early

as possible in a child’s life in order to maximize the benefits. It is often difficult to assess

whether a child is learning disabled until they have been in school and are not meeting academic


goals. If a correlation exists between graphic development and learning disabilities, analysis of

drawings could be used as an additional tool in the early identification of children with learning

disabilities. Understanding the current state of knowledge about this topic will help inform

future research and aid in early detection and intervention.


CHAPTER II

Literature Review

This literature review covers a series of topics that must be discussed individually before

they can be woven into a cohesive fabric. These topics include current theories of intelligence,

models of graphic development, and art assessments. Once these areas were examined

separately, the connections between them can be established.

Intelligence and Specific Learning Disability

Theories about the nature of intelligence have been debated for thousands of years, and a

full review or comparison of these theories is beyond the scope of this paper. One of the issues

with theories of intelligence is the difficulty both in defining and in measuring it. Attempts to

measure intelligence objectively and quantifiably did not begin until the late 1800’s (Kaufman,

Kaufman, & Plucker, 2013). Several assessments, commonly referred to as IQ tests, have been

developed and standardized. Two of the most commonly used are the Stanford-Binet (SB) and

the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales (WAIS) tests. These tests correlate significantly to each

other, and substantially predict both academic achievement and job performance. IQ tests cover

a specific set of abilities and skills, and are not comprehensive for every aspect of intelligence.

The main skills assessed by IQ tests are comprehension-knowledge, fluid reasoning, visual

processing, auditory processing, long-term memory retrieval, short-term memory, and processing

speed (Niileksela & Reynolds, 2014).

This new ability to objectively measure aspects of intelligence and predict academic

achievement eventually led to the conceptualization of learning disabilities. Educators and

clinicians began to take note of many instances where the measured IQ of a person did not


correspond to that person’s academic achievements, and nothing else could account for the

discrepancy, such as a psychopathology or medical issues (Courtad & Bakken, 2011). These

cases lead researchers to try to find an explanation.

The concept of learning disabilities as the explanation of the discrepancy is rather recent.

The term itself was not in use before 1963; before then it went by a variety of different names,

such as organic brain damage, minimal brain dysfunction, slow learner, educational handicap,

and primary reading retardation (Courtad & Bakken, 2011). Before the 1960’s and 70’s,

educators and clinicians often categorized these children as “mentally retarded” and approached

their education in the same way as children with global developmental delays or low

intelligence. Advances in research led to the theory that specific cognitive processes could be

deficient while the person’s overall general intelligence (known as g) remains intact. It has been

difficult, however, “to investigate the role of general versus specific abilities in both basic

research and practice” (Niileksela & Reynolds, 2014, p. 224). This is changing as both brain-

based research and theoretical understanding of the issue evolves.

A new conceptualization of intelligence, known as the Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC)

theory, is the model that best explains current understanding of learning disabilities.

CHC theory serves as a taxonomy of human cognitive abilities. CHC theory is a

multifactor, hierarchical model of intelligence, in which over 60 narrow abilities are

subsumed under approximately 10 broad abilities, and the broad abilities are subsumed

under g (Niileksela & Reynolds, 2014, p. 225).


General Intelligence/

Ability (g)

comprehension - knowledge

(gc)

word definitions

verbal similarities

fluid reasoning (gf)

matrices

sequential & quantitative reasoning

visual processing

(gv)

pattern construction

recall of designs

auditory processing

(ga)

Speech sound discrimination

memory for sound patterns

long-term retrieval (glr)

naming of objects

associative memory

Short-term memory (gsm)

recall of digits

recall of sequential

order

processing speed (gs)

rapid naming

speed of information processing

Figure 1. Organization of Cattell–Horn–Carroll model, with examples of abilities (Niileksela &

Reynolds, 2014)


CHC theory has influenced major IQ test designs, such as the SB and the WAIS, and

newer versions have a similar structure in the subtests, with specific abilities assessed and then

organized under broader categories (Baron, 2005; Mleko & Burns, 2005). McGrew (2009)

recommended using this model as a common nomenclature for future investigations into exactly

which broad and narrow ability deficiencies account for SLD. If specific cognitive deficits

correlate to deficits in specific achievement areas, this would be a way to distinguish between

SLD and general underachievement. Niileksela & Reynolds (2014) took up this challenge and

found that deficiencies in certain narrow abilities are correlated with the academic

underachievement in students diagnosed with SLD.

The CHC model of intelligence is useful in the study of how the drawing process relates

to general intelligence and academic achievement. Several researchers, while not using the

specific model and nomenclature of the CHC model of intelligence, describe how the activities

of reading, writing, and drawing use the many of the same narrow abilities/processes (Bottrell,

2011; Del Giudice, et al., 2000; Mati-Zissi & Zafiropoulou, 2001). This research is a more

finely detailed branch of the general theory that graphic development mirrors cognitive

development in children.

Gardner (1983) argued that the approach to defining and measuring intelligence as a

singular item was too limited, and focused on a narrow aspect of human cognition. He argued

that people have abilities and intelligence in areas not included or measured by standard IQ tests.

This theory, known as multiple intelligences (MI), proposed seven different areas of intelligence

that each person possesses to some degree.


Linguistic intelligence (LI) is the capacity to use words effectively, either orally or in

writing. Logical-mathematical intelligence (LMI) is the capacity to use numbers

effectively and to reason well. Spatial intelligence (SI) is the ability to perceive the

visual-spatial world accurately and to interpret these perceptions. Bodily-kinesthetic

intelligence (KI) involves expertise in using one’s body to express ideas and feelings.

Musical intelligence (MI) is the capacity to perceive, discriminate, and express musical

forms. Interpersonal intelligence (INPI) is the ability to perceive, and make distinctions

in, the moods, intentions, motivations, and feelings of other people. Intrapersonal

intelligence (INTI) is self-knowledge and the ability to act adaptively on the basis of that

knowledge. Naturalist intelligence (NI) is expertise in the recognition and classification

of the numerous species – the flora and fauna – of a person’s environment. (Ekinci, 2014,

p. 626)

Traditional IQ tests focus narrowly on two of these intelligences, LI and LMI, to predict a

child’s intelligence and ability in school. Gardner (1983) felt that these two intelligences were

only part of the picture, and that even if children had difficulties in those two areas, it did not

mean they were without abilities and gifts. He proposed that these children had different

learning styles, and the instruction and tasks in the school setting did not provide them with

opportunities to use their strengths.

Recent research has validated this strengths-based conceptualization of intelligence. A

different perspective of SLD has emerged – one that changes the focus from cognitive or

neurological deficit focus to a different learning style approach (Tafti, Heidarzadeh, & Khademi,

2014). Children with SLD have differences in MI profiles than children without SLD, and often


have strengths in other areas of MI (Hearne & Stone, 1995). In research with a small population

of students, Tafti et al. (2014) found that children with SLD were more likely to have

weaknesses in LI and LMI, but be much stronger in SI than their peers without SLD. Tafti

(2014) argued that since weaknesses in LI are often associated with strengths in SI, traditional

intelligence testing and instructional methods are problematic for children with this MI profile.

Traditional approaches and measurements do not give an accurate representation of these

children’s abilities.

In some situations, it is not always feasible or appropriate to administer a standard IQ

assessment, such as when the subject is autistic, non-verbal, bilingual or non-English speaking,

developmentally delayed, non-reading, or too hyperactive for the lengthy test (Abell, Von

Briesen, & Watz, 1996). Other circumstances include when a large number of people need to be

assessed (Berdie, 1945). In these cases, art-based assessments can be used for evaluation. In

addition, standard IQ tests measure a rather narrow portion of general intelligence, and an art-

based assessment can assist in providing a more complete understanding of cognitive functioning

(Naglieri, 1993). Art-based assessment may also give a better picture of the cognitive

functioning of children with weakness in LI/LMI, but strengths in other intelligences.

Graphic Development

Models of graphic development. Drawings created by children have been the subject of

much study and research. Since the late 1800’s, drawings made by children have been examined

and analyzed for various reasons (Goodenough, 1931; Malchiodi, 1998; Uhlin, 1979). These

researchers have created similar models and theories of stages of graphic development of

children, linking them to theories of child psychosocial development (Uhlin, 1979). Most of the


models of graphic development have proposed a sequential series of predictable stages that are

driven by a set of “innate factors or rules” (Wilson & Wilson, 1982, p. 2). Lowenfeld and

Brittain’s (1947) model of graphic development is probably the most well known and accepted in

the United States.

Figure 2. Lowenfeld’s model of graphic development (Lowenfeld, 1947)

In the this model, children begin in the Scribble stage in which they draw scribbles that

become increasingly complex as the child masters the fine motor skills associated with using a

drawing instrument (Lowenfeld, 1947). Once the child has some basic mastery of motor skills,

they gradually begin differentiating figures in the Preschematic stage. Eventually, the child

develops a pattern, or schema, for drawing and transitions into the Schematic stage. Drawings in

this stage are stylistic, with the same pattern employed repeatedly to draw the same object. The

drawings in this stage represent the child’s concept more than visual perception. After the

Schematic stage is the Realistic stage, where the child begins to include more detail and

differentiation in attempts to make the drawing more realistic. In the Naturalistic stage, the child

is beginning to develop the capacity for abstract thinking. Drawings become both more realistic,

Scribble stage (2-4 years)

Pre-schematic stage (4-7 years)

Schematic stage (7-9 years)

Realistic stage (9-11 years)

Naturalistic stage (12-14 years)

Adolescent stage (14-17 years)


and more expressive of mood. At the Adolescent stage, art becomes a means of emotional

expression and symbolic thought. Many art-based assessments use this sequential model of

graphic development as the basis for the scoring and evaluation of the drawings (Hinz, 2011)

Some of the assumptions behind the sequential models of graphic development have been

called into question by other researchers. Wolf and Perry (1988) questioned whether the

scribbles made by young children are as random as they appear to adults, since observation of

children’s play proves that they are capable of symbolic thought. Other researchers have

criticized sequential models of graphic development as being too idealistic, or too restrictive in

their view of aesthetics (Bradley, 1986; Duncum, 1999; Wilson & Wilson, 1982; Wolf & Perry,

1988).

One alternative to the sequential models of graphic development is the Multiple

Pathway/Multiple Endpoint (MPME) model proposed by Duncum (1999). The basic premise of

this model of graphic development is that there is no singular path that all children follow in their

artistic development. The MPME model attempts to address assumptions made by the sequential

models that fail to live up to the reality of many children’s development. For example, Duncum

explained that the intent and interest of the child plays a part in the development of that child’s

drawing abilities. Children who are more interested in the storytelling aspect of drawing will

focus on different elements than a child who is interested in realism. Wolf and Perry (1988) also

argued that a child’s purpose would affect the drawing style and schema used. The MPME

model also accounts for children who, for various reasons, develop interest in art later than their

peers. The MPME model contextualizes the child’s graphic development to his or her personal

circumstances.


Influences on graphic development. Wilson and Wilson (1982) proposed a

conceptualization of graphic development as an interplay of innate factors and influence factors.

Innate factors are the general guidelines or “rules” that drawings must follow, for example,

figures need to be perpendicular to the baseline. Influence factors are things that result in the

child adjusting or overriding this rule in a given drawing. Examples of influence factors can be

direct observation, other graphic representations, personal interests, cultural norms, or ability.

Cultural influences are especially important, as the schema children use are influenced greatly by

drawings they have seen from other children (Wilson, 2003). Culture may also affect the rate of

a child’s graphic development (Brown I., 1992). “The interaction between [innate and influence

factors] occurs as a cognitive operation. In other words, graphic configurations are behavioral

manifestations of cognitive operations” (Wilson & Wilson, 1982, p. 13). This different

conceptualization of graphic development helps explain some of the more troublesome aspects of

more sequential models, such as why a drawing could contain examples from multiple stages of

graphic development. Viewing drawings as a manifestation of cognitive operations also helps

explain the differences in drawings of children similar age, but different cognitive ability.

“If we are to understand graphic development it seems necessary to take a more rigorous

and careful look at the full range of factors that affect this development” (Wilson & Wilson,

1982, p. 1). Numerous other factors that can affect a child’s drawing ability in addition to

culture and personal preference. In 1907, Meumann identified several factors that could impair a

child’s graphic development: poor graphomotor coordination, cognitive ability, visual acuity,

and visual memory deficits (as cited by Goodenough, 1931). These factors easily fit into the

CHC model of intelligence as an explanation of the deficit in graphic development.


Cognitive processes used in graphic development. Del Giudice, et al. (2000) studied

the development of narrow visuospatial skills closely related to drawing, and found that they

develop in a predictable pattern. By the age of three, a child has mastered the skill of visual

scanning, or tracking objects. Next to develop are visual motor skills such as tracing a line with

a finger. This is followed by visual perception, i.e. the ability to recognize length, angles, and

other characteristics. Abilities that develop more slowly, and continue to develop throughout

childhood are representation (recognizing shapes) and graphic ability (creating shapes). The

study also found that these abilities correlated very strongly with the child’s IQ.

In similar research, Bottrell (2011) explained the overlapping of the narrow cognitive

processes that are necessary for reading, writing, and drawing.

The making of graphic marks, such as line, shape and pattern discrimination, is

fundamental to drawing images and to learning the structure of graphic language. In one

context, this activity is called drawing and another context this activity is called writing,

but, the psychomotor skills for both contexts essentially remain the same. Learning to

draw develops a range a visual skills, such as figure/ground perceptions, as well as

discrimination of line, shape, direction and proportion (p. 309).

Perception of shapes and forms is a critical component of the ability to read and write. Shape

constancy is crucial for letter recognition in reading and writing, in that, “an A is an A is an A;

the letter A is perceived as an A despite differences in color, size, and texture of surface”

(Bottrell, 2011, p. 309).

With newer developments in brain imaging, researchers are beginning to be able to map

specific parts of the brain that are involved in various cognitive activities, and compare children


with SLD to those without (Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2005; Stanescu-Cosson, et al., 2000). James

and Atwood (2009) used MRI to map the areas of the brain used in learning letters, and

discovered that the most efficient way to learn to visually process the letters was through the

sensorimotor activity of writing them. This finding validates the theorized connection of the

graphic activity to reading and visual processing. While valuable, these studies are expensive,

time consuming, and sometimes invasive, so most clinicians and educators would not frequently

use them in diagnosis of SLD (Eden et al., 2003).

Assessments of Graphic Development

In the 1920’s, researchers began studying the connection between graphic and cognitive

development of children (Di Leo, 1973). Researchers have used a variety of different means to

evaluate children’s drawings in order to assess cognitive development. Most of these art-based

tests of cognition use a linear graphic developmental model similar to Lowenfeld’s as the basis

of the assessment.

Human figure drawings. One of the most prevalent methods of art-based assessment is

an HFD. Drawing a man was chosen because of its universal quality, and because it has been

found to be a natural favorite subject among children until about age eight or ten (Goodenough,

1931). Rouma described a model of human figure drawing development in 1913 that began with

unrecognizable scribbles and gradually became more detailed and realistic (as cited by Di Leo,

1973). Partridge (1902) first tried to quantify this proposed developmental sequence by studying

the drawings of over two thousand children, and noting what age children began including

certain features. More recently, E. V. Brown (1990) compiled a list of developmental

characteristics of children’s human figure drawings, and found similar results.


Interestingly, twin studies show that scores on HFD drawings have a genetic factor, and

high performance is equally as inheritable as IQ (Arden, Trzaskowski, Garfield, & Plomin,

2014). This speaks to the ability of HFD drawings to assess cognitive development in a unique

way. Environmental factors, which had some influence, did not affect HFD scores as strongly as

the genetic factor.

Goodenough Draw-A-Man. Goodenough (1926) developed the Draw-A-Man (DAM)

test as a measure of intelligence. The theory behind the DAM test was that children progressed

in their ability to draw a person in a predictable pattern similar to that of general graphic

development. Goodenough (1926) built on Partridge’s (1902) work, and devised a scale built on

age-appropriate graphic features that assigns a number score correlated to the mental age of the

child. The scale was based upon her study of approximately 5,000 children’s drawings

(Goodenough, 1931). This score is also purported to measure the intelligence of the child.

Children who produced drawings without the graphic development characteristics considered

normal for a child their age were considered to have lower intelligence than their peers. When

comparing the drawings from children in regular classes to those in special education classes,

Goodenough noted that the children in the special education classes did not perform as well.

Because the terminology for SLD was not in use at the time (Courtad & Bakken, 2011), it is

unclear whether the students Goodenough studied were learning disabled, or more likely,

developmentally delayed. Subsequent studies with the DAM test found that while a poor score

on the test did not necessarily mean the subject had a low IQ; high scores on the test were not

possible without at least average intelligence (Berdie, 1945).


Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. Harris revised and updated the Goodenough DAM

test in 1963 (Harris, 1963). The new revisions included changing the instructions to ask the child

to draw a person, and the scoring scale was adapted to be specific to the gender drawn by the

child. The score results of this test were found to correlate with other standard IQ testing

measures, specifically the edition of the Stanford-Binet in use at the time (Di Leo, 1973). The

DAM test, now known as the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test (GHDT) became well known

and widely used as an intelligence assessment for children (Di Leo, 1973). The GHDT has been

used internationally (Abell, Von Briesen, & Watz, 1996), although Harris (1963) stated that the

scoring scale needs to be re-normed for different cultures, especially if they have a different

lifestyle and mode of dress. Weiss’ (1981) study of children from two subcultures in Peru

support the need for re-norming the scales for different cultures, as the clothing items affected

the scores of the children.

In a review of approximately 100 studies of GHDT, Scott (1981) found the ability of the

GHDT to predict academic achievement or screen for learning disabilities is unclear, as the

research has conflicting results. The studies of the GHDT and children with SLD often have

serious weaknesses, such as the lack of a control group of children without SLD. According to

Scott, another problem with generalizing the findings of these studies is that many do not set

forth clear definitions or characteristics of the populations studied. Vague terms such as

“learning problems” or “behavior problems” make the studies difficult to recreate and validate.

Additionally, in some studies that compare GHDT to IQ tests, large age ranges are treated as a

homogenous group. This age range can be as large as ten years.


House-Tree-Person (HTP). Buck (1948) took the idea of an HFD and expanded it,

adding a drawing of a house and a tree. The drawings are assessed according to details,

proportion, perspective, and concept formation (Brooke, 2004). The drawing is followed by an

interview where the subject is given the opportunity to describe their work, as well as any

associations that arise from it. Buck (1948) developed a scoring system for the assessment that

roughly approximated IQ scores. He did not publish any reliability or validity studies to support

the HTP assessment.

Relatively few studies have examined the HTP as a means of assessing IQ or academic

achievement. It was used in a study with young adults (Abell, Heiberger, & Johnson, 1994), and

with adolescents (Abell, Horkheimer, & Nguyen, 1998). In both studies, the HTP assessment

was compared to the GHDT, and the results were similar. The HTP underestimates IQ scores,

but not as significantly as the GHDT. The score of the HFD portion of the HTP assessment was

compared to the composite score, and the researchers found that the addition of the house and

tree did not increase the validity of the score.

Koppitz Developmental Items. Koppitz (1967) offered a different view on assessing

intelligence and cognitive functioning with an HFD. Koppitz, like Goodenough and Harris,

considered graphic development when developing her scoring guide (Chappell, 1994). As a

result, Koppitz dropped many of the scored items in the GHDT because of the infrequency of

their inclusion in younger children’s drawings (Abell et al., 1996). The scale has 30 items that

range from expected to exceptional for a given age and stage of graphic development (Koppitz,

1967). Koppitz’s scoring guide did not try to classify children as finely as the Goodenough-

Harris test did. In fact, this has been a criticism of the scale, since the IQ range associated with a


Koppitz score can be as much as 35 points, it make the test hard to use as anything other than a

basic screener (Abell, Von Briesen, & Watz, 1996). In a previous work, (Koppitz, Sullivan,

Blyth, & Shelton, 1959) used the HFD and the Bender Gestalt Test to assess first graders, and

predict academic achievement. The two tools, when used in conjunction, had statistically

significant accuracy in predicting achievement.

Koppitz also used HFD drawings to assess for emotional disturbance (Koppitz, 1968).

She examined the relationship between the presence of these indicators of disturbance and

academic achievement (Koppitz, 1966). Drawing features Koppitz was able to link to academic

difficulty are poor integration of parts, slanting more than fifteen degrees, omission of body,

omission of arms, and more than three figures drawn. A valid criticism of Koppitz’ scoring of

emotional indicators was that she did not publish the normative data of the emotional indicators

(Hagood, 2003). Additional studies have linked these emotional disturbances to academic

achievement and learning disabilities (Bachara, Zaba, & Raskin, 1975; Holtzman, 1993). Cox &

Catte (2000), however, cast some doubt as to whether these indicators are actually the result of

emotional disturbance. They posit that the so-called emotional indicators are, in fact, skill

deficits. Koppitz (1966) had also allowed for the fact that these indicators could be due to

cognitive factors such as mental retardation or cerebral malfunction, as they would also affect

academic achievement.

Naglieri Draw a Person. Naglieri (1988) built upon the work of Goodenough, Harris,

and Koppitz to develop an updated scoring system for HFD. This assessment, known as the

Naglieri Draw-a-Person (DAP) instructs the examinee to draw a picture of a man, woman, and a

drawing of self. The three drawings were scored separately, and then added for a composite


score. Naglieri argued that the additional drawings increased the validity of the assessment. The

scoring system is still based on a graphic development, but it is simpler, with only fourteen items

instead of the GHDT’s 71. In a comparative study, the additional items in the GHDT did not

make it more reliable than the DAP (Abell, Wood, & Liebman, 2001). Scores for the DAP have

been normed into half and quarter year intervals in order to increase its precision (Naglieri,

1988).

The DAP correlates significantly with reading and math achievement scores as measured

by the Iowa Test of Basic Skills Composite (Haddad & Juliano, 1991). It has also been

correlated to the WISC-R total scores (Wisniewski & Naglieri, 1989). Hagood (2002) compared

the DAP to other art-based psychological assessments, specifically Raven’s Coloured

Progressive Matrices and the Picture Vocabulary Tests, both of which have been correlated with

academic achievement and IQ.

Draw-A-Person Intellectual Ability Test for Children, Adolescents, and Adults. The

newest version of the draw a person test is the Draw-a-person: Test of intelligence (DAP:IQ)

developed by Reynolds and Hickman in 2004 (as cited by Williams, Fall, Eaves, & Woods-

Groves, 2006). Unlike any of the previous HFD scoring systems, this version was developed for

use with adolescents and adults. Reynolds and Hickman reported it to be a reliable and

consistent assessment, but far fewer studies have been conducted with this scoring method.

Williams et al. (2006) examined the inter and intra rater reliability of the DAS:IQ and found they

were highly correlated. Imuta, Scarf, Pharo, and Hayne (2013) analyzed scores from the

DAS:IQ and Wechsler IQ of children and adults. They found that they did correlate, but yielded


a significant number of false positive and negatives, i.e. falsely identifying children as having

high or low IQ.

Problems with human figure drawing assessments. With widespread use, clinicians

noted many instances of discrepancies between the child’s IQ as measured by other methods and

the mental age as scored by the HFD. Aikman, Belter, and Finch (1992) found that he GHDT

often underestimates IQ scores, an issue that has been found in many other studies (Abell et al.,

1994; Abell et al., 1996; Berdie, 1945). The GHDT may be most effective when used with

younger children or individuals with lower IQ scores (Abell et al., 1996). Some theorized that an

IQ score significantly higher than the score on the GHDT was a sign that the child must have

some sort of emotional disorder preventing him from creating a drawing at the expected level (Di

Leo, 1973). Others questioned the usefulness of the test, given its uneven results when compared

to other methods of measuring IQ (Motta, Little, & Tobin, 1993). Many of the studies of the

human figure drawing assessments were poorly designed, and the results may not be

generalizable to other populations (Knoff, 1993). One important way that some of these studies

were poorly designed is that they categorized children of different ages as a single homogenous

group, even when that age difference was as great as ten years (Scott, 1981).

The GHDT’s use is most appropriate when used as a part of a battery of assessments, or

when used as a gross screening with large groups to identify individuals that may need more

testing (Berdie, 1945; Koslowsky, Deren, & Sofer, 1976). Despite the criticisms, clinicians still

use human figure drawing tests because they are universal, and can help assess people that are

generally difficult to assess by other means because of issues such as nonverbal status, limited

English proficiency, etc. (Holtzman, 1993).


Kellogg (1970) rejected the Goodenough-Harris test outright, because in her view, the

basic premise of the test is flawed. Kellogg argued that the Goodenough-Harris test was based

upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the graphic development of children. Young children

do not draw from observation, and frequently omit or exaggerate items in their drawings based

for a variety of reasons, many of which are not due to a lack of intelligence. According to

Kellogg, the scoring scales used in the Goodenough-Harris test were based on what an adult’s

notion of how a child’s human figure drawing should look. This adult notion is based largely on

using external observation as the inspiration and measure of the drawing’s skill, not the inner

thought processes of the child. Goodenough and Harris did not take into consideration the

aesthetics or developmental norms of children’s drawings. This argument could also be applied

to any of the other HFD drawing tests. Kellogg also questioned the appropriateness of basing the

assessment on a single drawing, as young children are notoriously unpredictable and may not

perform their best that day simply because they did not feel like doing so.

Another reason both the Goodenough-Harris and HFD tests may not be good assessments

for the evaluation of intelligence is that they do not take cultural influence into consideration.

Harris stressed the importance of norming the scoring system for cultures that have a “distinctly

different pattern of dress, mode of living, and quality or level of academic education” (Harris,

1963, p. 133). When using the GHDT with two distinct cultures, Weiss (1981) found that

removing the scored items related to dress made the scores more reliable, but did not fully

account for cultural differences. Wilson (2003) described numerous differences that can be

found in the drawings of children from different cultures. These cultural differences resulted in

several distinct styles of drawing humans. The child’s culture also influences the richness of


graphic symbols available to the child as well as the themes they chose to depict. These cultural

influences could affect HFD and result in an inaccurate score.

Other Art-based Cognition Tests

Researchers have studied many other means of assessing cognitive functioning through

graphic production in addition to HFD assessments. These assessments differ in what they ask

the examinee to draw, but they all have some variation of a graphic development-based scoring.

Bender-Gestalt Test. Bender (1970) developed the Visual Motor Gestalt Test (VMGT),

commonly referred to as the Bender-Gestalt Test, in 1938. In this test, children copy

increasingly complex figures in order to evaluate their visual gestalt functioning. “Visual Gestalt

function is a fundamental function associated with language ability and closely associated with

various functions of intelligence such as visual perception, mental motor ability, memory,

temporal and spatial concepts and organization” (Brannigan & Decker, 2006, p. 10). Children

who had deficits in maturation, learning difficulties, or other cognitive impairments make less

sophisticated replications of the pictures (Bender, 1970). Bender found that the skills necessary

to accurately reproduce the images developed in generally the same way as the child developed

cognitively and graphically. The order of skill development:

(1) Control of circular movement… (2) Foreground-background differentiation and

organization of all figures into a pattern. (3) Horizontal orientation and

direction. (4) Verticalization. (5) Diagonal orientation. (6) Differentiation and

separation of figures and their parts. Recognition of uniqueness of each figure and

each part of a figure. Where there are learning disabilities or other evidences of


maturational lags in a child, all of these processes will show some primitiveness,

but those that mature latest will be most affected (Bender, 1970, p. 33).

Hundreds of articles have been written about the VMGT, and the test has been used in

research areas not originally conceived of by its author (Bender, 1970). Many different scoring

scales of the test have been proposed, among which is Koppitz’ scoring system. Koppitz used

the test as a means to predict academic achievement (Koppitz, 1958). Shape distortion, rotation,

substituting circles for dots, perseveration, poor integration of parts, curves substituted for

angles, and incorrect angles correlated most strongly with learning disabilities or academic

difficulty (Bender, 1970). In addition, the manner in which a child places the figures on the page

is associated with academic achievement (Ackerman, Peters, & Dykman, 1971). Haphazard

placement of objects on the page is more common in children with SLD.

The VMGT has been used in conjunction with HFD assessments in an attempt to predict

academic achievement. The results of these studies are mixed. Some, such as Koppitz et al.

(1959), Ackerman et al. (1971), Fisher (as cited by French, 2003), and Özer (2009), found that

the VMGT was able to distinguish between children with academic struggles and those without.

Others, such as French (2003) and Buckley (1978) did not find as strong of a correlation.

Silver Drawing Test of Cognition and Emotion. Silver (1983) developed a drawing

test comprised of three parts, a predictive drawing task, a drawing from observation task, and a

drawing from imagination task. This series of tasks was normed with a wide range of

populations. The scoring scales, while not specifically designed to categorize the level of

graphic development, tend to follow the sequential model of graphic development and award

higher scores to features typically found in the later stages of development. The Silver Drawing


Test (SDT) was found to correlate to several different measures of academic achievement, such

as the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test and the Science Research Associates

Survey of Basic Skills Ability. The SDT has been normed in several countries, with minor

differences in cross-cultural comparisons (Silver, 2003).

Moser (as cited by Silver, 2007) used the SDT as part of a research study that compared

the scores of adolescents with SLD to those without on several different ability assessments. The

Goodenough-Harris test was one of the assessments, as was the WAIS Performance IQ test. The

SDT was found to have significant correlations with both tests. In 1990, Hiscox compared

scores on the SDT and the California Achievement Test Verbal, Quantitative and Nonverbal

Batteries (CAT), and found that the SDT scores were higher than the CAT scores for children

with diagnosed learning disabilities (as cited by Silver & Carrion, 1991). Hiscox attributed this

to the nonverbal nature of the SDT.

Clock Drawing Test. Clock drawing tests (CDT) are frequently used with adults to

screen for neural dysfunction, such as Alzheimer’s or brain damage (Cohen, Ricci, Kibby, &

Edmonds, 2000). Drawing a clock is a simple task, but requires several cognitive and

graphomotor skills to be intact in order to complete it successfully. Errors that indicate cognitive

dysfunction in adults include omission, substitution or repetition of numbers, neglect, and

number rotation or reversal. Cohen et al. (2000) explored the CDT with children, in order to find

the graphic and cognitive development norms for each age. They discovered that even though

children can draw circles and write numbers at relatively young ages, the ability to draw a clock

accurately is something that develops throughout childhood as the frontal lobe develops. At six,

children have a basic concept of a clock, but make significant errors, with left side neglect and


number reversals appearign frequently. At seven, these errors have improved, but are not gone.

By age eight, most children stopped showing neglect of the left side. Children as old as twelve,

however, were still making minor spacing errors in their drawings.

Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) lagged behind their

peers in developing clock drawing ability (Cohen et al., 2000). They continued to show

significant upper left quadrant neglect long after others the same age had resolved the issue.

Similarly, Eden et al. (2003) found similar differences in CDT results of children with dyslexia.

These children showed significant left side neglect, but noticed their mistakes immediately,

unlike some subjects with brain damage or dementia. The differences in the drawings were

independent of gender, handedness, or IQ. More research is needed to esablish whether CDT

could help identify children with SLD.

Controlled Drawing Observation. Controlled Drawing Observation (CDO) was

developed by Krogh in 1977 (as cited by Häidkind, Kikas, Hunno, & Peets, 2011) as a means to

assess a child’s school readiness and academic achievement. The CDO has been used in

Denmark, Finland, and the Baltic countries as a screening assessment for kindergarten. It is an

unusual assessment, because it requires administration in a group setting. The reason for this is

because observing how the child reacts to a typical classroom structure, with social interaction

and possible distractions, is one of the means of assessment. The test instructions are given

orally, and the child is required to divide up the paper, and draw a series of common shapes.

Scoring is based upon how well the child attended to the task, their drawing ability, and their

ability to follow the verbal instructions. Häidkind et al. (2011) administered the CDO

assessment at the beginning of kindergarten along with more traditional individual assessments.


The results were compared to teacher assessments and academic achievement tests taken at the

end of first grade. The CDO results predicted the academic achievement tests more successfully

than the other means of assessment.


CHAPTER III

Methodology and Procedure

Search

This systematic literature review was conducted by searching the available databases

multiple times throughout the year. The resources of the libraries at Saint Mary-of-the-Woods,

the University of Texas, and the Austin Public library were utilized. Resources were also

obtained through interlibrary loans. Table 1 contains a list of databases that were searched.

Table 1

Alphabetical Listing of Databases Searched

Academic Search Elite

Academic Search Premier

Dissertation Abstracts International

Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)

JSTOR

LexisNexis Academic

ProQuest Digital Dissertations

ProQuest Education Journals

PsycARTICLES

PsycINFO

Research Library

SAGE Journals Online

ScienceDirect

Search terms that were used include graphic development, specific learning disorder,

drawing assessments, intelligence, and combinations and variations of those. A complete list of

keyword search terms is listed in Table 2. Searches terms for materials referenced in other

works included specific authors, titles, and journal names.


Screening

The sources found through the search methods described were assessed for relevancy and

applicability to the research topic. Since so few resources specifically addressing the connection

between graphic development and learning disabilities exist, the search was broadened. Sources

about influences on the process of graphic development, art-based assessments of cognitive

functioning and/or academic achievement, and the relationship between learning disabilities and

graphic or visuomotor skills were included in the literature review. The year and type of

publication was taken into consideration, with emphasis was on gathering the most current and

relevant research.

Data Analysis

In total, 139 sources were used in the writing of this thesis. The publication dates of

those 139 resources range from 1902 to 2014. Ten resources (7.2%) were published prior to

Table 2

Table of search terms

Academic achievement

Academic assessment

Academic performance

Art

Art assessments

Art ability

Art education

Art Therapy

Bender Gestalt

Clock Drawing Test

Cognitive ability

Cognitive development

Draw a Man

Draw a Person

Drawing

Drawing ability

Drawing development

Drawing tests

Dyscalculia

Dyslexia

Dyspraxia

Executive function

Goodenough-Harris Drawing

test

Graphic development

House Tree Person

Human Figure drawings

Intelligence

IQ

Koppitz Developmental

Inventory

Learning disability

Learning disorder

Learning problems

Naglieri

Psychology

School achievement

School readiness

Screening

Silver Drawing Test

Specific learning disorder


1960. Twenty-four (17.3%) were published between 1961 and 1980. Forty-six (33.1%) were

published between 1981 and 2000, and fifty-nine (42.4%) were published from 2001 to 2014.

The breakdown of these dates is shown in Figure 3. As previously stated, emphasis was on

gathering the most current information available. The older sources that are included are mostly

seminal works, such as Goodenough’s (1926) original publication of her drawing test. A few of

the older works, such as Berdie’s (1945) study using the DAM test prior to its revision by Harris,

are included because of their evaluation and historical perspective of older versions of drawing

tests discussed.

Figure 3. Publication Dates

The types of resources used in the analysis varied. The breakdown of the types is in

Figure 4. Twenty-one (15.1%) were books, three (2.2%) were doctoral dissertations, One

hundred twelve (80.6%) were from peer-reviewed journals, and three (2.2%) were from other

sources. The other sources included a masters thesis, and two online resources.

Publication Dates

1902-1960 1961-1980 1981-2000 2001-2014


Figure 4. Types of Resources

Types of Resources

Book Docteral Dissertation Journal Article Other


CHAPTER IV

Results

According to the CHC theory of intelligence (Niileksela & Reynolds, 2014), successful

cognitive performance is achieved by all the smaller specific skills working together in harmony

to complete a task. The current conceptualization of SLD is that the person’s overall

intelligence, g, is intact, but they struggle to achieve to their potential academically because of

dysfunction in one or more of the narrow subsets of cognitive functioning. Researchers have

theorized that development of graphic ability uses many of the same skills as development of

academic ability (Mati-Zissi & Zafiropoulou, 2001). Visuospatial processing and graphomotor

functioning is the result of cognitive processes. Assessment of drawings is one way to evaluate

these skills, and its tangible nature is an easy, non-invasive means to evaluate intangible

cognition.

These attempts at assessing cognition via graphic development have met with mixed

results and have limited general applicability for several reasons. One reason is due to weak

methodology (Scott, 1981). Many of the studies, especially older ones, have unclear definitions

of the population studied in the test. Before the current concept and terminology of SLD arose in

the in the 1960’s, many students with SLD were categorized as “mentally retarded” and grouped

homogenously in the same category as children with very different characteristics (Courtad &

Bakken, 2011). Therefore, the results of these studies may not be generalizable. In addition to

treating different diagnostic populations as homogenous, another way in which children were

incorrectly homogenized was with wide age and/or IQ ranges treated as a single group (Scott,

1981). Lastly, some studies lacked a control group. These limitations and study flaws may


account for the varying results researchers have had when studying HFD assessments. What is

left is a murky, but promising, picture of the ability of art-based assessments to evaluate

cognitive functioning.

Art based psychological assessments reveal a great deal about a child’s cognitive

abilities, and advances in technology, along with updated theoretical foundations, are beginning

to be able to explain why. For example, the CDT assesses planning ability, neglect, deficits in

motor control, and self-monitoring (Cohen et al., 2000). In studies with adults, difficulty in these

areas was linked to specific areas of the brain. No studies have been done comparing brain

imaging of children to their CDT, but theoretically, children with similar difficulties as the adults

studied would have abnormalities or underdevelopment in the same areas. Another example of a

discovery assisted by recent technological innovation is that children with SLD seem to lack the

ability to predict the consequences of their graphomotor actions (Smits-Engelsman, Wilson,

Westenberg, & Duysens, 2003). This lack of prediction is one of the reasons drawings from

children with SLD would differ qualitatively from children without SLD.


CHAPTER V

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations

Conclusions and Discussion

This literature review across disciplines reveals that many researchers in their respective

fields have attempted to examine the relationship between characteristics of children’s drawings

and cognitive development. Researchers have used many different types of drawing tasks, with

scoring systems with criteria based on aspects of graphic development. The specific goal in

several of these studies was to determine whether a drawing assessment could be used as an

accurate screening tool to predict academic success or general IQ. As hypothesized, many of

these studies did find differences in the drawings of children with SLD and those without. The

significance of correlation varied in different studies, however. The identification of specific

graphic characteristics correlated the presence of SLD has not been established.

Recommendations

There is a need for additional well-designed studies with appropriately matched control

and experimental groups. In these studies, comparison of the overall score of children with SLD

is helpful, but it will bring richer understanding if the researchers break down specifically which

areas the children draw differently. For example, are the scores lower because of lack of details,

or because of incorrect proportions? Additionally, it may be informative to compare the

drawings of children with SLD to controls who are matched by overall IQ level. That way,

researchers could distinguish if the difference in the drawing is a function of IQ or the SLD.

In the review of the research, there was no literature about comparisons of drawings done

by children with different types of SLD. All the research found was comparisons between


children with and without SLD, as if students with SLD are one homogenous group. Different

SLD involve deficits in different narrow cognitive processes, so they might have distinct

characteristics that manifest differently in drawings. It will be informative to focus the studies to

compare drawings by children with specific types of SLD, since little is known about whether

drawings from children with dyslexia differ from those drawn by children with dyscalculia.


References

Abell, S. C., Heiberger, A. M., & Johnson, J. E. (1994). Cognitive evaluations of young adults by

means of human figure drawings: An empirical investigation of two methods. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 50(6), 900-905. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199411)50:6<900::AID-

JCLP2270500614>3.0.CO;2-3

Abell, S. C., Horkheimer, R., & Nguyen, S. E. (1998). Intellectual evaluations of adolescents via

human figure drawings: An empirical comparison of two methods. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 54(6), 811-815. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199810)54:6<811::AID-

JCLP8>3.0.CO;2-J

Abell, S. C., Von Briesen, P. D., & Watz, L. S. (1996). Intellectual evaluations of children using

human figure drawings: An empirical investigation of two methods. Journal of Clinical


JCLP9>3.0.CO;2-T

Abell, S. C., Wood, W., & Liebman, S. J. (2001). Children's human figure drawings as measures

of intelligence: The comparative validity of three scoring systems. Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment, 19(3), 204-215. doi:10.1177/073428290101900301

Ackerman, P. T., Peters, J. E., & Dykman, R. A. (1971). Children with specific leadning

disabilities: Bender Gestalt Test and other signs. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4(8),

437-446. doi:10.1177/002221947100400805

Aikman, K. G., Belter, R. W., & Finch, A. I. (1992). Human figure drawings: Validity in

assessing intellectual level and academic achievement. Journal of Clinical Psychology,


48(1), 114-120. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199201)48:1<114::AID-

JCLP2270480116>3.0.CO;2-Y

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Specific learning disorder fact sheet. Retrieved from

DSM5:

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Specific%20Learning%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.

pdf

Arden, R., Trzaskowski, M., Garfield, V., & Plomin, R. (2014). Genes influence young

children's human figure drawings and their association with intelligence a decade later.

Psychological Science, 25(10), 1843-1850. doi:10.1177/0956797614540686

Bachara, G. H., Zaba, J. N., & Raskin, L. M. (1975). Human figure drawings and LD children.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 11(2), 217-222. doi:10.1177/105345127501100212

Baron, I. S. (2005). Test review: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fourth Edition

(WISC-IV). Child Neuropsychology, 11(5), 471-475. doi:10.1080/09297040590951587

Bender, L. (1970). Use of the Visual Motor Gestalt Test in the diagnosis of learning disabilities.

The Journal of Special Education, 4(1), 29-39. doi:10.1177/002246697000400104

Berdie, R. F. (1945). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

1(4), 288-295. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(194510)1:4<288::AID-

JCLP2270010408>3.0.CO;2-8

Bottrell, C. (2011). Graphic image-making skills for literacy development. Austrailian Journal of

Language and Literacy, 34(3), 308-321.

Bradley, L. S. (1986). Graphic development of the early adolescent. Visual Arts Research, 12(1),

55-67. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715613


Brannigan, G. G., & Decker, S. L. (2006). The Bender-Gestalt II. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 76(1), 10-12. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.76.1.10

Brooke, S. L. (2004). Tools of the trade: A therapist's guide to art therapy assessments (2 ed.).

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, LTD.

Brown, E. V. (1990). Developmental characteristics of figure drawings made by boys and girls

ages five through eleven. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 20(1), 279-288.

doi:10.2466/pms.1990.70.1.279

Brown, I. (1992). A cross-cultural comparison of children's drawing development. Visual Arts

Research, 18(1), 15-20. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715764

Buck, J. N. (1948). The H-T-P Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4(2), 151-159.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(194804)4:2<151::AID-JCLP2270040203>3.0.CO;2-O

Buckley, P. D. (1978). The Bender Gestalt Test: A review of reported research with school-age

subjects, 1966–1977. Psychology In the Schools, 15(3), 327-338. doi:10.1002/1520-

6807(197807)15:3<327::AID-PITS2310150303>3.0.CO;2-O

Chappell, P. D. (1994). Human figure drawings, self-esteem, and their relationship to school

achievement in the primary grades. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/304161877?a

ccountid=7118. (Order No. 9506751).

Cohen, M. J., Ricci, C. A., Kibby, M. Y., & Edmonds, J. E. (2000). Developmental progession of

clock face drawing in children. Child Neuropsychology, 6(1), 64-76. doi:10.1076/0929-

7049(200003)6:1;1-B;FT064


Cohen, S. M., Money, J., & Uhlenhuth, E. (1972). A computer study of selected features of self-

and-other drawings by 385 children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5(3), 145-155.

doi:10.1177/002221947200500304

Courtad, C. A., & Bakken, J. P. (2011). History of learning disabilities. In A. F. Rotatori, F.

Obiakor, & J. Bakken (Eds.), History of special education (pp. 61-87). Bingley, UK:

Emerald Group Publisher Limited.

Cox, M. V., & Catte, M. (2000). Severely disturbed children's human figure drawings: Are they

unusual, or just poor drawings? European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 9(4), 301-

306.

Del Giudice, E., Grossi, D., Angelini, R., Crisanti, A. F., Latte, F., Fragassi, N. A., & Trojano, L.

(2000). Spatial cognition in children. I. Development of drawing-related (visuospatial and

constructional) abilities in preschool and early school years. Brain and Development,

22(6), 362-367. doi:10.1016/S0387-7604(00)00158-3

Di Leo, J. H. (1973). Children's drawings as diagnostic aids. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel,

Inc.

Duncum, P. (1999). A multiple pathways/multiple endpoints model of graphic development.

Visual Arts Research, 25(2(50)), 38-47. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715984

Eden, G. F., Wood, F. B., & Stein, J. F. (2003). Clock drawing in developmental dyslexia.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(3), 216-228. doi:10.1177/002221940303600302


Ekinci, B. (2014). The relatonships among Sternberg's Triarchic Abilities, Gardner's multiple

intelligences, and academic achievement. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(4), 625-

633. doi:10.2224/sbp.2014.42.4.625

French, C. L. (2003). The applicability of children's drawings in predicting academic

achievement and differentiating between clinical and nonclinical group. (Doctoral

dissertation) Retrieved from


ccountid=7118 (Order No. 3102500).

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Goodenough, F. L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY:

World Book Company.

Goodenough, F. L. (1931). Children's drawings. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of child

psychology (pp. 480-514). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. doi:10.1037/13524-

014

Haddad, F. A., & Juliano, J. M. (1991). Relations among scores on Matrix Analogies Test, Draw

A Person, and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills for low socioeconomic children.

Psychological Reports, 69(1), 299-302. doi:10.2466/pr0.1991.69.1.299

Hagood, M. M. (2002). A correlational study of art-based measures of cognitive development:

Clinical and research implications for art therapists working with children. Art Therapy,

19(2), 63-68. doi:10.1080/07421656.2002.10129342


Hagood, M. M. (2003). The use of the Naglieri Draw-a-Person Test of Cognitive Development:

A study with clinical and research implications for art therapists working with children.

Art Therapy, 20(2), 67-76. doi: 10.1080/07421656.2003.10129396

Häidkind, P., Kikas, E., Hunno, H., & Peets, T. (2011). Controlled Drawing Observation for

assessing a child's readiness for school and predicting academic achievement at the end

of the first grade. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(1), 61-78.

doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.539854

Harris, D. E. (1963). Children's drawings as measures of intellectual maturity: A revision and

extension of the Goodenough Draw-a-Man Test. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace &

World, Inc.

Hearne, D., & Stone, S. (1995). Multiple intelligences and underachievement: Lessons from

individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(7), 439-448.

doi:10.1177/002221949502800707

Hinz, L. D. (2011). Assessments in art therapy. Unpublished manuscript.

Holtzman, W. H. (1993). An unjustified, sweeping indictment by Motta et al. of human figure

drawings for assessing psychological functioning. School Psychology Quarterly, 8(3),

189-190. doi:10.1037/h0088270

Imuta, K., Scarf, D., Pharo, H., & Hayne, H. (2013). Drawing a close to the use of human figure

drawings as a projective measure of intelligence. PLOS ONE, e58991.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058991


James, K. H., & Atwood, T. P. (2009). The role of sensorimotor learning in the perception of

letter-like forms: Tracking the causes of neural specialization for letters. Cognitive

Neuropsychology, 26(1), 91-110. doi:10.1080/02643290802425914

Kaplan, F. F. (2003). Art-based assessment. In C. A. Malchiodi (Ed.), Handbook of art therapy

(pp. 25-35). New York, Ny: The Guilford Press.

Kaufman, J. C., Kaufman, S. B., & Plucker, J. A. (2013). Contemporary theories of intelligence.

In J. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 811-822). New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kellogg, R. (1970). Analyzing children's art. Mountain View, CA: Mayfiels Publishing

Company.

Knoff, H. M. (1993). The utility of human figure drawings in personality and intellectual

assessment: Why ask why? School Psychology Quarterly, 8(3), 191-196.

doi:10.1037/h0088272

Koppitz, E. M. (1958). The Bender Gestalt Test and learning disturbances in young children.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 14, 292-295. doi:10.1002/1097-

4679(195807)14:3<292::AID-JCLP2270140321>3.0.CO;2-O

Koppitz, E. M. (1966). Emotional indicators on human figure drawings and school achievement

of first and second graders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22(4), 481-482.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(196610)22:4<481::AID-JCLP2270220436>3.0.CO;2-D

Koppitz, E. M. (1967). Expected and exceptional items on human figure drawings and IQ scores

of children age 5 to 12. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23(1), 81-83. doi:10.1002/1097-

4679(196701)23:1<81::AID-JCLP2270230122>3.0.CO;2-E


Koppitz, E. M. (1968). Psychological evaluation of children's human figure drawings. New

York, NY: Grune & Stratton.

Koppitz, E. M., Sullivan, J., Blyth, D. D., & Shelton, J. (1959). Prediction of first grade school

achievement with the Bender Gestalt Test and human figure drawings. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 15, 164-168. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(195904)15:2<164::AID-

JCLP2270150213>3.0.CO;2-L

Koslowsky, M., Deren, S., & Sofer, S. (1976). Clinical decision making: Use of selection ratios

to predict intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 771-774.

doi:10.1037/0022-006X.44.5.771

Lowenfeld, V. (1947). Creative and mental growth (7th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan

Publishing Company, Inc.

Malchiodi, C. A. (1998). Understanding children's drawings. New York, NY: The Guilford

Press.

Mati-Zissi, H., & Zafiropoulou, M. (2001). Drawng performance in prediction of special learning

difficulties of kindergarten children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92(3 Pt 2), 1154-1166.

doi:10.2466/PMS.92.4.1154-1166

McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the

shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37, 1–10.

doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004

Mleko, A. L., & Burns, T. G. (2005). Review of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. Applied

Neuropsychology, 12(3), 179-180. doi:10.1207/S15324826AN1203_8


Motta, R. W., Little, S. G., & Tobin, M. I. (1993). The use and abuse of Human Figure

Drawings. School Psychology Quarterly, 8(3), 162-169. doi:10.1037/h0088273

Naglieri, J. A. (1988). Draw a person: A quantitative scoring system. San Antonio, TX:

Psychological Corporation.

Naglieri, J. A. (1993). Human figure drawings in perspective. School Psychology Quarterly,

8(3), 170-176. doi:10.1037/h0088275

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2014). The state of learning disabilities. Retrieved

from

http://issuu.com/ncld/docs/2014_state_of_ld_final_for_release/1?e=3297511/672189

Niileksela, C. R., & Reynolds, M. R. (2014). Global, broad, or specific cognitive differences?

Using a MIMIC model to examine differences in CHC abilities in children with learning

disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(3), 224-236.

doi:10.1177/0022219412453172

Oster, G. D., & Crone, P. G. (2004). Using drawings in assessment and therapy (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Özer, S. (2009). Relationship of Bender Gestalt Developmental scores and human drawing

developmental scores in a sample of Turkish preschool children. School Psychology

International, 30(2), 137-147. doi:10.1177/0143034309104150

Partridge, L. (1902). Children's drawings of men and women. In E. Barnes (Ed.), Studies in

Education (Vol. 2, pp. 155-171). Philadelphia, PA.

Rubin, J. A. (1984). Child art therapy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.


Scott, L. H. (1981). Measuring intelligence with the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test.

Psychological Bulletin, 89(3), 483-505. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.89.3.483

Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2005). Dyslexia (Specific Reading Disability). Biological

Psychiatry, 57(11), 1301–1309. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.043

Silver, R. (1983). Silver Drawing Test of cognitive & creative skills. Seattle, WA: Special Child

Publications.

Silver, R. (2003). Cultural differences and similarities in responses to the Silver Drawing Test in

the USA, Brazil, Russia, Estonia, Thailand, and Australia. Art Therapy, 20(1), 16-20. doi:

10.1080/07421656.2003.10129638

Silver, R. (2007). The Silver Drawing Test and Draw a Story. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor

& Francis Group.

Silver, R., & Carrion, F. (1991). Using the Silver Drawing Test in school and hospital. American

Journal of Art Therapy, 30(2), 36.

Smits-Engelsman, B. M., Wilson, P. H., Westenberg, Y., & Duysens, J. (2003). Fine motor

deficiencies in children with developmental coordination disorder and learning

disabilities: An underlying open-loop control deficit. Human Movement Science, 22(4-5),

495-513. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2003.09.006

Stanescu-Cosson, R., Pinel, P., van de Moortele, P. F., Le Bihan, D., Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S.

(2000). Understanding dissociations in dyscalculia: A brain imaging study of the impact

of number size on the cerebral networks for exact and approximate calculation. Brain: A

Journal of Neurology, 123(11), 2240 - 2255. doi:10.1093/brain/123.11.2240 2240-2255


Tafti, M. A. (2014). Acknowledging the difference: Lessons from differentiated instruction,

multiple intelligences, and visual-spatial learning theories for students with learning

disabilities. Applied Psychology, 2(6), 1-10.

Tafti, M. A., Heidarzadeh, M., & Khademi, M. (2014). A comparison of multiple intelligences

profile of students with and without learning disabilities. International Journal of Applied

Psychology, 4(3), 121-125. doi:10.5923/j.ijap.20140403.06

Uhlin, D. M. (1979). Art for exceptional children. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Company

Publishers.

Weiss, S. C. (1981). Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test scores from two eastern Peruvian

samples. Journal of Social Psychology, 114(2), 159-166.

doi:10.1080/00224545.1981.9922745

Williams, T. O., Fall, A. M., Eaves, R. C., & Woods-Groves, S. (2006). The reliability of scores

for the Draw-A-Person Intellectual Ability Test for children, adolescents, and adults.

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(2), 137-144.

doi:10.1177/0734282905285249

Wilson, B. (2003). The artistic Tower of Babel: Inextricable links between culture and graphic

development. Visual Arts Research, 29(57), 25-38. Retrieved from


Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1982). The persistence of the perpendicular principle: Why, when,

and where innate factors determine the nature of drawings. Review of Research in Visual

Arts Education, 8(1(15)), 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715338


Wisniewski, J. J., & Naglieri, J. A. (1989). Validity of the Draw A Person: A Quantitative

Scoring System with the WISC-R. Journal of the Psychoeducational Assessment, 7(4),

346-351. doi:10.1177/073428298900700408

Wolf, D., & Perry, M. D. (1988). From endpoints to repertoires: Some new conclusions about

drawing development. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 22(1), 17-34.

doi:10.2307/3332961


Bibliography

Abell, S. C., Heiberger, A. M., & Johnson, J. E. (1994). Cognitive evaluations of young adults by

means of human figure drawings: An empirical investigation of two methods. Journal of


JCLP2270500614>3.0.CO;2-3

Abell, S. C., Horkheimer, R., & Nguyen, S. E. (1998). Intellectual evaluations of adolescents via

human figure drawings: An empirical comparison of two methods. Journal of Clinical


JCLP8>3.0.CO;2-J

Abell, S. C., Von Briesen, P. D., & Watz, L. S. (1996). Intellectual evaluations of children using

human figure drawings: An empirical investigation of two methods. Journal of Clinical


JCLP9>3.0.CO;2-T

Abell, S. C., Wood, W., & Liebman, S. J. (2001). Children's human figure drawings as measures

of intelligence: The comparative validity of three scoring systems. Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment, 19(3), 204-215. doi:10.1177/073428290101900301

Ackerman, P. T., Peters, J. E., & Dykman, R. A. (1971). Children with specific leadning

disabilities: Bender Gestalt Test and other signs. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4(8),

437-446. doi:10.1177/002221947100400805

Aikman, K. G., Belter, R. W., & Finch, A. I. (1992). Human figure drawings: Validity in

assessing intellectual level and academic achievement. Journal of Clinical Psychology,


48(1), 114-120. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199201)48:1<114::AID-

JCLP2270480116>3.0.CO;2-Y

Alberts, F. L., & Edwards, R. P. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of torque and its relationship to

achievement and educationsl classification among normal, disturbed, and learning-

disabled children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39(6), 998-1006. doi:10.1002/1097-

4679(198311)39:6<998::AID-JCLP2270390632>3.0.CO;2-2

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Specific learning disorder fact sheet. Retrieved from

DSM5:

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Specific%20Learning%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.

pdf

Arden, R., Trzaskowski, M., Garfield, V., & Plomin, R. (2014). Genes influence young

children's human figure drawings and their association with intelligence a decade later.

Psychological Science, 25(10), 1843-1850. doi:10.1177/0956797614540686

Bachara, G. H., Zaba, J. N., & Raskin, L. M. (1975). Human figure drawings and LD children.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 11(2), 217-222. doi:10.1177/105345127501100212

Baron, I. S. (2005). Test review: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fourth Edition

(WISC-IV). Child Neuropsychology, 11(5), 471-475. doi:10.1080/09297040590951587

Beeman, C. A. (2009). Using an art therapy assessment to screen for barriers to learning in the

primary grades. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from




Bender, L. (1970). Use of the Visual Motor Gestalt Test in the diagnosis of learning disabilities.

The Journal of Special Education, 4(1), 29-39. doi:10.1177/002246697000400104

Berdie, R. F. (1945). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

1(4), 288-295. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(194510)1:4<288::AID-

JCLP2270010408>3.0.CO;2-8

Black, F. W. (1976). The size of human figure drawings of learning-disabled children. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 32(3), 736-741.

Bottrell, C. (2011). Graphic image-making skills for literacy development. Austrailian Journal of

Language and Literacy, 34(3), 308-321.

Bradley, L. S. (1986). Graphic development of the early adolescent. Visual Arts Research, 12(1),

55-67. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715613

Brannigan, G. G., & Decker, S. L. (2006). The Bender-Gestalt II. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 76(1), 10-12. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.76.1.10

Brooke, S. L. (2004). Tools of the trade: A therapist's guide to art therapy assessments (2 ed.).

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, LTD.

Brown, E. V. (1990). Developmental characteristics of figure drawings made by boys and girls

ages five through eleven. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 20(1), 279-288.

doi:10.2466/pms.1990.70.1.279

Brown, I. (1992). A cross-cultural comparison of children's drawing development. Visual Arts

Research, 18(1), 15-20. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715764

Buck, J. N. (1948). The H-T-P Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4(2), 151-159.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(194804)4:2<151::AID-JCLP2270040203>3.0.CO;2-O


Buckley, P. D. (1978). The Bender Gestalt Test: A review of reported research with school-age

subjects, 1966–1977. Psychology In the Schools, 15(3), 327-338. doi:10.1002/1520-

6807(197807)15:3<327::AID-PITS2310150303>3.0.CO;2-O

Carter, J. L. (1973). Human figure drawing of mentally retarded, brain injured, and normal

children. Art Psychotherapy, 1(3), 307-308. doi:10.1016/0090-9092(73)90048-3

Chappell, P. D. (1994). Human figure drawings, self-esteem, and their relationship to school

achievement in the primary grades. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from



Cohen, M. J., Ricci, C. A., Kibby, M. Y., & Edmonds, J. E. (2000). Developmental progession of

clock face drawing in children. Child Neuropsychology, 6(1), 64-76. doi:10.1076/0929-

7049(200003)6:1;1-B;FT064

Cohen, S. M., Money, J., & Uhlenhuth, E. (1972). A computer study of selected features of self-

and-other drawings by 385 children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5(3), 145-155.

doi:10.1177/002221947200500304

Colligan, R. C. (1967). Learning inhibitions in children related to their human figure. Psychology

in the Schools, 4(4), 328-330.

Cookson, L. M. (1989). Is there a difference in artistic ability between learning-disabled

students and "regular-class" students? (Master's thesis). Available from Brock

University Digital Repository. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10464/1932.


Courtad, C. A., & Bakken, J. P. (2011). History of learning disabilities. In A. F. Rotatori, F.

Obiakor, & J. Bakken (Eds.), History of special education (pp. 61-87). Bingley, UK:

Emerald Group Publisher Limited.

Cox, M. V., & Catte, M. (2000). Severely disturbed children's human figure drawings: Are they

unusual, or just poor drawings? European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 9(4), 301-

306.

Deaver, S. P. (2009). A normative study of children's drawings: Preliminary research. Art

Therapy, 26(1), 4-11. doi:10.1080/07421656.2009.10129309

Del Giudice, E., Grossi, D., Angelini, R., Crisanti, A. F., Latte, F., Fragassi, N. A., & Trojano, L.

(2000). Spatial cognition in children. I. Development of drawing-related (visuospatial and

constructional) abilities in preschool and early school years. Brain and Development,

22(6), 362-367. doi:10.1016/S0387-7604(00)00158-3

Di Leo, J. H. (1973). Children's drawings as diagnostic aids. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel,

Inc.

Dillard, H. K., & Landsman, M. (1968). The Evanston Early Identification Scale: Prediction of

school problems from the human figure drawings of kindergarten children. Journal of


JCLP2270240230>3.0.CO;2-M

Duncum, P. (1999). A multiple pathways/multiple endpoints model of graphic development.

Visual Arts Research, 25(2(50)), 38-47. Retrieved from



Eden, G. F., Wood, F. B., & Stein, J. F. (2003). Clock drawing in developmental dyslexia.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(3), 216-228. doi:10.1177/002221940303600302

Ekinci, B. (2014). The relatonships among Sternberg's Triarchic Abilities, Gardner's multiple

intelligences, and academic achievement. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(4), 625-

633. doi:10.2224/sbp.2014.42.4.625

Eubanks, P. K. (1997). Art is a visual language. Visual Arts Research, 23(1), 31-35. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715892

Finney, P. R. (1998). Silver Drawing Test of Cognition and Emotion (3rd ed.). Art Therapy,

15(1), 55-56. doi:10.1080/07421656.1989.10759313

French, C. L. (2003). The applicability of children's drawings in predicting academic

achievement and differentiating between clinical and nonclinical group. (Doctoral

dissertation) Retrieved from


ccountid=7118 (Order No. 3102500).

Galli, M., Vimercati, S. L., Stella, G., Caiazzo, G., Norveti, F., Onnis, F., . . . Albertini, G.

(2011). A new approach for the quantitative evaluation of drawings in children with

learning disabilities. Research In Developmental Disabilities, 32(2), 1004-1010.

doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.051

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New

York, NY: Basic Books.


Golomb, C. (1994). Drawing as representation: The child's acquisition of a meaningful graphic

language. Visual Arts Research, 20(2), 14-28. Retrieved from


Goncharov, O. A. (2012). Development of perspective constructions in the representational

activity of children. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 50(5), 5-23.

doi:10.2753/RPO1061-0405500501

Goodenough, F. L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY:

World Book Company.

Goodenough, F. L. (1931). Children's drawings. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of child

psychology (pp. 480-514). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. doi:10.1037/13524-

014

Groves, J. R., & Fried, P. A. (1991). Developmental items on children's human figure drawings:

A replication and extension of Koppitz to younger children. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 47(1), 140-148. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199101)47:1<140::AID-

JCLP2270470123>3.0.CO;2-L

Guérin, F., Ska, B., & Belleville, S. (1999). Cognitive processing of drawing abilities. Brain and

Cognition, 40(3), 464-478. doi:10.1006/brcg.1999.1079

Haddad, F. A., & Juliano, J. M. (1991). Relations among scores on Matrix Analogies Test, Draw

A Person, and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills for low socioeconomic children.

Psychological Reports, 69(1), 299-302. doi:10.2466/pr0.1991.69.1.299


Hagood, M. M. (2002). A correlational study of art-based measures of cognitive development:

Clinical and research implications for art therapists working with children. Art Therapy,

19(2), 63-68. doi:10.1080/07421656.2002.10129342

Hagood, M. M. (2003). The use of the Naglieri Draw-a-Person Test of Cognitive Development:

A study with clinical and research implications for art therapists working with children.

Art Therapy, 20(2), 67-76. doi: 10.1080/07421656.2003.10129396

Häidkind, P., Kikas, E., Hunno, H., & Peets, T. (2011). Controlled Drawing Observation for

assessing a child's readiness for school and predicting academic achievement at the end

of the first grade. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(1), 61-78.

doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.539854

Harris, D. E. (1963). Children's drawings as measures of intellectual maturity: A revision and

extension of the Goodenough Draw-a-Man Test. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace &

World, Inc.

Hartman, R. K. (1972). An investigation of the incremental validity of human figure drawings in

the diagnosis of learning disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 10(1), 9-16.

doi:10.1016/0022-4405(72)90021-0

Hearne, D., & Stone, S. (1995). Multiple intelligences and underachievement: Lessons from

individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(7), 439-448.

doi:10.1177/002221949502800707

Hinz, L. D. (2011). Assessments in art therapy. Unpublished manuscript.

Hoilingsworth, L. S. (1923). Drawing. In Special talents and defects: Their significance for

education (pp. 141-163). New York, NY: MacMillan Co. doi:10.1037/13549-007


Holtzman, W. H. (1993). An unjustified, sweeping indictment by Motta et al. of human figure

drawings for assessing psychological functioning. School Psychology Quarterly, 8(3),

189-190. doi:10.1037/h0088270

Imuta, K., Scarf, D., Pharo, H., & Hayne, H. (2013). Drawing a close to the use of human figure

drawings as a projective measure of intelligence. PLOS ONE, e58991.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058991

James, K. H., & Atwood, T. P. (2009). The role of sensorimotor learning in the perception of

letter-like forms: Tracking the causes of neural specialization for letters. Cognitive

Neuropsychology, 26(1), 91-110. doi:10.1080/02643290802425914

Jolley, R. P., O'Kelly, R., Barlow, C. M., & Jarrold, C. (2013). Expressive drawing ability in

children with autism. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 143-149.

doi:10.1111/bjdp.12008

Kaplan, F. F. (2003). Art-based assessment. In C. A. Malchiodi (Ed.), Handbook of art therapy

(pp. 25-35). New York, Ny: The Guilford Press.

Kaufman, J. C., Kaufman, S. B., & Plucker, J. A. (2013). Contemporary theories of intelligence.

In J. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 811-822). New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kellogg, R. (1970). Analyzing children's art. Mountain View, CA: Mayfiels Publishing

Company.

Kim, J., Kim, G., & Seo, S. (2014). Validation of the FSA as screening tool for children with

ADHD. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 41(4), 413-423. doi:10.1016/j.aip.2014.04.006


Knoff, H. M. (1993). The utility of human figure drawings in personality and intellectual

assessment: Why ask why? School Psychology Quarterly, 8(3), 191-196.

doi:10.1037/h0088272

Koppitz, E. M. (1958). The Bender Gestalt Test and learning disturbances in young children.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 14, 292-295. doi:10.1002/1097-

4679(195807)14:3<292::AID-JCLP2270140321>3.0.CO;2-O

Koppitz, E. M. (1966). Emotional indicators on human figure drawings and school achievement

of first and second graders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22(4), 481-482.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(196610)22:4<481::AID-JCLP2270220436>3.0.CO;2-D

Koppitz, E. M. (1967). Expected and exceptional items on human figure drawings and IQ scores

of children age 5 to 12. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23(1), 81-83. doi:10.1002/1097-

4679(196701)23:1<81::AID-JCLP2270230122>3.0.CO;2-E

Koppitz, E. M. (1968). Psychological evaluation of children's human figure drawings. New

York, NY: Grune & Stratton.

Koppitz, E. M., Mardis, V., & Stephens, T. (1961). A note on screening school beginners with

the Bender Gestalt Test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(2), 80-81.

doi:10.1037/h0048256

Koppitz, E. M., Sullivan, J., Blyth, D. D., & Shelton, J. (1959). Prediction of first grade school

achievement with the Bender Gestalt Test and human figure drawings. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 15, 164-168. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(195904)15:2<164::AID-

JCLP2270150213>3.0.CO;2-L


Kopytin, A. (2002). The Silver Drawing Test of Cognition and Emotion: Standardization in

Russia. American Journal of Art Therapy, 40(4), 223-237.

Koslowsky, M., Deren, S., & Sofer, S. (1976). Clinical decision making: Use of selection ratios

to predict intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 771-774.

doi:10.1037/0022-006X.44.5.771

Lange-Küttner, C. (2014). Do drawing stages really exist? Children's early mapping of

perspective. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(2), 168-182.

doi:10.1037/a0036199

Lange-Küttner, C., Küttner, E., & Chromekova, M. (2014). Deterioration and recovery of DAP

IQ scores in the repeated assessment of the Naglieri Draw-a-Person (DAP) test on 6 to 12

year old children. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 297-306. doi:10.1037/a0034581

Lowenfeld, V. (1947). Creative and mental growth (7th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan

Publishing Company, Inc.

Loxton, H., Mostert, J., & Moffatt, D. (2006). Screening of intellectual maturity: Exploring

South African preschoolers' scores on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test and teachers'

assessment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 103(2), 515-525. doi:10.2466/PMS.103.6.515-

525

Mackenzie, N., & Veresov, N. (2013). How drawing can support writing acquisition: Text

construction in early writing from a Vygotskian perspective. Australasian Journal of

Early Childhood, 38(4), 22-29.

Malchiodi, C. A. (1998). Understanding children's drawings. New York, NY: The Guilford

Press.


Manuel, H. T., & Hughes, L. S. (1934). The intelligence and drawing ability of young Mexican

children. Journal of Applied Psychology, 16(4), 382-387. doi:10.1037/h0075846

Mati-Zissi, H., & Zafiropoulou, M. (2001). Drawng performance in prediction of special learning

difficulties of kindergarten children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92(3 Pt 2), 1154-1166.

doi:10.2466/PMS.92.4.1154-1166

McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the

shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37, 1–10.

doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004

McKay, M. F. (1985). Predicting early school achievement in reading and handwriting using

major "error" categories from the Bender-Gestalt Test for young children. Perceptual and

Motor Skill, 60(2), 647-654. doi:10.2466/pms.1985.60.2.647

McManus, I. C., Chamberlain, R., Loo, P., Rankin, Q., Riley, H., & Brunswick, N. (2010). Art

students who cannot draw: Exploring the relations between drawing ability, visual

memory, accuracy of copying , and dyslexia. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and

the Arts, 4(1), 18-30. doi:10.1037/a0017335

Miller, J. (1938). Intelligence testing by drawings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 29(5),

390-394. doi:10.1037/h0063115

Mleko, A. L., & Burns, T. G. (2005). Review of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. Applied

Neuropsychology, 12(3), 179-180. doi:10.1207/S15324826AN1203_8

Motta, R. W., Little, S. G., & Tobin, M. I. (1993). The use and abuse of Human Figure

Drawings. School Psychology Quarterly, 8(3), 162-169. doi:10.1037/h0088273


Naglieri, J. A. (1988). Draw a person: A quantitative scoring system. San Antonio, TX:

Psychological Corporation.

Naglieri, J. A. (1993). Human figure drawings in perspective. School Psychology Quarterly,

8(3), 170-176. doi:10.1037/h0088275

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2014). The state of learning disabilities. Retrieved

from

http://issuu.com/ncld/docs/2014_state_of_ld_final_for_release/1?e=3297511/672189

Netley, C. (1973). Prismatic adaptation and visuo-motor skills in children with learning


doi:10.1177/002221947300600608

Niileksela, C. R., & Reynolds, M. R. (2014). Global, broad, or specific cognitive differences?

Using a MIMIC model to examine differences in CHC abilities in children with learning


doi:10.1177/0022219412453172

Ohuche, N. M., & Ohuche, R. O. (1973). The Draw-A-Man Test as a predictor of academic

achievement. West African Journal of Educational and Vocational Measurement, 1(1),

20-27.

Oster, G. D., & Crone, P. G. (2004). Using drawings in assessment and therapy (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Ottenbacher, K., Abbott, C., Haley, D., & Watson, P. J. (1984). Human figure drawing ability

and vestibiular processing dysfunction in learning-disabled children. Journal of Clinical


Psychology, 40(4), 1084-1088. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198407)40:4<1084::AID-

JCLP2270400439>3.0.CO;2-0

Özer, S. (2009). Relationship of Bender Gestalt Developmental scores and human drawing

developmental scores in a sample of Turkish preschool children. School Psychology

International, 30(2), 137-147. doi:10.1177/0143034309104150

Palombo, J. (1996). The diagnosis and treatment of chlidren with nonverbal learning disorders.

Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 13(4), 311-322. doi:10.1007/BF01875911

Partridge, L. (1902). Children's drawings of men and women. In E. Barnes (Ed.), Studies in

Education (Vol. 2, pp. 155-171). Philadelphia, PA.

Perets-Dubrovsky, S., Kaveh, M., Deutsh-Castel, T., Cohen, A., & Tirosh, E. (2010). The human

figure drawing as related to Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Journal

of Child Neurology, 25(6), 689-693. doi:10.1177/0883073809344122

Picard, D. (2011). Impact of manual preference on directionality in children's drawings.

Laterality, 16(1), 24-34. doi:10.1080/13576500903140610

Pollak, J. M. (1986). Human figure-drawing performance of LD children: Research and clinical

perspectives. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9(3), 173-181. doi:10.2307/1510462

Raja, S., & John, B. M. (2014). An assessment of drawing age in pre-school children using

'Draw-a-Man' test. Journal of Nepal Paediatric Society, 34(1), 14-17.

doi:10.3126/jnps.v34i1.9299

Rubin, J. A. (1984). Child art therapy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Scott, L. H. (1981). Measuring intelligence with the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test.

Psychological Bulletin, 89(3), 483-505. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.89.3.483


Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2005). Dyslexia (Specific Reading Disability). Biological

Psychiatry, 57(11), 1301–1309. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.043

Silver, R. (1983). Silver Drawing Test of cognitive & creative skills. Seattle, WA: Special Child

Publications.

Silver, R. (2003). Cultural differences and similarities in responses to the Silver Drawing Test in

the USA, Brazil, Russia, Estonia, Thailand, and Australia. Art Therapy, 20(1), 16-20. doi:

10.1080/07421656.2003.10129638

Silver, R. (2007). The Silver Drawing Test and Draw a Story. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor

& Francis Group.

Silver, R., & Carrion, F. (1991). Using the Silver Drawing Test in school and hospital. American

Journal of Art Therapy, 30(2), 36.

Smits-Engelsman, B. M., & Van Galen, G. P. (1997). Dysgraphia in children: Lasting

psychomotor deficiency or transient developmental delay? Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 67(2), 164-184. doi:10.1006/jecp.1997.2400

Smits-Engelsman, B. M., Niemeijer, A. S., & van Galen, G. P. (2001). Fine motor deficiencies in

children diagnosed as DCD based on poor grapho-motor ability. Human Movement

Science, 20(1-2), 161-182. doi:10.1016/S0167-9457(01)00033-1

Smits-Engelsman, B. M., Wilson, P. H., Westenberg, Y., & Duysens, J. (2003). Fine motor

deficiencies in children with developmental coordination disorder and learning

disabilities: An underlying open-loop control deficit. Human Movement Science, 22(4-5),

495-513. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2003.09.006


Stanescu-Cosson, R., Pinel, P., van de Moortele, P. F., Le Bihan, D., Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S.

(2000). Understanding dissociations in dyscalculia: A brain imaging study of the impact

of number size on the cerebral networks for exact and approximate calculation. Brain: A

Journal of Neurology, 123(11), 2240 - 2255. doi:10.1093/brain/123.11.2240 2240-2255

Swanson, H. L., Zheng, X., & Jerman, O. (2009). Working memory, short-term memory, and

reading disabilities: a selective meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 42(3), 260-287. doi:10.1177/0022219409331958

Tafti, M. A. (2014). Acknowledging the difference: Lessons from differentiated instruction,

multiple intelligences, and visual-spatial learning theories for students with learning

disabilities. Applied Psychology, 2(6), 1-10.

Tafti, M. A., Heidarzadeh, M., & Khademi, M. (2014). A comparison of multiple intelligences

profile of students with and without learning disabilities. International Journal of Applied

Psychology, 4(3), 121-125. doi:10.5923/j.ijap.20140403.06

Ter Laak, J., de Goede, M., Aleva, A., & Van Rijswijk, P. (2005). The Draw-a-Person Test: An

indicator of children's cognitive and socioemotional adaptation? The Journal of Genetic

Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 166(1), 77-93.

doi:10.3200/GNTP.166.1.77-93

Türkcan, B. (2013). Semiotic approach to the analysis of children's drawings. Kuram Ve

Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 13(1), 600-607.

Uhlin, D. M. (1979). Art for exceptional children. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Company

Publishers.


Veltman, M. W., & Browne, K. D. (2002). The assessment of drawings from children who have

been maltreated: A systematic review. Child Abuse Review, 11, 19-37.

doi:10.1002/car.712

Warren, R. (2003). Drawing on the wrong side of the brain: An art teacher's case for recognising

NLD. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 22(3), 325–334.

doi:10.1111/1468-5949.00370

Weider, A., & Noller, P. (1953). Objective studies of children's drawings of human figures. II.

Sex, age, and intelligence. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 9, 920-923. doi:10.1002/1097-

4679(195301)9:1<20::AID-JCLP2270090106>3.0.CO;2-C

Weiss, S. C. (1981). Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test scores from two eastern Peruvian

samples. Journal of Social Psychology, 114(2), 159-166.

doi:10.1080/00224545.1981.9922745

Williams, T. O., Fall, A. M., Eaves, R. C., & Woods-Groves, S. (2006). The reliability of scores

for the Draw-A-Person Intellectual Ability Test for children, adolescents, and adults.

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(2), 137-144.

doi:10.1177/0734282905285249

Wilson, B. (2003). The artistic Tower of Babel: Inextricable links between culture and graphic

development. Visual Arts Research, 29(57), 25-38. Retrieved from


Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1982). The persistence of the perpendicular principle: Why, when,

and where innate factors determine the nature of drawings. Review of Research in Visual

Arts Education, 8(1(15)), 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715338


Wisniewski, J. J., & Naglieri, J. A. (1989). Validity of the Draw A Person: A Quantitative

Scoring System with the WISC-R. Journal of the Psychoeducational Assessment, 7(4),

346-351. doi:10.1177/073428298900700408

Wolf, D., & Perry, M. D. (1988). From endpoints to repertoires: Some new conclusions about

drawing development. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 22(1), 17-34.

doi:10.2307/3332961

Wolff, U., & I., L. (2002). The prevalence of dyslexia among art students. Dyslexia, 8(1), 34-42.

doi:10.1002/dys.211

Running head: GRAPHIC DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING ...

Documents

Transcript of Running head: GRAPHIC DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING ...