DRAW-A-PERSON AND KINETIC FAMILY DRAWING 371 Table 4 Reynolds Emotional indicators for Kinetic Family Drawing Disorder Anxie Control n=12)mn=11) significance G-index Emotional indicators n n rel. 217436531323 3253277 elative height of child (little) Relative height of child(big) Fields of force(balls) Fields of force (appliances) 325218531431 Fields of force 00001 9759821275754 Arm extensions of any figure 542764956323 Descriptions of feelings not equal 433436425323 Position of any figure with respect Child missing essential body parts 2 17 3 319431 Rotation of figure(45 degrees) Shading or crosshatching 82138175426 Compartmentalism of figures Underlining of individual figu 00190 Lining at bottom of page 8218319 Edged placement of figures Number of household members 800 0000000 36 00 Motionless or stick figures Jagged or sharp fingers, toes, teeth 3 25 2185 solation of self M Total Overall 1.82 G-index ing oneself in the drawing, preferably in the place of the child. Again, As with the DAP system, these four characteristics are evaluated in the pathological end of the scale is described. Inaccessibility means an integrative manner to assign a ranking. Using the same method that literally one could not get to other members of the family; in some described earlier with the DAPs, two raters scored the KFDs, Reliabil way they are cut off from access. this can range from inaccessibility of ity, using Spearman rho, was computed to be 85 anyone to the child or inaccessibility of a certain family member per haps the mother, to the child Degree ofengagement refers to the lack of appropriate involvement of the family with each other. Often the fam ly members may be accessible to each other, but they do not s engaged. Alt The frequency of individual emotional indicators on the propriate underlying amily structure is reflected in the constellation of DAP Koppitz System by group membership (mood disorder, family relationships and boundaries depicted in the family drawing. of anxiety disorder, mood/anxiety disorder, and control) is illus- importance is the analysis of the intergenerational boundaries and trated in Table 3. To test for differences among the groups, ppropriateness of family roles. Inhumanness of the family figures is chi-square tests were computed for each emotional indicator by iewed similarly as on the dAP Integrative Syste group. No significant differences were found a significant dif-DRAW-A-PERSON AND KINETIC FAMILY DRAWING 371 Table 4 Reynolds Emotional Indicators for Kinetic Family Drawing Disorder Mood («=12) Emotional indicators Physical proximity (lack of) Barriers between figures Relative height of child (little) Relative height of child (big) Fields of force (balls) Fields of force (fires) Fields of force (appliances) Fields of force (X's) Pencil erasures Arm extensions of any figure Descriptions of feelings not equal to drawing Position of any figure with respect to safety Child missing essential body parts Rotation of figure (45 degrees) Shading or crosshatching Compartmentalism of figures Folding compartmentalism Underlining of individual figure Lining at bottom of page Lining at top of page Encapsulation Edged placement of figures Evasions Number of household members Figure(s) on back of page Line quality — light Line quality — heavy Line quality — unsteady Asymmetric drawing Motionless or stick figures Buttons Jagged or sharp fingers, toes, teeth Bizarre figures Excessive attention to detail Transparencies Isolation of self Anchoring M Total SD n 2 3 0 4 3 0 3 0 9 5 4 0 2 1 7 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 2 4 5.00 2.04 % 17 25 0 33 25 0 25 0 75 42 33 0 17 8 58 17 8 0 8 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 25 0 0 0 17 33 Anxiety n 4 3 0 0 6 0 2 0 9 7 4 1 3 0 9 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 5.91 2.30 % 36 27 0 0 55 0 18 0 82 64 36 9 27 0 82 9 9 9 18 9 9 0 9 0 9 9 9 0 0 0 9 9 0 9 18 0 9 Mood/ anxiety n 5 7 0 2 4 0 5 1 12 9 4 4 3 0 13 3 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 5 2 3 5.94 2.67 % 31 44 0 13 25 0 31 6 75 56 25 25 19 0 81 19 0 0 19 0 6 6 0 6 0 6 13 0 0 6 6 13 0 0 31 13 19 Control n 3 6 0 1 6 1 4 1 7 3 3 0 4 0 7 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 3 4 5.15 1.82 % 23 46 0 8 46 8 31 8 54 23 23 0 31 0 54 8 0 0 15 0 8 0 0 23 0 8 0 0 8 8 8 0 8 0 15 23 31 2 significance level .71 .58 —.10 .30 .38 .87 .64 .44 .18 .86 .07 .80 .33 .26 .79 .45 .28 .88 .28 .79 .60 .28 .25 .28 .79 .38 — .36 .82 .99 .27 .38 .28 .19 .41 .47 Overall G-index G-index rel. % 62 62 85 62 77 100 69 85 69 62 62 69 62 92 62 92 100 92 69 92 85 69 69 100 100 92 85 100 100 62 92 69 92 92 77 69 77 80% ing oneself in the drawing, preferably in the place of the child. Again, the pathological end of the scale is described. Inaccessibility means that literally one could not get to other members of the family; in some way they are cut off from access. This can range from inaccessibility of anyone to the child or inaccessibility of a certain family member, per￾haps the mother, to the child. Degree of engagement refers to the lack of appropriate involvement of the family with each other. Often the fam￾ily members may be accessible to each other, but they do not seem engaged. Alternately, family members may seem to be intrusive. Inap￾propriate underlying family structure is reflected in the constellation of family relationships and boundaries depicted in the family drawing. Of importance is the analysis of the intergenerational boundaries and appropriateness of family roles. Inhumanness of the family figures is viewed similarly as on the DAP Integrative System. As with the DAP system, these four characteristics are evaluated in an integrative manner to assign a ranking. Using the same method described earlier with the DAPs, two raters scored the KFDs. Reliabil￾ity, using Spearman rho, was computed to be .85. Results The frequency of individual emotional indicators on the DAP Koppitz System by group membership (mood disorder, anxiety disorder, mood/anxiety disorder, and control) is illus￾trated in Table 3. To test for differences among the groups, chi-square tests were computed for each emotional indicator by group. No significant differences were found. A significant dif-