370 EBORAH J. THARINGER AND KEVIN STARK Koppitz Emotional indicators and Exploratory items for Draw-A-Persc Disorde Mood Anxiety ank 6y Control n=12)=11) ility Emotional indicators 002181600 5643131 Gross asymmetry of limbs ck Special features 200 9990 Tiny head 00000 13 000000 Arms clinging to body 325436 25 3l91 Legs pressed together Genitals 0050 170000 3 or more figures spontaneously 2 000 0 No nos 2170 000 00 No bo 0000 M total 2.3 G-index 92% xploratory items Happy face B781 Worried fa 953100 85 or absence by two psychology graduate students who were unaware of and 5 equals the presence of severe psychopathology To develop the all other information except the age of the child. Again, scorers were new system, called the KFD Integrative System, th required to reach 90% agreement on example drawings before scoring dure and raters as described for the DAP Integrative System were used the actual drawings. To obtain a measure of interrater agreement 50% The objective when analyzing the K FDs was not to focus on the childs of the drawings(26)were scored by both scorers. The G Index of depiction of the self within the family but rather to focus on the childs Agreement was calculated to be 80% for the overall Reynolds KFD depiction of the whole family. Four characteristics of Psychological System. The G Index of Agreement for the individual items ranged Functioning of the Family were identified as representing the process from 77% to 100% and are depicted in Table 4. Disagreements were experienced by the two raters and include (a)inaccessibility of family resolved through discussions by the two scorers Each KFD also was scored using a qualitative integrative scoring including over-and underengaged; (c) inappropriate underlying family system that measures Psychological Functioning of the Family on a structure; and (d)inhumanness of the family figures. As with the dAP, scale from I to 5. On the scale 1 equals the absence of psychopathology the clearest sense of these characteristics can be gained through plac370 DEBORAH J. THARINGER AND KEVIN STARK Table 3 Koppitz Emotional Indicators and Exploratory Items for Draw-A-Person Disorder Mood/ Mood Anxiety anxiety Control («=12) («=11) (« = 16) (« = 13) x 2 G-index significance reliability level (%) Emotional Quality signs Poor integration of parts Shading of face Shading of body and/or limbs Shading of hands and/or neck Gross asymmetry of limbs Figure slanting 1 5 ° or more Tiny figure Big figure Transparencies Special features Tiny head Crossed eyes Teeth Short arms Long arms Arms clinging to body Big hands Hands cut off Legs pressed together Genitals Monster or grotesque figure 3 or more figures spontaneously drawn Clouds Omissions No eyes No nose No mouth No body No arms No legs No feet No neck M total SD 0 1 8 3 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 3.00 2.22 0 8 67 25 0 0 8 8 25 0 0 17 8 8 25 8 0 8 0 17 0 0 8 8 17 0 0 8 8 8 2 3 5 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.64 1.86 indicators 18 27 45 0 9 9 9 9 9 0 18 18 18 0 36 0 9 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 3 9 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.13 1.45 6 19 56 6 6 6 0 0 13 0 0 13 13 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 4 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.69 1.38 0 0 31 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 8 8 0 31 0 0 38 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 .20 .21 .31 .19 .56 .56 .45 .45 .26 — .18 .87 .85 .33 .91 .33 .28 .34 —.22 — — .52 .60 .07 — —.33 .45 .46 Overall G-index 77 77 77 85 85 92 100 92 77 92 100 100 92 92 85 100 100 85 100 92 100 100 92 100 92 100 100 92 100 92 92% Exploratory items Happy face Sad face Worried face 2 1 2 17 8 17 8 1 1 73 9 9 7 0 5 44 0 31 10 1 0 77 8 0 .009 .70 .12 92 92 85 or absence by two psychology graduate students who were unaware of all other information except the age of the child. Again, scorers were required to reach 90% agreement on example drawings before scoring the actual drawings. To obtain a measure of interrater agreement, 50% of the drawings (26) were scored by both scorers. The G Index of Agreement was calculated to be 80% for the overall Reynolds KFD System. The G Index of Agreement for the individual items ranged from 77% to 100% and are depicted in Table 4. Disagreements were resolved through discussions by the two scorers. Each KFD also was scored using a qualitative, integrative scoring system that measures Psychological Functioning of the Family on a scale from 1 to 5. On the scale, 1 equals the absence ofpsychopathology, and 5 equals the presence of severe psychopathology. To develop the new system, called the KFD Integrative System, the identical proce￾dure and raters as described for the DAP Integrative System were used. The objective when analyzing the KFDs was not to focus on the child's depiction of the self within the family but rather to focus on the child's depiction of the whole family. Four characteristics of Psychological Functioning of the Family were identified as representing the process experienced by the two raters and include (a) inaccessibility of family members to each other; (b) degree of engagement of family members, including over- and underengaged; (c) inappropriate underlying family structure; and (d) inhumanness of the family figures. As with the DAP, the clearest sense of these characteristics can be gained through plac-