Copyright 1990 by the American Psychological As ol.2.No. 4,365-373 Clinical Psychology A Qualitative Versus Quantitative Approach to Evaluating the draw-A-Person and Kinetic Family drawing A Study of Mood- and Anxiety-Disorder Children Deborah J. Tharinger and Kevin Stark University of Texas at Austin This study compared 2 methods of scoring the Draw-A-Person(DAP)and the Kinetic Family Drawing(KFD): A quantitative scoring method based on traditional individual indicators was contrasted with a qualitative scoring method based on an integrative approach designed to assess overall psychological functioning. The participants were 52 children with a mean age of 1 1 years. Using DSM-III-R. they were assigned to the following groups: mood disorder (n= 12), anxiety disorder (n =11), mood/anxiety (n= 16), control (n= 13). Unlike scores from the quantitative approach, scores obtained from the qualitative approach on the daP differentiated children with mood disorders and mood /anxiety disorders, but not children with only anxiety disorders, from control children. Similarly, and again unlike scores from the quantitative approach scores from the qualitative approach on the K fd differentiated children with mood disorders (but not mood/anx DAP and KFD scoring methods were significantly correlated with self-reported self-concept and aspects of family functioning. It appears that an integrated, holistic approach to scoring projective drawings, reflec tive of overall psychological functioning of the individual and of the family, can be a useful adjunct in assessing children with internalizing disorders The assessment of internalizing disorders in children (ie. into the assessment of mood and anxiety disorders in children, depression and anxiety) presents problems that are not appar- this research is noteworthy for its lack of empirical investiga- ent for disorders with more obvious overt behavioral character- tions into the utility of projective techniques with such popula- istics. The emotional discomfort and subjective feelings of dis- tions(Kendall, Cantwell, Kazdin, 1989) tress that are central aspects of internalizing disorders are more Historically, projective techniques have accompanied most difficult for parents, teachers, and often psychologists to iden- psychological assessments of children and adults. They have fy accurately and reliably. Even when interviewed, children been used to measure unconsciously repressed or consciously may experience considerable difficulty in naming, describing, suppressed material, and more recently they have been used to subjective state. However, systematic input from children gain an understanding of cognitive processing(Meichenbaum themselves is critical in the assessment of internalizing dis- ported to be among the most frequently used tests by psycho orders(Cytryn& McKnew 1980). This input must be obtained gists in clinical practice(Lubin, Larsen in a manner that minimizes demands for verbal expression and Lubin, Wallis, Paine, 1971; Loutitt & Browne, 1947; Sund- is sensitive to the child's level of development(Quay La berg, 1961; Wade Baker, 1977) and in school settings with Greca, 1986). In the past decade, diagnostic interviews, self-rating scales of tional problems(Eklund, Huebner, Groman, Michael, 1980 depression and anxiety, and parent and teacher checklists have Fuller Goh 1983: Goh, Teslow,& Fuller, 1981; Prout, 1983; appeared that have facilitated the assessment of internalizing Vukovich, 1983). Projective drawings typically are used with disorders in children. In addition it has been common clinical children to gain an understanding of inner conflicts, fears, per- practice to supplement such measures with projective tech- niques and thus gain a broader understanding of the young ceptions of others, and interactions with family members, as ster's self-perceptions and way of perceiving his or her world. well as to generate hypotheses that serve as a springboard for However, although there exists a burgeoning body of research further evaluation(Cum 1986 The most common projective drawing technique used with children is the Draw-A-Person(DAP; Harris, 1963), also re- We thank the students who assisted in the collection of this ferred to as the Human Figure Drawing(HFD; Koppitz, 1968) data. Special thanks go to Judith Watkins and Gayle Vincent for their Numerous scoring methods for evaluating emotional function assistance with conceptual formulation and data management ing in children have been proposed for the DAP, of which the Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Deborah Tharinger, Education Building 504, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 787 in 4 e. oppitz System is the best known. The Koppitz System con- ts of 30 individual emotional indicators, derived from the work of Machover(1949)and from Koppitz's clinical experPsychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1990, Vol.2, No. 4,365-375 Copyright 1990 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 1040-3590/90/S00.75 A Qualitative \fersus Quantitative Approach to Evaluating the Draw-A-Person and Kinetic Family Drawing: A Study of Mood- and Anxiety-Disorder Children Deborah I Tharinger and Kevin Stark University of Texas at Austin This study compared 2 methods of scoring the Draw-A-Person (DAP) and the Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD): A quantitative scoring method based on traditional individual indicators was contrasted with a qualitative scoring method based on an integrative approach designed to assess overall psychological functioning. The participants were 52 children with a mean age of 1 V/* years. Using DSM-III-R, they were assigned to the following groups: mood disorder (n = 12), anxiety disorder (n = 11), mood/anxiety (« = 16), control (n = 13). Unlike scores from the quantitative approach, scores obtained from the qualitative approach on the DAP differentiated children with mood disorders and mood/anxiety disorders, but not children with only anxiety disorders, from control children. Similarly, and again unlike scores from the quantitative approach, scores from the qualitative approach on the KFD differentiated children with mood disorders (but not mood/anx￾iety disorders) from control children. In addition, scores from the qualitative DAP and KFD scoring methods were significantly correlated with self-reported self-concept and aspects of family functioning. It appears that an integrated, holistic approach to scoring projective drawings, reflec￾tive of overall psychological functioning of the individual and of the family, can be a useful adjunct in assessing children with internalizing disorders. The assessment of internalizing disorders in children (i.e., depression and anxiety) presents problems that are not appar￾ent for disorders with more obvious overt behavioral character￾istics. The emotional discomfort and subjective feelings of dis￾tress that are central aspects of internalizing disorders are more difficult for parents, teachers, and often psychologists to iden￾tify accurately and reliably. Even when interviewed, children may experience considerable difficulty in naming, describing, or verbally communicating their emotional discomfort and subjective state. However, systematic input from children themselves is critical in the assessment of internalizing dis￾orders (Cytryn & McKnew, 1980). This input must be obtained in a manner that minimizes demands for verbal expression and is sensitive to the child's level of development (Quay & La Greca, 1986). In the past decade, diagnostic interviews, self-rating scales of depression and anxiety, and parent and teacher checklists have appeared that have facilitated the assessment of internalizing disorders in children. In addition, it has been common clinical practice to supplement such measures with projective tech￾niques and thus gain a broader understanding of the young￾ster's self-perceptions and way of perceiving his or her world. However, although there exists a burgeoning body of research We thank the many students who assisted in the collection of this data. Special thanks go to Judith Watkins and Gayle Vincent for their assistance with conceptual formulation and data management. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Deborah Tharinger, Education Building 504, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712. into the assessment of mood and anxiety disorders in children, this research is noteworthy for its lack of empirical investiga￾tions into the utility of projective techniques with such popula￾tions (Kendall, Cantwell, & Kazdin, 1989). Historically, projective techniques have accompanied most psychological assessments of children and adults. They have been used to measure unconsciously repressed or consciously suppressed material, and more recently they have been used to gain an understanding of cognitive processing (Meichenbaum, 1977). For several decades, projective drawings have been re￾ported to be among the most frequently used tests by psycholo￾gists in clinical practice (Lubin, Larsen, & Matarrazzo, 1984; Lubin, Wallis, & Paine, 1971; Loutitt & Browne, 1947; Sund￾berg, 1961; Wade & Baker, 1977) and in school settings with children who have been referred for suspected social and emo￾tional problems (Eklund, Huebner, Groman, & Michael, 1980; Fuller & Goh, 1983; Goh, Teslow, & Fuller, 1981; Prout, 1983; Vukovich, 1983). Projective drawings typically are used with children to gain an understanding of inner conflicts, fears, per￾ceptions of others, and interactions with family members, as well as to generate hypotheses that serve as a springboard for further evaluation (Cummings, 1986). The most common projective drawing technique used with children is the Draw-A-Person (DAP; Harris, 1963), also re￾ferred to as the Human Figure Drawing (HFD; Koppitz, 1968). Numerous scoring methods for evaluating emotional function￾ing in children have been proposed for the DAP, of which the Koppitz System is the best known. The Koppitz System con￾sists of 30 individual emotional indicators, derived from the work of Machover (1949) and from Koppitz's clinical experi- 365