A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the Draw-A-Person Test.

Smith, David A.; Dumont, Frank

doi:10.1037/0735-7028.26.3.298

Cited by 46 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Trabajos en esta línea han sido ampliamente criticados por la comunidad científica, por su escasa rigurosidad metodológica, principalmente por la falta de estandarización de estas pruebas, existiendo consenso al desaconsejar su uso para la evaluación del abuso sexual infantil, especialmente en el contexto forense (Allen y Tussey, 2012;Kuehnle, 2003;Lally, 2001;Smith y Dumont, 1995). Lilienfeld, Wood, y Garb (2000) en un meta-análisis, revisaron el estado actual de la literatura en relación con las propiedades psicométricas (normas, fiabilidad, validez y utilidad del tratamiento) de las tres técnicas proyectivas más utilizadas: Test de Rorschach, Test de Apercepción Temática (TAT), y Test Gráficos.…”

Section: La Evaluación De Los Indicadores Psicológicos De Abuso Sexuaunclassified

Admisibilidad en contextos forenses de indicadores clínicos para la detección del abuso sexual infantil

Scott

Manzanero

Múñoz

et al. 2014

Anuario de Psicología Jurídica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El presente trabajo trata de poner de manifiesto el riesgo, para jueces y tribunales, de valorar de forma acrí-tica los informes periciales psicológicos referidos a la valoración del daño psíquico en supuestos de abuso sexual infantil (ASI). Desde la revisión bibliográfica realizada se han detectado serias limitaciones para detectar ASI en la utilización de indicadores clínicos que han surgido del contexto sanitario y asistencial. Se cuestiona el modelo teórico subyacente y la rigurosidad de los estudios sobre las consecuencias psicológi-cas asociadas al ASI. Igualmente, son debatidos algunos métodos de exploración clínica, extrapolados al contexto forense, y desaconsejados debido a su baja fiabilidad y validez. Se concluye señalando lo inadecuado de trasladar modelos y procedimientos del contexto clínico-asistencial al pericial, y la necesidad de exigir requisitos técnicos a los informes forenses.This paper tries to highlight the risk to judges and courts, to assess uncritically psychological expert reports relating to the assessment of psychological injury in cases of child sexual abuse (CSA). From the literature review have been identified serious limitations in the use of clinical indicators to detect CSA, that have emerged in the context of health care. The underlying theoretical model, and thoroughness of the studies on the psychological consequences associated with CSA are questioned. Also, some methods of clinical examination, extrapolated to forensic context, and advised against because of their poor reliability and validity, are discussed. It concludes by pointing out the inadequacy of moving models and procedures of the expert clinical-care context to forensic, and the need of demanding technical requirements to forensic reports.La prueba pericial psicológica estaría incluida dentro de las denominadas pruebas científicas al aportar en la sala de justicia los conocimientos de la Psicología para auxiliar a jueces y tribunales en la toma de sus decisiones. Cada vez es mayor el recurso por parte de jueces y tribunales al asesoramiento de distintos conocimientos científicos (Duce y Riego, 2007;Roxin, 2000).La valoración judicial de la prueba científica está sometida en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico a los criterios difusos de la sana críti-ca del juzgador o principio de libre apreciación (por ejemplo en España el art. 741 LECrim) que se materializa en una dispar jurisprudencia al respecto, tanto del Tribunal Supremo, como de las Audiencias Provinciales. El único límite legislativo a este criterio personal y subjetivo del juez son las reglas de la lógica o criterios de racionalidad y principios de la experiencia al exigir la motivación del fallo judicial (art. 120.3 CE).La realidad es que la valoración judicial de la prueba científica versa sobre elementos indirectos a ésta: la autoridad científica del perito, su imparcialidad, la coincidencia del dictamen pericial con las reglas lógicas de la experiencia común, los métodos científicos aplicados y, sobre todo, la coherencia lógica de la argumentación desaLa c...

show abstract

Section: La Evaluación De Los Indicadores Psicológicos De Abuso Sexuaunclassified

Admisibilidad en contextos forenses de indicadores clínicos para la detección del abuso sexual infantil

Scott

Manzanero

Múñoz

et al. 2014

Anuario de Psicología Jurídica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We are unaware of any research directly examining the modal uses of drawing methods in clinical practice. Nevertheless, a study by Smith and Dumont (1995) raises serious concerns regarding clinicians' overreliance on DAP signs. These authors provided a sample of 36 clinical and counseling psychologists (58% of whom had received formal training in the use of projective techniques) with DAP protocols, and tape-recorded their comments as they interpreted these protocols.…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

607

391

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-AlthoughControversy has been no stranger to the field of personality assessment, and no issue in this field has been more controversial than the scientific status of projective techniques. Indeed, the novice reader attempting to make sense of the sprawling and bewilderingly complex literature on projective techniques is immediately confronted with a striking paradox. On the one hand, during the past four decades a litany of personality assessment researchers (e.g., Anastasi, 1982;Gittelman Klein, 1986;Dawes, 1994) have come forth to decry the reliability and validity of most projective techniques (see Lilienfeld, 1999). Jensen's (1965) famous quotation, although 35 years old, still captures the sentiments of many contemporary scientists toward the Rorschach Inkblot Test and numerous other projective techniques: ". . . the rate of scientific progress in clinical psychology might well be measured by the speed and thoroughness with which it gets over the Rorschach" (p. 238). On the other hand, clinicians in the United States and to a lesser extent those abroad continue to use projective techniques with great regularity, and many contend that these techniques are virtually indispensable to their daily practice (Watkins, Campbell, Neiberding, & Hallmark, 1995). The crux of this paradox was incisively summed up by Anastasi (1982), who observed that "Projective techniques present a curious discrepancy between research and practice. When evaluated as psychometric instruments, the large majority make a poor showing. Yet their popularity in clinical use continues unabated" (p. 564).Indeed, despite the sustained and often withering criticisms directed at projective techniques during the past several decades (Dawes, 1994;Lowenstein, 1987), numerous surveys demonstrate that such techniques continue to enjoy widespread popularity among clinicians. Durand, Blanchard, and Mindell (1988) reported that 49% of the directors of clinical psychology graduate programs and 65% of the directors of clinical psychology internships believed that formal training in projective techniques is important. Watkins et al. (1995) found that 5 projective techniques, including the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), were among the 10 instruments most frequently used by clinical psychologists. For example, 82% of clinical psychologists reported that they administered the Rorschach at least "occasionally" in their test batteries and 43% reported that they "frequently" or "always" administered it. There is some indication, however, that the popularity of certain projective techniques may be waning. In a recent survey of practicing clinicians, Piotrowski, Belter, and Keller (1998) reported that several projective techniques, including the Rorschach and TAT, have been abandoned by a sizeable minority of users. Some authors (e.g., Piotrowski et al., 1998; Piotrowski & Belter, 1989) have attributed the recent decline in the popularity of projective techniques to the advent of managed care, although at least some of this decline may al...

show abstract

“…The findings of Hosp and Reschly and those of Wilson are troubling given evidence that few projective test indices are empirically supported. This is especially the case for the DAP (Chapman & Chapman, 1967;Smith & Dumont, 1995) and other human figure drawing tests, which are of doubtful validity for detecting personality traits and psychopathological symptoms (Dawes, 1994;Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb, 2000;Motta, Little, & Tobin, 1993;Wood, Nezworski, Lilienfeld, & Garb, 2003).…”

Section: Survey Evidence For the Scientist-practitioner Gap In Schoolmentioning

confidence: 97%

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error

Lilienfeld

Ammirati

David

2012

Journal of School Psychology

150

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the Draw-A-Person Test.

Cited by 46 publications

References 27 publications

Admisibilidad en contextos forenses de indicadores clínicos para la detección del abuso sexual infantil

Admisibilidad en contextos forenses de indicadores clínicos para la detección del abuso sexual infantil

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About