The validity of the human figure drawings with disturbed and normal children

Figure drawings: A popular method

“…Validity data are less strong. Three individuals rated protocols obtained from normal and disturbed youngsters and found that classification accuracy for disturbed group was 71% versus 84% for the normal group (Fuller, Preuss, & Hawkins, 1970). Although these data indicate the respective percentages of youngsters correctly identified in the normal and clinical groups, they are unimpressive because the scoring system does not effectively differentiate normal from disturbed youngsters.…”

Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice

“…However, in view of the disastrous record concerning the lack of validity and reliability data over many years of research, school psychologists will be better served by eliminating such measures completely from their assessment procedures (Fuller, Preuss, & Hawkins, 1970;Gredler, 1970;Martin, 1985). An increasing number of parents, sophisticated in their knowledge of assessment measures, refuse to accept the results of such measures in the assessment of their children's adjustment status.…”

Mental Health Professionals' Use of Drawings in the Assessment of Children

“…For example, found no significant differences between the drawings of conduct disordered and non-conduct disordered children. In a study using Koppitz's emotional indicators, judges were unable to successfully distinguish between the drawings of disturbed and normal children (Fuller, Preuss, & Hawkins, 1970).…”