Dap and Academic Achievement

THE APPLICABILITY OF CHILDRENS DRAWINGS IN PREDICTING
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN

CLINICAL AND NONCLINICAL GROUPS
A Dissertation
by
CHRISTINE L. FRENCH
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
August 2003
Major: School Psychology
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3102500
UMI
UMI Microform 3102500
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
THE APPLICABILITY OF CHILDRENS DRAWINGS IN PREDICTING

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN
CLINICAL AND NONCLINICAL GROUPS
A Dissertation
by
CHRISTINE L. FRENCH
Submitted to the Office o f Graduate Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved as to style and content by:
Cecil R.
(Co-Chair o f Committee)
Cynthia A. Riccio
(Co-Chair of Committee)
Michael J. As
(Member)
ily S. Davidson
(Member)
Douglas J. Palmer
Department)
August 2003
Major: School Psychology
ABSTRACT
The Applicability of Childrens Drawings in Predicting
Academic Achievement and Differentiating Between
Clinical and Nonclinical Groups. (August 2003)
Christine L. French, B.A., Pacific Christian College
Co-Chairs of Advisory Committee: Dr. Cecil R. Reynolds
Dr. Cynthia A. Riccio
Drawing measures are used frequently for psychoeducational assessment

purposes in schools, clinics, and other assessment settings (Dickson, Bobo, Guerrero, &
Livingston, 2001; Kamphaus, Petoskey, & Rowe, 2000). Unfortunately, even the most
touted drawing measures reveal little information to the examiner other than an estimate
of general ability level or an indicator of emotional or behavioral difficulties. If drawings
are able to predict achievement or diagnostic classification more accurately, the time
spent in giving drawing measures certainly would be validated. Therefore, correlational
and multiple regression analyses were performed, with no significant differences found
in performance on drawing measures between clinical and nonclinical groups. The
combination of the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration and the Draw-APerson Test most greatly predicted performance on the mathematics cluster of the
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised. The Broad Reading, Broad
Written Language, and Early Skills clusters were moderately predicted by the two
independent measures. Achievement as measured by the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test was minimally predicted by performance on the Draw-A-Person Test
and the Bender Gestalt Test. Once intellectual ability was added in as another predictor,
very little of the variance accounted for in the performance on the individual
achievement clusters was significantly predicted by the Developmental Test of VisualMotor Integration and Draw-A-Person Test. Likewise, the variance in performance on
the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test clusters was accounted for mostly by
intellectual ability, with very little variance accounted for by the Bender Gestalt Test or
the Draw-A-Person Test.
DEDICATION
For all of my family and friends who encouraged, supported, and loved me, I
cannot thank you enough. And to my nephew, JJ, who brings sunshine and laughter to
my life and the lives of so many others.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There have been many different people who have helped me along this process. I
first want to thank my committee members, especially Drs. Riccio and Reynolds, for
giving me direction and constructive feedback when I most needed it. I also want to
thank Drs. Llorente and Milam for allowing me to collect data at their offices. Without
them, I would not have been able to gather the data I needed. I also want to thank Carol
Wagner, who has had a more supportive role in my dissertation process. She has calmed
fears, given advice, and listened at just the right times. Thank you.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................
iii
DEDICATION........................................................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................
vii
LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................
ix
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................
xi
CHAPTER
I
II
III
INTRODUCTION............................................................................
Statement of the Problem.....................................................

The Abilities Tapped by Drawing Measures.....................
Theoretical Perspective.......................................................
Importance of the Study.....................................................
Research Questions and Hypotheses..................................
2
3
5
6
7
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..................................................
11
The Basics of Drawing Measures.......................................

Use of Drawings in Assessment.........................................
Use of Multiple Drawing Measuresin Assessment
Summary...............................................................................
12
43
47
52
METHOD...........................................................................................
54
Participants..........................................................................
Instruments..........................................................................
Procedure...............................................................................
Data Analyses.......................................................................
54
62
69
70
viii
Page
CHAPTER
IV
RESULTS..........................................................................................
73
Data Analyses........................................................................
73
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..............................................
115
Research Questions..............................................................
Limitations of the Study.......................................................
Future Research Directions.................................................
Summary...............................................................................
115
125
126
128
REFERENCES........................................................................................................
129
APPENDIX..............................................................................................................
143
VITA.........................................................................................................................
145
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
Page
1 Mean Error Scores for the Bender Gestalt Test, by Gender and Age.......
2
92
Mean Scores for the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, by

Gender and Age.................................................................................................
93
Mean Scores for the Draw-A-Person Test, by Gender and Age..........
Mean Z-Scores for the Bender Gestalt Test, by Group Placement and
Age.....................................................................................................................
95
Mean Scores for the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, by

Group Placement and Age................................................................................
96
Mean Scores for the Draw-A-Person Test, by Group Placement and Age...
97
7 Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Developmental Test of

Visual-Motor Integration and Draw-A-Person Test on Woodcock-Johnson
Tests of Achievement - Revised Broad Reading...........................................
104

Tests of Achievement - Revised Broad Mathematics .................................
105

Tests of Achievement - Revised Broad Written Language...........................
106

Tests of Achievement - Revised Early Skills.................................................
107

Visual-Motor Integration and Draw-A-Person Test on
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised Clusters.....................
108
12 Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Bender Gestalt Test and
Draw-A-Person Test on Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Basic
Reading..............................................................................................................
110
94
FIGURE
Draw-A-Person Test on Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
Mathematics...............................................................................................
Page
I ll
Draw-A-Person Test on Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Spelling... 112
Draw-A-Person Test on Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Screener
Composite.................................................................................................. 113
Draw-A-Person Test on Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Clusters... 114
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1 Studies Using the Bender Gestalt Test............................................................

2
Page
21
Studies Using the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration Fourth

Edition Revised.................................................................................................
32
Studies Using the Draw-A-Person Test.........................................................
39
Total Sample Demographic Information........................................................
55
5 Demographic Information by Location...........................................................
56
6 Measures Used According to Location...........................................................
58
Clinical Sample Demographic Information...................................................
59
Nonclinical Sample Demographic Information.............................................
61
9 Total Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Independent Variables..............
75
10 Total Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variables................
76
11 Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Variables by Gender..........................
77
12 Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Variables by Diagnosis......................
80
13 Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Variables by Clinic............................
83
14 Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Variables by Ethnicity.......................
84
15
16
17
Correlations Between Raters 1 and 2 of the Draw-A-Person: IQ Scoring

System Total Score and the Koppitz Human Figure Drawing.....................
89
Correlations Between Raters 1 and 2 of the Bender Gestalt Testand Mean

Bender Gestalt Test Error Score.....................................................................
90
Correlations Between Independent Variables...............................................
90
X ll
TABLE
18
Page
Correlations Between the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor

Integration, Draw-A-Person Test, and Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement - Revised Achievement Cluster Scores....................................
91
Correlations Between the Bender Gestalt Test, Draw-A-Person Test, and

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Cluster Scores................................
91
20
ANOVA for Gender on the Bender Gestalt Test............................................
92
21
ANOVA for Gender on the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor

Integration..........................................................................................................
93
22
ANOVA for Gender on the Draw-A-Person Test.........................................
94
23
ANOVA for Group Placement on the Bender Gestalt Test..........................
95
24
ANOVA for Group Placement on the Developmental Testof VisualMotor Integration..............................................................................................
96
25
ANOVA for Group Placement on the Draw-A-Person Test.........................
97
26
Multiple Regression Results for Woodcock-Johnson Tests of

Achievement - Revised Clusters and the Developmental Test of VisualMotor Integration/Draw-A-Person Test..........................................................
99
Multiple Regression Results for Wechsler Individual Achievement Test

Clusters and the Bender Gestalt Test/Draw-A-Person Test..........................
100
Multiple Regression Analyses Results for the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of

Achievement - Revised and Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration/Draw-A-Person Test, Including Partial Correlations of
Intellectual Ability with Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement Revised Clusters................................................................................................
101
Multiple Regression Analyses Results for the Wechsler Individual

Achievement Test and Bender Gestalt Test/Draw-A-Person Test,
Including Partial Correlation of Intellectual Ability with Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test Clusters............................................................
102
19
27
28
29
xiii
TABLE
30 Multiple Regression Analyses Results for the Developmental Test of

Visual-Motor Integration and Draw-A-Person Test with the WoodcockJohnson Tests of Achievement - Revised Clusters By Age.........................
31
Multiple Regression Analyses Results for the Bender Gestalt Test and
Draw-A-Person Test with the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
Clusters By Age................................................................................................
Page
103
109
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Drawing measures are used frequently for psychoeducational assessment

purposes in schools, clinics, and other assessment settings (Dickson, Bobo, Guerrero, &
Livingston, 2001; Kamphaus, Petoskey, & Rowe, 2000). Unfortunately, the extent of
time involved in administering and scoring various drawing tasks may not provide useful
information. Even the most touted drawing measures reveal little information to the
examiner other than an estimate of general ability level or an indicator of emotional or
behavioral difficulties. If drawings are able to predict achievement or diagnostic
classification more accurately, the time spent in giving drawing measures certainly
would be validated. However, if drawing measures are better classified as rapport
developers, then perhaps their use should be limited and scoring systems disregarded.
The purpose of this study is to address some of these issues.
In this chapter, an introduction to the current study is presented. A general
overview of the study, the statement of the problem, and the abilities tapped by drawing
measures are detailed. In addition, the theoretical perspective and the importance of the
study are presented. Finally, research questions, study objectives, and coinciding
hypotheses are enumerated.
This dissertation follows the style and format of Archives o f Clinical Neuropsychology.
Following this chapter, an extensive review of the literature is included in

Chapter II. The literature reviews the history of drawings, their current uses, and recent
study findings supporting or negating their use for their respective samples. Chapter III
includes a detailed account of the methodology used. The sample demographics are
provided. Also, each instrument is reviewed and psychometric data are provided.
Finally, the data analyses to address the research questions are enumerated.
Results are presented in text, tabular, and graphic format with Chapter IV.
Finally, Chapter V provides a discussion of the findings enumerated in Chapter IV. The
research questions will be reviewed and the data will be interpreted based on these eight
questions. An interpretation of the study objectives and hypotheses will be included to
assess the extent to which the data matches the original hypotheses.
Statement of the Problem
Drawings have been in use for centuries, but their use for assessment purposes
only began within the past one hundred years (Chandler, 1990; Knoff, 1990). The first
drawings on cave walls conveyed stories and historical events that otherwise might not
have lasted through oral dialogue alone. Prior to the invention of the camera and other
recording equipment, artists sketched portraits of great historical figures. Without these
drawings, students might never know what these important historical figures looked like.
Although drawings are not used to document historical information or related significant
events with the prevalence they once were, drawings continue to serve a variety of
purposes. Artists' drawings and paintings convey emotions and represent something that
is significant to the artist. If one were to walk through any museum of modem art, one
would see an interpretation of an artists life. Most people would agree that tones of
color, shading, and form are manipulated to represent something that is important to the
artist.
Although drawings in assessment are not usually mounted on walls of great
museums, they continue to represent the skill and intent of the person creating the
drawing. They also reflect a child's cultural values and necessitate a consideration of the
context in which they are drawn to gain a full understanding of the implications
(Andersson, 1995). Drawings created in assessment situations are purported to serve a
variety of purposes, including differential diagnosis, evaluation of brain damage,
appraisal of behavioral and emotional difficulties, prediction of intellectual abilities, and
the prediction of academic achievement and school readiness. The interpretation of
drawings for these purposes is valid.
The Abilities Tapped by Drawing Measures
The abilities tapped by drawings as they are used for assessment purposes must
be examined. There are several basic constructs that drawings inherently tap into,
including fine motor skills, visual-perceptual abilities, visual-motor abilities, and
intelligence. Perhaps the most basic skill whereupon drawing relies is intelligence.
General intellectual ability is one of the most influential factors with regard to
performance on drawing tasks. Drawing measures often purport to represent one's level
of mental or intellectual maturity (Knoff, 1990). Even individuals with sub-average
intellect are generally knowledgeable of what a person or house looks like and should be
able to draw an adequate representation of such figures. Furthermore, individuals also
should be able to copy simple geometric figures up to a point equivalent to their

cognitive development.
The second skill upon which drawing relies is fine motor ability. The skill of
holding a pencil in such a manner so as to have the best control and movement varies
between children. Although this skill is usually refined in the first year or two of school,
some children continue to have difficulty with fine motor abilities. Therefore, it is
important for the examiner to rule out fine motor difficulties as a significant contributor
to poor performance on a drawing measure.
The third skill upon which drawing ability is dependent is visual-perceptual
ability. Rathus (1994) defined visual-perceptual ability as obtaining knowledge about an
object or figure through the sense of vision. It incorporates knowledge and previous
experience. Visual-perceptual ability is a psychological process through which one
interprets information gained through one's sense of vision and creates an inner
representation of the world. If either ability is not intact (vision or perception), an
individual's visual-perceptual ability will be affected (Rathus, 1994).
The fourth skill, highly dependent on visual-perceptual ability, is visual-motor
integration. Visual-motor integration abilities are connections between visual and motor
processes. As with visual-perceptual ability, a drawing task cannot be completed without
both vision and motor abilities being intact. If the connection between the two processes
is disjointed or short-circuited, the result may be an incomplete or distorted drawing
(Rathus, 1994).
Lastly, performance on drawing measures is affected by cultural variables and

exposure to different experiences (Andersson, 1995; Moran, 1990; Taylor & Partenio,
1984). Although it is assumed that most children have been exposed to drawing tasks,
there may be qualitative differences in drawings, especially those that are stimulus-free
and do not root the examinee in a specific stimulus. Thus, drawings are only the end
result of a conglomeration of skills a child has. Although completed drawings do not
identity process techniques, examination of drawings reveals significant quantitative and
qualitative information to be considered in the assessment.
Theoretical Perspective
Although drawings tap a conglomeration of skills, first and foremost, drawings
reflect the development of an individual. Very young children often have no regard for
shape, form, or color, but are happy to create marks on a piece of paper. As children
mature and continue to have increased exposure to forms and figures, their drawings
become more detailed, complex, and are more exact representations of a particular
stimulus. However, maturation occurs in more than one sphere. It is important to
consider all of the ramifications maturation has on a child, including cognitive, visualmotor, and developmental milestones.
Piaget (1963) theorized that an individual is constantly striving to make mental
representations of the world, which grow more sophisticated as one matures. Piaget
conceptualized cognitive development as the core feature that influenced all other areas
of development, including development of visual-motor abilities and attainment of
general developmental milestones. Therefore, based on Piaget's conceptualization of
cognitive development, it can be surmised that as children mature cognitively, the ability
to create more detailed and accurate drawings also improves.
Conversely, Knoff (1990) stated, "children's drawings of a 'person' will most
reflect their cognitive conceptualizations of those physical or other characteristics
possessed by their prototypical person" (p. 94); this reflection is not based on empirical
data, however. In other words, Knoff supported Piaget's conceptualization of cognitive
development and issued a theory that children's drawings reflect their respective stage in
cognitive development. Therefore, based on the arguments of Piaget and Knoff,
cognitive development may influence a child's ability to draw, just as children's
drawings reflect their maturational level.
Importance of the Study
Determining the use of drawings in the assessment process is important for
several reasons. First, drawing measures such as the Bender Gestalt Test (Bender, 1938),
the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI; Beery, 1997), and the DrawA-Person Test (DAP; Reynolds & Hickman, in press) are brief measures that often are
administered in school and clinical settings; at this time, however, little additional
information is provided by their results. The VMI provides a standard score that
represents an individual's visual-motor integration, but there is little use of that
information beyond a general screening of fine motor functioning. Other drawing
techniques are used to provide a global screening of cognitive ability. If the results of
these measures provided additional information (e.g., predicting academic functioning or
discriminating between clinical and nonclinical groups) beyond which some general
sense of basic visual motor skill ability or general intellectual maturity, their continued
use would be validated and supported. The use of these measures would add to the
wealth of information gleaned from a comprehensive psychoeducational assessment that
includes such measures.
For the most part, clinicians prefer to use an assessment instrument if it reveals
more than just a very small piece of information. Assessment tools that measure only
one construct have given way to more comprehensive tools, such as the Behavior
Assessment System for Children (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1998). Similarly, just as the
Wechsler Intellectual Scales for Children Third Edition (WISC-III; Wechsler, 1991)
provides an overall ability score in addition to revealing smaller factor scores and
individual strengths and weaknesses, gleaning information beyond simple visual motor
abilities or general intellectual maturity would add relevance to the use of the
aforementioned drawing measures. As is reviewed in Chapter II, it is apparent that more
research needs to be done in this area.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The present study was initiated to determine whether performance on three
drawing measures (the Bender Gestalt Test, the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of
Visual-Motor Integration, and the Draw-A-Person) is predictive of academic
achievement. The objective of the present study was to ascertain the benefit and
applicability of using these simple drawing measures. Furthermore, an attempt was made
to determine whether the aforementioned drawing measures are sensitive to differences
in clinical and nonclinical groups, as well as gender. Therefore, the present study
addresses the following questions and proposes the corresponding hypotheses:
Question 1
Do boys and girls perform differently on the Bender Gestalt Test, the BeeryBuktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, and the Draw-A-Person
Test? It is hypothesized that there will not be a statistically significant difference
between boys' and girls' performance on the Bender Gestalt Test, the Beery-Buktenica
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, and the Draw-A-Person Test.
Question 2
Do clinical and nonclinical groups perform differently on the Bender Gestalt
Test, the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, and the
Draw-A-Person test? It is hypothesized that there will be a statistically significant
difference between clinical and nonclinical groups' performance on the Bender Gestalt
Draw-A-Person test. Specifically, it is hypothesized that the greatest difference will be
between the clinical-combined group and nonclinical-nonreferred group.
Question 3
Is performance on the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration and the Draw-A-Person Test predictive of performance on the WoodcockJohnson Tests of Achievement - Revised (WJ-R)? It is hypothesized that performance on
the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and the Draw-A-
Person Test will be predictive of performance on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of

Achievement - Revised (WJ-R).
Question 4
Is performance on the Bender Gestalt Test and the Draw-A-Person Test
predictive of performance on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT)? It is
hypothesized that performance on the Bender Gestalt Test and the Draw-A-Person Test
will be predictive of performance on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
(WIAT).
Question 5
Does performance on the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration and the Draw-A-Person Test account for a significant amount of the variance
in performance on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised above and
beyond intellectual ability? It is hypothesized that performance on the Beery-Buktenica
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and the Draw-A-Person Test will
account for a significant amount of the variance in performance on the WoodcockJohnson Tests of Achievement - Revised above and beyond intellectual ability.
Question 6
Does performance on the Bender Gestalt Test and the Draw-A-Person Test
account for a significant amount of the variance in performance on the Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test above and beyond intellectual ability? It is hypothesized
that performance on the Bender Gestalt Test and the Draw-A-Person Test will account
10
for a significant amount of the variance in performance on the Wechsler Individual

Achievement Test above and beyond intellectual ability.
Question 7
Is there an incremental change with regard to predictive validity of the BeeryBuktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and the Draw-A-Person Test
on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised? It is hypothesized that there
will be an incremental change with regard to predictive validity of the Beery-Buktenica
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and the Draw-A-Person Test on the
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised. Specifically, as the child becomes
older, the VMI and DAP will become less predictive.
Question 8
Is there an incremental change with regard to predictive validity of the Bender
Gestalt Test and the Draw-A-Person Test on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test?
It is hypothesized that there will be an incremental change with regard to predictive
validity of the Bender Gestalt Test and the Draw-A-Person Test on the Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test. Specifically, as the child becomes older, the VMI and
DAP will become less predictive.
11
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
After providing a general introduction and overview to the current study in the
previous chapter, an extensive review of the applicable literature is necessary. In the
current chapter, the literature regarding the basics of drawing measures will be
examined. In particular, the use of stimulus-bound drawing measures, namely the
Bender Gestalt Test (BGT; Bender, 1938) and the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test
of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI; Beery, 1997), and their ability to predict school
readiness, achievement, and other factors will be examined. Next, stimulus-free drawing
measures, such as the Draw-A-Person Test, will be discussed. Also, a review of the
literature is presented to address relevant issues in the use of drawing measures in
assessment. Furthermore, a discussion regarding the use of a combination of drawing
measures, stimulus-free and stimulus-bound, will be proposed.
The current chapter reviews the relevant literature and leads directly into Chapter
III, which details the method and procedure of the current study, including the sample,
instruments, and data analyses. Chapter IV relates the findings from the data analyses.
Chapter V includes an extensive interpretation and discussion of the findings from the
data analyses and their relation to the respective research questions and hypotheses.
12
The Basics of Drawing Measures

When used as part of psychological assessment, there is an underlying
assumption that drawings can be used as something more than art or entertainment. In
fact, drawings have been and remain popular psychological assessment tools (Archer &
Newsom, 2000; Dickson, Bobo, Guerrero, & Livingston, 2001; Kamphaus, Petoskey, &
Rowe, 2000; Stinnett, Havey, & Oehler-Stinnett, 1994). Drawings such as the Bender
Gestalt Test and Draw-A-Person Test are typically among the top ten most frequently
used assessment measures by practitioners (Tuma & Elbert, 1990). Even in forensic
evaluation, the Bender Gestalt Test ranked among the top ten most frequently used
assessment measures following intelligence, personality, and memory measures (LeesHaley, 1992; Lees-Haley, Smith, Williams, & Dunn, 1996). The use of drawings such as
the Bender Gestalt Test, the Draw-A-Person Test, and the Developmental Test of Visual
Motor Integration continue to be popular assessment tools among neuropsychologists,
school psychologists, counselors, and social workers (Dickson, et al., 2001;
Frauenhoffer, Ross, Gfeller, & Searight, 1998; Lees-Haley, Smith, Williams, & Dunn,
1996; Stinnett, Havey, & Oehler-Stinnett, 1994). It is important to note the important
differences between drawing measures and the purposes for which drawings are used.
Drawing measures can be classified into two groups for ease of interpretation. These two
groups of drawing measures are stimulus-bound and stimulus-free drawing measures.
13
Stimulus-Bound Drawing Measures

Stimulus-bound drawing measures are tied to a prefabricated stimulus picture.
The pictures may include a horizontal line, a square, a cube, and other geometric shapes.
The task of examinees is, to the best of their ability, to reproduce the stimulus figure in
the designated area. Some examples of stimulus-bound drawing measures include the
Bender Gestalt Test (Bender, 1938), the Developmental Test of Visual Perception Second Edition (Hammill, Pearson, & Voress, 1994), the Beery-Buktenica
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration Fourth Edition Revised (Beery, 1997),
Geometric Design of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence Revised
(WPPSI-R; Wechsler, 1989), and Copying of the Differential Abilities Scales (Elliott,
1990).
Based on the early literature, it seems that researchers always have been
interested in the efficacy of drawings to predict some aspect of school performance,
whether it is the emergence of learning disabilities, school readiness, or academic
abilities and achievement. Beginning in the first half of the twentieth century,
researchers began to research the efficacy of using drawings as tools in the assessment of
children. Thorndike (1913) demonstrated a scoring system based on merit points to
evaluate drawings and predict a child's level of achievement. Several decades later,
Travers (1949) argued against the use of any single assessment tool to predict academic
success. In fact, Travers indicated that because at least half of a student's scholastic
success results from factors other than academic prowess (i.e., motivation, personality,
environmental, etc.), the idea of having any single device that accurately predicts
14
achievement in school is rather dubious. Nevertheless, investigators continue to assess

the value of using particular drawing measures to predict aspects of academic
achievement. The following sections detail the research that has been completed to date
regarding the singular use of the Bender Gestalt Test and the Developmental Test of
Visual-Motor Integration to predict achievement.
Bender Gestalt Test. In the 1950s, several manuscripts were written describing
the use of drawings, particularly the Bender Gestalt, as measures of school readiness.
Harriman and Harriman (1950) studied the Bender Gestalt Test as an assessment tool
that measures the ability of a student to benefit from a regular education curriculum. The
authors found significant qualitative and quantitative differences between children who
had not yet learned to read and those that were reading. Specifically, they found that
children who were able to produce forms that more closely resembled those of adults
were more successful in reading. Also, Harriman and Harriman (1950) noted that
nonreaders were more apt to make erasures and perform drawings at a slower rate than
readers. Furthermore, the authors indicated that the resulting difference between the two
groups of children was based on maturational level and training opportunities in similar
tasks.
In contrast, Baldwin (1950) refuted Harriman and Harriman's (1950) argument
that school readiness could be predicted solely by the Bender Gestalt Test. She indicated
that Harriman and Harriman neglected to account for several other factors that likely
influenced the students' performance on the Bender Gestalt Test. Baldwin suggested that
Harriman and Harriman did not control for age, intellectual ability, physical
15
development or other factors when interpreting the results of their study. Therefore,
Baldwin completed a study regarding the use of the Bender Gestalt Test with two
siblings who were close in age, and found that the Bender Gestalt Test was a poor
predictor of their reading ability. Similar to Travers' (1949) conclusion that other factors
must be considered when predicting academic success, Baldwin (1950) insisted that the
prediction of scholastic success (i.e., reading aptitude) should never be accomplished on
the basis of only one assessment measure.
Koppitz's early work focused on using the Bender Gestalt Test to differentiate
between high and low performing students. Koppitz (1958) discovered that two groups
of deviations (inability to control lines and inability to assemble a whole figure out of
smaller parts) on the Bender Gestalt Test were useful in predicting if a student achieved
above or below average in the first four grades of school. The Bender Gestalt Test was
not as useful in making meaningful predictions for children who enjoyed average
achievement (see also Blakeslee, 1972). Keogh (1965a, 1965b) and Koppitz (1973)
found similar results, with one exception. Good performance on the Bender Gestalt Test
was predictive of later success in academic achievement. Poor performance on the
Bender Gestalt Test did not appear to significantly predict academic achievement. In
contrast, Norfleet (1973) found that the Bender Gestalt Test was useful in predicting
achievement at the low, average, and high achievement levels.
A validation study of Koppitz's Bender Gestalt Test scoring system was
completed by Thweatt (1963). Third grade students, who were given the Bender Gestalt
Test in first grade, were administered measures to assess their reading vocabulary and
16
comprehension achievement. Results indicated that the Bender Gestalt Test was a useful
measure that could accurately determine reading achievement.
Fisher (1967) also attempted to differentiate between two groups of students:
those with learning problems and those without. Fisher used the Bender Gestalt Test and
the Draw-A-Person Test and found that each test was able to detect a statistically
significant difference between students with learning disabilities and normals.
Unfortunately, Fisher did not investigate whether using both measures together would
increase the predictive validity of the measures as used alone.
Similarly, Koppitz (1975) completed a study that examined the ability of the
Bender Gestalt Test to differentiate between readers and nonreaders, as well as between
children with learning difficulties and normal controls. She found that the Bender Gestalt
Test was able to differentiate between children with learning difficulties and normal
controls. In contrast, she discovered that the Bender Gestalt Test was unable to
differentiate between readers and nonreaders and suggested that the Bender Gestalt Test
may not be a useful tool in predicting reading achievement.
Similarly, Brenner and Gillman (1968) investigated the use of the Bender Gestalt
Test with students who had visuomotor difficulties and normal controls. They found that
the Bender Gestalt Test was significantly correlated with school achievement and was
able to discriminate between children with visuomotor difficulties and normal controls.
Henderson, Butler, and Goffeney (1969) evaluated the effectiveness of the
Bender Gestalt Test to predict achievement in a diverse population. The authors
discovered that the Bender Gestalt Test was a significant predictor of arithmetic and
17
reading achievement. However, when a multiple regression analysis was completed, it

was found that the Bender Gestalt Test accounted for very little of the overall variance
beyond that which was accounted for by intelligence.
Kelly and Amble (1970) investigated the predictive validity of the Bender Gestalt
Test with children who were placed in an Educable Mentally Handicapped classroom.
The authors found a statistically significant correlation between the scores obtained on
the Bender Gestalt Test and academic performance in the areas of reading, spelling, and
mathematics. However, by completing a multiple regression analysis, it was found that
the Bender Gestalt Test accounted for very little of the variance in reading and spelling
beyond that accounted for by chronological age and IQ.
In contrast, Morgenstern and Mclvor (1973) found that the Bender Gestalt Test
was not at all predictive of school achievement with children with mental retardation.
However, the authors corroborated the finding of Kelly and Amble (1970) by
discovering that the Bender Gestalt Test was significantly correlated with mathematics
achievement.
Paul (1971) investigated the use of the Bender Gestalt Test with children with
learning disabilities. In his study, Paul discovered that a great deal of the variance in the
students' reading achievement could be accounted for by the combined use of the Bender
Gestalt Test and an intelligence measure.
In a sample of children of low birthweight and normal controls, Nielson and
Sapp (1991) discovered that the Bender Gestalt Test was a more useful predictor of
academic achievement for low birthweight students than normal birthweight students.
18
Dibner and Korn (1969) also found support for the use of the Bender Gestalt Test in
predicting academic achievement. However, their finding was confined to predicting the
academic performance of kindergarten students, as the predictive validity of Bender
Gestalt Test waned as students progressed in age.
In addition, Keogh and Smith (1967) detailed the result of a seven-year
longitudinal study. The authors found that the Bender Gestalt Test significantly
predicted the achievement of students in sixth grade. It is important to note that Keogh
and Smith (1967) found that the relationship between the Bender Gestalt Test and third
grade achievement was generally nonexistent. Furthermore, they also found that the
performance of girls was more stable from the beginning to the end of the study.
Koppitz, Mardis, and Stephens (1961) and Hammer (1967) found that the Bender
Gestalt Test was useful in predicting academic performance at the end of first grade.
Hammer (1967) also found that the Bender Gestalt Test was predictive of gain in reading
achievement. Furthermore, Hammer (1967) discovered that scores for economically
disadvantaged students were significantly lower than for students who were not
disadvantaged.
Stadler (1966) and Chang and Chang (1967) discovered that the Bender Gestalt
Test was a useful predictor of academic achievement for first grade children. Stadler's
(1966) results also demonstrated that the Bender Gestalt Test was a stronger predictor of
boys' academic achievement than girls' achievement, but both were statistically
significant. Similarly, Wallbrown, Engin, Wallbrown, and Blaha (1975) discovered that
the Bender Gestalt Test was a strong predictor of first grade reading comprehension
19
achievement. In addition, Wallbrown and colleagues found that the Bender Gestalt Test,
coupled with intelligence, was a very strong predictor of first grade reading
achievement.
Carter, Spero, and Walsh (1978) completed a study with low achieving first
grade students to identify the predictive validity of the Bender Gestalt Test. They
discovered that the Bender Gestalt Test was able to discriminate between differing levels
of achievement groups in vocabulary and math. On the contrary, Carter and colleagues
found that the Bender Gestalt Test was unable to differentiate between differing levels of
achievement groups in reading comprehension, thereby contradicting the findings of
Thweat (1963) and Wallbrown et al. (1975).
Smith and Smith (1988) also completed a study examining the predictive validity
of the Bender Gestalt test with children who were referred for low academic
achievement. Their findings were very interesting and contradicted several previous
studies. Smith and Smith discovered that the Bender Gestalt Test did not predict
achievement in any area for low achieving students who were in the low group (6-0 to 711 years old) or high group (10-0 to 11-11 years old). On the contrary, the authors found
that the Bender Gestalt Test was a useful predictor for low achieving students who were
in the middle group (8-0 to 9-11 years old).
Furthermore, Koppitz (1973) detected that other deviations or errors on Bender
Gestalt Test resulted from immaturity or emotional difficulties within the child. Koppitz
(1970) continued her support of the Bender Gestalt Test, but adamantly argued that it
should not be used to determine the diagnostic label of a child. Rather, she stated that
20
professionals working with children should use the results from the Bender Gestalt Test
to identify the child's level of functioning and therefore establish the individual
curriculum.
In contrast to these studies, there have been other investigations into the use of
the Bender Gestalt Test. These studies have not found the Bender Gestalt Test to be a
useful predictor of academic achievement. Numerous investigations found negligible
results in using the Bender Gestalt Test to predict academic performance (Buckley,
1978; Connor, 1968-1969; Coy, 1974; Egeland, DiNello, & Carr, 1970; Giebink &
Birch, 1970; Lessler, Schoeninger, & Bridges, 1970; McKay & Neale, 1985).
To date, results of research studies on the ability of the Bender Gestalt Test to
predict academic achievement are equivocal. Some researchers supported the argument
that the Bender Gestalt Test would be a useful measure to predict achievement if used in
conjunction with other assessment data, while other researchers noted that the Bender
Gestalt Test could be used alone to predict achievement in school. Some studies resulted
in findings that supported the use of the Bender Gestalt Test to predict achievement in
school, but only for children in kindergarten or first grade. It is apparent that the bulk of
literature available does not negate nor fully support the use of the Bender Gestalt Test,
in isolation, to predict academic achievement. All of the studies that use the Bender
Gestalt Test are summarized in Table 1.
21
Table 1
Studies Using the Bender Gestalt Test

Study
Population(s)
IQ/Age
Predictive Validity Findings
Controlled
Baldwin
12 year old
(1950)
twin girls
Blakeslee
1st grade
(1972)
students
IQ and Age-The BGT was a poor predictor of

reading ability
83
Age only-The BGT was not as useful in

making meaningful predictions for
children who enjoyed average
achievement, compared to those who
had high or poor achievement
Brenner &
Students 8-9
Gillman
years old
810
IQ and Age-The BGT was significantly

correlated with school achievement
(1968)
-The BGT was able to discriminate

between children with visuomotor
difficulties and normal controls
Carter,
Students 6-9
Spero, &
years old
78
IQ and Age
-The BGT successfully predicted

performance in vocabulary and math
Walsh
-The BGT was unable to predict
(1978)
achievement in reading
comprehension
22
Table 1. Continued
Study
Population(s)
IQ/Age
Controlled
Chang &
2nd and 3rd
Chang
grade
significantly correlated with reading
(1967)
students
achievement for 2nd grade students
Connor
2nd grade
(1968-1969)
students
100
60
IQ only
IQ and Age
-The BGT, coupled with IQ, was
-No significant differences between

groups were found for any of the 9
BGT designs
-Poor BGT performance was found as
often for good and poor readers
Coy (1974)
3rd grade
51
Age only
students
-No significant correlations were

found between the BGT and
achievement scores
-The BGT did not discriminate
between high and low achievers
Dibner &
Kindergarten
492
Age only
Korn (1969) through 4th
-Predictive validity of the BGT was

strongest in kindergarten and 1st grade
grade
students
Egeland,
1st and 3ld
DiNello, &
grade boys
125
IQ and Age
-Performance on the BGT was not

predictive of achievement
Carr (1970)
23
Table 1. Continued
Study
Population(s)
IQ/Age
Controlled
Fisher
Learning
(1967)
disabled
between learning disabled and normal
children
controls
Giebink &
2nd grade
NR
142
Neither
Age only
Birch (1970) students
-The BGT was able to differentiate
-There was little relationship between

BGT performance and reading
achievement
Hammer
1st grade
(1967)
students
617
Neither
-The BGT was useful in predicting

achievement at the end of first grade
-The BGT was predictive of gain in
reading achievement
Harriman &
Preschool
Harriman
and 2nd grade
forms that more closely resembled
(1950)
students
those of adults were more successful
60
Neither
-Children who were able to produce
in reading
Henderson,
6-7 year olds
203
IQ and Age
-Although there was a statistically
Butler, &
significant correlation between the
Goffeney
BGT and achievement, the BGT
(1969)
predicted very little of the overall

variance beyond that accounted for by
IQ
24
Table 1. Continued
Study
Population(s)
IQ/Age
Controlled
Kelly &
Students
74
IQ and Age
Amble
placed in an
(1970)
Educable
BGT and achievement, the BGT
Mentally
predicted very little of the overall
handicapped
variance beyond that accounted for by
classroom
IQ and age when a multiple

regression analysis was performed
Keogh
3rd grade
(1965a)
students
127
IQ
-Good performance on the BGT was

predictive of later school success
-Poor performance on the BGT did
not appear to significantly predict
academic achievement
Keogh
3rd grade
(1965b)
students
127
IQ

25
Table 1. Continued
Study
Population(s)
IQ/Age
Controlled
Keogh &
6 grade
Smith
students
73
IQ
-The BGT significantly predicted the

achievement of students in sixth grade
-The relationship between the BGT
(1967)
and third grade achievement was very

low
Koppitz
1st - 4th grade
(1958)
students
128
IQ and Age
-2 groups of deviations on the BGT

were useful in predicting above or
below average achievement in the
first 4 grades of school
-The BGT was not as useful in
making meaningful predictions for
children who enjoyed average
achievement
Koppitz
8th grade
(1973)
students
43
IQ

26
Table 1. Continued
Study
Population(s)
IQ/Age
Controlled
Koppitz
Students 8-9
(1975)
years old
76
IQ and Age
-The BGT was able to differentiate

between children with learning
difficulties and normal controls
-The BGT was unable to differentiate
between readers and nonreaders
Koppitz,
1st grade
Mardis, &
students
272 Neither

academic performance at the end of
first grade
Stephens
(1961)
Lessler,
1st grade
Schoeninger,
students
154 Neither

& Bridges
BGT and reading achievement, the
(1970)
BGT predicted very little of the

overall variance beyond that
accounted for by a reading readiness
test when a multiple regression
analysis was performed
McKay &
4th grade
Neale (1985)
students
195 IQ and Age
-Total BGT errors were not predictive

of reading or writing achievement
27
Table 1. Continued
Study
Population(s)
IQ/Age
Controlled
76
IQ and Age
-The BGT was not predictive of
Morgenstern
Students 9-15
& Mclvor
years old
school achievement with children
(1973)
with mental
with mental retardation
retardation
-The BGT was significantly

correlated with math achievement
153
IQ and Age
-The BGT was a useful predictor of
Nielson &
Students 6-12
Sapp(1991)
years old of
academic achievement for low birth
low or
weight students than normal birth
normal
weight students
birthweight
Norfleet
1st grade
(1973)
students
Paul(1971)
Learning
311
Age only

achievement at all achievement levels
91
IQ and Age
-In combination with IQ, the BGT
Disabled
was highly predictive of reading
students 6-12
achievement
years old
115
IQ and Age
-The BGT did not correlate with
Smith &
Students 7-11
Smith
years old
achievement for children 6-7 or 10-11
(1988)
referred for
-The BGT correlated with reading,
low
spelling, and arithmetic for children 8
achievement
to 9 years old
28
Table 1. Continued
Study
Population(s)
IQ/Age
Controlled
Thweatt
3rd grade
(1963)
students
Wallbrown,
1st grade
Engin,
students
51
Neither
-The BGT accurately predicted

reading achievement
100
IQ and Age
-The BGT was the greatest predictor

of 1st grade reading comprehension
Wallbrown,
-In combination with IQ, the BGT
& Blaha
was an important component in
(1975)
predicting reading achievement.
Note. BGT = Bender Gestalt Test; NR = Not Reported.
29
Developmental Test o f Visual-Motor Integration. There are two forms of the

Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. The first form was published in 1967
by Beery. There were several other standardizations of the first form, which culminated
in some scoring changes and new norming standards in the current Developmental Test
of Visual-Motor Integration Fourth Edition Revised. The Beery-Buktenica
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration Fourth Edition Revised (VMI; Beery,
1997) is a measure that consists of increasingly complex geometric figures that a child is
required to copy. Individual scores are obtained by adding the number of correctly
drawn forms prior to three consecutive failures. It is important to note that because of the
lack of discrimination for older children, the use of the Developmental Test of VisualMotor Integration should be limited to children twelve years of age or younger
(Abbatiello & Kpo, 1989). It is important to note that, of the literature reviewed, there
were very few studies that used the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration as
the only independent variable. The studies found are detailed here.
Klein (1978) investigated the use of the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration with a preschool population and discovered that the Developmental Test of
Visual-Motor Integration was a reliable and moderately predictive instrument. In
particular, Klein found that achievement in the area of mathematics and arithmetic was
predicted best by the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration in comparison to
reading and auditory skills.
Several studies investigated the use of the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration in predicting first-grade achievement. Busch (1980) investigated the use of
30
several measures to predict first-grade reading achievement. Although he found that

there was a statistically significant correlation (r = 0.47) between the Developmental
Test of Visual-Motor Integration and the criterion measure, the Gates-MacGinitie
Reading Tests (MacGinitie, 1978), the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration
predicted very little of the overall variance when a multiple regression analysis was
performed. Likewise, Colarusso, Gill, Plankenhorn, and Brooks (1980) investigated the
use of several measures, including the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration,
to predict first-grade achievement. Of the ten independent variables, only two, the
Motor-Free Visual Perception Test (Colarusso & Flammill; 1972) and the Auditory
Sequential Memory Test subtest of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities Revised Edition (Kirk, McCarthy, & Kirk, 1968), correlated significantly with the
criterion measure. Flowever, even though the correlation was statistically significant, it
was not high enough to warrant their use in predicting achievement. Moreover,
Colarusso and colleagues did not find the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration to be predictive of first-grade achievement.
In contrast, Flinshaw, Carte, and Morrison (1986) found very powerful results
using the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration to predict academic
achievement based on the scores of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT; Jastak
& Jastak, 1978) and the Gates-MacGinitie Comprehension Test (MacGinitie, 1978). In
fact, the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration was the best predictor of
achievement for young children, accounting for thirty to forty-nine percent of the
variance in the criterion measures. Likewise, Kulp (1999) found that the Developmental
31
Test of Visual-Motor Integration had a statistically significant correlation with teachers'

rating of academic achievement in kindergarten, first, and second grade students, and
with academic achievement in seven-, eight-, and nine-year olds. The Developmental
Test of Visual-Motor Integration was most powerful in predicting achievement based on
second grade students' performance on the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test 6th Edition
(Otis & Lennon, 1989; r = 0. 5l, p < 0.001).
In summary, like the Bender Gestalt Test, there are conflicting results regarding
the use of the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration to predict academic
achievement. Some studies resulted in very powerful results, demonstrating that the
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration accounted for nearly half of the
variance in achievement measures. In contrast, although other studies found strong
correlations between the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and
achievement measures, these studies discovered that the Developmental Test of VisualMotor Integration did not account for much of the variance in these same measures.
Thus, it appears that stimulus-bound drawing measures may have some value in
predicting academic achievement as long as they are used in conjunction with other
assessment measures and information. Table 2 summarizes the studies that use the
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration in isolation of other drawing
instruments.
32
Table 2
Studies Using the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration Fourth Edition

Revised
Study
Population(s)
IQ/Age
Controlled
Abbatiello &
Children 6-
Kpo (1989)
17 years old
1940 Age only
-The ability to discriminate the

performance of children older than 14
years of age is lacking
Busch (1980)
1st grade
1052 IQ and Age

students
VMI and the Gates-MacGinitie

Reading Tests, the VMI predicted very
little of the overall variance when a
multiple regression analysis was
performed
Colarusso,
5 year old
Gill,
Headstart
Plankenhorn,
students
40
Age only
-The VMI was not found to be

predictive of first-grade achievement
& Brooks
(1980)
33
Table 2. Continued
Study
Population(s)
IQ/Age
Controlled
Hinshaw,
Students 5-11
Carte, &
years old
74
IQ and Age
-The VMI was the best predictor of

achievement in the younger group
Morrison
-IQ was the best predictor of
(1986)
achievement in the older group
Klein (1978)
Kulp (1999)
Children in
1800
Age only
-Predictive validity is higher over
kindergarten
shorter time spans
through 2nd
-Arithmetic is the area best predicted
grade
by the VMI
Children in
191
Age for
-The VMI had a statistically significant
kindergarten
total
correlation with teachers' rating of
through 3rd
sample,
grade
IQ for 2nd
-The VMI was most powerful in
grade
predicting achievement based on 2nd
students
grade students' performance on the

OLSAT-6
Note. VMI = Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration; OLSAT-6 = Otis-Lennon

School Ability Test 6th Edition.
34
Stimulus-Free Drawing Measures

In this section, the use of stimulus-free drawing measures will be detailed and a
brief discussion will be presented to explain some of the more commonly used scoring
systems. In contrast to stimulus-bound drawing measures, stimulus-free drawings
measures are not embedded in a prefabricated stimulus picture. In fact, with the
exception of following the general rules provided by the examiner, the examinee may
construct any number of qualitatively and quantitatively different drawings. In general,
the examinee is instructed to draw the best picture of a person, tree, or house (i.e.,
House-Tree-Person; Western Psychological Services, 1992) that they can. In addition,
the examinee might be directed to draw a picture of a family or their school with each
person doing something. They are not limited by copying a stimulus picture or working
from the examiner's presuppositions or examples of what the drawings should emulate.
Once the general directions are provided, no additional direction is given to the
examinee. Examinees are free to include (or exclude, as the case may be) details such as
hands, feet, facial features, or clothes. Although the stimulus-free drawing tasks are all
basically the same with small wording differences in directions, there are numerous
scoring systems that continue to gain better psychometric properties as additional
research is undertaken (see Goodenough, 1926; Harris, 1963; Naglieri, 1988).
There are numerous scoring systems that practitioners use to score human figure
drawings (Abell, Wood, & Liebman, 2001; Hall & Ladriere, 1970). Some of the more
widely used scoring systems include the Goodenough-Harris (Harris, 1963), the DrawA-Person: Quantitative Scoring System (DAP: QSS; Naglieri, 1988), and the Draw-A-
35
Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (DAP: SPED; Naglieri,

McNeish, & Bardos, 1991). Some other systems for scoring human figure drawings
include the Evanston Early Identification Scale (Landsman & Dillard, 1967); the scoring
scale by Koppitz and colleagues (Koppitz, Sullivan, Blyth, & Shelton, 1959); the
Koppitz 30-Item Checklist (Koppitz, 1966b); the Koppitz 5-Item Emotional Indicators
(Koppitz, 1966a); the Koppitz Expected versus Exceptional Items Scale (Koppitz, 1967);
Koppitz 26-Item scale (Koppitz, 1968); and the Vane and Eisen 4-Item Checklist (Vane
& Eisen, 1962).
The first and probably most well-known of the human figure drawing scoring
systems is that which was created by Goodenough in 1926 and later modified by Harris
in 1963. The Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test (Goodenough & Harris, 1963) scoring
system accounts for three different facets of a child's drawings: the presence of items, the
overall quality of the drawing, and the integration of the drawing (Knoff, 1990). On this
test, the child is asked to complete three drawings: a man, a woman, and a drawing of
themselves. (However, all three drawings do not have to be completed to obtain standard
scores.) Each drawing is scored according to 73 (71 for the woman drawing) quantitative
and qualitative criteria. After a raw score is obtained for each drawing, it can be
converted into a standard score and a percentile rank. An average of the man and woman
drawings can be computed from the standard scores obtained from the two drawings.
Q ualitative raw scores are also transform ed into standard scores.
Naglieri (1988) also developed a scoring system, the Draw-A-Person:

Quantitative Scoring System. This scoring system is intended for use with three separate
36
drawings (Man, Woman, and Self) and accounts for the presence of items, the details of
the items, and the proportion of items. Bonus credit is given for any elaboration a child
might include in the drawing. Additional scoring systems such as the Koppitz 5-Item
Emotional Indicators (Els) of the Human Figure Drawing (Koppitz, 1966b) and the
Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (Naglieri, McNeish, &
Bardos, 1991), account for personality issues and projective material that may rise to the
surface in human figure drawings.
There have been several investigations into the predictive validity of stimulusfree drawing measures, such as human figure drawings. These drawings can be scored
using multiple scoring methods and are often referred to as the Goodenough Draw-AMan Test, Draw-A-Person Test, or Human Figure Drawing. Historically, drawings have
been used to give insight into the general intellectual functioning of the child. In a
review of the literature, Scott (1981) discovered that the Draw-A-Man Test was highly
correlated to common measures of intelligence, including the Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Scale (Terman & Merrill, 1972) and earlier forms of the Wechsler intelligence series.
Vane and Kessler (1964) corroborated this finding and reported that the Draw-A-Man
Test was highly correlated to measures of intelligence when administered to
kindergarten children. In contrast, Lindner (1962) found that his sample approached the
level for adequate validity when compared to the Stanford Binet at the first grade level
only.
Koppitz and colleagues (Koppitz, Sullivan, Blyth, & Shelton, 1959), Shipp and
Loudon (1964), and Schroeder and Bemis (1969) investigated human figure drawings
37
and found that they appeared to have some predictive validity of first grade achievement
similar to other standardized tests of ability. Another similar study (Ohuche & Ohuche,
1973), using the Goodenough procedure, found that human figure drawings were a good
predictor of academic achievement for African children. Yane and Kessler (1964) also
discovered that drawings scored using the Goodenough procedure provided a good
estimate of academic achievement, but only for kindergarten children. This finding was
hypothesized to be the result of the test having an inadequate ceiling for children with
normal intelligence beyond kindergarten. Similarly, Panther (1967) found moderate
predictive validity of drawings for reading achievement. Furthermore, Dudek and
colleagues (Dudek, Goldberg, Lester, & Harris, 1969) found support for the use of the
Goodenough-Harris system in predicting academic achievement in grades one and two.
Prewett, Bardos, and Naglieri (1989) completed an investigation to study the use
of the Draw-A-Person: Quantitative Scoring System (DAP: QSS) in determining
academic achievement for normal controls and children with mental retardation. In this
study, the authors discovered that the DAP: QSS was not predictive of academic
achievement in any area for the normal controls. On the other hand, the authors found
that the DAP: QSS correlated significantly with math achievement for the students with
mental retardation. For neither group did the scores from the DAP: QSS predict reading
achievement.
Other studies (Bachara, Zaba, & Raskin, 1976; Fisher, 1967) found a statistically
significant difference between students with learning disabilities and normals based on
the use of the Draw-A-Person Test, thereby providing further preliminary support to the
38
use of the Draw-A-Person Test for prediction of academic achievement. In like manner,
Dunleavy and colleagues (Dunleavy, Hansen, Szasz, and Baade, 1981) discovered that
the Draw-A-Person Test also was useful in identifying children that were not
academically prepared to succeed in first grade classrooms.
Similar to the Goodenough Draw-A-Man procedure, the Human Figure Drawing
also is stimulus-free. The HFD often is scored with consideration given to particular
Emotional Indicators (Els). Koppitz (1966b) found that the presence of the following Els
were predictive of school achievement and future learning problems: poor integration of
parts, slanting figures, omission of body and arms, and the inclusion of three or more
figures. Colligan (1967) and Dillard and Landsman (1968) discovered that the drawings
of children with learning problems differ quantitatively from normals. Colligan (1967)
found that drawings of children with learning problems differed qualitatively as well.
In summary, there is evidence that human figure drawings such as the Draw-APerson Test are useful in predicting intelligence. Based on the literature reviewed, there
is also some established support for the use of the Draw-A-Person in predicting
academic achievement. However, it is important to note that the level of prediction made
by the drawings depends on the scoring system used. Table 3 summarizes studies using
39
Table 3
Studies Using the Draw-A-Person Test

Study
Population(s)
Procedure Used
Bachara,
Students 5-7
70
Koppitz 5-Item
-The DAPs o f children with
Zaba, &
years old
Emotional Indicators
learning difficulties differed
Raskin
quantitatively and qualitatively
(1976)
from normals
Colligan
4th through
(1967)
6th grade
140
Author's personal
-DAPs o f boys with learning
scoring system
problems differed qualitatively
boys
from normals
-DAPs o f boys with learning
problems differ quantitatively
from normals
Dillard and
4th and 5th
Landsman
grade
(1968)
students
Dudek,
Kindergarten
Goldberg,
students
Lester, &
117
Evanston Early
-DAPs o f children with learning
Identification Scale
problems differ quantitatively

from normals
103
Goodenough-Harris
-The DAP was able to predict

first and second grade
achievement
Harris,
(1969)
40
Table 3. Continued
Study
Population(s)
Procedure Used
Dunleavy,
Kindergarten
141
Koppitz 26-Item
-The DAP was able to identify
Hansen,
students
a significant percentage o f
Szasz, &
academically "not ready"
Baade
children
(1981)
Koppitz
1st and 2
(1966b)
grade
nd
161
Koppitz 5-Item
-The DAP was predictive o f
Emotional Indicators
school achievement and future

learning problems
students
Koppitz,
1st grade
Sullivan,
students
143
Koppitz etal.
-The DAP was predictive o f
System
first grade achievement
Goodenough
-Performance on the DAP
Blyth, &
Shelton
(1959)
Lindner
1st through 6th
1800
(1962)
grade
approached the level for
students
adequate validity on an IQ
measure at the first grade level
Ohuche &
School-age
Ohuche
students
(1973)
202
Goodenough
-The DAP was a good predictor

o f academic achievement for
African children
41
Table 3. Continued
Study
Population(s)
Procedure Used
Panther
Is grade
44
Goodenough-Harris
-The DAP was moderately
(1967)
students
predictive of reading
achievement
Prewett,
4th and 5th
Bardos, &
grade
Naglieri
students
85
DAP: Qualitative
-The DAP was not predictive of
Scoring System
academic achievement for the

normal controls
-The DAP correlated
(1989)
significantly with math

achievement for the students
with mental retardation
-The DAP did not predict
reading achievement for either
group
Schroeder
1st grade
& Bemis
students
235
Goodenough
significantly with total
(1969)
achievement
Shipp and
1st grade
Loudon
students
(1964)
-The DAP correlated
115
Goodenough
-The DAP had some predictive

validity of 1st grade
achievement
42
Table 3. Continued
Study
Population(s)
Vane and
Kindergarten
280
Kessler
students
(1964)
Procedure Used
Goodenough
-The DAP was highly

correlated to measures of
intelligence
-The DAP was a good estimate
of academic achievement for
kindergarten children
Note. DAP = Draw-A-Person Test.
43
Use of Drawings in Assessment

Drawings are used for an array of assessment purposes. With regard to
assessment, drawings are used to aide in differential diagnosis, to evaluate brain damage
and disease, and to evaluate behavioral and emotional difficulties. Historically, they also
have been used to assess intellectual abilities and academic achievement.
Brain Damage or Disease
Occasionally, drawings are used to identify the presence or location of traumatic
brain injury or other brain damage. During the 1970s, the Bender Gestalt Test was found
to be useful in identifying the presence of brain damage (Koppitz, 1970) and was the
most widely used measure to assess a student's level of neurological impairment
(Buckley, 1978). Likewise, Fabian (1945) detailed the correlation between the
persistence of drawing rotations and a child's subsequent "mental deficiency or organic
brain disease" (p. 152). Although some rotation of forms may be due to normal
developmental processes, Fabian noted that continued malformation and misplacement
of figures may be indicative of either behavioral problems, environmental disadvantages,
or more severe developmental delays. Unfortunately, Fabian does not offer any advice to
filter one factor from the other. Regardless, Bender (1970) describes Fabian's work on
rotations in the Bender Gestalt Test figures as "a significant contribution" (p. 32).
Behavioral and Emotional Difficulties
Gittelman (1980) reported that the Bender Gestalt Test was the most common
measure used for assessing children with emotional disturbance and normal children.
Unfortunately, most of the studies did not result in statistically significant differences
44
when comparing normal children to children with emotional disturbances. Gittelman

also indicated that the Draw-A-Person was generally the measure of choice when
investigating children's body image and self-esteem. Again, the reviewed studies did not
consistently result in statistically significant differences between children with low self
esteem and normal controls.
Drawings also are used to identify students with emotional disturbance in the
schools. The most common projective drawing technique utilized for such purposes is
the Draw-A-Person Test (Tharinger & Stark, 1990). McNeish and Naglieri (1993) used
the Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (DAP: SPED;
Naglieri, McNeish, & Bardos, 1991) to identify children with emotional disturbance.
They found that students with emotional difficulties earned statistically significantly
higher scores on the Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance
than did normal controls. McNeish and Naglieri indicated that the results from this
investigation were an improvement compared to previous methods of scoring such
drawing measures. Similarly, Matto (2002) discovered that the results from the DAP:
SPED were able to predict internalizing disorders significantly beyond that which could
be accounted for by a parental report measure.
In contrast, Gordon, Lefkowitz, and Tesiny (1980) evaluated the use of the
Draw-A-Person with children to predict depression. According to their findings, the
Draw-A-Person was not useful for the prediction of mood in personality assessment. No
significant relationships were found based on the assessment of the drawing and the
prevalence of depression in their sample.
45
Similar to earlier work by Koppitz (1966b), Moore (1982) investigated the

diagnostic validity of the Emotional Indicators (Els) of the Human Figure Drawing. She
discovered that four groups of learning disabled children (auditory perception deficit,
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised [Wechsler, 1974] Verbal IQ and
Performance IQ discrepancies, developmental lag, and IQ below 80) could be
differentiated based on the following Els: poor integration, short arms, shading of the
body or limbs, shading of face or hands, and hands cut off.
Glutting and Nester (1986) detailed the use of Human Figure Drawings to predict
behavior in school. By using Emotional Indicators (Els), they found that the presence of
particular Els were predictive of learning-related behavior (avoidant, inattentive, moody,
and overly independent) in kindergarten children. Relatedly, Bachara, Zaba, and Raskin
(1976) found that the number of Els in children's drawings were predictive of emotional
difficulties in school.
The use of drawings in the assessment of behavioral and emotional difficulties is
very common. Unfortunately, results across studies are not consistent. Some researchers
found that drawings were effective in identifying emotional difficulties. Other studies
did not obtain results that could adequately discriminate between normal controls and
children with emotional difficulties such as depression and low self-esteem.
Differential Diagnosis
During the mid-1990s, several articles were published detailing the advantages of
using the Bender Gestalt Test as an effective means of differential diagnosis (see
Bowland & Deabler, 1956; Hartlage, 1970; Hutt, 1945; Lonstein, 1954; Pascal & Suttell,
46
1951; Stavrianos, 1970). However, Tamkin (1957) and others (Billingslea, 1948;
Brenner & Gillman, 1968; Coy, 1974; Keogh, 1965b; Kilpatrick & Lewandowski, 1996;
Mordock, Terrill, & Novik, 1968-1969) neglected to find support for the use of the
Bender Gestalt Test in differential diagnosis. Unlike those investigators who found the
Bender Gestalt Test useful in differentiating between disorders, Tamkin controlled for
demographic variables (age and education) as well as the chronicity of the disorder. In
doing so, Tamkin (1957) found that the Bender Gestalt Test did not correlate
significantly with indices of psychopathology.
In reviewing projective measures and their predictive validity, Moore (1982)
supported the practical utility of using human figure drawings in order to assist in the
differential diagnosis of children with learning difficulties. In contrast, Gittelman (1980)
discovered several very interesting findings. Overall, she found that the Draw-A-Person
test did not adequately discriminate between groups of shy and aggressive children. The
rate of false positives and false negatives was too high to support the use of the measure
with such children for this purpose. The same results were obtained when the Bender
Gestalt Test was used. In addition, Gittelman found that although the Draw-A-Person
scores of children who were experiencing emotional difficulties or brain damage differed
significantly from normals, their scores did not differ significantly from each other,
rendering a differential diagnosis between disorders impossible. Similarly, Eno, Elliott,
and Woehlke (1981) found that the use of the Human Figure Drawing was not an
adequate tool in and of itself when professionals need to make differential diagnoses.
Likewise, Tharinger and Stark (1990) reported using the Draw-A-Person test, and found
47
that it was unable to differentiate between children with internalizing disorders and
normal controls.
Thus, although earlier studies obtained results that supported the use of drawings
in differential diagnosis, the findings of more recent studies do not concur. It appears
that using individual drawing measures may not be a suitable means of differentiating
between diagnoses. However, it remains to be seen whether the use of multiple drawing
measures may aid in this process and reveal very significant results with regard to
differential diagnoses. Moreover, it has become apparent through this review of the
literature is that more research is necessary. Research that uses multiple drawing
measures in the assessment of children is essential.
Use of Multiple Drawing Measures in Assessment
Based on the early literature investigating the use of drawings to predict
achievement, there have been two main concerns. First, there has been a general lack of
control for other variables or factors. Second, the literature has identified a need to
utilize a combination of measures to predict achievement. With this in mind, Koppitz,
Sullivan, Blyth, and Shelton (1959) noted these problems and attempted to correct them.
Koppitz and colleagues not only controlled for age, grade, and socioeconomic status, but
they also used the Bender Gestalt Test in conjunction with a Human Figure Drawing
Test. By doing so, they discovered that although the Bender Gestalt Test and Human
Figure Drawing Test each were able to predict school achievement minimally, their
predictive validity increased when used together. Furthermore, it is interesting to note
that Koppitz and colleagues found differences possibly resulting from environmental
48
variables and socioeconomic status, alluding to the importance of taking these and other
demographic variables into consideration when explaining differences in performance
between groups). Furthermore, supporting her earlier work, Koppitz (1970) indicated
that the Bender Gestalt Test should only be used in conjunction with other measures and
information gleaned from a child's performance and records. Using a variety of measures
and other information, Koppitz reported that the Bender Gestalt Test was useful in
identifying the presence of brain damage and could be used as a screening measure for
learning problems. Similarly, Bender (1970) discovered that the Bender Gestalt Test
might be useful in predicting learning disabilities if the additional criteria Koppitz
(1970) noted are taken into consideration. Bender noted that most investigations
regarding the predictive validity of the Bender Gestalt Test often have failed to consider
other factors. Fortunately, studies following Bender's (1970) have detailed the combined
use of several measures to more adequately predict the performance on children in
school (Carter, Spero, & Walsh, 1978; Koppitz, 1975; Lessler, Schoeninger, & Bridges,
1970; Mlodnosky, 1972; Schoolcraft, 1973; Smith & Smith, 1988; Wallbrown, Engin,
Wallbrown, & Blaha, 1975).
Many of the studies already mentioned have detailed the combined use of the
Bender Gestalt Test and a human figure drawing. There also are several studies that
detail the use of the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration in conjunction with
other drawing measures (i.e., Bender Gestalt Test, Draw-A-Person, etc.). Duffey, Ritter,
and Fedner (1976) completed such an investigation into the combined use of the
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and the Goodenough Draw-A-Man
49
Test as predictors of academic achievement. Duffey and colleagues found that each
measure was a significant predictor of certain areas of achievement based on the
criterion measure (Stanford Achievement Test). However, the authors indicated that
because the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Draw-A-Man only
accounted for 9.3% of the variance, the practical predictive validity of the measures was
questionable. Furthermore, Duffey and colleagues (1976) found that the Developmental
Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Draw-A-Man were highly correlated with each
other, suggesting that each measure may be tapping into similar domains of behavior.
Like Duffey, Ritter, and Fedner (1976), Wright and DeMers (1982) attempted to
use two measures of visual-motor coordination to predict academic achievement. They
made use of the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration in addition to the
Bender Gestalt Test. The authors found that each independent measure was a statistically
significant predictor of academic achievement based on the scores of the criterion
measure, the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT; Jastak & Jastak, 1978). However,
the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Bender Gestalt Test
demonstrated only a moderate correlation with the Wide Range Achievement Test, and
this correlation decreased when general intellectual ability was controlled. When
intellectual ability was controlled, the Bender Gestalt Test remained a statistically
significant predictor of reading (r = 0.19) and spelling (r = 0.22). The Developmental
Test of Visual-Motor Integration remained a statistically significant predictor of spelling
(r = 0.20) as well.
50
Similarly, Goldstein and Britt (1994) completed a study using the Developmental
Test of Visual-Motor Integration, the Bender Gestalt Test, and the Test of Visual-Motor
Skills (Gardner, 1986a) to predict achievement based on the scores obtained on the
Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational Battery Tests of Achievement (Woodcock,
1977). The authors discovered that the scores of each of the independent measures were
significantly correlated with each of three areas measured by the Woodcock Johnson
(reading, math, and written language). Furthermore, they found that the Developmental
Test of Visual-Motor Integration accounted for the greatest amount of variance in
reading achievement when a multiple regression analysis was performed, closely
followed by the Test of Visual-Motor Skills. The Bender Gestalt Test accounted for the
greatest variance in math and written language achievement. However, very little of the
overall variance could be accounted for by any of the three independent measures above
and beyond that which could be accounted for by intelligence.
Based on a review of these results, it is apparent that the prediction of
achievement based on the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Bender
Gestalt Test, while controlling for intelligence, may not be a clinically significant
practice that clinicians should engage in. Furthermore, like Duffey and colleagues
(1976), others (Breen, 1982; Wright & DeMers, 1982) found that the Developmental
Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Bender Gestalt Test were highly correlated with
each other, again su ggestin g
that each m easure m ay be tapping into sim ilar dom ains of
behavior. It is important to note that the authors (Breen, 1982; Wright & DeMers, 1982)
suggest further research in this area with other populations or age groups.
51
In contrast to Wright and DeMers (1982), Lehman and Breen (1982) and Knoff,
Cotter, and Coyle (1986) found that the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration
and Bender Gestalt Test have little similarity and their degree of shared variance was
very limited. Based on Lehman and Breen's (1982) investigation, they found that the
Bender Gestalt Test consistently yielded higher performance levels than the
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration.
Armstrong and Knopf (1982) performed an investigation into the use of the
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Bender Gestalt Test as well, but
found mixed results compared to Wright and DeMers (1982). First, Armstrong and
Knopf (1982) found that the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and
Bender Gestalt Test were highly correlated (r = 0.14, p < 0.05) for children with learning
disabilities. Other studies (Breen, Carlson, & Lehman, 1985; Fineberg, Sowards, &
Cochran, 1979; Spirito, 1980) support this finding. On the contrary, DeMers and
colleagues (DeMers, Wright, & Dappen, 1981) discovered only moderate correlations
with a similar population of students.
In addition, Porter and Binder (1981) and Siewert and Breen (1983) discovered a
statistically significant correlation between the Bender Gestalt Test and the
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration for a group of regular education
students. In contrast, Armstrong and Knopf (1982) and others (Aylward & Schmidt,
1986; Brown, 1977) found that the m easures w ere m uch less h igh ly correlated, although
statistically significant, for a group of regular education students. Furthermore,
Armstrong and Knopf (1982) found a significant difference between the means of the
52
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and the Bender Gestalt Test. Like
Lehman and Breen (1982), Armstrong and Knopf (1982) also found that the Bender
Gestalt Test yielded age-equivalencies approximately nine months greater than ageequivalencies obtained on the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. Overall,
this suggests that the two measures tap into different domains of behavior based on the
population sampled.
Summary
Based on this review of the literature, it is apparent that there are many
conflicting results with regard to the use of drawing measures in assessment. Drawings
are commonly used for differential diagnosis, in the evaluation of brain damage and
disease, and in the evaluation of behavioral and emotional difficulties. Based on the
literature, there is no clear consensus to guide practitioner's use of drawing measures for
these purposes. Also, the drawing measures that are commonly used for assessment
purposes reveal little additional information beyond that already gathered by other
evaluation tools. If drawings are able to predict achievement or diagnostic classification
more accurately, the time spent in giving drawing measures certainly would be
validated.
In addition, few studies have employed multiple drawing measures, specifically a
stimulus-bound and stimulus-free drawing measure, in an attempt to predict academic
achievement. Likewise, few studies have taken age, gender, education level, ethnicity, or
intellectual ability into consideration when analyzing the data or interpreting the results.
Furthermore, no studies to date have employed stimulus-bound and stimulus-free
53
measures to ascertain the level of validity with regard to discriminating between clinical
and nonclinical groups. As suggested by Wright and DeMers (1982), further research in
this area is necessary. There are far too few studies that examine the combined use of
drawing measures to predict achievement. Future research that focuses on drawing
measures used in combination rather than in isolation is warranted.
Based on the lack of consistent findings in the literature and the nearly
nonexistent use of multiple drawings measures in assessment, it is imperative for the
current research study to address some of these shortcomings. In conjunction with
demographic data and intellectual ability level, the current research study will address
the use of multiple drawing measures in differential diagnosis and in the prediction of
academic achievement. In addition to these major research questions, this study also will
address the performance difference on drawing measures in boys and girls, the ability of
drawing measures to predict academic achievement beyond that which can be accounted
for by intelligence, and the incremental change that may occur on drawing measures as
children grow older.
The following chapter details the method and procedure of the current study,
including the sample, instruments, and data analyses. Chapter IV enumerates the results
obtained from the statistical analyses. Finally, Chapter V provides a discussion of the
findings enumerated in Chapter IV and the implications for research and practice.
54
CHAPTER III
METHOD
Chapter I provided an overview of the current study, identified its purpose, and
indicated the pertinent research questions and corresponding hypotheses. Chapter II
reviewed the relevant literature regarding drawings and their assessment uses.
Chapter III describes the method and procedure of the current study. This chapter
details the participant characteristics and demographic data. Secondly, this chapter
enumerates the assessment measures and provides psychometric data for each criterion
measure. Finally, this chapter relates the data analyses used to answer the proposed
research questions.
Chapter IV relates the results of the proposed data analyses. The results are
provided in tabular and graphic format. Chapter V will include an extensive
interpretation and discussion of the findings from the data analyses and their relation to
the respective research questions and hypotheses.
Participants
The total sample used in the current study consisted of 227 children, with
participants ranging in age from six years, zero months, to twelve years, four months.
Eighty-four percent of the total sample consisted of clinical patients (i.e., clients referred
for a clinical evaluation). Table 4 presents gender and ethnicity data for the total sample.
55
Table 4
Total Sample Demographic Information

N (%)
Mean Age (SD)
Male
139(61.2)
8.6 (1.8)
Female
88 (38.8)
8.5 (1.5)
African American
23 (10.0)
9.2 (1.9)
Caucasian
98 (43.2)
8.6 (1.7)
Hispanic
104 (45.8)
8.3 (1.6)
2 (0.9)
9.5 (0.7)
Gender
Ethnicity
Other
The sample was chosen from an existing database of children evaluated at two
different sites: the Meyer Center for Developmental Pediatrics at Texas Children's
Hospital in Houston, Texas and the McCullough Center for Mental Health Services in
San Antonio, Texas. Clients served at both locations include infants, toddlers, children,
and adolescents. Clients evaluated at the Meyer Center are referred for numerous
problems, including ADHD, learning disabilities, developmental disorders, cerebral
palsy, language impairments, traumatic brain injury, genetic disorders, health
impairments, and emotional disorders. The Meyer Center has ongoing research projects
for which normal controls and research clients also are evaluated. Clients evaluated at
56
the McCullough Center in San Antonio most often are referred by the Texas Department
of Protective Services in order to determine their level of care within Child Protective
Services. Clients served at the McCullough Center also are referred by pediatricians for
numerous problems, including emotional difficulties, learning disabilities, ADHD, and
developmental disorders, among others. Table 5 presents demographic data of the
sample separated into clinic locations.
Table 5
Demographic Information by Location
McCullough Center (N)
Meyer Center (N)
Male
78 (34.3)
61 (26.9)
Female
71(31.3)
Gender
17(7.5)
Ethnicity
African American
14(6.2)
9(4.0)
Caucasian
47(20.7)
51 (22.5)
Hispanic
88 (38.8)
16 (7.0)
Other
2 (0.9)
57
Table 5. Continued
McCullough Center
Meyer Center
N (%)
N (%)
14 (6.2)
6 (2.6)
42(18.5)
13 (5.7)
28 (12.3)
20 (8.8)
23 (10.1)
14 (6.2)
10
26(11.5)
9 (4.0)
11
10 (4.4)
8(3.5)
12
6 (2.6)
8 (3.5)
Age
Participants were selected based on the availability of the results of the

following: the Bender Gestalt Test (BGT; Bender, 1938); the Beery-Buktenica
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration Fourth Edition Revised (VMI; Beery,
1997); the Draw-A-Person Test; and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement Revised (WJ-R; Woodcock & Johnson, 1989) or the Wechsler Individual Achievement
Test (WIAT; Psychological Corporation, 1992). Furthermore, selection of participants
was dependent upon the presence of the results of any of the following measures of
intelligence: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Third Edition (WISC-III;
Wechsler, 1991), the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI; Psychological
58
Corporation, 1999), or the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC; Kaufman
& Kaufman, 1983). Table 6 indicates which measures were obtained from each site.
Table 6
Measures Used According to Location
BGT
McCullough Center
Meyer Center
VMI
DAP
WJ-R
WIAT
X
WISC-III
WASI
KABC
X
Note. BGT = Bender Gestalt Test; VMI = Developmental Test of Visual-Motor

Integration; DAP = Draw-A-Person Test; WJ-R = Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement Revised; WIAT = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test; WISC-III =
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Third Edition; WASI = Wechsler Abbreviated
Scale of Intelligence; KABC = Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children.
In addition, sample selection was dependent on the diagnosis of the individual at

the time of assessment. Two main groups, clinical and nonclinical, were created based
on the presence (or absence) of a previous or current diagnosis. For the purpose of the
present study,
if a clien t presented w ith a p reviou s d iagn osis from another health care
provider or was given a diagnosis based on their evaluation at the Meyer Center or the
McCullough Center, they were classified as clinical (N = 174). This group was further
59
divided in order to differentiate amongst those with a clinical label. If a child was given
a diagnosis of a cognitive nature (i.e., Mental Retardation, Learning Disabled, etc.), they
were classified as clinical-cognitive (N = 32). If a child was given a diagnosis based on
the presence of an emotional, psychological, or behavioral disturbance (i.e., Depression,
Anxiety, ADHD, and so on), they were classified as clinical-emotional/behavioral (N =
128). If a child was given a diagnosis of more than one type (i.e, Learning Disabled and
ADHD), they were classified as clinical-combined (N = 14). Table 7 provides the
demographic information of the clinical participants.
Table 7
Clinical Sample Demographic Information
Clinical-
Clinical-
Clinical-
Cognitive
Emotional/Behavioral
Combined
N (% of group)
N (% of group)
N (% of group)
Gender
Male
23 (18.4)
67 (53.6)
12 (9.6)
Female
9(11.0)
61 (74.4)
2 (2.4)
1 (4.5)
17(77.3)
2(9.1)
Caucasian
18(19.4)
48 (51.6)
7 (7.5)
Hispanic
12(13.3)
63 (70.0)
4 (4.4)
Ethnicity
African American
60
Table 7. Continued
Clinical-
Clinical-
Clinical-
Cognitive
Emotional/Behavioral
Combined
N (% of group)
N (% of group)
N (% of group)
Ethnicity
Other
1 (50.0)
0(0)
1 (50.0)
Location
McCullough Center
106
Meyer Center
28
22
Clients were classified as nonclinical (N = 33) if they were a control for a

research study with no history of clinical diagnoses, or if they were not given any
diagnoses based on their evaluation at either center. The group was further divided in
order to differentiate amongst those with a nonclinical label. If a client was referred for
evaluation to assess their behavior, emotional, or cognitive functioning because of
concerns by the parent, guardian, physician, or school, they were labeled as nonclinicalreferred (N = 22). If a client was evaluated based on the status of their parent or
guardian as a result of a Child Protective Services request, they were labeled as
nonclinical-nonreferred (N =11) because the referral was made in order to assess the
child's intellectual and emotional functioning without a specific presenting problem. If a
client was evaluated for research purposes, they also were labeled as nonclinical-
61
nonreferred. Clients who presented with motor difficulties, had other physical problems
that limited their graphomotor performance, or whose diagnosis was deferred pending
further evaluation were not included so as not to confound the two groups. Table 8
presents the demographic information of the nonclinical participants.
Table 8
Nonclinical Sample Demographic Information
Nonclinical-Referred
Nonclinical-Nonreferred
N (% of group)
N (% of group)
18 (14.4)
5 (4.0)
Female
4 (4.9)
6 (7.3)
African American
5 (5.6)
6 (6.7)
Caucasian
15 (16.1)
5 (5.4)
Hispanic
2(9.1)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
Gender
Male
Ethnicity
Other
Location
McCullough Center
11
Meyer Center
20
62
Instruments
To address the research questions of this study, five measures frequently used in
the assessment of children were considered. Two measures of general visual motor
ability, one measure that estimates intellectual maturity with a visual motor component,
and two measures of academic achievement were used in the current study: the Bender
Gestalt Test (BGT; Bender, 1938); the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of VisualMotor Integration Fourth Edition Revised (VMI; Beery, 1997), the Draw-A-Person Test
(DAP; Reynolds & Hickman, in press), and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement - Revised (WJ-R; Woodcock & Johnson, 1989), and the Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test (WIAT; Psychological Corporation, 1992), respectively.
Each measure will be described briefly and the reasons for its inclusion clarified.
Bender Gestalt Test
The Bender Gestalt Test originated from Bender's interest in children's sidewalk
chalk drawings. It was designed initially as a measure of developmental maturity and
was based on the assumption that the interaction of the stimulus and the individual
determine the pattern of the response (Bender, 1938). Bender also used the drawing task
in order to study the various types of psychopathology and their relationship to
perception. Currently, psychologists use the Bender Gestalt Test for a variety of
purposes, including estimating intelligence and developmental maturity, assessing
organic brain dysfunction, and measuring psychodynamic projection (Knoff, 1990).
However, it is most widely used as a screening measure for brain dysfunction (Lacks,
1999). The Bender Gestalt Test is an individually administered test that consists of a set
63
of nine cards with abstract geometric designs. They are presented sequentially and the
individual is asked to copy the designs on a single page. For the purposes of this study,
the Koppitz Developmental Bender Scoring System (Koppitz, 1964) was used.
According to Lacks (1999), the Koppitz scoring system is the most frequently used
objective method for scoring the Bender Gestalt Test with children. This scoring system
is designed to assess the maturity level of visual-motor perception. The four types of
errors possible using the Koppitz scoring method include distortion of shape, rotation,
failure to integrate, and perseveration. This system is detailed in Appendix A.
Interscorer reliability of scores on the Bender Gestalt Test has been noted to be
between 0.79 and 0.99. Test-retest reliabilities fall between 0.53 and 0.90.
Unfortunately, the standardization sample consisted of mostly white children, thereby
limiting some of the applicability of scores to other groups. Conflicting results have been
found based on the use of the Bender Gestalt Test to predict intelligence and school
achievement (e.g., Baldwin, 1950; Butler & Goffeney, 1969; Koppitz, 1975; Norfleet,
1973).
Developmental Test o f Visual-Motor Integration Fourth Edition Revised
The Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (Beery, 1997) was
designed under the assumption that sensory input and motor action are necessary to
achieve higher levels of thinking and behavior (Visser, 2001). It consists of three
sections, including a Visual-Motor component, a Visual component, and a Motor
component. For the purposes of this study, only the results of the Visual-Motor
component of the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration were used. This
64
portion of the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration is an individually

administered test that consists of 27 simple geometric figures that become increasingly
more difficult as the examinee progresses through the items. The first three items are
optional and require the examinee to copy the examiner's drawings of a vertical line, a
horizontal line, and a circle. After these items, the examinee is simply asked to copy the
figure in a box that is below the stimulus figure. Administration of the Visual-Motor
component is discontinued when the examinee completes three figures that receive a
score of zero. The scores are then summed and standard scores and percentiles based on
age are obtained.
Beery (1997) stated that the standardization sample for the Visual-Motor
component was comprised of a group of 2,734 children from five major geographic
areas of the United States. The psychometrics of the Developmental Test of VisualMotor Integration are quite commendable, with sufficient levels of reliability and
validity (Visser, 2001; Wiese, 2001). Reliability consistently falls between 0.79 and 0.89
for the coefficient alpha and between 0.82 and 0.93 for odd-even split-half correlation
(Beery, 1997; Visser, 2001; Wiese, 2001). Interrater reliabilities have been noted as high
as 0.94. In addition, according to Beery (1997), the overall reliability (average of
interrater, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability) of the Visual-Motor component
of the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration is 0.92.
Regarding convergent evidence, the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration has a relatively high correlation with age {r = 0.83), and a moderate
correlation with performance IQ (r = 0.66) and verbal IQ (r = 0.48) as measured by the
65
Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children - Revised (WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974).

Achievement, as measured by the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS; McGrawHill, 1970), also has a moderate correlation with the Developmental Test of VisualMotor Integration (r = 0.63). Convergent evidence has been discovered with moderately
high correlations with the Test of Visual-Motor Skills (TVMS; Gardner, 1986b; r =
0.75) and the Wide Range Assessment of Visual Motor Abilities (WRAVMA; Adams &
Sheslow, 1995; r = 0.52). Visser (2001) noted that there is a little proof of the predictive
validity of the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, although the test manual
alleges that it is useful for predicting achievement in concert with other measures.
Draw-A-Person Test
Florence Goodenough was the first to offer a scoring system for children's
drawings in an attempt to estimate their intellectual ability (Knoff, 1990). Harris (1963)
revised and updated Goodenough's procedure, providing standard scores that estimated
children's ability. The Goodenough-Harris scoring system is frequently used today as a
general estimate of intellectual ability or developmental maturity; however, questions
have been raised regarding its outdated norms (Knoff, 1990). Naglieri (1988) also has
developed an updated version of the Goodenough-Harris scoring system, namely the
Draw-A-Person: A Quantitative Scoring System (DAP: QSS). In the Draw-A-Person
Test, drawings are scored with relative ease on several levels: the presence of items, the
detail of items, and the proportion of items. Bonus points are awarded if the item (e.g.,
hair) is present, detailed, and in proportion to the rest of the drawing. Standard scores are
offered for Man, Woman, and Self drawings. However, the Naglieri scoring system
66
requires the use of more than one drawing. Therefore, a new scoring system that requires
only one drawing, the Draw-A-Person IQ Scoring system (DAP: IQ; Reynolds &
Hickman, in press), will be used. The Draw-A-Person IQ scoring system consists of 23
separate items that are scored in a hierarchical manner for presence and quality of items.
There is preliminary psychometric evidence to support the use of the Draw-APerson IQ Scoring System (Reynolds & Hickman, in press). The average reliability of
the scoring system was found to 0.82, with interscorer reliability ranging from 0.91 to
0.95. There also is strong evidence based on relations to other variables and moderate
correlations with intelligence and achievement measures. Moreover, the results gained
from this research will illuminate the use of this particular scoring system as it pertains
to predicting academic achievement.
Woodcock-Johnson Tests o f Achievement - Revised
The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised is an individually
administered test of academic achievement designed to assess the achievement of
children, adolescents, and adults. It is one of the most common measures used by school
psychologists (Stinnett, Havey, & Oehler-Stinnett, 1994). It is comprised of a Standard
Battery of nine subtests and a Supplemental Battery of nine subtests. For the purposes of
this study, only the results of six subtests of the Standard Battery were used, yielding
four cluster scores: Broad Reading, Broad Mathematics, Broad Written Language, and
Early Skills. Each cluster is composed of two or three subscales: Letter-Word
Identification and Passage Comprehension (Broad Reading); Dictation and Spelling
67
(Broad Written Language); Calculation and Applied Problems (Broad Mathematics); and
Letter-Word Identification, Applied Problems, and Dictation (Early Skills).
Lee and Stefany (1995) stated that the psychometric properties of the WoodcockJohnson Tests of Achievement - Revised are outstanding. Cummings (1995) indicated
that the standardization sample is adequate and representative. According to many
sources (Cummings, 1995; Lee & Stefany, 1995; Shull-Senn, Weatherly, Morgan, &
Bradley-Johnson, 1995), the scores obtained on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement - Revised have good reliability based on the internal consistency and
stability correlations. The convergent evidence of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement - Revised appears to have been adequately established based on studies
utilizing the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC; Kaufman & Kaufman,
1983), Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT; Jastak & Jastak, 1978), Test of Written
Language (TOWL; Hammill & Larsen, 1996), and other measures (Johnstone, Holland,
& Larimore, 2000).
Also, Schultz (1997) found that correlations between Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children - Third Edition (WISC-III; Wechsler, 1991) Full Scale IQ scores and
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised scores were 0.65, 0.70, and 0.71 for
reading, mathematics, and written language clusters, respectively. Similarly, in a sample
of emotionally disabled students, Lavin (1996) discovered significant correlations
between the Wechsler Intelligence Scale of Intelligence Third Edition (Full Scale IQ
scores and Verbal IQ scores) and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement Revised for the four standard battery subtests and two standard battery clusters (Letter-
68
Word Identification, Passage Comprehension, Calculation, Applied Problems, Broad

Reading, and Broad Mathematics). Lavin (1996) also found statistically significant
correlations between Wechsler Intelligence Scale of Intelligence Third Edition
Performance IQ scores and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised for
two standard battery subtests and two standard battery clusters (Calculation, Applied
Problems, Broad Reading, and Broad Mathematics).
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT; Psychological Corporation,
1992) is an individually administered test of academic achievement designed to assess
the achievement of children and adolescents. It was standardized with the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children Third Edition (WISC-III; Wechsler, 1991) and designed
to be used in conjunction with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale of Intelligence Third
Edition, the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence - Revised, and the
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised (Smith, 2001). In this manner, it is
especially suited to obtain predicted and actual ability-achievement discrepancies. It is
comprised of a brief Screener consisting of three subtests, and a full standard battery
consisting of eight subtests. For the purposes of this study, only the results of three
subtests of the Screener were used, yielding four scores: Basic Reading, Mathematics,
Spelling, and Screener Composite.
Ackerman (1998) praised the tremendous efforts made in achieving a
representative standardization sample and noted high reliability coefficients and
criterion-related correlations. Slate (1994) identified the Wechsler Individual
69
Achievement Test as having significant correlations with the Wechsler Intelligence

Scale of Intelligence Third Edition. Also, Smith and Smith (1998) reported that
correlations between Wechsler Individual Achievement Test scores and Wide Range
Achievement Test 3 (WRAT-3; Wilkinson, 1993) scores ranged from 0.53 to 0.79 in
mathematics and reading, respectively.
Procedure
Data were collected from an existing collection of assessment data at two
different sites: the Meyer Center for Developmental Pediatrics at Texas Children's
Hospital in Houston, Texas and the McCullough Center for Mental Health Services in
San Antonio, Texas. Scores were included for any child who had completed the Bender
Gestalt Test (BGT), the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration Fourth Edition Revised (VMI), the Draw-A-Person Test, and the WoodcockJohnson Tests of Achievement - Revised (WJ-R) or the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test (WIAT). Data also were collected from existing records with regard
to the individuals' demographic information, including their age, gender, and ethnicity.
Approximately 275 files were reviewed, of which only 227 contained the assessment
data or met the age criteria needed for the current research study.
With regard to the Draw-A-Person Test and the Bender Gestalt Test, all of the
drawings were scored by the primary investigator using the Draw-A-Person IQ Scoring
System and the Koppitz Scoring system, respectively. In order to obtain an estimate of
interrater reliability, a subsample of drawings (N= 148) was scored using the respective
scoring systems by several doctoral level school psychology and counseling psychology
70
graduate students that were trained in the scoring methods. When scoring the drawings,
all raters were blind to the demographic information and clinical status of the participant.
Data Analyses
To analyze the data, mean scores, range of scores, and standard deviations were
calculated for the total sample, boys' scores, and girls' scores for the independent
variables (Bender Gestalt Test, Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, DrawA-Person Test) and dependent variables (Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement Revised Broad Reading, Broad Mathematics, Broad Written Language, Early Skills;
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Basic Reading, Mathematics, Spelling, Screener
Composite, Wechsler Intelligence Scale of Intelligence Third Edition, WASI, KABC).
Mean scores, range of scores, and standard deviations also were calculated for the group
scores (clinical and nonclinical) for the independent and dependent variables.
Furthermore, mean scores, range of scores, and standard deviations were calculated for
each assessment clinic separately in order to assess for similarity of the data across
settings. Ethnicity data also were collected. Mean scores, range of scores, and standard
deviations was calculated for each ethnic group for the independent and dependent
variables. Skewness and kurtosis of the data for all groups (boys, girls, ethnicity,
clinical, nonclinical, Meyer Center, McCullough Center, and total sample) were
computed.
Since there were no previous data regarding the reliability and validity of the
Draw-A-Person IQ Scoring System at the time of data collection, an analysis of the
interrater reliability and concurrent validity of the Draw-A-Person scoring system was
71
performed. In addition, an analysis of the interrater reliability of the Bender Gestalt Test
was performed to check for consistency between scorers.
Pearson Product Moment Correlations were computed for the following
combinations of predictor and criterion measures: Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration and WJ-R Broad Reading, Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration
and WJ-R Broad Mathematics, Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and
WJ-R Broad Written Language, and Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration
and WJ-R Early Skills; Draw-A-Person Test and WJ-R Broad Reading, Draw-A-Person
Test and WJ-R Broad Mathematics, Draw-A-Person Test and WJ-R Broad Written
Language, and Draw-A-Person Test and WJ-R Early Skills; Bender Gestalt Test and
WIAT Basic Reading, Bender Gestalt Test and WIAT Mathematics, Bender Gestalt Test
and WIAT Spelling, Bender Gestalt Test and WIAT Screener Composite; and Draw-APerson Test and WIAT Basic Reading, Draw-A-Person Test and WIAT Mathematics,
Draw-A-Person Test and WIAT Spelling, Draw-A-Person Test and WIAT Screener
Composite.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare groups (boys and
girls, clinical and nonclinical) on the predictor variables (Bender Gestalt Test,
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Draw-A-Person Test). In order to
consider the incremental effects that age may contribute to the predictive validity of the
independent variables, multiple regression analyses were performed for each age level
(by year) and each predictor (Bender Gestalt Test, Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration, Draw-A-Person Test) and criterion variable (Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
72
Achievement - Revised Broad Reading, Broad Mathematics, Broad Written Language,

Early Skills; Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Basic Reading, Mathematics,
Spelling, and Screener Composite).
A partial correlation analysis was performed to partial out the effects of
intellectual ability on academic achievement. In addition, a multiple regression analysis
was used in order to discover the amount of variance accounted for by each of the
predictor variables. Eight separate multiple regression analyses were performed, with
each cluster of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised (Broad Reading,
Broad Mathematics, Broad Written Language, and Early Skills) and the Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test (Basic Reading, Mathematics, Spelling, and Screener
Composite) as dependent variables. Effect sizes were calculated and structure
coefficients and beta weights were taken into consideration.
73
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
reviewed the relevant literature regarding drawings and their assessment uses. Chapter
III described the method and procedure of the current study and related the data analyses
used to answer the proposed research questions.
Chapter IV relates the results of the proposed data analyses. The outcomes of the
data analyses are delineated and briefly discussed. The results are provided in tabular
and graphic format.
Chapter V will include an extensive interpretation and discussion of the findings
from the data analyses and their relation to the respective research questions and
hypotheses.
Data Analyses
Before any data analysis was completed, Draw-A-Person raw scores were
converted to age-corrected standard scores (Reynolds & Hickman, in press). Also,
Bender Gestalt Test error scores were converted to age-corrected z-scores via statistical
computation (SPSS; Prentice-Hall, 1998) so that further analyses could be completed.
A preliminary analysis of the data was performed, with mean scores, range of
scores, and standard deviations calculated for the total sample for the independent
variables (Bender Gestalt Test, Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Draw-
74
A-Person Test; see Table 9) and dependent variables (Woodcock-Johnson Tests of

Achievement - Revised Broad Reading, Broad Mathematics, Broad Written Language,
Early Skills; Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Basic Reading, Mathematics,
Spelling, Screener Composite, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Third Edition,
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children;
see Table 10). Skewness and kurtosis of the data for the total sample also were
computed.
Mean scores, range of scores, and standard deviations also were calculated by
gender (males and females; see Table 11) and by diagnosis (clinical and nonclinical; see
Table 12) for the independent and dependent variable scores. Furthermore, mean scores,
range of scores, and standard deviations of the scores from the Draw-A-Person Test,
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Third Edition Full Scale IQ, and the
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Mental Processing Composite were
calculated for each assessment clinic separately (McCullough Center and Meyer Center;
see Table 13) in order to assess for similarity of the data across settings. It should be
noted that these were the only three variables that were measured at each clinic.
Ethnicity data also were collected; mean scores, range of scores, and standard
deviations were calculated for each ethnic group for the independent and dependent
variable scores (see Table 14). Skewness and kurtosis of the data for all groups (boys,
girls, clinical, nonclinical, Meyer Center, and McCullough Center, ethnicity) were
computed.
75
Table 9
Total Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Independent Variables
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
121
0.97
0.05
-0.51
VMI Standard Score
74
89.00
11.21
-0.56
0.32
DAP Standard Score
223
98.76
16.35
-0.13
-0.44
BGT Z-Score

Integration; DAP = Draw-A-Person Test.
76
Table 10
Total Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variables
SD Skewness
Mean
WJ-R Broad Reading
78
93.96
19.02
-0.02
-0.93
WJ-R Broad Mathematics
78
90.83
21.83
-0.47
-0.06
WJ-R Broad Written Lang.
77
86.39
15.96
-0.62
0.43
WJ-R Early Skills
76
89.71
18.78
-0.57
0.01
WIAT Screener Composite
132
90.96
15.07
-0.32
-0.19
WIAT Reading
149
91.52
14.70
0.73
0.96
WIAT Spelling
149
91.04
14.60
0.37
-0.35
WIAT Mathematics
148
91.52
13.10
0.20
0.35
WISC-III/WASI Full Scale IQ
218
92.60
16.46
-0.18
0.12
81.78
11.51
0.51
-0.87
KABC MPC
Kurtosis
Note. WJ-R = Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement Revised; WIAT = Wechsler

Individual Achievement Test; WISC-III = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
Third Edition; WASI = Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence; KABC MPC =
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Mental Processing Composite.
77
Table 11
Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Variables by Gender
N
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Male
63
0.06
0.97
0.30
-0.18
Female
58
0.06
0.98
-0.22
-0.66
Male
57
88.14
11.74
-0.50
0.24
Female
17
91.88
8.93
-0.44
-0.71
Male
136
96.54
16.59
-0.09
-0.39
Female
87
102.21
15.43
-0.10
-0.63
Male
61
93.66
19.75
0.14
-1.06
Female
17
95.06
16.62
-1.00
0.35
Male
61
90.33
23.13
-0.40
-0.30
Female
17
92.65
16.82
-0.85
1.84
Male
60
85.14
16.42
-0.71
0.32
Female
17
90.76
13.80
0.27
-0.80
BGT Z-Score
VMI Standard Score
DAP Standard Score
WJ-R Broad Reading
WJ-R Broad Math
78
Table 11. Continued

N
Mean
SD
Skewness
Male
60
88.77
19.66
-0.53
Female
16
93.25
14.99
-0.41
-0.17
Male
69
90.16
15.31
0.12
-0.32
Female
63
91.84
14.89
0.58
-0.06
Male
78
90.09
14.90
0.46
0.01
Female
71
93.08
14.42
1.12
2.09
Male
78
89.73
15.51
0.28
-0.61
Female
71
92.48
13.49
0.64
-0.46
Male
77
91.51
12.88
0.21
1.16
Female
71
91.54
13.42
0.20
-0.31
Male
133
92.35
16.88
-0.27
0.12
Female
85
92.99
15.86
0.01
0.12
Kurtosis
WJ-R Early Skills

0.12
WIAT Screener Comp.
WIAT Reading
WIAT Spelling
WIAT Mathematics
WISC-III/WASIFSIQ
79
Table 11. Continued
Mean
Male
78.50
10.48
1.07
Female
88.33
12.58
-0.59
SD Skewness
Kurtosis
KABC MPC
2.06
-

Integration; DAP = Draw-A-Person Test, WJ-R = Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Scale of Intelligence; FSIQ = Full Scale IQ; KABC MPC = Kaufman Assessment
Battery for Children Mental Processing Composite.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
Table 12
Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Variables by Diagnosis
N
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
BGT Z-Score
Clinical
94
0.09
0.96
0.15
-0.66
Nonclinical
-0.60
0.84
-0.47
-0.42
Clinical
54
87.98
11.92
-0.59
0.00
Nonclinical
20
91.75
8.71
0.47
-0.50
Clinical
171
98.40
16.31
-0.04
-0.61
Nonclinical
32
100.31
17.90
-0.42
0.40
Clinical
58
91.71
18.36
0.07
-1.07
Nonclinical
20
100.50
19.84
-0.40
-0.15
Clinical
58
89.66
22.42
-0.42
-0.08
Nonclinical
20
94.25
20.18
-0.62
0.26
Clinical
57
85.21
17.35
-0.52
0.05
Nonclinical
20
89.70
10.89
-0.20
-0.26
VMI Standard Score
DAP Standard Score
WJ-R Broad Reading
WJ-R Broad Mathematics
81
Table 12. Continued

N
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Clinical
57
87.37
19.34
-0.50
-0.10
Nonclinical
19
96.74
15.35
-0.50
-0.18
Clinical
104
90.13
14.90
0.32
-0.10
Nonclinical
11
101.18
17.22
-0.12
-0.72
Clinical
116
90.88
14.80
0.69
1.10
Nonclinical
13
99.62
16.59
0.67
-0.61
Clinical
116
89.97
14.44
0.34
-0.27
Nonclinical
13
100.38
15.89
-0.04
-0.73
Clinical
116
91.43
13.48
0.28
0.48
Nonclinical
12
93.33
13.20
0.04
-0.48
Clinical
166
92.27
17.14
-0.21
0.14
Nonclinical
32
95.53
14.89
0.19
-0.83
WJ-R Early Skills
WIAT Screener Composite
WIAT Reading
WIAT Spelling
WIAT Mathematics
WISC-III/WASIFSIQ
82
Table 12. Continued
Mean
Clinical
82.38
Nonclinical
SD Skewness
Kurtosis
KABC MPC
12.15
-
0.32
-
-1.25
-

Scale of Intelligence; FSIQ = Full Scale IQ; KABC MPC = Kaufman Assessment
Battery for Children Mental Processing Composite.
83
Table 13
Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Variables by Clinic
Mean
SD Skewness
McCullough Center
148
99.66
15.90
-0.14
-0.33
Meyer Center
75
96.97
17.17
-0.06
-0.60
McCullough Center
146
93.74
15.24
-0.10
0.22
Meyer Center
69
89.74
18.83
-0.13
-0.26
McCullough Center
87.33
14.19
-0.82
Meyer Center
79.00
10.18
1.02
Kurtosis
DAP Standard Score
WISC-III Full Scale IQ
KABC MPC
2.48
Note. These are the only variables used at both locations. DAP = Draw-A-Person Test;
WISC-III = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Third Edition; KABC MPC =
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Mental Processing Composite.
84
Table 14
Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Variables by Ethnicity
N
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Caucasian
35
0.03
0.73
-0.22
-0.14
African-American
11
0.11
1.00
0.08
-1.69
Hispanic
75
-0.03
1.08
0.11
-0.67
Other
Caucasian
49
90.12
12.03
-0.80
0.74
African-American
85.22
9.42
-0.40
-1.27
Hispanic
14
86.86
9.26
0.00
-1.11
Other
93.50
10.61
Caucasian
96
99.17
17.81
-0.21
-0.69
African-American
22
97.86
13.13
0.27
-0.74
Hispanic
103
98.60
15.68
-0.09
-0.12
Other
97.00
21.21
BGT Z-Score
idard Score
DAP Standard Score
85
Table 14. Continued

N
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Caucasian
51
95.92
19.96
-0.37
-0.87
African-American
97.56
21.04
0.25
-2.04
Hispanic
16
87.88
12.92
1.37
2.86
Other
76.50
19.09
Caucasian
51
92.65
21.92
-0.75
o
oI
African-American
87.56
30.24
0.27
-0.50
Hispanic
16
89.38
13.95
0.47
-0.50
Other
71.00
36.77
Caucasian
51
87.55
16.55
-1.03
1.04
African-American
89.00
18.89
0.17
-1.97
Hispanic
15
81.87
11.72
-0.39
2.00
Other
WJ-R Broad Reading
oad Mathematics
86
Table 14. Continued

N
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Caucasian
50
91.88
19.51
-0.74
-0.26
African-American
91.22
17.94
0.28
-1.65
Hispanic
15
85.27
11.27
1.10
1.92
Other
62.00
36.77
Caucasian
43
93.21
16.18
0.22
-0.49
African-American
13
90.54
15.09
0.07
-1.47
Hispanic
76
89.76
14.47
0.40
0.32
Other
Caucasian
47
92.94
15.37
0.40
-0.35
African-American
14
93.21
16.10
0.17
-1.53
Hispanic
88
90.49
14.19
1.06
2.77
Other
WJ-R Early Skills
:reener Composite
WIAT Reading
87
Table 14. Continued
Mean
SD Skewness
Caucasian
47
94.11
14.97
0.25
-0.06
African-American
14
91.57
15.75
0.11
-1.59
Hispanic
88
89.32
14.10
0.47
-0.19
Other
Caucasian
47
93.72
African-American
14
Hispanic
87
Other
Caucasian
98
95.02
18.56
-0.21
-0.07
African-American
23
89.17
14.82
-0.72
-0.01
Hispanic
104
90.79
13.61
-0.16
-0.28
Other
59.00
9.90
Kurtosis
WIAT Spelling
14.63
0.39
0.41
92.71
10.16
0.54
-0.44
90.14
12.58
-0.04
-0.03
WIAT Mathematics
Composite IQ Score

Achievement Revised; WIAT = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test.
88
In order to address the lack of psychometric data regarding the Draw-A-Person:

IQ Scoring System, an analysis of the interscorer reliability and concurrent validity of
the Draw-A-Person scoring system was performed. The correlation between scorers on
the Draw-A-Person: IQ Scoring System was found to be strong (r = 0.911,/? < 0.001).
Based on an analysis between the Draw-A-Person: IQ Scoring System and the Koppitz
Human Figure Drawing Scoring System (Koppitz, 1967), the correlation between the
two measures is statistically significant (p < 0.001) and ranges from 0.855 to 0.861 for
raters one and two, respectively. In addition, an analysis of the interrater reliability of the
Bender Gestalt Test was performed to check for consistency between scorers. The
correlation between the scorers on the Bender Gestalt Test was found to be statistically
significant, as well (r = 0.647,/? < 0.001). Tables 15 and 16 present the results of the
interrater correlation analyses for the Draw-A-Person and Bender Gestalt Tests,
respectively.
An analysis of multicollinearity was performed to discover the degree to which
the independent variables were related. Results indicated that the Draw-A-Person: IQ
Scoring System was significantly correlated (p < 0.01) with the Developmental Test of
Visual-Motor Integration (r = 0.361). The Draw-A-Person: IQ Scoring System also was
significantly correlated (p < 0.01) with the Bender Gestalt Test (r = -0.256). Table 17
presents the results of the correlation analysis.
Also, Pearson Product Moment Correlations were computed for the combinations
between the predictor (Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Draw-A-Person
Test, Bender Gestalt Test) and criterion measures (Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
89
Achievement - Revised clusters, Wechsler Individual Achievement Test clusters) for the
total sample. Results are presented in Tables 18 and 19.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare groups (boys and
girls, clinical and nonclinical) on the predictor variables (Bender Gestalt Test,
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Draw-A-Person Test). Results
indicated that there were no differences between gender or clinical groups on the three
predictor variables. Tables 20 through 25 and Figures 1 through 6 present these results.
Table 15
Correlations Between Raters 1 (N = 223) and 2 (N = 148) of the Draw-A-Person: IQ
Scoring System Total Score and the Koppitz Human Figure Drawing (N = 100)
DAP Rater 1
DAP Rater 2
Koppitz Human Figure Drawing Total Score
0.91**
0.86**

**p < 0.01, two-tailed.
90
Table 16
Correlations Between Raters 1 and 2 of the Bender Gestalt Test and Mean Bender
Gestalt Test Error Score (N = 121)
BGT Rater 1
BGT Rater 2
Mean BGT Error Score
0.65**
0.91**
Note. BGT = Bender Gestalt Test.

Table 17
Correlations Between Independent Variables
BGT
DAP
VMI
Koppitz HFD
-0.26**
a.
-0.39**
DAP
VMI
0.36**
0.73**
a.
Note. BGT = Bender Gestalt Test; DAP = Draw-A-Person Test; VMI = Developmental
Test of Visual-Motor Integration; Koppitz HFD = Koppitz Human Figure Drawing,
a. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.
**/> < 0.01, two-tailed.
91
Table 18
Correlations Between the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Draw-APerson Test, and Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised Achievement
Cluster Scores
Broad Reading
Broad Math
Broad Written
Early Skills
Language
DAP
0.32**
0.38**
0.33**
0.42**
VMI
0.50**
0.62**
0.45**
0.57**
Note. DAP = Draw-A-Person Test; VMI = Developmental Test of Visual-Motor

Integration.
Table 19
Correlations Between the Bender Gestalt Test, Draw-A-Person Test, and Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test Cluster Scores
Screener Composite
Reading
Spelling
Mathematics
BGT
-0.34**
-0.30**
-0.39**
-0.35**
DAP
0.25**
0.24**
0.24**
0.28**
Note. BGT = Bender Gestalt Test; DAP = Draw-A-Person Test.

92
Table 20
ANOVA for Gender on the Bender Gestalt Test
MS
eta2
0.44
0.47
0.50
0.00
Within Groups 119
0.95
df
BGT Between
Groups
Total
120
Male
0.5
Female
0.4
0.3
D
O
CJ
0.2
G/0
N
H
O
m
S
u
^
-0-1
- 0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
6
10
11
Figure 1. Mean Z-Scores for the Bender Gestalt Test, by Gender and Age.
12
93
Table 21
ANOVA for Gender on the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration
MS
eta2
183.36
1.47
0.23
0.02
Within Groups
72
124.87
Total
73
Male
Female
df
VMI
Between Groups
Note. VMI = Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration.
1 0 0 -1
95 -
90 -
0o
GO
1
>
85 -
80 -
75 -
10
11
12
Figure 2. Mean Scores for the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, by

Gender and Age. Note. There were no data for female participants at age twelve.
94
Table 22
ANOVA for Gender on the Draw-A-Person Test
MS
eta2
1708.34
6.55
0.01
0.03
Within Groups
221
260.75
Total
222
df
DAP
Between Groups
Male
110
Female
<u 105 o
CO
Ph
<
100 -
CD
95 -
90 -
10
11
Figure 3. Mean Scores for the Draw-A-Person Test, by Gender and Age.
12
95
Table 23
ANOVA for Group Placement (Clinical, Nonclinical) on the Bender Gestalt Test
df
BGT
Between Groups
Within Groups
MS
eta2
3.15
3.45
0.07
0.03
99
0.91
100
Total
0.3
0.2
0.2
o -0.3
C0/3 -0.4
N -0.5
H
-0 .6
m -0.7
0.8
1 -0-9
Clinical
10
Nonclinical
11
12
Figure 4. Mean Z-Scores for the Bender Gestalt Test, by Group Placement and Age.
Note. There were no data for nonclinical participants at ages ten and eleven.
96
Table 24
ANOVA for Group Placement (Clinical, Nonclinical) on the Developmental Test of
Visual-Motor Integration
df
VMI
MS
eta2
207.27
1.66
0.20
0.02
Within Groups
72
124.54
Total
73
Between Groups
Note. BGT = VMI = Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration.
100 -i
Clinical
Nonclinical
95 -
C/3
90 -
>
<D 85
0
, -
80 -
10
11
12
Figure 5. Mean Scores for the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, by

Group Placement and Age. Note. There were no data for nonclinical participants at age
six.
97
Table 25
ANOVA for Group Placement (Clinical, Nonclinical) on the Draw-A-Person Test
df
DAP
MS
1
98.84
Within Groups
201
274.29
Total
202
Between Groups
eta2
0.36
0.55
0.00
125
Clinical
Nonclinical
120
115
o 110
0o5
Ph
< 105
Q
100
10
12
Figure 6. Mean Scores for the Draw-A-Person Test, by Group Placement and Age.
98
Numerous multiple regressions were performed to investigate the amount of

variance accounted for by each of the predictor variables. Eight separate multiple
regression analyses were performed, with each cluster of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests
of Achievement - Revised (Broad Reading, Broad Mathematics, Broad Written
Language, and Early Skills) and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (Basic
Reading, Mathematics, Spelling, and Screener Composite) as dependent variables. The
results are presented in Tables 26 and 27.
Partial correlation analyses were performed to eliminate the effects of intellectual
ability on academic achievement and an examination of the standardized residual plots
also was completed and no significant abnormalities were discovered. Upon
examination, it appears that when the same multiple regression analyses were performed
and cognitive ability was included, the adjusted R2 increased. Tables 28 and 29 detail the
results of these analyses, including the partial correlation of achievement and intellectual
ability.
In order to consider the incremental effects that age may contribute to the
predictive validity of the independent variables, multiple regression analyses were
performed for each age level (by year) and each predictor (Bender Gestalt Test,
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Draw-A-Person Test) and their
corresponding criterion variable (Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised
Broad Reading, Broad Mathematics, Broad Written Language, Early Skills; Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test Basic Reading, Mathematics, Spelling, and Screener
99
Composite). Results for the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and DrawA-Person Test are presented in Table 30 and trend lines are presented in Figures 7
through 11. Results for the Bender Gestalt Test and Draw-A-Person Test are presented
in Table 31 and trend lines are presented in Figures 12 through 16.
Table 26
Multiple Regression Results for Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised
Clusters and the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration/Draw-A-Person Test
WJ-R
R2
Adjusted R2
Structure Coefficient
VMI
DAP
VMI
DAP
Reading
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.32
0.44
0.17
Mathematics
0.44
0.42
0.62
0.38
0.57
0.19
Written Lang.
0.37
0.35
0.45
0.33
0.54
0.14
Early Skills
0.39
0.37
0.57
0.42
0.48
0.27
Note. WJ-R = Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement Revised; VMI =

Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration; DAP = Draw-A-Person Test.
100
Table 27
Multiple Regression Results for Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Clusters and the
Bender Gestalt Test/Draw-A-Person Test
WIAT
R2
Adjusted R2
Structure Coefficient
BGT
DAP
BGT
DAP
Basic Reading
0.09
0.08
-0.30
0.24
-0.24
0.13
Mathematics
0.14
0.12
-0.35
0.28
-0.28
0.18
Spelling
0.15
0.14
-0.39
0.24
-0.33
0.14
Screener Comp.
0.13
0.12
-0.31
0.22
-0.31
0.15
Note. WIAT = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test; BGT = Bender Gestalt Test;
DAP = Draw-A-Person Test.
101
Table 28
Multiple Regression Analyses Results for the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement

- Revised and Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration/Draw-A-Person Test,
Including Partial Correlations of Intellectual Ability with Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement - Revised Clusters
WJ-R
R2
Adjusted R2
Partial Correlation
P
VMI
DAP
IQ
Reading
0.44
0.41
0.10
0.13
0.54
0.47
Mathematics
0.62
0.60
0.20
0.15
0.57
0.57
Written Lang.
0.48
0.45
0.20
0.12
0.48
0.42
Early Skills
0.60
0.58
0.08
0.21
0.62
0.59
Note. WJ-R = Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement Revised; VMI =

Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration; DAP = Draw-A-Person Test; IQ =
Intelligence Measure.
102
Table 29
Multiple Regression Analyses Results for the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
and Bender Gestalt Test/Draw-A-Person Test, Including Partial Correlation of
Intellectual Ability with Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Clusters
WIAT
R2
Adjusted R2
Partial Correlation
P
BGT
DAP
IQ
Reading
0.29
0.27
-0.06
0.01
0.51
0.47
Math
0.53
0.51
-0.02
0.01
0.71
0.67
Spelling
0.35
0.34
-0.15
-0.02
0.51
0.49
Screener Comp.
0.45
0.44
-0.09
-0.01
0.63
0.61
Note. WIAT = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test; BGT = Bender Gestalt Test;
DAP = Draw-A-Person Test; IQ = Intelligence Measure.
103
Table 30
Multiple Regression Analyses Results for the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor

Integration and Draw-A-Person Test with the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement
- Revised Clusters By Age
R2 by Age
6
10
11
12
Broad Reading
0.38
0.29
0.26
0.38
0.73
0.73
0.38
Br. Mathematics
0.18
0.49
0.43
0.51
0.77
0.70
0.88
Br. Written Lang
0.56
0.48
0.24
0.52
0.78
0.60
0.44
Early Skills
0.50
0.67
0.36
0.60
0.80
0.60
0.43
104
0.70 .6
o 0.4-
0 .2
10
11
12
Age in Years
Figure 7. Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Developmental Test o f VisualMotor Integration and Draw-A-Person Test on Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement - Revised Broad Reading.
105
a<D
J3
O
cO
$
l-H
CQ
J
0 .2 -
10
11
12
Age in Years
Figure 8. Age Trends for the Predictve Validity of the Developmental Test of VisualMotor Integration and Draw-A-Person Test on Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement - Revised Broad Mathematics.
* -2
0.1
0
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
1
10
1
11
1
12
Age in Years
Figure 9. Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Developmental Test of VisualMotor Integration and Draw-A-Person Test on Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement - Revised Broad Written Language.
107
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
10
11
12
Age in Years
Achievement - Revised Early Skills.
108
0.9
0.8
U 0.7
% 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Broad Reading
Broad Math
Broad Written Language
Early Skills
0.1
0
6
10
11
12
Age in Years
Achievement - Revised Clusters.
109
Table 31
Multiple Regression Analyses Results for the Bender Gestalt Test and Draw-A-Person
Test with the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Clusters By Age
R2 by Age
6
10
11
12
Basic Reading
0.57
0.14
0.36
0.16
0.01
0.20
0.24
Mathematics
0.23
0.15
0.22
0.31
0.24
0.09
0.52
Spelling
0.23
0.24
0.33
0.31
0.07
0.36
0.43
Screener
0.95
0.16
0.31
0.32
0.07
0.26
0.34
Composite
110
-o
d)
e3
C /3
p4
00
.3
-c 3
c<SD
c2
o
cCfO
l
ffl
H
<
,7
,6
5
,4
.3
.2
1
0
10
11
12
Age in Years
Figure 12. Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Bender Gestalt Test and DrawA-Person Test on Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Basic Reading.
Ill
1
0.9
<D 0.8
c3
0.7
c&
n
0.6
cd
0.5
I
I 0.4
<
%
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
6
10
11
12
Age in Years
Figure 13. Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Bender Gestalt Test and DrawA-Person Test on Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Mathematics.
112
0.4
0.3
0.2
10
11
12
Age in Years
Figure 14. Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Bender Gestalt Test and DrawA-Person Test on Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Spelling.
113
1T
0.9 -
<u
c3 0.8
g*
CO
Pi 0.7 -
<D
o 0.6
I*
o 0.5
O
<D 0.4 a<u
ID
!-h
O
0.3
CO
H
< 0.2
0.1
10
11
12
Age in Years
Figure 15. Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Bender Gestalt Test and DrawA-Person Test on Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Screener Composite.
114
Basic Reading
Mathematics
Spelling
Screener Composite
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
6
10
11
12
Age in Years
Figure 16. Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Bender Gestalt Test and DrawA-Person Test on Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Clusters.
115
CHAPTERV
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
reviewed the relevant literature regarding drawings and their assessment uses. Chapter
III described the method and procedure of the current study, related the data analyses
used to answer the proposed research questions, and reviewed the demographics of the
sample. Chapter IV related the results of the data analyses were delineated.
Chapter V will include an extensive interpretation and discussion of the findings
from the data analyses and their relation to the respective research questions and
hypotheses. Also, limitations of the current study as well as future research directions
will be discussed.
Research Questions
For ease of discussion, the proposed research questions and their corresponding
hypotheses are listed. The outcomes of the data analyses are discussed as they
correspond to each question.
Question 1
Do boys and girls perform differently on the Bender Gestalt Test, the BeeryBuktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, and the Draw-A-Person
Test?
116
It was hypothesized that there would not be a statistically significant difference

between boys' and girls' performance on the Bender Gestalt Test, the Beery-Buktenica
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, and the Draw-A-Person Test. As
expected, there were no significant difference between the performance of boys and girls
on the Bender Gestalt Test and the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. In
fact, a visual analysis of the trend lines for each measure reveals that the results of boys
and girls are very closely matched across age levels. However, there were significant
differences between performance of boys and girls on the Draw-A-Person Test (p =
0 .01 ).
Question 2
Do clinical and nonclinical groups perform differently on the Bender Gestalt
Draw-A-Person test?
It was hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant difference
between the clinical and nonclinical groups' performance on the Bender Gestalt Test, the
Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, and the Draw-APerson test. However, participants performance on the independent measures did not
differ significantly between group placement, as hypothesized. In fact, there was no
significant difference between the nonclinical-nonreferred group and the clinicalcombined group as previously hypothesized. Similar to the study completed by Gordon,
Lefkowitz, and Tesiny (1980), the results obtained from the present study did not reveal
any significant differences between children classified as clinical-emotional/behavioral
117
and nonclinical. The results also did not support the findings of McNeish and Naglieri
(1993) that drawing measures were sensitive to differences between children with and
without emotional difficulties. Furthermore, like Tamkin (1957) and others (see Eno,
Elliott, & Woehlke, 1981; Tharinger & Stark, 1990) discovered, differentiating between
clinical and nonclinical participants using drawing measures such as the Bender Gestalt
Test and human figure drawings was not successful when demographic variables were
taken into consideration.
Several things may account for this. First of all, compared to the 174 participants
in the clinical group, there were relatively few participants in the nonclinical group (33
participants), only eleven of whom were nonreferred. Therefore, results of this analysis
may have been confounded by the lack of adequate group representation. In future
research, the evaluation results of significantly greater numbers of participants that are
nonclinical (i.e., control) should be acquired. In addition, there may not be a clear
demarcation and difference between the clinical and nonclinical participants. Many of
the nonclinical participants, especially those that were referred but did not meet specific
criteria (i.e., DSM-IV; APA, 1994) for a disorder, may have been experiencing
difficulties as well, but perhaps not to the extent that resulted in a clinical diagnosis as it
did for other participants. Therefore, although they were not given a specific diagnosis
and therefore not included in the clinical group, the performance of the nonclinical
participants did not differ significantly from the performance of the clinical participants.
118
Question 3
Is performance on the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor

Integration and the Draw-A-Person Test predictive of performance on the WoodcockJohnson Tests of Achievement - Revised?
It was hypothesized that performance on the Beery-Buktenica Developmental
Test of Visual-Motor Integration and the Draw-A-Person Test would be predictive of
performance on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised. Separate
analyses were completed for each cluster of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement - Revised. Of all the clusters of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement - Revised, performance on the Broad Mathematics cluster was most
greatly predicted by the combination of the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration and Draw-A-Person Test, similar to what was discovered by Klein (1978).
Performance on the other three clusters, Broad Reading, Broad Written Language, and
Early Skills, were moderately predicted by the two independent measures. After taking
into account P weights and structure coefficients, the Developmental Test of VisualMotor Integration accounted for more of the variance in performance on the separate
clusters than did the Draw-A-Person Test. Hinshaw, Carte, and Morrison (1986) found
very similar results with regard to the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration
being a more powerful predictor of academic achievement than other measures, but not
as powerful as cognitive ability.
119
Question 4
Is performance on the Bender Gestalt Test and the Draw-A-Person Test

predictive of performance on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test?
It was hypothesized that performance on the Bender Gestalt Test and the DrawA-Person Test would be predictive of performance on the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test. However, results of the analyses indicated that performance on the
separate clusters of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test was minimally predicted
by performance on the Bender Gestalt Test and the Draw-A-Person Test. In fact, the
effect sizes for each cluster were all below 0.16, with performance on the Spelling
cluster being the most highly predicted and performance on the Basic Reading cluster
the least highly predicted by the independent measures. Like previous studies, the
Bender Gestalt Test very minimally predicted performance on achievement measures
(see Buckley, 1978; Connor, 1968-1969; Coy, 1974; Egeland, DiNello, & Carr, 1970;
Giebink & Birch, 1970; Lessler, Schoeninger, & Bridges, 1970; McKay & Neale, 1985).
Question 5
Does performance on the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration and the Draw-A-Person Test account for a significant amount of the variance
in performance on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised above and
beyond intellectual ability?
It was hypothesized that performance on the Beery-Buktenica Developmental
Test of Visual-Motor Integration and the Draw-A-Person Test would account for a
significant amount of the variance in performance on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
120
Achievement - Revised above and beyond intellectual ability. Although performance on

the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Draw-A-Person Test were able
to predict performance on the clusters of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement Revised, once intellectual ability was added in as another predictor, very little of the
variance accounted for in the performance on the individual achievement clusters was
significantly predicted by the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and
Draw-A-Person Test. An analysis of the p weights and structure coefficients indicated
that intellectual ability is the best predictor of academic achievement as measured by the
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised clusters. Therefore, the variance in
performance on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised clusters was
accounted for mostly by intellectual ability, with very little variance accounted for by the
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration or the Draw-A-Person Test. These
results are very similar compared to what was discovered previously by Busch (1980).
Question 6
Does performance on the Bender Gestalt Test and the Draw-A-Person Test
account for a significant amount of the variance in performance on the Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test above and beyond intellectual ability?
It was hypothesized that performance on the Bender Gestalt Test and the DrawA-Person Test would account for a significant amount of the variance in performance on
the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test above and beyond intellectual ability. After
including intellectual ability as a third predictor in the analysis, the previous minimal
contribution of the Bender Gestalt Test and the Draw-A-Person Test to variance in
121
performance on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test clusters was reduced to

negligible, much like the findings obtained by Henderson, Butler, and Goffeney (1969)
and others (see Kelly & Amble, 1970; Wallbrown, Engin, Wallbrown, & Blaha, 1975).
In this case, intellectual ability accounted for a large amount of the variance in
performance on the achievement clusters, with performance in the area of Reading being
least accounted for and performance in the area of Math being the most accounted for by
the combination of the independent measures. Therefore, the variance in performance on
the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test clusters was accounted for mostly by
intellectual ability, with very little variance accounted for by the Bender Gestalt Test or
Question 7
Is there an incremental change with regard to predictive validity of the BeeryBuktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and the Draw-A-Person Test
on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised?
It was hypothesized that there would be an incremental change with regard to
predictive validity of the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration and the Draw-A-Person Test on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement - Revised. Specifically, as the child becomes older, the Developmental
Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Draw-A-Person Test will become less predictive.
After taking into account the effect size of each multiple regression and inspecting the
age trends as represented in graphic format, several interesting patterns emerged.
122
With regard to broad reading abilities as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson

Tests of Achievement - Revised, achievement was moderately associated with
performance on the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Draw-APerson Test at ages six, seven, eight, nine, and twelve. However, there was a very high
correlation between broad reading achievement and the drawing measures at ages ten
and eleven. Overall, the correlation between reading achievement as measured by the
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement - Revised and drawing ability as measured by
the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Draw-A-Person Test fluctuates
over time, but as already noted, cognitive ability was the best predictor.
With regard to mathematics abilities, achievement was minimally associated with
performance on the independent drawing measures at age six and moderately associated
at ages seven and eight. Achievement in the area of math was highly associated with
performance on the drawing measures at ages nine, ten, eleven, and twelve, indicating an
increase in the correlation between math achievement and drawing ability as measured
by the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Draw-A-Person Test over
time.
With regard to written language abilities, the association between achievement
and drawing abilities fluctuated over time. There was very little association between
achievement performance and drawing ability at age eight, moderate associated between
achievement and drawing at ages seven and twelve, and high correlation between
achievement and drawing at ages six, nine, ten, and eleven.
123
Association between early academic skills and drawing performance also

fluctuated over time. There was a moderate association in performance between the
measures at ages eight and twelve. At ages six, seven, nine, ten, and eleven, there was a
strong correlation between early academic skills and drawing ability.
Moreover, after considering both the effect size and associated correlation, the
hypothesis that the drawing measures would become less predictive was not entirely
true. In fact, prediction of performance with regard to mathematics achievement
increased gradually over time. There was no clear pattern with regard to performance in
the other areas of achievement, reading, written language, and early academic skills.
Overall, achievement in these three areas was best predicted by performance on the
drawing measures at age ten.
Question 8
Is there an incremental change with regard to predictive validity of the Bender
Gestalt Test and the Draw-A-Person Test on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test?
It was hypothesized that there would be an incremental change with regard to
predictive validity of the Bender Gestalt Test and the Draw-A-Person Test on the
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. Specifically, as the child becomes older, the
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Draw-A-Person will become less
predictive. With regard to reading abilities as measured by the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test, achievement was highly associated with performance on the Bender
Gestalt Test and Draw-A-Person Test at age six and moderately associated with the
drawing measures at age eight. However, reading achievement as measured by the
124
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test was only minimally associated with performance
on the drawing measures at ages seven, nine, eleven, and twelve. There was a negligible
association between the measures at age ten.
The pattern of association between math abilities as measured by the Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test and the drawing measures was nearly opposite compared
to reading achievement and its association with the independent drawing measures. The
age at which the greatest association was found between the measures was twelve. There
was a moderate association between math achievement and performance on the drawing
measures at age nine and minimal association between the measures at ages six, seven,
eight, and ten. There was negligible association between performance on the Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test Mathematics cluster and the drawing measures at age
eleven.
With regard to spelling abilities as measured by the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test, there was a moderate association with the drawing measures at ages
eight, nine, eleven, and twelve. Moderate association was found between the measures at
ages six and seven, and negligible association at age ten.
Finally, performance on the cluster that comprised the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test Screener Composite and its association with the Bender Gestalt Test
and Draw-A-Person Test was variable. A very high association between the measures
was found for the present sample of participants at age six. A moderate association
between the measures was discovered at ages eight, nine, eleven, and twelve. There was
125
a minimal association between the measures at age seven and a negligible association
between the measures at age ten.
Moreover, the hypothesis that the drawing measures would become less
predictive was not entirely true. Prediction of performance in the four areas measured by
the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test clusters appeared to peak at age six and age
twelve, with lower levels of association especially at age ten. There was no clear pattern
with regard to performance in any area of achievement.
Limitations of the Study
Readers of this study are well advised to limit their application of these results to
other populations. While the validity and reliability of this study have utility within the
population in this study, applications beyond the current population are limited and are
delineated below.
Overall, the participants in the study were rather homogeneous, with a much
smaller percentage being female and from diverse ethnic backgrounds. The number of
participants in the nonclinical group was rather limited and they were not matched to the
participants in the clinical group. This adds other factors to consider in the interpretation
of the results (ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status, etc.). Also, because there were very
few participants in the nonclinical-nonreferred group, differences that might have
otherwise appeared between groups were not apparent based on the analyses performed
and power might have been compromised. Not only were there fewer participants in the
nonclinical group, many of these participants, especially those who were referred, had
emotional, behavioral, or other difficulties, although perhaps not to the extent that
126
qualified them for specific diagnoses as other (i.e., clinical) participants. Therefore,
although labeled differently, the two groups (i.e., clinical and nonclinical) may not have
been different enough in order to see significantly different patterns of performance on
the measures used in this study.
Another limitation of the study is the lack of socioeconomic information and
parent education level. As past research has suggested (Bender, 1970; Carter, Spero, &
Walsh, 1978; Koppitz, 1975; Koppitz, Sullivan, Blyth, & Shelton, 1959; Lessler,
Schoeninger, & Bridges, 1970; Mlodnosky, 1972; Schoolcraft, 1972; Smith & Smith,
1988; Wallbrown, Engin, Wallbrown, & Blaha, 1975), there are several sources of data
things that are important to obtain and consider when making differential diagnoses. The
important issues to address include demographic information (parents education level,
socioeconomic status) and chronicity of a particular disorder (i.e., depression, anxiety,
Oppositional Defiant Disorder), in addition to the use of a variety of evaluation
measures.
Future Research Directions
With the limitations of the study briefly reviewed, it is possible to delineate some
of the suggested directions for future research. With regard to basic sample selection, it
would be important to have clinical and nonclinical participants that are matched in age
and ethnicity. This would make the analysis stronger in that significant differences in
group performance could more likely be attributed to performance on the independent
and dependent measures, rather than on other extraneous factors.
127
Another direction for future research involves using other drawing systems, such
as the Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (DAP: SPED;
Naglieri, McNeish, & Bardos, 1991) or the House-Tree-Person Projective Drawing
Technique (HTTP; Western Psychological Services, 1992), to predict achievement in
children who have received a diagnosis that would qualify them for special education
services in the schools as a student with an Emotional Disturbance. In combination with
intellectual ability, such measures may predict future academic performance more
accurately.
Furthermore, future research in predicting academic achievement should
incorporate a variety of measures, including cognitive and emotional/behavioral
measures. In particular, the use of a nonverbal measure of cognitive ability, such as the
Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT; Bracken & McCallum, 1998), may aid in
more accurately predicting academic performance in combination with other measures,
especially for children that are from diverse cultural or ethnic backgrounds.
Lastly, it appears that with a clinical sample, drawing measures such as the ones
used in this study may not add to the overall prediction of academic achievement when
paired with cognitive ability. Therefore, future research may investigate the utility of
these measures to predict achievement in average children without clinical diagnoses.
Also, since the measures used were unable to adequately discriminate between group
placement (i.e., clinical or nonclinical), these measures should not be used in isolation
for diagnostic purposes. Rather, other data, including developmental history, behavioral
observations, and clinical measures (i.e., Behavior Assessment System for Children;
128
Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992) should be obtained in conjunction with such drawing
measures to gain a thorough view of the overall functioning of the child in question.
Summary
Overall, there is still much to learn about the combined use of drawing measures
and their function in helping clinicians differentiate between clinical disorders. With the
current group of participants, there were no differences between clinical and nonclinical
participants. Although this does not necessarily negate the predictive utility of drawing
measures, their sensitivity to aid in differential diagnosis should be further examined
with more discretely labeled populations (i.e., Dysthymic Disorder, Generalized Anxiety
Disorder, Learning Disabled, etc.). Also, it appears as if drawing measures may be a
very quick and dirty means of assessing academic achievement. Nevertheless, drawing
measures should not be used in isolation to make eligibility rulings regarding students
and their need for special services in the schools or elsewhere.
Moreover, demographic information and a thorough evaluation of a childs
abilities are necessary for making appropriate diagnostic decisions and subsequent
programming recommendations. This study has elaborated the possible usefulness of
drawing measures as very basic predictors of academic achievement; however,
inanimate assessment tools that may have limited predictive value over time should not
replace a clinicians professional judgment.
129
REFERENCES
Abbatiello, A., & Kpo, W. (1989). Test of Visual-Motor Integration: Evaluation of test
effectiveness for practitioners. Special Services in the Schools, 5, 77-88.
Abell, S. C., Wood, W., & Liebman, S. J. (2001). Children's human figure drawings as
measures of intelligence: The comparative validity of three scoring systems.
Journal o f Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 204-215.
Ackerman, T. (1998). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. In J. C. Impara, & B. S.
Plake (Eds.), The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: The
Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Retrieved April 20, 2002 from the
Mental Measurements Yearbook database
Adams, W., & Sheslow, D. (1995). Wide Range Assessment o f Visual Motor Abilities
(WRAVMA). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range Inc.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual o f mental
disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Andersson, S. B. (1995). Social scaling in children's family drawings: A comparative
study in three cultures. Child Study Journal, 25, 97-121.
Archer, R. P., & Newsom, C. R. (2000). Psychological test usage with adolescent
clients: Survey update. Assessment, 7, 227-235.
Armstrong, B. B., & Knopf, K. F. (1982). Comparison of the Bender-Gestalt and
Revised Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 55, 164-166.
Aylward, E. H., & Schmidt, S. (1986). An examination of three tests of visual-motor
integration. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 19, 328-330.
Bachara, G. H., Zaba, J. N., Raskin, L. M. (1976). Human figure drawings and learning
disabled children. Academic Therapy, 11, 217-222.
Baldwin, M. V. (1950). A note regarding the suggested use of the Bender Gestalt Test as
a measure of school readiness. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 6, 412-415.
Beery, K. E. (1997). The Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test o f Visual-Motor
Integration (4th ed. rev.). Cleveland, OH: Modern Curriculum Press.
Bender, L. (1938). A Visual Motor Gestalt Test and its clinical use (Research
Monograph No. 3). New York: American Orthopsychiatric Association.
130
Bender, L. (1970). Use of the Visual Motor Gestalt Test in the diagnosis of learning
disabilities. Journal o f Special Education, 4, 29-39.
Billingslea, F. Y. (1948). The Bender-Gestalt: An objective scoring method and
validating data. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 4, 1-27.
Blakeslee, R. W. (1972). The relationship between the Bender Gestalt Test and reading
achievement in first-grade children. (Doctoral dissertation, University of New
Mexico, 1971) Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 4934-4935A.
Bowland, J. A., & Deabler, H. L. (1956). A Bender-Gestalt diagnostic validity study.
Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 12, 82-84.
Bracken, B. A., & McCallum, R. S. (1998). Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test
(UNIT). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
Breen, M. J. (1982). Comparison of educationally handicapped students' scores on the
Revised Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Bender-Gestalt.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 1227-1230.
Breen, M. J., Carlson, M., & Lehman, J. (1985). The Revised Developmental Test of
Visual-Motor Integration: Its relation to the VMI, WISC-R, and Bender Gestalt
for a group of elementary aged learning disabled students. Journal o f Learning
Disabilities, 18, 136-138.
Brenner, M. W., & Gillman, S. (1968). Verbal intelligence, visuomotor ability and
school achievement. British Journal o f Educational Psychology, 38, 75-78.
Brown, M. J. (1977). Comparison of the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration and the Bender-Gestalt Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 981 982.
Buckley, P. D. (1978). Bender Gestalt Test: Review of reported research with schoolage subjects, 1966-1977. Psychology in the Schools, 15, 327-338.
Busch, R. F. (1980). Predicting first grade reading achievement. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 3, 38-48.
Carter, D. E., Spero, A. J., & Walsh, J. A. (1978). A comparison of the Visual Aural
Digit Span and the Bender Gestalt as discriminators of low achievement in the
primary grades. Psychology in the Schools, 15, 194-198.
131
Chandler, L. A. (1990). The projective hypothesis and the development of projective

techniques for children. In C. R. Reynolds, & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook
ofpsychological and educational assessment o f children: Personality,
behavior, and context (pp. 55-69). New York: The Guilford Press.
Chang, T. M., Chang, V. A. (1967). A relation of visual-motor skills and reading
achievement in primary-grade pupils of superior ability. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 24, 51-53.
Colarusso, R., Gill, S., Plankenhorn, A., & Brooks, R. (1980). Predicting first-grade
achievement through formal testing of 5-year-old high-risk children. Journal o f
Special Education, 14, 355-363.
Colarusso, R. P., & Hammill, D. D. (1972). MVPT - Motor-Free Visual Perception Test
manual. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy.
Colligan, R. C. (1967). Learning inhibitions in children related to their human figure
drawings. Psychology in the Schools, 4, 328-330.
Connor, J. P. (1968-1969). Bender Gestalt Test performance as a predictor of differential
reading performance. Journal o f School Psychology, 7, 41-44.
Coy, M. N. (1974). The Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test as a predictor of academic
achievement. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 7, 317-319.
Cummings, J. A. (1995). Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery - Revised. In J.
C. Impara, & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The twelfth mental measurements yearbook.
Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Retrieved April 20,
2002 from the Mental Measurements Yearbook database
DeMers, S. T., Wright, D., & Dappen, L. (1981). Comparison of scores on two visualmotor tests for children referred for learning or adjustment difficulties.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 863-867.
Dibner, A. S., & Korn, E. J. (1969). Group administration of the Bender Gestalt Test to
predict early school performance. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 25, 263-268.
Dickson, T. L., Bobo, B. C., Guerrero, A., & Livingston, R. B. (2001). TASP Survey:
Patterns of test usage among Texas school psychologists. The Texas School
Psychologist, 9, 6-10.
Dillard, H. K., & Landsman, M. (1968). The Evanston Early Identification Scale:
Prediction of school problems from the human figure drawings of kindergarten
children. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 24, 227-228.
132
Dudek, S. Z., Goldberg, J. S., Lester, E. P., & Harris, B. R. (1969). The validity of
cognitive, perceptual-motor and personality variables for prediction of
achievement in grade I and grade II. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 25, 165170.
Duffey, J. B., Ritter, D. R., & Fedner, M. (1976). Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration and the Goodenough Draw-A-Man test as predictors of academic
success. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 543-546.
Dunleavy, R. A. Hansen, J. L., Szasz, C. W., & Baade, L. E. (1981). Early kindergarten
identification of academically not-ready children by use of human figure drawing
developmental score. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 35-38.
Egeland, B., Di Nello, M., & Carr, D. (1970). The relationship of intelligence, visualmotor, psycholinguistic and reading-readiness skills with achievement.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 451-458.
Elliott, C. D. (1990). Differential Ability Scales (DAS). San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Eno, L., Elliott, C., & Woehlke, P. (1981). Koppitz emotional indicators in the human
figure drawings of children with learning problems. Journal o f Special
Education, 15, 459-470.
Fabian, A. (1945). Vertical rotation in visual-motor performance-its relationship to
reading reversals. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 36, 129-154.
Fineberg, B. L., Sowards, S. K., & Cochran, G. M. (1979). Comparison of two tests of
visual-motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 48, 156.
Fisher, S. (1967). Learning disabilities in children: Sibling studies IV. Two tests of
perceptual-motor function: The Draw-A-Person and the Bender Gestalt. Bulletin
o f the Orton Society, 18, 55-61.
Frauenhoffer, D., Ross, M. J., Gfeller, J., Searight, H. R., & Piotrowski, C. (1998).
Psychological test usage among licensed mental health practitioners: A
multidisciplinary survey. Journal o f Psychological Practice, 4, 28-33.
Gardner, M. F. (1986a). Test o f Visual-Motor Skills. Burlingame, CA: Psychological and
Educational Publications Inc.
Gardner, M. F. (1986b). Test o f Visual-Motor Skills, manual. San Francisco, CA:
Children's Hospital of San Francisco.
133
Giebink, J. W., & Birch, R. (1970). The Bender Gestalt Test as an ineffective predictor
of reading achievement. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 26, 484-485.
Gittelman, R. (1980). Role of psychological tests for differential diagnosis in child
psychiatry. Journal o f the American Academy o f Child Psychiatry, 19, 413-438.
Glutting, J. J., & Nester, A. (1986). Koppitz emotional-indicators as predictors of
kindergarten childrens learning-related behavior. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 11, 117-126.
Goldstein, D. J., & Britt, T. W. (1994). Visual-motor coordination and intelligence as
predictors of reading, mathematics, and written language ability. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 78, 819-823.
Goodenough, F. L. (1926). Measurement o f intelligence by drawings. New York:
Flarcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Goodenough, F. L., & Harris, D. B. (1963). Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. New
York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Gordon, N., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Tesiny, E. P. (1980). Childhood depression and the
Draw-A-Person Test. Psychological Reports, 47, 251-257.
Hall, L. P., & Landriere, M. L. (1970). A comparative study of diagnostic potential and
efficiency of six scoring systems applied to children's figure drawings.
Psychology in the Schools, 7, 244-247.
Hammer, G. T. (1967). The group Bender Gestalt Test as a predictor of academic
potential in first grade, with attention to environmental effects. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of California Los Angeles, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 28, Z5055.
Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test o f Written Language (3rd ed.).
Austin, TX: PRO-ED Inc.
Hammill, D. D., Pearson, N. A., & Voress, J. K. (1994). Developmental Test o f Visual
Perception (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Harriman, M, & Harriman, P. L. (1950). The Bender Gestalt as a measure of school
readiness. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 6, 175-177.
Harris, D. B. (1963). Children's drawings as measures o f intellectual maturity. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
134
Hartlage, L. C. (1970). Differential diagnosis of dyslexia, minimal brain damage and

emotional disturbances in children. Psychology in the Schools, 7, 403-406.
Henderson, N. B., Butler, B. V., & Goffeney, B. (1969). Effectiveness of the WISC and
Bender-Gestalt Test in predicting arithmetic and reading achievement for white
and nonwhite children. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 25, 268-271.
Hinshaw, S. P., Carte, E. T., & Morrison, D. C. (1986). Concurrent prediction of
academic achievement in reading disabled children: The role of
neuropsychological and intellectual measures at different ages. The International
Journal o f Clinical Neuropsychology, 8, 3-8.
Hutt, M. L. (1945). The use of projective methods of personality measurement in army
medical installations. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 1, 134-140.
Jastak, J. F., & Jastak, S. (1978). Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT). Wilmington,
DE: Jastak Associates, Inc.
Johnstone, B., Holland, D., & Larimore, C. (2000). Language and academic abilities. In
G. Groth-Marnat (Ed.), Neuropsychological assessment in clinical practice: A
guide to test interpretation and integration (pp. 335-354). New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Kamphaus, R. W., Petoskey, M. D., & Rowe, E. W. (2000). Current trends in
psychological testing of children. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 31, 155-164.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). Administration and scoring manual for the
Kaufman Assessment Battery fo r Children. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Kelly, T. J., & Amble, B. R. (1970). IQ and perceptual motor scores as predictors of
achievement among retarded children. Journal o f School Psychology, 8, 99-102.
Keogh, B. (1965a). School achievement associated with successful performance on the
Bender Gestalt Test. Journal o f School Psychology, 3, 37-40.
Keogh, B. K. (1965b). The Bender Gestalt as a predictive and diagnostic test of reading
performance. Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 29, 83-84.
Keogh, B. K., & Smith, C. E. (1967). Visuo-motor ability for school prediction: A
seven-year study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 25, 101-110.
135
Kilpatrick, D. A., & Lewandowski, L. J. (1996). Validity of screening tests for learning
disabilities: A comparison of three measures. Journal o f Psychoeducational
Assessment, 14, AX-53.
Kirk, S. A., McCarthy, J. J., & Kirk, W. D. (1968). Illinois Test o f Psycholinguistic
Abilities (Rev. ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Klein, A. E. (1978). The validity of the Beery Test of Visual-Motor Integration in
predicting achievement in kindergarten, first, and second grades. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 38, 457-461.
Knoff, H. M. (1990). Evaluation of projective drawings. In C. R. Reynolds, & R. W.
Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook o f psychological and educational assessment o f
children: Personality, behavior, and context (pp. 89-146). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Knoff, H. M., Cotter, V., & Coyle, W. (1986). Differential effectiveness of receptive
language and visual-motor assessments in identifying academically gifted
elementary school students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 719-725.
Koppitz, E. M. (1958). The Bender Gestalt Test and learning disturbances in young
children. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 14, 292-295.
Koppitz, E. M. (1964). The Bender-Gestalt for young children. New York: Grune &
Stratton.
Koppitz, E. M. (1966a). Emotional indicators on human figure drawings and school
achievement of first and second graders. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 22,
481-483.
Koppitz, E. M. (1966b). Emotional indicators on human figure drawings of shy and
aggressive children. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 22, 466-469.
Koppitz, E. M. (1967). Expected and exceptional items of human figure drawings and IQ
scores of children age 5 to 12. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 23, 81-83.
Koppitz, E. M. (1968). Psychological evaluation o f children's human figure drawings.
New York: Grune & Stratton.
Koppitz, E. M. (1970). Brain damage, reading disability, and the Bender Gestalt Test.
Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 3, 429-433.
Koppitz, E. M. (1973). Bender Gestalt Test performance and school achievement: A 9year study. Psychology in the Schools, 10, 280-284.
136
Koppitz, E. M. (1975). Bender Gestalt Test, Visual Aural Digit Span Test and reading
achievement. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 8, 154-157.
Koppitz, E. M., Mardis, V., & Stephens, T. (1961). A note on screening school
beginners with the Bender Gestalt Test. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 52,
80-81.
Koppitz, E. M., Sullivan, J., Blyth, D. D., & Shelton, J. (1959). Prediction of first grade
school achievement with the Bender Gestalt Test and human figure drawings.
Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 15, 164-168.
Kulp, M. T. (1999). Relationship between visual motor integration skill and academic
performance in kindergarten through third grade. Optometry and Vision Science,
76, 159-163.
Lacks, P. (1999). Bender Gestalt screening for brain dysfunction (2nd ed.). New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Landsman, M., & Dillard, H. K. (1967). The Evanston Early Identification Scale (Field
research ed.). Chicago, IL: Follett Publishing.
Lavin, C. (1996) Scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition
and Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised for a sample of children
with emotional handicaps. Psychological Reports, 79, 1291-1295.
Lee, S. W., & Stefany, E. F. (1995). Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational BatteryRevised. In J. C. Impara, & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The twelfth mental
measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements. Retrieved April 20, 2002 from the Mental Measurements
Yearbook database
Lees-Haley, P. R. (1992). Psychodiagnostic test usage by forensic psychologists.
American Journal o f Forensic Psychology, 10, 25-30.
Lees-Haley, P. R., Smith, H. H., Williams, C. W., & Dunn, J. T. (1996). Forensic
neuropsychological test usage: An empirical survey. Archives o f Clinical
Neuropsychology, 77,45-51.
Lehman, J., & Breen, M. J. (1982). A comparative analysis of the Bender-Gestalt and
Beery/Buktenica Tests of Visual-Motor Integration as a function of grade level
for regular education students. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 52-54.
Lessler, K., Schoeninger, D. W., Bridges, J. S. (1970). Prediction of first grade
137
performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 37, 751-756.

Lindner, R. S. (1962). The Goodenough Draw-A-Man test: Its relationship to
intelligence, achievement and cultural variables of negro elementary school
children in southeast United States. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State
University, 1962). Dissertation Abstracts International, 23, Z5055.
Lonstein, M. (1954). A validation of a Bender-Gestalt scoring system. Journal o f
Consulting Psychology, 18, 377-379.
MacGinitie, W. H. (1978). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests. Chicago, IL: Riverside.
Matto, H. C. (2002). Investigating the validity of the Draw-A-Person: Screening
Procedure for Emotional Disturbance: A measurement validation study with
high-risk youth. Psychological Assessment, 14, 221-225.
McGraw-Hill. (1970). Comprehensive Tests o f Basic Skills (CTBS). Monterey, CA:
Author.
McKay, M. F., & Neale, M. D. (1985). Predicting early school achievement in reading
and handwriting using major error categories from the Bender-Gestalt Test for
young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 647-654.
McNeish, T. J., & Naglieri, J. A. (1993). Identification of individuals with serious
emotional disturbance using the Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for
Emotional Disturbance. Journal o f Special Education, 27, 115-121.
Mlodnosky, L. B. (1972). Bender Gestalt and Frostig as predictors of first-grade reading
achievement among economically deprived children. Psychology in the Schools,
9, 25-30.
Moore, M. S. (1982). Diagnostic implications in the human figure drawings of learning
disabled children, aged 6-12. (Doctoral dissertation, California School of
Professional Psychology, 1981/1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42,
4596.
Moran, M. P. (1990). The problem of cultural bias in personality assessment. In C. R.
Reynolds, & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook o f psychological and
educational assessment o f children: Personality, behavior, and context (pp.
524-545). New York: The Guilford Press.
Mordock, J. B., Terrill, P. A., & Novik, E. (1968-1969). The Bender Gestalt Test in
differential diagnosis of adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal o f School
Psychology, 7, 11-14.
138
Morgenstem, M., & Mclvor, W. (1973). The relationship between Bender Gestalt
performance and achievement among retardates. Training School Bulletin, 70,
84-87.
Naglieri, J. A. (1988). Draw A Person: A Quantitative Scoring System. San Antonio,
TX: Psychological Corporation.
Naglieri, J. A., McNeish, T. J., & Bardos, A. N. (1991). Draw-A-Person: Screening
Procedure fo r Emotional Disturbance (DAP: SPED). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Nielson, S., & Sapp, G. L. (1991). Bender-Gestalt developmental scores: Predicting
reading and mathematics achievement. Psychological Reports, 69, 39-42.
Norfleet, M. A. (1973). The Bender Gestalt as a group screening instrument for first
grade reading potential. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 6, 383-388.
Ohuche, N. M., & Ohuche, R O. (1973). The Draw-A-Man Test as a predictor of
academic achievement. West African Journal o f Educational & Vocational
Measurement, 1, 20-27.
Otis, A. S., & Lennon, R. T. (1989). Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (6th ed.). San
Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement.
Panther, E. E. (1967). Prediction of first-grade reading achievement. Elementary School
Journal, 68, 44-48.
Pascal, G. R., & Suttell, B. J. (1951). The Bender-Gestalt test: Quantification and
validity fo r adults. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Paul, L. M. (1971). WISC and Bender as predictors of reading performance in children
with learning disabilities. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania,
1971). Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 1923A.
Piaget, J. (1963). The origins o f intelligence in children. New York: W. W. Norton &
Co, Inc.
Porter, G. L., & Binder, D. M. (1981). A pilot study of visual-motor development inter
test reliability: The Beery Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration and
the Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 14, 124127.
Prentice-Hall. (1998). SPSS 8.0: Guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Author.
139
Prewett, P. N., Bardos, A. N., & Naglieri, J. A. (1989). Assessment of mentally retarded
children with the Matrix Analogies Test - Short Form, Draw A Person: A
Quantitative Scoring System, and the Kaufman Test of Educational
Achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 254-260.
Psychological Corporation. (1992). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT). San
Antonio, TX: Author.
Psychological Corporation. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale o f Intelligence (WASI).
San Antonio, TX: Author.
Rathus, S. A. (1994). Essentials o f psychology (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.
Reynolds, C. R., & Flickman, J. A. (in press). DAP: IQ. Draw-A-Person IQ Scoring.
Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Reynolds. C. R., & Kamphaus, R. A. (1998). Manual for the Behavior Assessment
System fo r Children (BASC). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, Inc.
Schoolcraft, D. R. (1973). The effectiveness of the Bender-Gestalt Test for children and
the knowledge of letter names in the prediction of reading achievement with first
grade children in a rural area. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia,
1972/1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, 4988A.
Schroeder, G. B., & Bemis, K. A. (1969). The Use o f the Goodenough Draw-A-Man Test
as a predictor o f academic achievement. Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern
Cooperative Educational Lab, Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C.
Bureau of Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 029 695)
Schultz, M. K. (1997). WISC-III and WJ-R Tests of Achievement: Concurrent validity
and learning disability identification. The Journal o f Special Education, 31, 377386.
Scott, L. FI. (1981). Measuring intelligence with the Goodenough-ITarris drawing test.
Psychological Bulletin, 89, 483-505.
E., & L oudon, M . L. (1964). T he D raw -A -M an T est and ach ievem en t in first
grade. Journal o f Educational Research, 57, 518-521.
Shipp, D .
Shull-Senn, S., Weatherly, M., Morgan, S. K., & Bradley-Johnson, S. (1995). Stability
reliability for elementary-age students on the Woodcock-Johnson
Psychoeducational Battery-Revised (Achievement Section) and the Kaufman
140
Test of Educational Achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 86-92.

Siewart, J. C., & Breen, M. J. (1983). The Revised Test of Visual-Motor Integration: Its
relation to the test of Visual-Motor Integration and Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt
Test for regular education students. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 304-306.
Slate, J. R. (1994). WISC-III correlations with the WIAT. Psychology in the Schools, 31,
278-285.
Smith, D. R. (2001). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. In J. J. W. Andrews, D. H.
Saklofske, & H. L. Janzen (Eds.), Handbook o f psychoeducational assessment:
Ability, achievement, and behavior in children (pp. 169-193). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Smith, T. C., & Smith, B. L. (1988). The Visual Aural Digit Span Test and Bender
Gestalt Test as predictors of Wide-Range Achievement Test-Revised scores.
Smith, T. D., & Smith, B. L. (1998). Relationship between the Wide Range
Achievement Test 3 and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test.
Psychological Reports, 83, 963-967.
Spirito, A. (1980). Scores on Bender-Gestalt and Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration of learning-disabled children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50, 1214.
Stadler, A. C. (1966). Visual perception and first grade reading achievement.
Unpublished masters thesis, San Jose State College, San Jose, CA.
Stavrianos, B. K. (1970). A bit of ammunition for Wagner and some answers to
Mordock's questions. Journal o f Projective Techniques and Personality
Assessment, 34, 87.
Stinnett, T. A., Havey, J. M., & Oehler-Stinnett, J. (1994). Current test usage by
practicing school psychologists: A national survey. Journal o f Psychoeducational
Assessment, 72,331-350.
Tamkin, A. S. (1957). The effectiveness of the Bender-Gestalt Test in differential
diagnosis. Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 21, 355-357.
Taylor, R. L., & Partenio, I. (1984). Ethnic-differences on the Bender-Gestalt - Relative
effects of measured intelligence. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
52, 784-788.
Terman, L., & Merrill, M. (1972). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Boston, MA:
141
Houghton Mifflin.
Tharinger, D. J., & Stark, K. (1990). A qualitative versus quantitative approach to
evaluating the Draw-A-Person and Kinetic Family Drawings: A study of moodand anxiety-disordered children. Psychological Assessment: A Journal o f
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 365-375.
Thorndike, E. L. (1913). The measurement of achievement in drawing. Teachers College
Record, 14, 1-38.
Thweatt, R. C. (1963). Prediction of school learning disability through the use of the
Bender Gestalt Test: A validation study of Koppitz's scoring technique. Journal
o f Clinical Psychology, 19, 216-217.
Travers, R. M. W. (1949). Good prediction of scholastic success. Educational Digest,
15, 38-39.
Tuma, J. M, & Elbert, J. C. (1990). Critical issues and current practice in personality
assessment of children. In C. R. Reynolds, & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook
ofpsychological and educational assessment o f children: Personality,
behavior, and context (pp. 3-29). New York: The Guilford Press.
Vane, S. R., & Eisen, V. W. (1962). The Goodenough Draw-A-Man test and signs of
maladjustment in kindergarten children. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 18, 276279.
Vane, J. R., & Kessler, R. T. (1964). The Goodenough Draw-A-Man Test: Long term
reliability and validity. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 20, 487-488.
Visser, J. (2001). Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (4th ed. rev.). In J. C.
Impara, & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp.
405-407). Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Wallbrown, J. D., Engin, A. W., Wallbrown, F. H., & Blaha, J. (1975). The prediction of
first grade reading achievement with selected perceptual-cognitive tests.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual fo r the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised
(W ISC-R). N e w York: P sy ch o lo g ica l Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1989). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale o f Intelligence - Revised

(WPPSI-R). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual fo r the Wechsler Intelligence Scale fo r Children - Third
142
Edition (WISC-III). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Western Psychological Services. (1992). House-Tree-Person Projective Drawing
Technique (HTP). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Wiese, T. J. (2001). Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (4th ed. rev.). In
J.C. Impara, & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook
(pp. 407-408). Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test 3 (WRAT-3). Wilmington, DE:
Wide Range.
Woodcock, R. W. (1977). Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery. Allen, TX:
DLM Teaching Resources.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Tests o f Achievement Revised. Allen, TX: Developmental Learning Materials.
Wright, D., & DeMers, S. T. (1982). Comparison of the relationship between two
measures of visual-motor coordination and academic achievement. Psychology in
the Schools, 19, 473-477.
APPENDIX
144
BENDER GESTALT SCORING SHEET (KOPPITZ SYSTEM)

FIGURE
Figure A
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
ERROR TYPE
la Distortion of Shape
lb Distortion/Disproportion
2 Rotation
3 Integration
4 Distortion (circles for dots)
5 Rotation
6 Perseveration
7 Rotation
8 Integration (row added or
omitted)
9 Perseveration
10 Disortion (circles for dots)
11 Rotation
12a Integration (shape lost)
12b Integration (lines for dots)
13 Rotation
14 Integration
15 Distortion of shape (circles
for dots)
16 Rotation
17a Integration (shape lost)
17b Integration (lines for dots)
18a Distortion (angles for
curves)
18b Distortion (straight line)
19 Integration
20 Perseveration
21a Distortion (disproportion)
21b Distortion (incorrect
angles)
22 Rotation
23 Integration
24 Distortion (incorrect
angles)
25 Rotation
SCORE
TOTAL NUMBER OF
ERRORS
VITA
Christine L. French
6909 Allentown Road
Camp Springs, Maryland 20748
Education
Bachelor of Arts awarded in May 1998 from Pacific Christian College, Fullerton,
California.
Major Subject: Psychology.
Doctor of Philosophy awarded in August 2003 from Texas A&M University,

College Station, Texas.
Major Subject: School Psychology.
Area of Concentration: Neuropsychology.
Recent Professional Experience
8/02 - 7/03
Neuropsychology Intern, Special Education Department, Lewisville

Independent School District, Lewisville, Texas. (APA-accredited
Professional Psychology Internship Program.)
8/01 - 7/02
Graduate Research Assistant to Dr. Jan N. Hughes, Associate Dean,
College of Education, Texas A&M University
Recent Publications
French, C. L. (2003). MASA syndrome. In E. Fletcher-Janzen, & C. R. Reynolds
(Eds.), The diagnostic manual o f childhood disorders: Clinical and special education
applications (pp. 396-397). New York: Wiley.
French, C. L. (2003). Velocardiofacial syndrome. In E. Fletcher-Janzen, & C. R.
Reynolds (Eds.), The diagnostic manual o f childhood disorders: Clinical and special
education applications (pp. 639-640). New York: Wiley.
Reynolds, C. R., & French, C. L. (in press). The Neuropsychological Basis of
Intelligence-Revised. In M. Horton, & L. Hartledge (Eds.), The handbook o f forensic
neuropsychology. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Dap and Academic Achievement

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Dap and Academic Achievement

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

THE APPLICABILITY OF CHILDRENS DRAWINGS IN PREDICTING

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Major: School Psychology

UMI Number: 3102500

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

THE APPLICABILITY OF CHILDRENS DRAWINGS IN PREDICTING

Submitted to the Office o f Graduate Studies of

Major: School Psychology

Drawing measures are used frequently for psychoeducational assessment

Statement of the Problem.....................................................

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..................................................

The Basics of Drawing Measures.......................................

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..............................................

Mean Scores for the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, by

Mean Scores for the Draw-A-Person Test, by Gender and Age..........

Mean Scores for the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, by

7 Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Developmental Test of

8 Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Developmental Test of

9 Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Developmental Test of

10 Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Developmental Test of

11 Age Trends for the Predictive Validity of the Developmental Test of

1 Studies Using the Bender Gestalt Test............................................................

Studies Using the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration Fourth

Studies Using the Draw-A-Person Test.........................................................

Total Sample Demographic Information........................................................

5 Demographic Information by Location...........................................................

6 Measures Used According to Location...........................................................

Clinical Sample Demographic Information...................................................

Nonclinical Sample Demographic Information.............................................

9 Total Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Independent Variables..............

10 Total Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variables................

11 Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Variables by Gender..........................

12 Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Variables by Diagnosis......................

13 Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Variables by Clinic............................

14 Sample Descriptive Statistics for the Variables by Ethnicity.......................

Correlations Between Raters 1 and 2 of the Draw-A-Person: IQ Scoring

Correlations Between Raters 1 and 2 of the Bender Gestalt Testand Mean

Correlations Between Independent Variables...............................................

Correlations Between the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor

Correlations Between the Bender Gestalt Test, Draw-A-Person Test, and

ANOVA for Gender on the Bender Gestalt Test............................................

ANOVA for Gender on the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor

ANOVA for Gender on the Draw-A-Person Test.........................................

ANOVA for Group Placement on the Bender Gestalt Test..........................

ANOVA for Group Placement on the Developmental Testof VisualMotor Integration..............................................................................................

ANOVA for Group Placement on the Draw-A-Person Test.........................

Multiple Regression Results for Woodcock-Johnson Tests of

Multiple Regression Results for Wechsler Individual Achievement Test

Multiple Regression Analyses Results for the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of

Multiple Regression Analyses Results for the Wechsler Individual

30 Multiple Regression Analyses Results for the Developmental Test of

Drawing measures are used frequently for psychoeducational assessment

Following this chapter, an extensive review of the literature is included in

should be able to copy simple geometric figures up to a point equivalent to their

Lastly, performance on drawing measures is affected by cultural variables and

Person Test will be predictive of performance on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of

for a significant amount of the variance in performance on the Wechsler Individual

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The Basics of Drawing Measures

Stimulus-Bound Drawing Measures

achievement in school is rather dubious. Nevertheless, investigators continue to assess

reading achievement. However, when a multiple regression analysis was completed, it

Studies Using the Bender Gestalt Test