Click here to download

Comparison between Goodenough-Harris and Koppitz’ scoring systems
Journal Title: RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA  
Author/s: Monica Rea, Laura Picone 
Year:  2013 Issue: Language: Italian 
Pages:  18 Pg. 243-260 FullText PDF:  238 KB
DOI:  10.3280/RIP2013-002002
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


The human figure test is one of children evaluation system used by psychologists. It was validated by Goodenough (1926) as a intelligence test. Later, Koppitz (1968) studied children’s drawings, in order to explore their mental stage. She believed that through drawings was possible to identify both cognitive maturation of children, and typical characteristics of a specific age. The author proposed a scoring system with a reduced number of items (30), used to analyze the drawings, when the child draws man that a woman. The present study want to verify the reliability and validity of the scoring system proposed by Koppitz, in Italian children (N = 1216) from 6 to 11 years. Also, the subjects were also assessed with Raven Progressive Matrices. Analysis of data shows very high correlations (from r = .51 to r = .85) between two evaluation systems, by Koppitz (30 items) and by Goodenough-Harris (71/73 items), supporting the fact that the scoring proposed by Koppitz can be used as a valid and faster alternative. Furthermore, human figure test discriminates skills of children in different age. In fact, scores increase from six to ten years, and then stop. Significant differences have been found between males and females only in woman figure draw. There were not found high correlations between human figure test and Raven Progressive Matrices, confirming the fact that this test provide an adaptation index of development and of conceptual maturation, and not an index of cognitive development. Therefore, is important to use this test only as first screening of cognitive maturation. If a child obtains a score below the average for its age group, are necessary a clinical evaluation and an assessment with more valid intelligence tests.
Keywords: Human figure test, Koppitz’ scoring system, cognitive assessment, developmental assessment.

  1. Belacchi, C., Scalisi, T.G., Cannoni, E., & Cornoldi, C. (2008). Manuale CPM. Coloured Progressive Matrices. Standardizzazione italiana. Firenze: Giunti O.S.
  2. Abell, S.C., Von Briesen, P.D., & Watz, L.S. (1996). Intellectual evaluation of children using human figure drawings: an empirical investigation of two methods. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52, 67-74., DOI: 10.1002/1097467919960152167
  3. 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 of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 204-215., DOI: 10.1177/073428290101900301
  4. Aikman, K.G., Belter, R.W., & Finch, A.J. (1992). Human figure drawings: validity in assessing intellectual level and academic achievement. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 114-120., DOI: 10.1002/10974679199201481114
  5. Gayton, W.F., Tavormina, J., Evans, H.E., & Schuh, J. (1974). Comparative validity of Harris and Koppitz’ scoring system for human figure drawings. Perceptual and motor skills, 39, 369-370., DOI: 10.2466/pms.1974.39.1.369
  6. Goodenough, F.L. (1926). The measurement of intelligence by drawings. New York: World Books.
  7. Hammer, E.F. (1958). The clinical application of figure drawings. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
  8. Harris, D.B. (1963). Children’s Drawings as Measures of Intellectual Maturity. A Revision and Extension of the Goodenough Draw-a-Man Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
  9. Harris, D.B., Roberts, J., & Pinder, G.D. (1970). Intellectual maturity of children as measured by the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. Vital and Health Statistics. 105, 1-40.
  10. Ingram, N. (1985). Three into two won’t go: symbolic and spatial coding precesses in young children’s drawings. In N.H. Freeman & M.V. Cox (Eds.), Visual order: the nature and development of pictorial representation. Cambridge: University Press.
  11. Jolles, I. (1952). A study of the validity of some hypotheses for the qualitative interpretation of the H-T-P for children of elementary school age. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 8, 113-118., DOI: 10.1002/1097467919520482113
  12. Koppitz, E.M. (1968). Psychological evaluation of children’s human figure drawings. New York: Grune and Stratton.
  13. Laosa, L.M., Swartz, J.D., & Holtzman, W.H. (1973). Human figure drawing by normal children. A longitudinal study of perceptual-cognitive and personality development. Developmental Psychology, 8, 350-356.
  14. Levy, S. (1958). Projective figure drawing. In E. F. Hammer (Eds.), The clinical application of projective drawings (pp. 83-112). Springfield: IL: Charles C Thomas.
  15. Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
  16. Machover, K. (1960). Sex difference s in the developmental pattern of children as seen in human figure drawings. In A.I. Rabin & M.R. Haworth (Eds.), Projective techniques with children. New York: Grune & Stratton.
  17. Mazzeschi, C., Magro, T., & Coco, C. (1998). I test di maturazione intellettiva e i metodi proiettivi basati sul disegno della persona. In A. Lis (Ed.), Tecniche proiettive per l’indagine della personalità. Bologna: il Mulino.
  18. Mortensen, K.V. (1991). Form and Content in Children’s Human Figure Drawings. New York: New York University Press.
  19. Naglieri, J.A. (1988). Draw A Person: A Quantitative Scoring System. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
  20. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1947) La rappresentazione dello spazio nel bambino. Firenze: Giunti.
  21. Picone, L., & Pinto, M.A. (1986). Sviluppo cognitivo in bambini svantaggiati. Modelli teorici e strumenti d’indagine a confronto. Roma: Carocci.
  22. Polacek, K.A., & Carli, D. (1976). Test della figura umana. Firenze: Giunti O.S. Rae, G., & Hyland, P. (2001). Generalizability and classical test theory analyses of Koppitz’s scoring system for human figure drawings. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 369-382., DOI: 10.1348/000709901158569
  23. Raven, J., Court, J.H. & Raven, J.C. (1998). Raven Manual, Section 1 (General overview) and Section 2 (Coloured Progressive Matrices). Oxford: Oxford Psychologist Press.
  24. Richey, M.H. (1965). Qualitative superiority of the “self” figure in children’s drawing. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 59-61., DOI: 10.1002/1097467919650121159
  25. Scott, L.H. (1981) Measuring Intelligence with the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 483-505., DOI: 10.1037/00332909893483
  26. Van Sommers, P. (1984). Drawing and Cognition. Cambridge: University Press. Willcock, E., Imuta, K., & Hayne, H. (2011). Children’s human figure drawings do not measure intellectual ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(3), 444-452., DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.04.013
  27. Zuelzer, M.B., Stedman, J.M., & Adams, R. (1976). Koppitz Bender Gestalt scores in first grade children as related to etnocultural background, socioeconomic class and sex factors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 875-876., DOI: 10.1037/0022006X445875

Monica Rea, Laura Picone, Comparison between Goodenough-Harris and Koppitz’ scoring systems in "RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA " 2/2013, pp. 243-260, DOI:10.3280/RIP2013-002002

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content