Table of Contents
The Core Definition and Mechanism
The Draw-A-Person Test (DAP), often referred to as the Goodenough-Harris Draw-A-Person Test, is a psychological instrument widely employed to evaluate the cognitive maturity, emotional functioning, and personality dynamics of children and adolescents. It falls into the category of a projective test, meaning that the test-taker’s inner thoughts, feelings, and conflicts are theorized to be unconsciously projected onto the ambiguous task of drawing a human figure. Unlike standardized, objective tests that rely on fixed answers, the DAP utilizes non-verbal expression to infer complex psychological states, making it a valuable tool for clinicians working with diverse populations, particularly those facing language barriers or communication difficulties.
The fundamental mechanism behind the DAP is the assumption that a child’s drawing of a person reflects their conceptual understanding of the self and others, as well as their stage of cognitive development. When scoring the drawings for intellectual maturity, the administrator does not evaluate artistic skill, but rather the presence, detail, and proportional accuracy of specific anatomical parts and clothing items. Conversely, when assessing emotional function, the mechanism shifts toward interpreting qualitative elements, such as line quality, size, placement, and omissions, which are theorized to reveal underlying anxiety, self-esteem, or interpersonal attitudes. This dual application—measuring both objective developmental milestones and subjective emotional projection—distinguishes the DAP from many other common psychological assessments.
Historical Development and Key Figures
The origin of the Draw-A-Person Test dates back to 1926, when Florence Goodenough, an American psychologist, first developed the instrument under the title “The Goodenough Draw-A-Man Test.” Her initial purpose, documented in her book, Measurement of Intelligence by Drawings, was strictly to provide a non-verbal method for assessing children’s intellectual maturity. Goodenough established a detailed scoring system that assigned points based on the inclusion of age-appropriate details, such as fingers, necks, and clothing fasteners, correlating the total score with the child’s estimated mental age.
The test was later significantly revised and extended by Dale B. Harris in 1963, leading to its current, more recognized name, the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. Harris expanded the scope by adding scales for drawing a woman and drawing the self, detailed in his volume Children’s Drawings as Measures of Intellectual Maturity. This expansion allowed for a broader assessment of conceptual development and provided comparative data between the figures drawn. Although initially focused on cognition, the test began to attract attention from clinicians interested in its projective potential, leading to informal and later standardized attempts to use the drawings as indicators of personality and emotional disturbance.
It is important to note the historical controversy surrounding the use of the DAP for clinical diagnosis, particularly in the mid-20th century. Early hypotheses suggested that specific drawing characteristics—such as blurred lines, ambiguous sexuality, or the omission of crucial anatomical parts like hands or eyes—could indicate severe psychiatric conditions, including schizophrenia. However, these projective interpretations have largely lacked empirical validation. Notably, a classic study by Chapman and Chapman (1969) demonstrated the phenomenon of illusory correlation, showing that many of the supposed diagnostic indicators (e.g., large eyes indicating paranoia) were generated simply from the naive, shared beliefs of untrained individuals rather than actual clinical data, challenging the reliability of subjective scoring methods.
Administration Procedures
The administration of the Draw-A-Person Test is straightforward, requiring minimal materials and a non-threatening environment, which contributes significantly to its appeal in clinical and educational settings. The test administrator, typically a trained psychologist or clinician, presents the child with three separate pieces of blank paper and a pencil. The child is then instructed to complete three distinct drawings: first, a man; second, a woman; and third, themselves. Crucially, the administrator provides no further guidance or specific instructions regarding style, size, or detail, ensuring the resulting drawing is a genuine reflection of the child’s free expression.
While the test is untimed, most children complete all three required drawings within a brief period, usually between ten and fifteen minutes. The primary instruction that must be maintained throughout the process is that the child must draw a whole person—meaning the figure must be complete from head to feet, not just a face or bust. The non-invasive nature of the task is a key strength, as it helps to reduce performance anxiety and minimizes variables such as primary language proficiency or complex verbal comprehension, which might otherwise introduce bias in traditional intelligence testing.
Scoring Systems: Quantitative and Projective
The interpretation of the DAP relies on two distinct scoring systems designed to address different assessment needs. The first, the Quantitative Scoring System (QSS), is used to evaluate intellectual or cognitive development. This system is highly objective, analyzing fourteen different aspects of the drawings, including specific body parts, proportions, and clothing details, against specific criteria. In total, there are 64 scoring items for each of the three drawings. Points are awarded for the presence, detail, and accuracy of these elements, yielding a numerical result, often converted into a standard score, which allows the administrator to compare the child’s drawing maturity level against normative data for their age group.
The second system, the Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (SPED), is utilized when the objective is to assess the test-taker for potential emotional problems or personality issues. The SPED is a more subjective, projective approach composed of two types of criteria. The first involves evaluating eight broad dimensions of each drawing against age-appropriate norms, looking at elements like overall size, placement on the page, and integration of parts. The second type considers 47 specific items for each drawing that are believed to be indicators of emotional distress or personality traits, such as heavy shading, distorted features, or the omission of functional body parts. While the QSS is considered the more psychometrically rigorous component, the SPED provides valuable qualitative insight into the child’s internal emotional landscape, often serving as a catalyst for further clinical investigation.
A Practical Illustration of Application
Consider the case of a nine-year-old boy named Leo, who has recently begun exhibiting significant social withdrawal and reluctance to participate in school activities. To gain insight into his internal state, a clinician administers the DAP. Leo completes the three drawings (man, woman, self) in about twelve minutes. The initial analysis using the Quantitative Scoring System (QSS) shows that Leo included all expected anatomical and clothing details appropriate for his age, suggesting his underlying cognitive development is proceeding typically.
However, the subsequent analysis utilizing the Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (SPED) reveals several key projective indicators. First, Leo drew all three figures noticeably small, confined to the bottom corner of the paper, which is often interpreted as an indicator of low self-concept or feelings of insecurity and inadequacy. Second, he used excessively heavy shading around the figures’ heads and hands, a feature frequently associated with anxiety or a sense of inner conflict. Third, in all three drawings, Leo omitted the hands and feet, or drew them as simple, disconnected circles. In the context of projective testing, the omission of hands—the body parts used for interacting with the world—can indicate feelings of powerlessness or difficulty in coping with social demands. Based on this projective data, the psychologist gains a valuable hypothesis: Leo’s withdrawal is likely rooted in underlying anxiety and a feeling of being unable to effectively engage with or control his social environment, guiding the subsequent therapeutic approach.
Validity, Reliability, and Criticisms
The psychometric properties of the Draw-A-Person Test have been subject to intense scrutiny and debate within the field of psychology for decades. When used as a measure of intellectual maturity (QSS), its validity is considered moderate, particularly for young children, where drawing development closely mirrors neurological maturation. However, a major criticism is that the scoring criteria, developed in the early 20th century, do not reflect modern, multifaceted theories of intelligence, limiting its use as a primary measure of IQ today. Furthermore, research consistently demonstrates that scores can be inflated by external factors, such as socioeconomic status and previous exposure to drawing or art instruction, potentially introducing bias against children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
The reliability of the DAP, referring to its consistency, also varies significantly depending on the application. Inter-rater reliability (consistency between different scorers) is generally moderate to good when using the objective QSS for cognitive assessment, as the criteria are clear and quantifiable. However, reliability plummets when the test is used for subjective, projective interpretation (SPED). Because the interpretation of elements like line pressure, omission of parts, or shading relies heavily on the individual clinician’s training and theoretical orientation, the results are prone to subjectivity, leading to inconsistent findings across different assessors.
In contemporary Psychological assessment, these limitations mean the DAP is rarely used in isolation to make definitive diagnoses. Instead, its greatest utility lies as a rapid, non-verbal screening tool or as a supplementary instrument used in conjunction with more robust, standardized measures to provide a broader, qualitative perspective on the child’s emotional state and perception of themselves.
Related Concepts and Psychological Subfields
The Draw-A-Person Test belongs primarily to the subfield of Psychological assessment, bridging both developmental and clinical psychology. Its use as a measure of maturation places it firmly within Developmental Psychology, while its application as an emotional screening tool is rooted in Clinical Psychology and psychodynamic theory, which posits that unconscious processes influence behavior and expression.
The DAP is conceptually related to other major projective tests, all of which share the core theoretical premise of utilizing ambiguous stimuli to elicit internal responses. The most well-known of these related instruments include the Rorschach Test (inkblots) and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), which uses narrative interpretation of pictures. However, the DAP holds a unique position among these tests because it is one of the few projective instruments that possesses a standardized, objective scoring system (QSS) for cognitive measurement, allowing it to serve a dual function that most other purely projective tests lack. This combination of objective and subjective scoring protocols makes it a versatile, though complex, component of a comprehensive psychological battery.