Perhaps they can best be placed on the dusty shelves of our history along with other fanciful ... Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. Swensen, C. H. (1957). Empirical ...
School Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1993, pp. 197-199
A Picture Is Worth Less Than a Thousand Words: Response to Reviewers Robert W. Motta Hofstra University Steven G. Little Northern Illinois University Michael I. Tobin Hofstra University The comments in response to our article on human figure drawings (HFDs) (Motta, Little, & Tobin, this issue) ranged from balanced and supportive to biased and attacking. As we had expected, the self-aggrandizing critiques of Naglieri, Bardos, and to a lesser extent, Holtzman, centered more around issues of pet articles that were not included in our paper rather than a substantive presentation of data in support of HFDs. Their thinly veiled tactic of impugning our scholarliness was used to hide one glaringly obvious point, that is, there is little to no compelling data to support the use of HFDs in psychological assessment. The continued use of these invalid assessment devices may represent a violation of the APA Code of Ethics, as shown below. Naglieri and Bardos go on to criticize the editorial policy of this journal even though the editor showed unquestioned fairness in soliciting responses (which were not themselves reviewed) from those who, a priori, were expected to be critical of what we wrote. In our opinion, the editor shows characteristics which are completely lacking in Naglieri et al.'s writing, namely objectivity and balance. Naglieri, Bardos, and Holtzman's critiques show little regard for, or understanding of the value of science. They substitute ad hominem attacks for data and in doing so, have succeeded in hoisting themselves on their own petards of a lack of scholarliness. In fact, one study which they all seem to have conveniently overlooked was authored by one of the contributors to this series (cited in Knoff, this issue). After reviewing over 100 studies on drawings, Knoff found little empirical support for their continued use. In another unscholarly "oversight," Naglieri crows about a study showing a .47 correlation between the Draw-APerson Quantitative Scoring System (DAP:QSS) and the KTEA Math Composite for developmentally handicapped youngsters. He fails to mention the nonsignifi-
Address correspondence to Robert W. Motta, Hofstra University, Department of Psychology, 046 Monroe Hall, Hempstead, NY 11550-1090.
197
198
MOTTA, LITTLE, AND TOBIN
cant correlation between the DAP:QSS and KTEA Reading, and the complete lack of any significant relationships between any KTEA scores and the DAP:QSS for nonhandicapped youngsters. Selective reporting at its best (or worst). The vitriolic commentary of Naglieri and Bardos becomes all the more suspicious when one realizes that they are profiting from an HFD scoring system which they market (Naglieri, McNeish, & Bardos, 1991). One need only look at the American tobacco industry's support of cigarette smoking to see how the profit motive can compromise objectivity. However, even if we give Naglieri and Bardos the benefit of the doubt regarding motivational biases, their desperate personal attacks continue to have that familiar hollow ring that often emerges from situations in which there is NO DATA to substantiate a position. Such is the case for their position espousing the utility of figure drawings. Naglieri & Pfeiffer (1992) show that even under contrived conditions that would put figure drawings in the best possible light, that is, by using their own scoring system and extremely divergent, preselected groups, their accuracy level in identifying psychiatrically disturbed children is at a level which is less than chance (i.e., 48% accuracy). Similarly, again under conditions most favorable to the researchers, Prewett, Bardos, and Naglieri (1989) were only able to identify 56% of developmentally disabled youngsters. A psychologist, pulling petals from the proverbial daisy in a fashion of "he's impaired, he's impaired not..." and having never seen any of these children, would have attained an accuracy rate equal to or better than that obtained from their figure drawing system. Even a generous application of smoke and mirrors will not make such embarrassing data look good. The above named "researchers" show a shaky knowledge of statistics; they do not recognize chance when they see it. Is this what Naglieri refers to when he boastfully uses the term "good science?" Figure drawings and similarly invalid assessment devices hurt our profession. We disagree with Naglieri who states that revealing these weaknesses tears down school psychology. Let us be honest, it is the weaknesses themselves that do the damage, not those of us who point out these deficiencies. The other contributors to this series, Gresham, Knoff, Kamphaus, and Pleiss (this issue) have supported our conclusion that the HFD is an invalid and superfluous assessment instrument. In doing so they join a host of like-minded others such as Swensen (1957), Suinn and Oskamp (1969), Klopfer and Taulbee (1976), Kahili (1984), and many more who have reviewed the empirical literature and found the HFD to be of little value. Gresham (this issue) rhetorically asks why, after so much evidence for the invalidity of HFDs, are they even seen as worthy of consideration? He incisively puts forward a number of reasons for the continued popularity of this anachronistic instrument, including illusory correlations, the belief in incremental validity, impossibility of disconfirmation, and the partial reinforcement effect. We agree, and can also see confirmatory bias as operating, that is, the tendency to recall instances in which aspects of the HFD support one's hypotheses about the examinee, and the opposing inclination to negate those instances where support
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS
199
beliefs about the utility of HFDs appear to be the same as those that have given astrology its enduring, endearing, and invalid character. CONCLUSION Where do figure drawings fit in our current knowledge base of psychology? Perhaps they can best be placed on the dusty shelves of our history along with other fanciful approaches, such as Gall and Spurzheim's phrenology or Friedrich Anton Mesmer's animal magnetism. Figure drawings belong in our past and, as Gresham (1993) suggests, should be relegated to the museum of great faux pas in the history of school psychological assessment. HFD's have no place in our current psychological assessment practice and yet, sadly, their popularity and that of astrology are likely to continue undiminished. The APA Code of Ethics (1993) espouses the use of valid testing instruments. Specifically, article 2.02 (a) states: "Psychologists who develop, administer, score, interpret, or use psychological assessment techniques . . . do so in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on (emphasis added) or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques" (p. 1063). We would ask that psychologists keep this ethical principle in mind the next time they ask anyone to "draw a picture of a person." References APA Code of Ethics. (1993). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611. Kahili, S. (1984). Human figure drawing in adults: An update of the empirical evidence, 1967-1982. Canadian Psychology, 25, 269-292. Klopfer, W. G., & Taulbee, E. S. (1976). Projective tests. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 543-567. Naglieri, J. A., McNeish, T. J., & Bardos, A. N. (1991). Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance. Austin, TX: ProEd. Naglieri, J. A. & Pfeiffer, S. I. (1992). Performance of disruptive behavior disordered and normal samples on the Draw A Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance. Psychological Assessment, 4, 156-159. 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. Snyder, M. & Swan Jr., W. B. (1978). Hypothesis testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202-1212. Suinn, R. M , & Oskamp, S. (1969). The predictive validity of projective measures: A fifteen year evaluative review of research. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. Swensen, C. H. (1957). Empirical evaluations of human figure drawings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 431-436.
Action Editor: Joseph C. Witt Final Acceptance: June 4, 1993
