The Basics • 81Assessment in Planning and Evaluation
Like all responsible clinicians, art therapists routinely assess whether what they are doing is
working. There is an increasing demand for proof that what is being done is having an effect,
and has become the rule rather than the exception, as in “evidence-based” interventions (cf.
Gilroy, 2006). Art therapists, therefore, need to define goals and to evaluate progress in a
fashion that can be communicated to the others involved.
For example, an art therapist working with children who have disabilities in a school is
able to articulate short-term objectives, long-term goals, ways of achieving them, and ways of
measuring them. This is all part of a child’s IEP, or individualized education plan (Bush, 1997;
Frostig & Essex, 1998; Stepney, 2001). Treatment planning, as well as periodic evaluation, is
also required in mental health settings, whether they are inpatient, partial, or outpatient.
Setting specifically defined objectives and demonstrating that the art therapy intervention is
working are central to the most recent development in mental health, managed care.
Evaluators, who often have the power to approve further art therapy, are most comfort-
able with behavioral objectives, whether they are in developmental, cognitive, emotional,
or social domains. Art therapists therefore need to observe behavior during the creative
process, measuring changes in such areas as autonomy, organization, and interaction with
others. They also need to look at indices external to art therapy, like behaviors at home, in
school, or at work, and symptom frequency. Rating scales by the patient or others (parents,
teachers, staff ) are sometimes used, as are objective measures like number of absences or
level of performance (Bush, 1997; Frostig & Essex, 1998; Wadeson, 1992).
There are also general objectives that apply to all individuals with whom we work in art
therapy. These include being able to set achievable goals, and feeling good about oneself and
one’s relationships. Whether the person’s disability is temporary or permanent, a generally
acceptable objective is to be able to make the most of personal and societal resources.
We all wish to free people to fulfill their potential, whatever that may be—to be able to
live, love, work, and play to the fullest. All in the helping professions, including art thera-
pists, share a wish that optimism will triumph over pessimism, and that hope will be vic-
torious in the battle with despair. Achieving such goals may not be as simple to measure as
reducing the frequency of hospital visits or increasing a person’s capacity to concentrate, but
they are central to being human and are the reason most of us choose to serve others.
As a matter of professional ethics, responsible art therapists continually evaluate their
work. Of course, the big question is not so much whether the art changed (although that can
serve as a useful index), but whether or not the person(s) changed in the way(s) you and they
had hoped. There are important issues about societal norms regarding goals, some of which
are especially relevant to art therapists.
In terms of planning and evaluation, goals and objectives cannot always be spelled out
in advance and experienced art therapists are able to modify expectations as the work pro-
gresses. As with any creative process, you might have a general sense in advance of how it
will turn out. But only when you fully, freely, and openly engage, can you discover how it’s
actually going to shape up, and what is required from you. This is true not only in creating
art, but also in doing therapy, indeed for all kinds of service (teaching, consultation, super-
vision) as well.
Evaluating Art Therapy
All service professions are increasingly being asked to account for the effectiveness of what
they do in “evidence-based” practice (Gilroy, 2006). When budgets need to be cut, whether