142 • Introduction to Art Therapy
developed over the years as to what types of assessments are legitimate and which
ones (if any) should be taught to students of art therapy. There was much disagree-
ment and ambiguity in the findings of the Art Therapy Practice Analysis Survey
regarding this area.^14
There is no question that the use of art for the purpose of assessment and diagnosis is
extremely complex, which is reflected in the title of a panel of experienced art therapists at
the 1995 conference—“Art-Based Diagnosis: Fact or Fantasy?”—a discussion published in
the American Journal of Art Therapy (1996, p. 9). Despite the discomfort of art therapists
with simplistic approaches to the topic, current trends in mental health and special educa-
tion require that serious attention be paid to this area.
The assessment of individuals and families through art can contribute a great deal to
such diverse areas as: differential diagnosis, clarifying family dynamics, the evaluation of
medication effects, or the prediction of dangerous behavior. Moreover, art can enable people
to reveal both hidden conflicts and potential capacities. Assessing strengths is at least as
vital to helping someone as assessing weaknesses.
Art is very rapid and extremely rich, both of which are relevant in times of shrinking
resources. A sophisticated art therapist is aware of the hazards as well as the potential in
understanding others through their creative work. Used with respect as well as restraint, art
can be a powerful tool in diagnosis and assessment. As David Henley wrote:
We attempt to confirm, moderate and predict the outcome of our treatment process
through the fervent study of client artwork. Yet we must do so cautiously and in rever-
ence to the artwork, which tells us so much more than we can describe.^15
I couldn’t agree with him more.Endnotes
- From Projective Methods for the Study of Personality,” by L. K. Frank, 1939, Journal of Psychology,
8 , 389–413. - “Drawings by Children as Aids in Personality Studies,” by K. E. Appel, 1931, American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 1, 129–144. - “The H-T-P Technique, a Qualitative and Quantitative Scoring Manual,” by J. N. Buck, 1948,
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4, 317–396. - “A Clinical Note: The Kinetic School Drawing, by H. T. Prout & P. D. Phillips, 1974, Psychology in
the Schools, 11, 303–306. - “Children’s Drawings in a Projective Technique,” by P. Elkisch, 1945, Psychological Monographs,
58 (1); “The ‘Scribbling Game’—a Projective Method,” by P. Elkisch, 1948, Nervous Child, 7 ,
247–256. - “Formal Criteria for the Analysis of Children’s Drawings and Paintings,” by T. R. Schmidl-
Waehner, 1942, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 17 , 95–104; “Interpretation of Spontaneous
Drawings and Paintings,” by T. R. Schmidl-Waehner, 1946, Genetic Psychology Monographs, 33 ,
3–70. - “Finger Painting,” by P. J. Napoli, 1951, in An Introduction to Projective Techniques, edited by H.
H. and G. L. Anderson, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, pp. 386–415. - “The Diagnostic Drawing Series,” by B. M. Cohen, J. S. Hammer, & S. Singer, 1988, The Arts in
Psychotherapy, 15(1), 11–21; “An Introduction to the Diagnostic Drawing Series: A Standardized
Tool for Diagnostic and Clinical Use,” by B. M. Cohen, A. Mills, & A. K. Kijak, 1994, Art Therapy,
11 (2), 105–110.