Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Personality and ...

248 chapter 10 projective techniquesBox 10.4 (Continued)Koppitz explains that the EI are notscores but are clinical signs that mayreveal underlying attitudes and characteristicsof the child (Koppitz, 1983). Thereis evidence that the EIs occur at a greaterfrequency in the drawings of emotionallydisturbed than nondisturbed children (seeFinch & Belter, 1991). However, Koppitzdescribes the difficulty in interpreting EIsfor the individual child:“There is no relationship between an EIand overt behavior. For instance, long armsand big hands both reflect aggressivenessand anger, yet children who show these twoEI on their drawings may act very differently.One boy may reveal his anger by refusingto do his homework or by truantingfrom school, another child may be physicallyaggressive to peers, while a third childmay withdraw and soil himself when angry.The Human Figure Drawings indicate thatall three pupils are angry; the youngsters’behaviors demonstrate how they expressthis anger. It is also important to recognizethat different EI can reflect the same attitude.Thus, a girl may show acute anxietyby shading the body and face of her HumanFigure Drawing and by omitting thearms. When she makes another drawingsome time later, she may omit the figure’snose and hands and may draw a dark cloudabove the figure. Similarly, a single EI mayhave different meanings depending on thesituation. For example, a tiny figure mayreflect underlying timidity or shyness, orit may indicate withdrawal or depression.The true meaning of a given EI can only bedetermined by other aspects of the personalitybattery, from observing the child indifferent settings, and from studying his orher developmental and social background”(Koppitz 1983, p. 423).The second question around whichthe Koppitz interpretation is organized is,Whom does the child draw? Most childrentend to draw figures that are of the samegender as themselves (Cummings, 1986;Finch & Belter, 1993). Based on these findings,Koppitz considered a child’s drawingan opposite-sex figure on his or her firstdrawing to be diagnostic, either of problemsin gender identity or as a reflectionof loneliness and isolation. There is also atendency to view the figure as an indicatorof the child’s image of his or her own body(Cummings, 1986).The final question in the Koppitzinterpretive system is, What is the childtrying to express via the drawing? A child’sself-figure may reflect his or her self-perceptions,or a drawing of someone elsemay reflect attitudes or conflicts towardthis person. Koppitz notes that a child’sdrawing may (1) be a reflection of a child’swish, fantasy, or ideal; (2) be an expressionof real attitudes or conflicts; or (3)be a mixture of both. To help clarify thisissue, many assessors note either a child’sspontaneous verbalizations about a figureor ask the child to tell a story about thefigure. As noted above, the assessor mayfollow up with an inquiry phase in whichhe or she asks specific questions about thefigure such as, Who is he/she? or Whomwere you thinking about while you weredrawing? or What is he/she thinkingabout? or How does he/she feel?House–Tree–PersonA second projective drawing technique isthe House-Tree-Person (HTP) technique(Cummings, 1986). In this technique thechild is asked to draw a house, a tree, anda person. The order is always the same andthe drawings are done on separate sheetsof paper. After the drawing, children are