Data from the

NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY

The Goodenough-llarris Drawing Test

as a Measure of Intellectual Maturity

of Youths 12-17 Years

United States

A discussion of results from the application of the Goodenough-Harris

Drawing Test scales to “person” and “self” drawings obtained in a

national examination survey of noninstitutionalized youths 12-17

years of age.

DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 74-1620

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Public Health Service

Series 11

Number 138

Health Resources Administration

National Center for Health Statistics

Rockville, Md. May 1974
I I

Series 11 reports present fklings from the Natiord Health Examination Survey, which

obtains data through direct examination, tests, and measurements of samples of the U..%

population. Reports 1 through 38 relate to the adult program, Cycle 1 of the Health Examination Survey. The present report is one of a number of reports of findings from the children

and youth programs, Cycles 11and 111of the Health Examination Survey. These latter reports

from Cycles II and 111&e being published in Series 11 but are numbered consecutively

beginning with 101. It is hoped this will guide users to the data in which they are interested.

Library of Congrets Cataloging in Publication Date

The Goodenough-Harris drawing test as a measure of intellectwd maturity of youths 12-17

years, United States.

(Natiomd Center for Health Statistics. Data from the Natiorud Health Survey. Series 11,

no. 138) (DHEW.publication no. (HRA) 74-1620)

“This report presents data obtained from a modified version of the Goodenough-Harris

drawing test adrninktered to a national probability sample of youths 12-17 years of age in

the United States.”

Bibliography: p.

Supt. of Dots. no.: HE 20.6209: 11/138,

1. Draw-a-person test–Statistics. 2. Inte~ect–Statistics. 3. Maturation (Psychology)-

Statistics. 4. Adolescent psychology-statistics. L Pinder, Glenn D., joint author. II. Tide.

111.Series: United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and health statistics.

Series 11: Data from the National Health Survey. Data from the health examination survey,

no. 138. IV. Series: United States. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. DHEW publication no. (HRA) 74-1620.

RA407.3.A347 no. 138 [BF698.8.D7] 153.9’324 73-20471

For saleby the SuperintendentofDocuments,U.S. GovernmentPrfnting Otlice,Washington,D.C. 20402-Prfce6ilcents
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS

EDWARD B. PERRIN, Ph.D., Director

PHILIP S. LAWRENCE, SC.D., Deputy Director

DEAN E. KRUEGER, Acting AssocLzte Director for Analysis

GAIL F. FISHER, Assoczhte Director for the Cooperative Health Statktics System

ELIJAH L. WHITE, Associate Director for Data Systems

IWAO M. MORIYAMA, Ph.D., Associate Director for International Statistical Programs

EDWARD E. MINTY, Associate Director for Management

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Associate Director for Operations

QUENTIN R. REMEIN, Associate Director for Program Development

PHILIP S. LAWRENCE, SC.D., Acting Associate Director for Research

ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer

DIVISION OF HEALTH EXAMINATION STATISTICS

ARTHUR J. McDOWELL, Director

GARRIE J, LOSEE, Deputy Director

PETER V. V.HAMILL, M.D., Medical Advisor, Ch!ldren and Youth Program

HENRY W. MILLER, Chief Operations and Quality Control Branch

LINCOLN 1. OLIVER, Chiej psychological Statistics Branch

HAROLD J. DUPUY, Ph.D., psychological Advisor

COOPERATION OF THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

In accordance with specifications established by the National

Center for Health Statistics, the Bureau of the Census, under a

contractual agreement, participated in the design and selection of

the sample, and carried out the fwst stage of the field interviewing

and certain parts of the statistical processing.

Vital and Health Statistics-Series 1l-No. 138

DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 74-1620

Library of Congress CWalog Card Number 73-20471
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------

Field Administration andScoring ------------------------ -----------------

TestingProcedures ---” -------------------- ------------------------ -

Scoring -------- ----------.---” --------- ------------------------- ----

Drawings in the Psychological Study of Children --------------------------

Results -------- -“-=---- ------------------------ ---.--.----” ----------

Raw Scores -------- ------------------------ ------------------------

ComparisonWith Harris’Norms ----.-” -------------------- --------- .“

Standard Scores and Percentiles ------.----” ------------ -------------

Discussion ------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---

Summary -------- -------- -------- ---------------- ---------------------

References -------- -------- -------- ---------------- -----c-- -------- ---

List of DetailedTables -------------------------------------------------

Appendix 1. Technical Notes ----------------------------- --------------

TheSurveyDesign -.----------” ------------ .------------” ---------- --

Reliability -------- -------- -------- ------------------------ ---------

Missing Test Results and Imputation Procedures -----------------------

Sampling and Measurement Error ------------------------- -------- ----

Hypothesis Testing -------------- -------------- -------------- -------

Small Categories ------------------------ ------------------------ ---

Standard Scores -------- .------- -“------ ------------------------ ----

Appendix II. Cycle III Drawing Test Instructions -----------------------

1

2

2

3

3

6

6

8

10

12

14

15

16

41

41

43

44

45

45

46

46

47

...

m
Data not

Category

Quantity

Quantity

SYMBOLS

bailable ------------------------ ---

not applicable ------------------- . . .

zero ---------------------------- -

nore than O but less than O.05---- 0.0

Figure doesnot meet standards of

reliabilityor precision ------------------

*

iv
THE GOODENOUGH-HARRIS DRAWING TEST

AS A MEASURE OF INTELLECTUAL MATURITY OF YOUTHS

* Dale B. Harris, Ph. D., The Pennsylvania State Univwsity, and

Glenn D. Pinder, Division of Health Examination Statistics

INTRODUCTION

This report presents data obtained from a

modified version of the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test administered to a national probability

sample of youths 12-17 years of age in the United

States in the Health Examination Survey of 1966-

70. Information presented here is essentially a

continuation of that reported for children ages 6-11

in a previous publication of the Vitul and Health

Statistics series> This is the first report on test

findings among adolescents and is limited to consideration of age and sex differentials.

The Health Examination Survey is a program

of the National Center for Health Statistics in which

data are collected by direct examination of representative samples of the noninstitutionalized population of the United States. Since 1960 the Survey

has been carried out in a series of separate programs (called “cycles”) concerned with segments

of the total population and focused on certain aspects of the health of that subpopulation. The data

presented here were obtained in the third cycle, a

survey of the Nation% youths aged 12-17 years.

This program was a continuation of the previous

cycle in which children 6-11 years old were given

basically the same examination and which focused

on health factors related to growth and development. Details regarding the surveys can be obtained in comprehensive reports on the children’s

pro&ram2 and that of the youths.3 Further information regarding the Cycle III survey design can

be found in appendix I.

The survey of youths was started in March

1966 and field collection operations were completed in March 1970. Of the 7,514 youths selected for the sample, 6,768 (90 percent) were

examined. This national sample may be considered representative of the roughly 23 million noninstitutionalized youths 12-17 years of age in the

United States at the time of the survey.

A standardized 3-hour, single-visit examination of each youth was given by the examination

team in specially designed mobile units used for

the survey. Along with the physician’s and dentist’s examination and a variety of tests and measurements done by technicians, a 70-minute psychological test battery was administered by a psychologist. This battery contained the following

procedures administered in the order listed: Wide

Range Achievement Test, arithmetic and reading

sections; Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Vocabulary and Block Design subtests; five

cards from the Thematic Apperception Test; a

modified version of the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test requesting a person and a self drawing,

the Brief Test of Literacy; and a questionnaire

covering certain health-related attitudes and

behaviors. A critical evaluation of the tests and

procedures selected, including a literature review

of previous research and evaluations, was done on

contract by S.13. Sells of Texas Christian University. The results have been published in the methodological series of Vital and Health Statistics.4

Before sample youths were examined, information was obtained from their parents. The information included demographic and socioeconomic data on household members as well as a

medical history and behavioral data about the sample youth. Information regarding scholastic performance and adjustment was requested in a questionnaire sent to the youth’s school.
FIELD ADMINISTRATION

AND SCORING

Testing Procedures

Two human figure drawings were obtained

from each youth during individual testing ses.

sions. All tests were administered by psychologists who had obtained at least master’s degrees

and who had had previous experience administering tests. There were two psychologists with the

examining team at all times. The examiners were

selected, trained in field testing procedures, and

supervised by the psychological advisory staff

of the Health Examination Survey. In all training

and supervision, strong emphasis was placed on

uniform methods of test administration, scoring,

and recording of data. During the course of the

youths’ survey, 12 psychologists worked in the

field.

In the planning stages for Cycle 111it was

decided that instructions for the drawing test

should provide for drawings of both a “person”

figure and a “self” figure. It was also decided,

as with the children’s drawings from the previous

survey, that all drawings would be scored in accordance with the 1963 Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test scales 5 in order to obtain a measure of

intellectual maturity. During pilot testing o~ the

survey examination it was found that the adoles.

cent age group tended to take more time in completing the drawings than could be allowed within

the time constraints imposed by the entire examination. Through observation it was determined

that most youths could produce a complete and

scoreable product within a period of 5-7 minutes

but would then continue to make changes and additions which appeared to serve no noticeably

constructive end. A further modification of the

test instructions was then introduced. Each youth

was told he would have 5 minutes to complete each

drawing. In addition, examiners were instructed to

allow a youth up to 7 minutes for completion of

the drawing if it seemed necessary. (The instructions as they appeared in the Cycle 111examiner’s

manual are presented in appendix II.) The drawings were made on forms specially printed for the

survey; these forms provided the same size drawing area as those published for the 1963 Goodenough-Harris test. All drawings which were obviously incomplete at the end of the time allowed

and any drawings which a youth said were not

complete were judged to be invalid and so designated on the test form by the examiner. All invalid drawings were reviewed by supervisory

personnel and the designation changed to valid

when a drawing was judged to be complete enough

for accurate scoring.

Because setting limits on the time allowed to

draw is an important modification of the usual instructions for administering the GoodenoughHarris test, a special study was undertaken to

compare the scores resulting from the evaluation

of timed drawings versus untimed.6 Agroup of 102

eighth grade students was tested in a counterbalanced design to assess the effects of group and

individual administration of the tests. The effect

of mode of administration was not statistically

significant (p. > .05), and there was no interaction

effect between mode of administration and order

of presentation. This point being settled, the test

was given to samples of secondary school students

at ages 12, 14, and 16 in classroom groups for the

purpose of assessing the effects of timed testing

procedures compared to untimed. Two hundred

students were selected at each age, so as to be

representative of youths in the United States with

respect to father’s occupation as presented in the

1960 U.S. Bureau of the Census publications. Half

of the youths in each age sample were tested under

untimed conditions and half were tested according

to the instructions designed for the Health Examination Survey. Although the difference in mean

scores obtained under time and untimed modes of

presentation was not significant at 12 years of age,

it was significant at the .05 level for the 14- and

16-year-old groups.

The results under the Goodenough-Harris

(untimed) mode of presentation were generally

comparable with national norms, while those under

the limited time fell below the conditions for the

standard groups from 2-9 points; in half of the

comparisons (by sex of child, sex of drawing, and

instructions) the difference between means exceeded 3 points, but in only two conditions did

the difference exceed 6 points. It was concluded

that while limited time conditions may require

different norms, the effect of the changed testing

conditions would not necessarily invalidate the

test.

2
Scoring

Each drawing was scored independently by two

scorers using the appropriate Man or Woman scale

of the Goodenough-Harris test. One total score for

each drawing was then obtained by taking the average of the two scores. If the average score was not

a whole number, the fraction was dropped.

Scoring was done under the direction of James

L. McCarey at the University of Houston. A total

of 17 scorers were trained and supervised by

McCarey while scoring the youths’ human figure

drawings. Survey staff members and Dale B.

Harris acted as consultants in the solution of problems regarding particular items in the scales.

The supervisor of the scoring project was responsible for implementing quality control procedures in an effort to assure valid and reliable

results. Inter scorer reliability coefficients are

all 0.86 or almve (appendix I).

DRAWINGS IN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL

STUDY OF CHILDREN

For many years psychologists, teachers, and

perceptive parents have observed that young children use drawings as a “language” to express their

knowledge and ideas. Presumably, then, a child’s

drawings obtained under prescribed circumstances might be used in the scientific study of

the child’s thought and behavior. In 1921 Sir Cyril

Burt7 included the drawing of a man as one of the

tests of individual differences in abilities and performances of school children. He included this

drawing because he had noted that there is a steady

improvement with age in the detail and complexity

of drawings. He also observed the extraordinary

crudity of drawings by mentally retarded children,

although they too tended to show some development with age. His hypothesis was that the abilities required by school work, notably absent in

retarded children, might be reflected in the drawing performance. To arrive at an appropriate

score in Burt’s procedure, a child’s drawing was

compared with a set of examples considered as

standards. This score was, however, only one of a

number of components used in assessing ability

and intelligence.

In 1926 Florence Goodenough published her

Draw-A-Man Test,8 which offered the first explicit, standardized instructions for administering

and scoring a human figure drawing. She used the

drawing of a man because the male figure is commonly found in collections of children’s free drawings and is one of the first subjects spontaneously

attempted by young children when they begin representative drawing at about age 3 or 4. She believed the male figure to be preferable to the female because the male garb, being less subject

to fashion and stylistic change, represents a uniform stimulus which can be executed in varying

degrees from the most simple schematic form to

the most detailed representation.

Goodenough used the point score system; that

is, she credited a single point for each of a series

of features or parts described explicitly in the

scoring instructions. These features were selected empirically to meet two criteria: in each

successive age group a greater percentage of

children included the feature, and duller children

were less likely than brighter children to have

included the feature. The latter criterion of intelligence was assessed very simply; children held

back in school were considered to be relatively

dull while those who were accelerated in school

grade placement were thought to be the brighter

children.

A total score was achieved by summing the

individual points attained. This point score was

transferred +nto a mental age (expressed in years

and months) by plotting the mean point score values

made by children in successive year age groups

and interpolating intermediate values. According

to procedures used at that time, the intelligence

quotient (IQ) for a given child was calculated by

taking the ratio of mental age in months to chronological age in months and multiplying by 100.

The Goodenough Draw-A-Man Test has been

widely accepted in the repertoire of the child psy -

chologist’s tests. From the psychologist’s point

of view the test has many desirable features. The

simple instructions to “draw a man, make the very

best man you can” are not particularly intimidating. The child seldom thinks of his drawing as a

test or examination; young children like to draw

and frequntly draw as a means of entertainment.

Working on a “test” which resembles a familiar

activity, a child usually behaves naturally and

comfortably, setting the stage for the more formal

testing which follows. Thus a drawing is a simple

.

3
device for establishing goodrapport. Scoring can

be deferred because theproduct rather than aspectsof the performance is scored.

In addition tothese aspects the Draw- A-Man

Test has other virtues. It is apevYomnance test;

the child is doing something rather than saying

something. This isanobviousadvantageforachild

with speech or hearing difficulties. The test is

readily used in situations where complex verbal

instructions may not be easily translated. Thus

it can be used with children possessing language

habits with which the psychologist may be unfamiliar. Moreover, this simple test has consistently yielded substantial correlations with

complex verbal and individual measures of intellectual ability.5

Under the scrutiny of widespread use, however, Goodenough’s test soon showed certain

limitations. It tended to give decreasing IQ’s in

10-, 11-, and 12-years-olds, suggesting that increments in mental age were not sufficiently calibrated and that the test was not adequately measuring abilities in the older age range of childhood.

Furthermore, the original standardization was

accomplished before modern concepts of sampling and representativeness had been developed.

Goodenough’s norms were clearly not adequate

for contemporary use.

During the decade following World War II,

a renewed interest in drawings focused on their

use in assessing personality qualities such as

aggressiveness, hostility, and insecurity and on

features of psychological adjustment such as the

feelings toward self and other people and the direction of sexual urges. There arose a widely

accepted hypothesis that when the stimulus was

an undesignated “person” rather than a “man,”

the sex of the figure drawn was significant in

indicating unconscious sex role identification.

Consequently, clinical psychologists more and

more frequently collected human figure drawings

in which sex was not designated by instruction

for the first drawing. This practice is common

today. A second drawing of the opposite sex to

that of the first is usually requested. Frequently

qualitative comparisons of the two figures are

used to interpret personality dynamics.

No objective standards for scoring or evaluating such drawings were forthcoming and considerable experimentation by psychologists took

place. A review of the literature by Cassel,

Johnson, and Burns9 in 1958 placed the reliability of such interpretations at a very low level.

This fact is not surprising, considering the

lack of standards for evaluation. Eventually

several methods of evaluation were published.

Machover 10 described her method in very general

terms in 1949. Buck’s House-Tree-Person Test

(H-T-P),ll-12 published in 1948 and revised in

1966, is more specifically described, and some

diagnostic features are made quite explicit by

means of examples. The scoring manual gives a

basis for estimating general intellectual level

and goes into some detail concerning the assessment of personality and adjustment dynamics.

Jollesl 3 published his method for the H-T-P in

1952. Hammer’s 14 suggestions concerning the

H-T-P first appeared in 1954 and he collaborated

in Buck’s revision of 1969. Urban’sl 5 manual of

signs (1963) for interpreting human figure drawings is limited entirely to personality characteristics. A recent addition to the use of human figure drawings is found in the Kenetic Family

Drawing Manual published by Burns and Kaufman. 16 This procedure has the virtue of requiring

the subject to draw figures “doing something,”

which increases the variety of material available

for study.

Most of these methods of assessment or

evaluation are based on the inspection of printed

examples, sometimes arranged roughly by age

and sometimes by psychiatric or psychologic

diagnosis with a more or less brief description

of the individual who produced the drawing. The

Koppitz monograph17 applies a more explicit and

detailed method exclusively to children, and while

the interpretation of intellectual level derived

from the children’s drawings is qualitative and

hence does not yield as precise and reliable an

index as might by wished, it does offer an empirically derived and data-supported method for

interpreting signs of emotional disturbance which

may appear in drawings.

Harris restandardizedthe Goodenough Draw.

A-Man Test in the 1950’s and published his work

as the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test in 1963.5

He also developed a scale for evaluating the drawing of a woman as an alternate form. In both scales

items were selected for scoring by three criteria:

(1) if they were items included by progressively

4
larger percentages of children through successive

age groups, (2) if they were included signifi cantly

more often by intellectually bright children than by

intellectually dull children in each age sample, (3)

if the items were included significantly more often

by children in each age group scoring high on the

test as a whole (less the contribution of the item

concerned and other points based on that feature)

than by children with low total test scores (less

such contribution). A fourth criterion, extending

the second, was furnished by substantial samples

of mentally retarded children from educable

cla,sses. The percent of these children in each age

group passing each item was well below that of

dull children in regular school classes.

For the second criterion, bright children were

considered to be all those in each age group

scoring among the highest 25 percent on intelligence tests in school records and dull children

were those scoring in the bottom 25 percent of

each age group. The raw scores on the tests in

school records were converted to standard scores

to rule out differences in variability of scores

among various tests. Because of the widespread

use of “social promotion” in American schools in

the 1950’s, the simpler criterion of age-for-grade

acceleration or retardation as an index of intellectual level was abandoned.

Considerable effort, described in some detail in Harris’ text, was expended to extend the

scale beyond 12 years, where Goodenough had

terminated it. From Harris’ work it is clear that

the drawing test discriminates best among elementary school age children. The test reveals

decreasing increments in growth after age 12 and

these become minimal by midadolescence. Consequently Harris published norms only through

age 15 and, even at this age, the distribution suggests that a “ceiling-effect” may seriously limit

the variance in the upper portion of the curve.

The drawing of a woman can be assessed to

yield a score which correlates substantially with

the drawing of a man but not sufficiently to assert that this figure yields an identical estimate

of intellectual maturity.

The restandardization confirmed Goodenough’s earlier finding that girls do somewhat

better than boys on the test, especially on the

drawing of the woman. Harris concluded that this

sex difference was more than a sampling effect

and must be recognized as a “real” one, due probably to maturational, cultural, and perhaps drawing proficiency factors. Because sex differences

appeared in many items throughout the scales, he

did not eliminate such items but developed separate norms for boys and girls for each drawing.

In the revision the intelligence quotient concept defined as mental age divided by chronological age was abandoned. In keeping with more recent practice, a standard score method (sometimes called a deviation IQ) based on each age

was substituted. In Harris’ revision, a linear

transformation of the distribution of raw scores

into a distribution of standard scores with a mean

of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 was employed

within each year of age. In this process raw score

means and standard deviations serve as the basis

for the transformation (appendix I).

For psychological purposes the standard

score has considerable descriptive and diagnostic value. The exceptionality of a particular score

within the distribution for a selected age is given

directly and the scores are statistically comparable from age to age. Moreover a standard

score can be directly converted to a percentile

score, which is more easily understood. For example, a drawing test (man) raw score of 62

achieved by a 13-year-old girl converts to a

standard score of 127. Such a score is exceeded

only by 4 percent of 13-year-old girls. It is clearly

an exceptional score. It looks like an IQ, for an

IQ of 127 is also superior, but this score is not a

ratio of mental to chronological age and therefge not an IQ.

This standard score is perhaps more readily

understood when converted to a percentile score,

in this case 96. A percentile score of 96 on the

drawing test is directly comparable with a percentile score of 96 achieved on an arithmetic

achievement test. It expresses exactly the same

degree of exceptionality when such scores are

based on the performances of representative

samples of children. Of course, each test is

measuring different aspects of ability.

The Goodenough-Harris procedure includes

the drawing of a woman as well as one of a man

to supply a second estimate of ability, but the

drawing of a man is always made first. In the

Health Examination Survey, w~ch began before

the publication of the Harris volume, the more

5
general instruction to “draw a person” was used.

As indicated earlier, in each case the scoring

instructions appropriate to the sex of the figure

drawn were used to score that figure. Thus in

this report, four sets of data ,are presented—

drawings of a man and of a woman by boys and

drawings of a man and of a woman by girls.

An earlier report in this series presented

similar data on the drawing test from Cycle 11

of the Health Examination Survey for children

aged 6-11 years. 1 The findings of that study are

briefly summarized here as a basis for considering the data on the adolescent population.

Harris’ conclusion that there are sex differences in raw scores on drawings of a

man seems unwarranted, although girls appear to obtain higher scores than boys on

drawings of a woman.

Harris’ original findings of a steady progression of drawing score with age are amply confirmed.

The age curves portraying mean raw score

performance for Harris’ original standardization sample and for the sample of the

Health Examination Survey diverge steadily

from age 6 to age 11, with Harris’ mean

scores being greater. This finding is true

for both sexes and for Imth drawings.

Discussion of this latter finding considered

possible effects, such as the facilitating effect of

the group settings (school classrooms) in which

Harris’ data were gathered compared to the greater control exercised in the individual test situation

of the HES. Also pointed out was the obvious fact

that the two tests are not the same--Harris asked

for three drawings (man, woman, and self) in a

prescribed sequence while in Cycle 11only a “person” drawing was requested. Other factors considered in the discussion of the divergent findings

were the effect of time constraint in the Cycle 11

procedure, differences in rigor of scoring, and

the possibility that noncognitive factors are’ ‘projected” into human figure drawings, perhaps increasingly with age,

confound the attempt

and that these factors may

to measure an imellective

or cognitive factor. Finally, the differences between the sampling procedures used in the two

studies were considered with the possibility that

Harris’ sample, drawn from a school population,

contained persons already selected on the basis

of intellectual ability.

RESULTS

Raw Scores

The data from the present study can be presented briefly. Table A, based on the population

estimates from the survey, shows the percentages of youths of each sex who drew a male or a

female figure in response to the instructions to

draw a person. It was found that each sex showed

a preference for drawing a figure of their own

sex. Adolescent boys were somewhat more likely

to draw male figures than were younger boys.

Over the age spans of 6-11 years and 12-17 years,

percentages of own-sex drawings were 84.0 and

88.6, respectively. Adolescent girls, however,

were less likely than younger girls to draw a female figure. Here the percentages for children

and adolescents were 80.8 and 75.0, respectively.

Table 1 presents raw score means and standard deviations for each type of drawing and each

age and sex group. a Table 2 and figure 1 present

the same information smoothed by the three-point

moving average method to reduce the effects of

errors of sampling. Harris’ early conclusion,

that age increments become negligible in the early

teens and disappear by midadolescence, was

corroborated. The growth curve clearly leveled

by age 15. This trend was apparent for both sexes

and for both man and woman drawings. On the

man figure there were no si~ificant sex differences in raw score means, although girls

tended to do slightly better from age 12 to age

aThe age recorded for each youth was his age at last birthday as of the date of examination. Age was confirmed by comparison with the date of birth entered on the youth’s birth

certificate. The age criterion for inclusion in the sample was

defied as the age at time of the fust interview. Since the

examination usually took place M weeks after this interview,

some of those who were 17 years old at the time of interview

became 18 by the time of examination. There were 58 such

cases. In weighting procedures and analysis, these youths were

included in the 17-year-old group.

6
Table A. Number and percent of youths aged 12-17 in the noninstitutionalized population rated on the drawings of a man and a woman, by age and sex: United states,

1966-70

Age

12-17

years---

12 years-------

13 years-------

14 years-------

15 years-------

16 years-------

17 years-------

12-17

years---

12 years-------

13 years-------

14 years-------

15 years-------

16 years-------

17 years-------

Boys Girls

BO th

sexes

Total Man Woman Nonel Total Man Woman Nonel

Percent

... 100.0 88.6 11.O 00.4 190.0 24.7 75.0 00.3

●

● ** 100.0 88.4 11.3 00.3 100.0 17.1 82.9 -

... 100.0 87.9 11.4 00.7 100.0 21.0 78.7 00.3

... 100.0 88.4 10.9 00.7 100.O 23.6 76.1 00.3

● .* 100.0 92.7 00.2 100.0 25.6 74.2 00.2

... 100.0 87.5 1;:; 100.0 27.8 71.8 00.4

.0. 100.0 86.9 12.5 00.; 100.0 34.5 64.9 00.6

lDrawingsnot done because of factors attributableto the sample youths (blindness,

physical disability,etc.); scores were not estimated.

42

40

[

1

Gz

a

/- “-’””””””” 36

Y 34 ,41/-

32

[

MAN DRAWING

— BOYS

,“....! &r13

30

o,~

16 16 17

AGEIN YEARS

42

40

1

............. ....................... ...............

....

38 ........+.”.

. ...’”.......

32

t

WOMAN DRAWING

— 80ys

30

.. . . .. . . ~rl~

o~

12 13 14 15 16 17

AGEIN YEARS

Figure 1. Mean raw scores (smoothed) for boys and girls 12-17 years of age on the man and woman scales of the Goodenough-Harris

Drawing Test by age: United States, 1966-70.

..-

7
16. On the woman figure, girls showed a consistent superiority as they did in the early study.1

These differences were statistically significant

in each age group.

The self drawings obtained in this study were

scored on either the man or woman scale as appropriate. The results appear in table 3, both for

raw and smoothed data. The mean values in table

3 are remarkably close to the mean values for

same-sex drawings reported in tables 1 and 2 for

boys and girls, respectively. In each age group

boys consistently achieved slightly higher mean

scores on the man figure than on the self figure.

Girls earned slightly higher mean scores on the

woman figure than on the self figure. The differences were very slight, in no case exceeding

1.0 score points, and were characteristically

about half of a raw score point. This difference

was well within the standard error of measurement which was approximately 3.0 points in the

ages 12-15. However, the direction of the difference was consistent enough to warrant attention. One possible explanation is that a certain

amount of fatigue and boredom affected the performance on the self drawing which was always

the second task.

By selecting only those cases in which boys

drew a male person and girls drew a female

person, it was possible to test the significance

of the difference between means of person and

self figures. Results of this comparison are

presented in table 4. All coefficients of correlation were significantly greater than zero and,

in absolute terms, substantial-ranging from

r = .71 for 12-year-old boys to r ==.85 for 16-

year-old boys and 17-year-old girls. For boys

in each age group, none of the differences between

person (man) scores and self scores were significant. For girls, mean person (woman) scores

were ~gher than self scores in each age group

with the differences being significant except for

16- and 17-year -olds.

It is not legitimate to directly compare scores

for boys and girls on the self figure, as the point

score scales for the male and female figures are

not directly comparable, i.e., that for the female

has slightly more scoreable points. This difference, plus the fact that girls appeared to draw the

female figure more skillfully than boys did, would

confound any direct comparison of scores,

The relationships among the various tests administered in the survey will be the subject of a

future publication in this series; however, for this

report the Goodenough-Harris scores were correlated with the WISC Vocabulary and Block Design raw scores and the results appear in table 5.

The intercorrelations between person scores and

self scores of the drawing test for single years of

age ranged horn .72 to .88 and compare favorably

with the values reported in table 4, which were

limited to those youths who drew person figures

of the same sex as themselves. In general the

correlations of drawing test with the Block Design

scores (ranging from .32 to .51) tended to run

slightly higher than with Vocabulary scores

(ranging from .26 to .43). This difference, while

not large, was almost entirely a function of boys’

performances.

Comparison With Harris’ Norms

Table B along with figures 2 and 3 present

the data from the present study and from Cycle

II in order to represent the development of the

intellectual abilities measured by drawing scores

for the entire range of ages 6-17 years. The data

from Harris’ original standardization are also

presented for comparison. It can be seen that

the trends established in the Cycle II data are

continued in the present study. The slight tendency, which was consistent but statistically unreliable, for girls to draw the male figure in

superior fashion disappeared by age 15 or 16.

The convergence in performances of boys and

girls on the male figure may be due to the fact

that girIs’ scores were closer to the “ceiling”

on the test. This explanation, that of a statistical

artifact, is the most plausible one according to

measurement theory. Mean raw scores in the

present study were consistently lower than those

of Harris’ standardization group, continuing a

trend found in the previous survey of children

6-11 years old.

The variability of scbres for lmth boys and

girls as shown by the standard deviations was

less in the present study than in that of Harris.

However, the W’utive variability measured by

the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean

appeared more comparable. These coefficients
Table B. Means and standard deviations (SD) on the man and woman scales of

Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test for Harris’ standardization group* and HES

estimates for the United States2 for boys and girls 6-17 years of age

Both sexes Boys Girls

Harris’

standardization

group I

HEs

samplez

Harris’

standardization

groupl

Harris’

standardization

groupl

HEs

sample2

HEs

sample2 Scale and

age

Mean SD

5.95

;.:;

8:83

9.65

.0.42

.0.77

.0.34

.0.05

9.83

---

---

7.07

7.78

8.57

8.71

9.60

9.96

.0.08

9.88

9.43

9.10

---

-%-

Mean

18.5

20.3

23.7

26.8

29.6

31.2

35.0

35.8

37.0

38.1

38.5

38.8

22.4

24.3

27.7

30.8

33.5

::.;

37:6

38.5

38.9

;;.:

.

SD Mean SD

5.71

6.82

7.77

8.95

9.84

0.85

1.01

0.67

0.51

0.60

---

---

6.41

7.17

7.93

8.37

9.15

9.53

9.61

9.61

9.41

9.31

---

---

Mean

18.5

20.2

23.6

26.7

29.5

31.1

34.9

35.8

36.9

38.1

38.5

38.9

19.4

21.4

24.4

27.1

28.5

29.6

32.8

33.2

34.2

35.4

36.0

35.9

SD

6.04

6.30

6.85

7.44

8.14

8.64

7.63

7.81

7.97

8.09

8.05

8.09

5.60

5.90

6.86

7.54

8.01

8.19

6.95

7.56

7.79

7.75

7.15

7.15

Mean SD Mean SD

Man scale

22.0

23.9

27.6

30.8

33.7

35.2

35.3

36.0

37.3

38.1

38.5

38.4

22.9

24.8

28.4

31.6

34.5

36.0

37.5

38.2

39.1

39.4

39.4

39.5

7.25

7.78

8.09

8.62

9.09

9.71

7.18

7.24

7.33

7.36

7.72

7.93

6.68

6.96

7.37

7.83

8.29

8.58

7.31

7.31

7.33

7.42

7.41

7.61

6 years -----

7 years -----

8 years -----

9 years -----

10 years----

11 years----

12 years----

13 years----

14 years----

15 years----

16 years----

17 years----

19,2

23.0

26.8

31.3

35.4

38.9

41.6

::.;

45:2

---

-- -

20.8

25.2

29.5

33.7

37.3

40.3

42.8

44.7

46.1

46.3

---

---

6.30

6.58

7.06

7.64

8.31

8.83

7.56

7.71

7.85

7.94

8.00

8.07

6.51

6.78

7.28

7.77

8.24

;.;;

7:55

7.58

7.59

7.46

7.66

18.4

22.5

25.9

30.7

34.5

37.6

40.3

42.6

44.7

45.1

---

---

18.8

23.3

27.6

32.1

35.0

37.3

39.8

42.0

44.1

44.4

---

---

20.0

23.5

27.6

31.8

36.3

40.2

43.0

44.2

45.1

45.2

---

---

22.8

27.0

31.3

35.3

39.7

43.3

45.8

47.4

48.2

48.2

---

---

5.94

6.91

7.91

8.68

9.35

9.78

.0.32

9.89

9.57

9.01

---

---

7.08

7.88

8.73

8.80

9.39

9.41

9.58

9.37

8.97

8.48

---

---

Woman scale

6 years -----

7 years -----

8 years -----

9 years -----

10 years----

11 years----

12 years----

13 years----

14 years----

15 years----

16 years----

17 years----

1

Harris, D.B.: Children’s Drawings as Measures of Intellectual Maturity. New York.

Harcourt. Brace. and World. Inc.. 1963.

‘Data-for children 6-11-years”old are from HES Cycle II; other data from Cycle 111.

See appendix I for explanation of the sampling and weighting procedures.

of variationappear in table 6. In the present parison of dispersions of scores in different

study the coefficients of variation wererelatively series where the means vary considerably in

constant across the successive age groups for magnitude. A fairly constant relative variation

lwthboys and girls and forthe self figure aswell over an ordered age-group series is desirable

as the man and woman figures. This coefficient in educational and psychological measures, for

of variation has the value of permitting acorn- as the mean score increases beyond zero, the

9

.
50 —

48 —

46

44 -

42

40 —

38 —

36 —

34

32

30 —

28

26

24

22

20

18

,.

MAN SCALE

.+..

....

...””

...””

...””

. /“

/

...””

...””

HES sample /“”

...””

...””

...’

...””

...””

/“

/“

...”’

...””

..::’”

......”

/.:..”

......”

......

.......”

,... ..

..... /.

....

# ...””

— Boys

...””

.. . . . . . . Girls

...””

...””

I

IS I_

o I I I I I I I I I I I

6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14” 15 16 17

AGE IN YEARS

Figure 2. Mean raw scores (smoothed) on the man scale of the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test for Harris’ standardization group and

the H ES estimates for boys and girls 6-17 years of age: United States.

variability around that mean should increase Standard Scores and Percentiles

roughly in proportion to the size of the mean.

A relatively constant ratio of standard deviation In the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test a

to mean is one indication that the test has a suf- “. point score is transformed into a standard score

ficient number of items and is fairly consistent . which is a relative measure and permits a direct

over the various groups in differentiating ability. ,-comparison within his age group of a child’s rel10.
50-

48 — WOMANSCALE

................... ....”

.....

.. .....”

..... Harris’ group

48 .

.. . . . .

.+..

.+..

,..””

...””

44 - ....”

...””

...””

42 ...”

/“”

...””

40 — .8””

...”” “

...””

...... .............. ........................ .......

3s -

...

...

...

/

HES sample

36

...”

...’”

...””

34 -

/“”

...”

/“”

/

32 /“

...””

...””

30 —

28 /“ /

...

/ /.””

26 — ,..”” ...””

/

/“”

...”” .,...”

...””.....

24 .. ...”

......

**

22

20

,,

18 —

16

0 I I I I I I I I I I I

6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . 17

AGE IN YEARS

— soys

..”..., Girls

Figure 3. Mean raw scores (smoothed) on the woman scale of the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test for Harris’standardization group

and the HES estimates for boys and girls 6-17 years of age: United States.

ative standing on this test with his relative direct comparison of particular boys and girls

standing on other tests. It also permits direct and makes it unnecessary to consider the sex

comparisons of any two children regardless of difference in reporting the standing of groups.

age.- Because of a consistent Mferen;e, at least The standard score expresses

on tile woman figure, in the performances of in terms of

boys and girls, a standard measure permits the point scores

deviations from

for the youths in

the point scores

their mean. The

each 1-year age

11
group were converted to standard scores using

means and standard deviation from the national

sample. The standard scores corresponding to

each set of point scores are shown in tables 17-14.

In constructing these standard scores at each

year of age, the mean has been set at 100 and

the standard deviation at 15 points, consistent

with the practice used by Harris in his development of this test and by Wechsler in his wellknown tests for children and adults .18-20 (See

appendix I for additional information on construction of the standard scores presented in this

report.)

Reference to figures 2 and 3 makes it at once

apparent that at ages 12-17 years, sex differences

in the drawing of a man were less substantial than

the sex differences in the drawing of a woman. Ref -

erence to tables 7 and 8 reveals that sex differences on the man drawing were nevertheless

sufficient to equal 1-6 standard score units for a

given raw score point in the lower ages of adolescence. Thus for precise work standard scores

from tables 7 and 8 should be used, while for

more general approximations table 9 will be sufficient for both sexes. However, the sex differences demonstrated by the data in tables 10 and

11 were such that reference would commonly be

to separate norms, and use of table 12 showing

standard scores for boys and girls combined

would not be advised.

The results of the present calibration, that

is, the actual means and standard deviations of

standard scores for the drawings from the survey, are presented in table 15 for boys and girls

at each age level.

Percentile scores, actually percentile ranks

for raw scores, appear in tables 16-23. The percentile rank-the relative standing in a theoretically representative sampling of 100 persons,

is readily understood, and these tables are provided for those who think in terms of percentile

ranks. The standard score is preferable if the

data are to be subjected to statistical treatment.

DISCUSSION

The drawing task presented to the subjects

of the Health Examination Survey was to “draw

a person.” Consequently it is not precisely the

same task posed by the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. For reasons discussed elsewhere 1 it

still seemed plausible to use the scoring standards of the latter test. The results obtained justify that decision. The growth curve of mean

scores by age is very similar to that obtained by

Harris in the standardization of the GoodenoughHarris Drawing Test. Age increments become

negligible in early adolescence and disappear by

the midteens. Assuming that the function measured has reached a “ceiling,” the correlation

between the self and person drawings, nevertheless, holds up surprisingly well. Harris has

argued 5 that the test does not measure abstract

components of intelligence as well as it does

more concrete aspects. This conclusion is supported by the correlations, year by year, between human figure drawings scored by his standards and Wechsler’s Vocabulary and Block Design

tests in the present study. Correlations between

drawing test scores and Vocabulary drop from

about .40 in the early teens to around .30 in the

midteens for both boys and girls. Twelve-yearold boys are the exception here and the noticeably lower intercorrelation of person and self

scores in this age group suggests some anomaly,

perhaps due to the vicissitudes of sampling. The

correlations with the Block Design test, slightly

higher for boys than for girls, maintain their

characteristic level (.40 to .50 for boys; .35 to

.45 for girls) throughout the age range of this

study. As the Vocabulary test incorporates more

abstract and difficult terms, it drops as a correlate of the drawing task; this is not so with the

more visual and concrete Block Design test.

One finding of the present series of studies

is somewhat at variance with earlier work. The

superiority of girls over lmys in drawing the male

figure has fallen within chance limits in the present data though it appears consistently until the

midteens. The superiority of girls on the female

figure was confirmed and was maintained throughout the age range included in this study.

Although in his original study Harris did not

standardize his scales with respect to the self

figure,s the data of this study confirmed his assumption that the appropriate man or woman

scoring standards may be applied to self drawings. The age curve of data was of the expected

form, the mean scores of the girls? self drawings (scored on the woman scale) were higher

12
than those of the boys (scored of the man scale)

as expected, and, most persuasively of all, the

intercorrelations of the person and self scores

were substantial (.71 to .85).

Although the present report has eschewed

“projective” aspects of drawings, limiting itself

to the measurement of intellective aspects, some

findings bear on hypotheses frequently made in

the clinical literature and warrant comment. An

earlier report noted that in drawing a person of

undesignated sex, children tended in the majority

of cases to draw figures of their own sex. ! The

percentages in the Cycle II study varied with age

from 88 to 81 for the boys and from 83 to 75 for

the girls. There was no consistent trend by age

among the boys and perhaps a slight trend toward

declining percentages with age among the older

girls.

In the present study the number of youths

who drew same-sex figures varied among the age

samples from 93 to 87 percent for boys and from

83 to 65 percent for girls. Again there was no

discernible age itrend for the boys but a’noticeable and consistent trend with increasing age toward lower percentages of girls who drew female

figures when asked to “draw a person.” This finding appears to be in accord with the argument that

women are influenced increasingly through childhood and adolescence by the preference given the

masculine role in our society. That a girl may,

as she grows older, increasingly reject what she

perceives to be the less-favored feminine role

can perhaps be argued from the data of this study.

This could be an explanation for the trend which

is slight but statistically significant in terms of

the large numbers examined in this study.

In addition it was found that the self figure

was consistently drawn almost as well by the girls

as the female person figure. The difference, although statistically significant, was never more

than 1 raw score point (table 4) where the standard error of the score is almost half a point. The

difference could be attributed to fatigue or boredom with a second, similar task immediately following the person drawing.

The principal issue under discussion in the

Cycle II report on the Goodenough-Harris test

was the substantially lower performance of children in the Health Examination Survey sample in

comparison with those represented in Harris’

norms. 1 That finding is repeated in the data of

the present report and also deserves comment.

The difference in the adolescent years is approximately 6 or 7 raw score points, close to one

standard deviation. This is a substantial difference. In the earlier report the following points

were discussed as possible reasons for the difference: (1) Testing situation-Harris obtained

his normative qata in group classroom situations;

the Health Examination Survey used entirely an

individual testing situation. (2) Time limit–

Harris did not constrain the time limits; in the

present study the children were told to draw a

person in 5minutes although actually they were allowed 7. (3) Social facilitation—in group settings

children frequently get ideas from neighbors; tl&

is impossible in the individual test. (4) Bias in use

of scoring standards-in one study scoring standards were more conservatively interpreted and

more rigorously applied than in the other. (5) Nature of the task—the instructions given in the two

studies are definitely different, the drawings being specified by sex in the one and a “person” being required in the other. (6) Differential selectivity, by personal and intellective characteristics, as between a child electing to draw a person

of the same sex as himself and a child drawing an

opposite sex person. (7) Differential selective factors governing admission and retention in school

as between the years of Harris’ study and the present one.

In the Cycle 11study no one of the above factors was seen as explaining the observed difference. A multifactor hypothesis was preferred,

with somewhat greater weight accorded to the last

mentioned hypothesis. Now it has been demonstrated that drawings done under a strict time limit do tend to earn lower scores,6 and one bit of

evidence appears in this study which may lend

more credence to the suggestion that bias in use

of scoring standards accounts for some of the difference. It was noted in the earlier report 1 that

“a few of the ambiguous points were redefined but

in a conservative way.” At all times the scorers

in the Health Examination Survey teams were

under conservative strictures. In the present

study, two scorers directly under Dr. Harris’

supervision restored 224 cases drawn randomly

from the Cycle III files (see appendix I). The observed mean difference between the two sets of
scores was approximately 3 raw score points,

with Harris’ scorers being the more liberal evaluators. A clear, conservative bias in the present

study (or an unfortunately liberal bias in the author

of the scoring standards), plus the constraints of

limited time, minus the social facilitation afforded

in the group setting may be sufficient to account

for the observed differences. Any examiner using

instructions similar to those of the present study

should use the norms presented here.

Despite the differences in norms, this study

strongly reinforces the evidence amassed by

Harris in his revision and restandardization of the

Goodenough Draw-a-Man, Test as a measure of

intellectual maturity. The spread of scores within

each age, the appreciable gain in mean score until

the early adolescent years, and the leveling off of

mean score in the midteens, all argue that the

test is more effective-with children and of limited

value with youths.

SUMMARY

As a part of the third cycle of the Health

Examinatio~ Survey of 1966-70~ a number of psychological tests were administered to a probability sample which closely represented the Na0

tion’s noninstitutionalized youths aged 12-17

years. One of these tests was a modification of

the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test of intellectual maturity. Each subject was asked to draw a

“person,” followed by a drawing of “yourself.”

‘The resulting drawings were then scored with the

appropriate Goodenough-Harris man and woman

scales. The great majority of boys elected to

draw a male person; a somewhat smaller majority

of girls, declining slightly with age, drew a female person. Scores derived from the drawings

increase with age, leveling off at 16 or 17 years.

There is a substantial ‘correlation between person and self scores ,“which is generally maintained in the upper ages where the test is presumably reaching “ceiling.” According to scoring standards, “boys and girls earn similar scores

on the male figure, but girls substantially excel

in drawing the female figure. Norms derived from

the present sample fall below Harris’ published

norms and probably reflect more conservative

application of the scoring standards, the special

conditions of individual examination and time

constraint, and differences in obtaining a sample

representative of the Nation’s young people.

Norms are supplied based on the sample examined and the conditions of testing in the Health

Examination Survey.

00
REFERENCES

IN.ltionaI Center for Health Statistics: InteIlectuzd maturity of children as measured by the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, United States. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub.

No. 1000-Seriw 1l-No, 105. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Dec. 1970.

~National Ccxrtcr for Health Statistics: Plan, operation,

:mcl response results of a program of children’s ex,,mifiations.

I ?t,d WJ Hwdth St~tistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series l-No. 5.

Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing

~fiiCC,Oct. 1967,

~N~tiond Center for Health Statistics: Plan and operation

of J Health Examination Survey of U.S. youths 12-17 years of

W. i ‘id ~ttd ~edth Skrtistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series

1-No. 8. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Off~cc, Sept. 1969.

~Nation~ center for Health Statistics: Evahration of

psychological measures used in the Health Examination Survey

of children ages 6-11. Vittd and Health Stdz”stt”cs.PHS Pub. No.

1000-Series 2-No. 15. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S.

Government Printing Office. Mar. 1966.

5Harris, D. B.: Children’s Drawings m Measures of

Inttilkrtmd Maturity. New York. Harcourt, Brace, & World,

Inc., 1963.

6National Center for Health Statistics: Comparison of

timed and untimed presentation of the Goodenough-Harris test

of intellectual maturity. vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub.

No. 1000-Series 2-No. 35. Public Health Service. Washington.

U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1969.

7Burt, C,: Afctlttil arid Sc{lolmtic Tests, ed. 3. London. p.

S. King and Son, Ltd., 1921.

8Goodcnough, F. L.: Measurement of Intelligence by

llr~u,i~~gs.Ncw York. Hwcourt, Brace, & world, Inc., 1926.

ycMell, R, H.; Johnson, A. P.; and Burns, W. H.: Ex~-

irw, ego-defense and the H.T,P. test. j. C/in. Psycho2.

14:15 ;;60,, 1~58.

Machover, K.: Personality Projection in the Drawing

of the Htnmn Figure. Springfield, Ill. Charles C. Thomas,

19+9.

11Buck, J. N.: The H-T-P technique, a qualitative and

quantitative scoring manual. J. Clitt, F’sychol, 4:317-396,1948.

12Buck, J. N.: The House-Tree-Pen-on Technique: Revised Manual. Los Angeles, Calif. Western Psychological Services, 1966.

13Jones, I.: A Catalog for the Qualitative Interpretation

of the H-T-P. Bevedy Hills, Calif. Western Psychological Services, 1952.

14Hammer, E. F.: Guide for qualitative research with the

H-T-P. j. Gen. PsychoL 51:41-60, 1954.

151_Jrbm, W. H.: The Draw-A-Person Test Manual. LOS

Angeles. Western Psychological Services, 1963.

16Burns, R. C.; and Kaufman, S. H.: Kinetic %rtily

Drawings (K-F-D): An Introduction to Understanding Children

i%rough Kinetic Drawings. New York. Brunner/MazeI, Inc.,

1970.

17Koppitz, E. M.: Psychological Evaluation of Children’s

Human Figure Drawingss. New York. Grune and Stratton, Inc.,

1968.

18wechsler, D.: The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult

Intelligence, ed. 4. Bakimore. Wlfiams and Wdkins, 1958.

19wechsler, D.: WISC Manual, Wechsler Intelligence Scale

for Children. New York. The Psychological Corporation, 1949.

20wechsler, D.: WPPSI Manual, Wech.der preschool ~d

Primary Scale of Intelligence. New York. The Psychological

Corporation, 1967.

2INa~ion~ center for Health Statistics: Sample design

and estimation procedures for a national Health Examination

Survey of children. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS pub. No.

1000-Series 2-No. 43. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S.

Government Printing Office, Aug. 1971.

22Nationd Center for Health Statistics: Replication: An

approach to the analysis of data from complex surveys. vital

and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 2-No. 14. Public Health Service. Washksgton. U.S. Government Printing

Office, Apr. 1966.

23 National Center for Health Statistics: F’seudoreplication: Further evaluation and application of the balanced

half-sample technique. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub.

No. 1000-Series 2-No. 31. Public Health Service. Washington.

U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1969.

15
LIST OF DETAILED TABLES

Page

Table 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Unsoothed means and standard deviations (SD) of raw scores on the person drawings by youths aged 12-17 scored on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test man and

woman scales, by sex and age: United States, 1966-70---------------------------- 18

Smoothed means and standard deviations (SD) of raw scores on the person drawings

by youths aged 12-17 scored on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test man and woman

scales, by sex and age: United States, 1966-70---------------------------------- 19

Unsoothed and smoothed means and standard deviations (SD) of raw scores on the

self drawings by youths aged 12-17 scored on the Goodenough-Harris man scale for

boys and woman scale for girls, by age: United States, 1966-70------------------ 20

Comparison of mean raw scores on the person and self drawings (limited to cases

in which ouths drew same-sex person figures) and correlations between the two

scores (r; and standard errors, by sex and age: United States, ~~66-70----------

Correlations between raw scores on person and self drawings and between drawhg

test scores and raw scores on the Vocabulary and Block Design

Wechsler Intelligence

subtests of the

Scale for Children and standard errors, by sex and age:

United States, 1966-70 ---------------------------------------------------------- 22

Coefficients of variation (standard deviation/mean) for raw scores on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test,by type of drawing, sex, and age: United States,

1966-70---------------L ---------------------------------------------------------

6.

23

24

25

7.

8.

9.

Standard score equivalents of raw scores for boys aged 12-17 on the person drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris man scale,by age:United States,1966-70---

Standard score equivalents ofraw scores for girls aged 12-17 on the person drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris man scale,by age:United States, 1966-70---

Standard score equivalents of raw scores for both sexes combined aged 12-17 on

the person drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris man scale, by age: United

States, 1966-70----------------------------------------------------------------- 26

10. Standard score equivalents of raw scores for boys aged 12-17 on the person drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris woman scale, by age: United States, 1966-

70 -------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------------- 27

Standard score equivalents of raw scores for girls aged 12-17 on the person drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris woman scale, by age: United States, 1966-

70 -------- ---..---- -------- ---------------- -------- -------- ---------------- ------

11.

28

12. Standard score equivalents of raw scores for both sexes combined aged 12-17 on

the person drawing aa scored on the Goodenough-Harris woman acale,by age: United

States, 1966-70----------------------------------------------------------------- 29

30

Standard score equivalents of raw scores for boys aged L2-17 on the self drawing

as scored on the Goodenough-Harris man scale, by age: United States, 1966-70----

13.

14. Standard score equivalents of raw scores for girls aged 12-17 on the self drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris woman scale, by age: United States, 1966-

70 ---.---- ---------------- -------- -------- ------.- -------- -------- -----.-- --.--- 31

32

33

34

15. Mean and standard deviations (SD) of standard scores for”youths aged 12-17 on the

Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test man and woman scales, by sex, age, and type of

drawing: United States, 1966-70 -------------------------------------------------

16.

17.

Percentile rank equivalents ofraw scores for boys aged 12-17 on the person drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris man scale,by age:United States,1966-70---

Percentile rank equivalents of raw scores for girls aged 12-170n the person drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris man scale,by age:United States,1966-70---
Table 18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

I&ST OF

Percentile rank equivalents of

DETAILED TABLES-Con.

raw scores for both sexes combined azed 12-17 on

the person drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris man scale, by-age: United

States, 1966-70-----------------------------------------------------------------

Percentile rank equivalents ofraw scores for boys aged 12-17 on the person draw-

~g as scored on the Goodenough-Harris woman scale, by age: United States, 1966-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percentile rank equivalents ofraw scores for girls aged 12-170n the person draw-

% as scored on the Goodenough-Harris woman scale, by age: United States, 1966-

---------------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Percentile rank equivalents of raw scores for both sexes combined aged 12-17 on

the person drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris woman scale,by age: United

States, 1966-70 -----------------------------------------------------------------

Percentile rank equivalents of raw scores for boys aged 12-17 on the self drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris man scale,by age:United States,1966-70---

Percentile rank equivalents of raw scores for girls aged 12-17 on the self drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris woman scale, by age: United States, 1,966-

70 ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------------------ ------

Page

35

36

37

38

39

40

,
Table 1. Unsoothed means and standard deviations (SD) of raw scores onthe person drawings by youths aged 12-17 scored on the Goodenough-karris Drawing Test &n and woman

scales, by sex and age: United States, 1966-70

Scale and age

Man scale

12-17 years ------------------------ -------

12

13

14

15

16

17

years ---------------------------- ------------

years------------------------ ----------------

years---------------- --c----- ----------------

years------------------------ ----------------

years ----------------------------------------

years------------------------ --m---.- --------

Woman scale

12-17 years-------- -----------------------

12

13

14

15

16

17

years----------------------------------------

years------------------------ ----------------

years -----.--- --------------------------- ----

years ---------------- -----m-- ----------------

years------------------------- ---------------

years--------------------------- -------------

Both sexesll Boys I Girls

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Raw score

37.2

34.4

35.5

37.5

37.9

38.8

38.8

38.2

36.5

37.4

38.9

39.1

38.7

39.0

8.02

7.41

7.70

8.01

7.85”

7.96

8.17

7.58

6.98

7.91

7.75

7.07

7.94

7.37

37.1

34.4

35.4

37.6

37.7

38.9

38.9

34.5

33.3

32.2

34.1

36.3

36.0

35.8

8.11

7.48

7.77

8.16

7.98

8.12

8.06

7.54

6.48

7.42

8.78

7.16

7.31

6.99

37.5

34.8

35.9

37.3

38.6

38.3

38.5

7.69

7.02

7.33

7.36

7.29

7.42

8.45

38.7: 7.43

I

36.9

38.2

39.6

39.4

39.2

39.7

6.94

7.68

7.33

6.99

7.95

7.28

.18
Scale and age

Table 2. Smoothedl means and standa+ deviations (SD) of raw scores on the person drawings by youths aged 12-17 scored on the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test man and woman

scales, by sex and age: United States, 1966-70

5

12

13

14

15

16

17

12

13

14

15

16

17

—

Man scale

12-17 years -------------------------------

years --------- ----------------- --------------

years---------------- ---.--Q-----------------

years------------------------ ----------------

years------------------------ ----------------

years------------------------ ----------------

Woman scale

12-17 years------------------------ -------

years------------------------ ----------------

years------------------------- ---------------

years-------- ------------------------ --------

years--------------------------- -------------

years--------------------------- -------------

yep.rs-.-------------.----.---q----.----.-w---

Both sexes

*

37.2

35.0

35.8

37.0

38.1

38.5

38.8

38.2

36.9

37.6

38.5

38.9

39.0

38.9

Raw score

8.02 37.1

7.56 34.9

7.71 35.8

7.85 36.9

7.94 38.1

8.00 38.5

8.07 38.9

7.58 34.5

7.45 32.8

7.55 33.2

7.58 34.2

7.59 35.4

7.46 36.0

7.66 35.9

8.11

7.63

7.81

7.97

8.09

8.05

8.09

7.54

6.95

7.56

7.79

7.75

7.15

7.15

37.5

35.3

36.0

37.3

38.1

38.5

38.4

38.7

37.5

38.2

39.1

39.4

39.4

39.5

7.69

7.18

7.24

7.33

7.36

7.72

7.93

7.43

7.31

7.31

7.33

7.42

7.41

7.61

lMeans and standard deviations smoothed by3-point moving average. The end points at

12 years and 17 years have been estimated on the basis of 2~year data.

19
Table 3. Unsoothed and smoothed~means and standard deviations (SD) of raw scores on

the self drawings by youths aged 12-17 scored on the Goodenough-Harrisman scale for

boys and woman scale for girls, by age: United States, 1966-70

Age

12-17 years--------------------------------------------

12

13

14

15

16

17

12

13

14

15

16

17

years-----------------------------------------------------

years-----------------------------------------------------

years-----------------------------------------------------

years------------------------------------------------------

years-----------------------------------------------------

years-----------------------------------------------------

12-17 years--------------------------------------------

years-----------------------------------------------------

years-----------------------------------------------------

years-----------------------------------------------------

years-----------------------------------------------------

years-----------------------------------------------------

E

Unsoothed raw score

36.7

34.1

35.0

37.1

37.7

38.2

38.2

7.85

7.03

7.80

7.91

7.72

7.97

7.68

37.9

36.0

36.9

38.4

38.7

38.9

38.7

7.22

6.43

7.37

7.43

7.78

7.29

7.52

Smoothed raw score

36.7

34.5

35.4

36.6

37.7

38.0

38.2

7.85

7.41

7.58

7.81

7.87

7.79

7.83

37.9

36.5

37.1

38.0

38.7

38.7

38.8

7.22

6.90

7.07

7.19

7.17

7.20

7.41

11.feansand standard deviations smoothed by 3-point moving average. The endpoints at

12 years and 17 years have been estimated on the basis of 2-year data.

-20.
Table 4. Comparison of mean raw scores on the person and self drawings (limited to

cases in which youths drew same-sex person figures) and correlationsbetween the two

scores (r) and standard errors, by sex and age: United States, 1966-70

I I I I 1

. .

Sex and age

Boys

12

13

14

15

16

17

12

13

14

15

16

17

years-------------------

years-------------------

years-------------------

years-------------------

years-------------------

years-------------------

Girls

years-------------------

years-------------------

years-------------------

years-------------------

years-------------------

years-------------------

I

Person

thou- Mean ard

sands

score

error

of

mean

1,797

1,764

1,723

1,760

1,606

1,534

1,633

1,533

1,446

1,373

1,285

1,132

34.4

35.4

37.6

37.7

38.9

38.9

36.9

38.2

39.6

39.4

39.3

39.7

.31

● 30

● 49

.48

.57

.35

.38

.47

● 54

.41

.41

.45

ItSelf

Stand- ~

Mean ard

score

error

of

mean

Man scale

34.6

3.S.2

37.4

37.7

38.5

38.5

Woman

36.1

37.2

38.8

38.7

39.0

39.2

.41

.35

.44

.36

.46

.36

:ale

.32

.42

.50

.38

.43

.53

0.73

0.71

0.80

0.05

1.25

1.98

13.72

13.89

12.14

12.88

1*O3

1.76

r

—

.71

.84

.82

.83

.85

.80

Standard

error

of r

.07

.02

.05

.02

.02

.04

L

.83 .32

.84 .02

.74 .07

.79 .05

.83 .02

.85 .02

lSignificanta! P = .05 or less.

t=t test for difference between person mean score and self mean score.

21
Table 5. Correlations between raw scores on person and self drawings and between drawing tese scores and raw scores on the Vocabulary and Block Design subtests of the

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and standard errors, by sex and age: United

States, 1966-70 -

Sex and age

Boys

12 years-----

13 years-----

14 years-----

1,5years-----

16 years-----

17 years-----

Girls

12 years-----

13 years-----

M years-----

15 years-----

16 years-----

17 years-----

1

Correlations

Person

with

self

.75

.83

.88

.84

.84

.85

.82

.86

.73

.80

.86

.72

Vocabulary

Person

.26

● 39

,44

.37

● 30

.28

.37

.41

.39

.31

.35

.27

Self

.29

.42

.38

.34

.27

.2L

.38

.43

.42

.27

.33

.28

Block Design

Person

.37

.45

.51

.40

.46

.42

.42

.41

.39

.40

.37

.36

Self

.36

,50

.50

.42

.45

.39

● 44

.43

.40

.39

.32

.37

Standard errors of correlation

coefficient

Person

with

self

.07L

.062

.015

.022

.019

.035

.019

.021

.069

.047

.024

.099

Vocabulary

Person

.051

.064

.080

.038

.044

.063

.038

.050

.069

.103

.051

.053

Self

.048

.058

.071

.041

.046

.067

.041

.037

.055

.108

.059

.058

Block Design

Person

.054

.052

.068

.045

.037

.053

.038

.058

.055

.074

.048

.041

Self

.037

.035

.060

.044

.039

.058

.031

.039

.040

.088

.055

.045

22
Table 6. Coefficients of variation (standarddeviation/mean) for raw scores on the

~;odenough-HarrisDrawing Test,by type of drawing, sex, and age: United States, 1966-

Age

12

13

14

15

16

17

12

13

14

15

16

17

12

13

14

15

16

17

years-----------------------------------------------------

years----------------------------------------------------

years----------------------------------------------------

years------------------------------------------------------

years------------------------------------------------------

years-------------z----------------------------------------

years----------------------------------------------------

years-----------------------------------------------------

years-----------------------------------------------------

years-----------------------------------------------------

years-----------------------------------------------------

Coefficients (SD/X)

Man figure

0.215 0.218

0.217 0.220

0.213 0.217

0.207 0.212

0.205 0.209

0.210 0.207

0.201

0.205

0.197

0.189

0.193

0.219

Woman figure

0.191 0.194

0.212 0.231

0.199 0.257

0.181 0.197

0.205 0.203

0.189 0.196

Self figure

J!

... 0.206

.,. 0.223

... 0.213

... 0.205

... 0.209

... 0.201

0.188

0.201

0.185

0.177

0.202

0.184

0.179

0.199

0.193

0.175

0.188

0.194

23
Table 7. Standard score equivalents of raw scores for boys aged 12-17 on the person

drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harrisman scale, by age: United States, 1966-70

Raw score

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

;--.--..--..9-----

3---------.=-----

----------------- iL------------

---------------

;----------------

................

?0---------------

---------------

:;---------------

--.....=. . . . . . .

&---..---.-.O..

15---------------

16---------------

..........-----

K--------------

19---------------

20---------------

--.=..-........

;;---------------

--------.-.----

z....---------

25---------------

---------.=..-.

%--------------

28---------------

---------------

%---------------

31---------------

32---------------

---------------

::-.. .-.-...--...

35---------------

36---------------

37---------------

Age in years

31

33

35

;;

41

43

45

47

49

;;

55

57

%

63

65

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

%

86

88

;:

94

;:

LOO

L02

L04

.

St

31

33

35

;;

41

2;

47

49

50

52

54

56

2:

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

75

77

R

83

85

87

89

91

R

97

.::

.02

—

me

a

32

34

36

%

41

43

:;

49

51

52

54

56

%

62

%

%

71

73

75

77

79

;:

84

;:

90

92

93

95

97

—

4i

:2

46

48

50

52

54

56

57

59

61

72

95

96

38-------------

.............

%--------------

-------------

%------------

43-------------

44-------------

45-------------

46-------------

47-------------

48-------------

49-------------

--------.----

R------------

52-------------

53-------------

54-------------

55-------------

56-------------

57-------------

--------.----

R------------

----------Q--

K-----------

62-------------

63-------------

64-------------

65-------------

67-------------

......-------

%-------------

......-------

R-------------

72-------------

73-------------

Age in years

106

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

122

124

126

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

M:

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159

161

163

165

167

169

171

173

175

St:

104

106

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

122

123

125

127

129

131

133

135

137

139

141

143

145

147

148

150

152

154

156

158

160

162

164

166

168

170

171

ndard score

102

104

106

108

110

111

113

115

117

119

121

123

125

127

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

143

145

147

149

151

153

L55

L57

159

L,60

L62

164

166

168

100

102

104

105

107

109

111

113

115

117

118

120

122

124

126

128

130

131

133

135

137

139

141

143

144

146

148

150

152

154

156

157

159

161

163

165

1;? 103

105

106

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

121

123

125

127

129

131

133

134

136

138

140

142

144

146

147

149

151

153

155

157

159

160

162

164

102

1%

104

106

108

109

111

113

115

117

119

121

122

124

126

128

130

132

133

135

137

139

141

143

145

146

148

150

152

154

156

158

159

161

163

-24.
Table 8. Standard score equivalents of raw scores for girls aged 12-17 on the person

drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris man scale, by age: United States, 1966-70

Raw score

-..- . . . . . ------- !!----------------

2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4---------- . . . . . . . .

5. . . . . . . . --------

6----------------

----------------

;----------------

9-------- --------

1o---------------

11---------------

12---------------

13---------------

-.....-. --.-.--

;!--------------

16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17---------------

18---------------

19---------------

-------- -------

%-. . . . . -------

-------- -------

x--------------

24--------G ------

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

%--------------

&-------------

-------- --..---

29---------------

30---------------

31---------------

---------------

K-------------

34---------------

35---------------

36---------------

37---------------

Age in years

Standard score

%

.30

32

34

37

%

43

45

47

49

51

53

55

2;

62

64

66

68

E

%

;:

83

85

87

89

91

93

;;

.:?

.03

—

22

24

26

28

%

34

36

::

42

44

46

48

5C

53

55

57

2:

:;

67

69

71

H

HI

82

84

85

x

91

;;

97

—

Raw score

38-------------

--------------

%-------------

-------------

:i-----------

43-------------

44-------------

45-------------

46-------------

47-------------

48-------------

49-------------

50-------------

51-------------

52-------------

53-------------

54-------------

55-------------

56-------------

57-------------

-------------

%------------

-------------

K------------

.62-------------

---------.---

:i------------

65-------------

--------.....

%-------------

68-------------

69---=---------

70-------------

71-------------

72-------------

73-------------

Age in years

106

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

122

124

126

129

131

133

135

137

139

141

L43

L45

147

149

152

L54

L56

L58

L60

L62

L64

L66

L68

170

L72

L75

L77

L79

Standard score

104

106

108

110

112

115

117

119

121

123

125

127

129

131

133

135

137

139

141

144

146

148

150

152

154

156

158

160

162

164

166

L68

L70

173

175

L77

102

104

106

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

122

124

126

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159

161

163

165

167

169

171

173

100

102

104

106

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

122

124

126

128

130

132

134

137

139

141

143

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159

161

163

165

167

169

171

1%

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

117

118

120

122

124

126

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

146

L48

150

L51

153

155

157

L59

L61

L63

L65

L67

1:;

103

105

107

109

111

112

114

116

118

120

122

124

126

128

129

131

133

135

137

139

141

143

145

146

148

150

152

154

156

158

160

162

163

165

25
Table 9. Standard score equivalentsof raw

on the person drawing as scored on the

scores for both sexes combined aged 12-17

Goodenough-Harrisman scale, by age: United

States,-1966-70

Age in years

Raw score

12 13 14 15 16 17

..-

Age in years .

Raw score

Standard score Standard score

2

%

:?

43

45

4.()

48

50

%

%

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

;:

78

80

82

84

86

“88

90

92

94

96

L;:

L02

L04

—

X

34

36

::

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

;!

61

63

65

67

69

71

73

75

77

:?

83

85

87

89

91

;;

96

,::

,02

—

28

30

32

34

36

38

%

43

45

47

48

50

%

56

58

60

62

:;

67

69

;:

75

77

::

82

84

86

88

90

92

93

95

97

—

28

30

32

33

35

1::

102

104

106

108

110

112

113

115

117

119

121

123

125

126

128

130

132

134

136

138

139

141

143

147

149

150

152

153

154

156

158

160

162

164

---------------- L--------------

2................

................

2-----------------

5----------------

6----------------

--------........

:----------------

9.........-------

1o---------------

29

31

;:

;;

41

43

45

47

48

50

52

2:

58

60

62

64

::

69

71

73

75

77

;?

83

85

87

89

91

92

94

96

.::

—

28

30

32

34

;:

:7

43

45

47

49

51

2;

56

%

62

%

68

Y

73

75

77

;:

83

85

87

89

90

92

:;

38-------------

---------..--

%-------------

41-------------

42-------------

-------------

::-------------

45-------------

46-------------

-----------.-

K-----------

49-------------

50-------------

51-------------

-------------

L---------

54-------------

55-------------

56-------------

---------.---

L----------

......-------

%-------------

61-------------

62-------------

63-------------

64-------------

65-------------

-------------

%--------------

&----------

--....-..-----

70-------------

71-------------

-------------

z------------ -

104

106

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

122

124

126

102

104

106

108

110

112

113

100 99

102 101

104 103

106 105

107 107

109 108 3 111 110

41

43

45

46

120

122

124

126

128

115 113 112

:;; ;::

119 118

121 120

117

119

121

48 123

12--------------- 50

123 122

124 123

126 125

128 127

130 129

132 131

134 133

136 135

138 137

140 138

141 140

143 142

128

130

131

133

135

137

139

141

143

145

147

149

125

127

129

131

---.--w. . . . . . . .

L------------

.......-------- R.----..--..--=

17---------------

18---------------

19---------------

52

54

56

58 138

140

142

144

146

148

150

152

133

134

136

138

:;;

144

146

65

67

69

71

72

21---------------

22---------------

23---------------

24---------------

148

150

152

154

155

157

159

161

163

;:; :;;

149 148

151 150

153 152

155 153

157 155

158 157

160 159

162 161

164 163

166 165

154

156

151

153

155

157

159

161

163

165

167

168

170

172

-------- ..-.--- z-------------

27---------------

28---------------

29---------------

30---------------

31---------------

32---------------

33---------------

34---------------

---------.-----

%---------------

37---------------

74

;:

80

82

84

85

87

89

158

160

162

164

166

168

170

172 165

167

169

91

93

174

176

95

97

J26
Table 10. Standard score equivalents of raw scores for boys aged 12-17 on the person

drawing as scored on the GoodenouEh-Harris woman scale. by age: United States. 1966-70

o-------- --------

---------------- L...--.-.--.=---

.......--------- i----------------

................

L--.-------=-

........-------- L.-.-9-.--=--

9----------------

1o---------------

12---------------

13---------------

14---------------

15---------------

16---------------

17---------------

--------- ------ R---------------

.......-------- L..-..-=-

23---------------

24---------------

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %--9------------

28---------------

29---------------

30---------------

---------------

:;------..”------

33---------------

34---------------

35---------------

---------------

:;---------------

Age in years

%

::

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

.58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

;:

80

82

%+

%

92

94

;:

101

103

105

107

109

Standard score

34

36

%

42

2:

48

50

2:

56

58

g

64

66

%

72

74

;:

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

d:

1.02

L04

L06

L08

—

45

47

49

51

%

57

59

60

62

%

68

70

%

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

89

91

R

u

.01

.03

;;

29

31

33

35

37

:?

43

46

48

50

52

62

64

66

69

;;

75

%

85

87

90

92

94

96

..-

Raw score

------- ------- L---------

40-------------

41-------------

42-------------

43-------------

44-------------

45-------------

-------------- &-------------

49-------------

50-------------

51-------------

52-------------

53-------------

54--:----------

55-------------

56-------------

57-------------

58-------------

-------------

%-------------

61-------------

62-------------

-------------

%------------

65-------------

66-------------

-------------

2;-------------

69-------------

70-------------

71-------------

Age in years

ZEFIE

111

113

116

118

120

122

124

126

129

131

133

135

137

139

142

144

146

148

150

152

154

157

159

161

163

165

167

170

172

174

176

178

180

183

—

Standard score

109

111

113

115

117

119

121

123

125

127

129

131

133

135

137

139

141

143

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159

161

163

165

167

169

171

173

175

L07

L09

Lll

L13

L15

L17

L19

121

L23

L25

127

129

130

132

L34

136

138

140

142

144

146

148

150

152

154

156

158

160

L62

164

166

168

170

172

—

105 104

107 106

109 108

111 111

113 113

115 115

117 117

119 119

121 121

123 123

125 125

127 127

129 129

131 131

133 133

135 135

137 137

140 140

142

144

142

144

146 146

148 148

150 150

:

152 152

154 154

156 156

157 157

159 159

161 161

163 163

165 165

167 167

169 169

171 171

104

106

108

111

113

115

117

119

121

123

125

127

129

131

133

135

137

140

142

144

146

148

150

152

154

156

157

159

161

163

165

167

169

171

27
Table 11. Standard score equivalents of raw scores for girls aged 12-17 on the person

drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris woman scale, by age: United States, 1966-

70

..

Raw score

o----------------

1................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

:----------------

5----------------

6........--------

7-------- ..-.----

9----------------

----------.--.-

H’---------------

12--------------”

13---------------

15---------------

16---------------

-----------w---

L...---------

19---------------

20---------------

21---------------

23---------------

24---------------

26---------------

27---------------

---------------

%--------------

30---------------

31---------------

32--------=------

33---------------

34---------------

.........-..---

:2---------------

37---------------

Age in years

Standard score

23

25

27

:?

33

35

37

;!/

43

::

50

52

54

56

%

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

::

82

85

87

89

91

93

95

x

—

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

61

63

65

67

69

71

73

75

;;

81

::

87

;;

95

97

—

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

41

43

45

47

49

;;

55

57

%

63

65

67

69

71

73

75

z

81

83

86

88

90

92

94

96

—

20

22

;:

28

30

32

34

36

H

43

45

47

49

51

53

%

%

63

65

67

69

71

73

75

77

;?

83

85

:;

91

93

95

—

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

$2

44

46

48

50

53

55

57

59

61

63

65

67

69

;:

75

77

::

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

—

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

‘?:

42

44

46

48

50

z;

57

59

61

63

65

67

69

71

73

;;

H

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

Raw score

38-------------

-------------

:L------------

41-------------

42-------------

43-------------

44-------------

46-------------

47-------------

48-------------

49-------------

50-------------

51-------------

-------------

%-------------

54-------------

55-------------

56-------------

57-------------

58-------------

59-------------

-------------

H-------------

62-------------

------- ------

:L..-.-=----

65-------------

66-------------

68-------------

69-------------

70-------------

71-------------

Age in years

Standard score

100 98 97

102 100 99

104 102 101

106 104 103

108 106 105

110 108 107

112 110 109

114 112 111

116 114 113

118 116 115

120 118 117

122 120 119

124 122 121

126 124 123

128 126 125

130 128 127

132 131 129

134 133 131

136 135 133

138 137 136

141 139 138

143 141 140

145 143 142

147 145 144

149 147 146

151 149 148

153 151 150

155 153 152

157 155 154

159 157 156

161 159 158

163 161 160

165 163 162

167 165 164

97

1:;

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

117

119

121

123

125

127

129

131

133

136

138

140

142

144

146

148

15C

152

154

156

15e

16C

162

164

97

lx

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

11.7

119

121

123

125

127

129

131

133

135

137

139

140

142

144

146

148

150

152

154

156

158

160

162

28
Table 12. “tandard score equivalents of raw scores for both sexes combined aged 12-17

on the per~m drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harriswoman scale, by age: United

States, 1966-70

I

I

Age in years

o-------- -------

1-------- -------

2---------------

---------------

:---------------

---------------

2----------------

---------------

L--------------

9---------------

--------.-----

:!--------------

12--------------

13--------------

14-------------”

15--------------

--------------

K-------------

18--------------

19--------------

20--------------

21--”-----------

22--------------

--------------

;i-------------

25--------------

--------------

%--------------

28--------------

29--------------

--------------

&-------------

32--------------

33--------------

34--------------

35--””----------

36--------------

37--------------I.oo

26

%

32

34

36

%

42

44

::

50

52

54

;:

60

62

64

66

68

70

;:

76

n

82

84

!:

E

94

96

98

Standard score

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

::

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

55

57

59

2;

65

2;

71

73

75

77

::

:;

X

91

93

H

—

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

::

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

%

{?i

68

70

72

74

76

;:

::

%

90

92

94

96

—

22

#

28

30

32

34

%

40

42

:;

48

50

52

54

56

%

62

64

66

68

70

72

:

:;

84

86

::

K

96

Raw score

38--------------

--------------

%--------------

--------------

:L-------------

43--------------

--------------

&-------------

46--------------

47--------------

--------------

fJL-------------

50--------------

51--------------

52--------------

53--------------

54--------------

55--------------

--------------

%-------------

--------------

x--------------

60--------------

61--------------

62--------------

63--------------

--------------

%--------------

66--------------

67--------------

68--------------

70--------------

71--------------

Age in years

Standard score

102

104

106

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

122

124,

126

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

146

148

150

152

155

157

159

161

163

165

167

169

—

101

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

117

119

121

123

125

127

129

131

133

135

137

139

141

143

145

147

148

150

152

154

156

158

160

162

164

166

l:;

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

117

119

121

12:

125

127

129

131

133

135

137

139

141

14:

145

147

149

151

153

154

156

158

160

162

164

1::

102

104

106

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

122

124

126

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

146

148

150

152

154

155

157

159

161

163

R 1::

102 102

104 104

106 106

108 108

110 110

112 112

114 114

116 116

118 118

120 120

122 122

124 124

126 126

128 128

130 130

132 132

134 134

136 135

138 137

140 139

142 141

144 143

146 145

148 147

150 149

152 151

154 153

155 155

157 157

159 159

161 161

163 163

J_

29
Table 13. Standard score equivalents of raw scores for boys aged 12-17 on the self

drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harris man scale, by age: United States, 1966-70

Raw score

o. . . . . . . ---------

---------------- L......-...----

--------------- L-----------

---------------- iL-----------

--------........

L---------------

9--------..--.---

1o---------------

11---------------

12---------------

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

R---------------

---------...... %--------------

17---------------

18---------------

--------- ------

%.-..----=-----

22---------------

23---------------

24---------------

. . . . . . . . . ------

%..-. . . . . . . . . . .

27---------------

28----=----------

. . . . . . . . . . ----- L-.--=-------

32---------------

34---------------

35---------------

36---------------

37---------------

Age in years

Raw score

12 13 14 15 16 17

30

z

36

%

42

44

46

48

%

54

56

%

62

64

66

69

71

73

75

77

79

%

85

87

89

H

H

d?

L03

L05

Standard score

30

32

34

36

‘?:

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

75

77

E

83

85

87

H

93

95

97

99

101

103

30

32

34

35

:;

41

43

45

47

49

51

53

55

57

%

%

66

68

70

72

;:

R

82

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

1:;

—

38-------------

-------------

:&-----------

41-------------

42-------------

43-------------

44-------------

46-------------

47-------------

49-------------

50-------------

52-------------

53-------------

-------------

%-...-.-..--=

56-------------

57-------------

---------....

L---------

-------------

%-..--..-..9---

62-------------

-------------

::--=----------

65-------------

66-------------

67-------------

-.-..........

%---.--.--=-

70-------------

71-------------

72-------------

73-------------

Age in years

ZmEII

Standard score

107 105

109 107

111 109

113 111

115 113

117 115

119 117

121 119

123 121

125 123

127 125

129 127

131 129

133 131

135 133

137 135

139 137

141 139

143 141

145 143

147 145

149 147

152 149

154 151

156 153

158 155

160 157

162 159

164 161

166 163

168 165

170 167

172 169

174 170

176 172

178 174

103

105

107

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

122

124

126

128

130

132

133

135

137

139

141

143

145

147

149

151

153

155

156

158

160

162

164

166

168

170

101

103

104

106

108

110

112

114

116

118

120

122

124

125

127

129

131

133

135

137

139

141

143

144

146

148

150

152

154

156

158

160

162

164

165

167

LOO

102

104

106

108

110

111

113

115

117

119

121

123

125

127

129

131

133

135

136

138

140

142

144

146

148

150

152

154

156

158

160

161

163

165

167

100

101

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

117

119

121

123

124

126

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

146

147

149

151

153

155

157

159

161

163

165

167

39
Table 14. Standard score equivalents of raw scores for girls aged 12-17 on the self

drawing as scored on the Goodenough.Harris woman scale, by age: united States, 1966-

70

Raw score

o---------...--.--

2--..............

................

:----------------

----------------- L-----------

8----------------

9----------------

1o---------------

11---------------

12--------.-.----

13---------------

15---------------

16---------------

17---------------

18---------------

19---------------

20---------------

21---------------

22---------------

23---------------

24-w-------------

25---------------

26---------------

27---------------

---------------

%--------------

30---------------

31---------------

32---------------

33---------------

34---------------

........--.-.--

R-...----.-.99-

37---------------

Age in years

IzEEFlz

Standard score

19

21

R

27

30

32

%

%

42

44

46

48

50

53

55

57

:?

63

65

x

71

73

;:

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

—

19

21

;;

::

32

34

::

40

42

44

46

48

50

53

55

57

:?

63

65

67

69

71

;~

x

82

84

86

88

u

94

96

38--------------

-------------.

%--------------

41--------------

42--------------

--.----------.

2:--------------

-------.-----.

:2--------------

47--------------

48--------------

49--------------

50---------=----

---.-s...-.-=.

&-------------

53---------=---=

54--------------

55------.---’----

56---------=----

-“------ . . . . . .

3--.--------=-.

60--------------

61--------------

62--------------

63--------------

-.........-.-.

:;---.-. ..--=.-.

66-----=--------

67--------------

68--=-”----------

69--------=-----

70------=-------

71---------------

103

106

108

110

112

114

116

119

121

123

125

127

134

136

138

140

142

145

147

149

151

153

156

158

160

152

~~~

166

169

175

Standard score

102

104

106

108

110

112

115

117

119

~zl

123

125

127

129

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

146

149

151

153

155

157

159

161

163

165

168

170

172

10C

102

104

106

108

llC

112

115

117

119

121

123

125

127

129

131

133

135

137

140

142

144

145

148

150

152

154

156

158

160

163

165

167

169

1::

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

117

120

122

124

1~6

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

143

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159

161

163

166

168

1:!/

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

117

119

121

123

126

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

146

148

151

153

155

157

159

161

163

165

167

1;:

102

105

107

109

111

113

115

117

119

L21

123

125

127

129

131

133

135

137

139

141

143

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159

161

163

165

31
Table 15. Means and standard deviations (SD) of standard scores for youths aged 12-17

on the Goodenough-HarrisDrawing Test man and woman scales, by sex, age, and type of

drawing: United States, 1966-70

Type of drawing, scale, and age

Both sexes Boys Girls

!lean SD Mean SD !+lean SD

Man scale

12-17 years------------------------- 99.9 15.06 99.9 15.01 99.9

98.9

99.7

100.0

101.3

99.6

99.9

99.9

98.7

99.9

101.2

99.9

99.5

100.3

99.9

15.25

14.60

15.24

15.16

14.71

14.61

16.50

98.9

99.3

101,1

99.6

100.5

100.0

99.9

99.1

99.6

101.0

100.O

99.6

100.2

● *,

14.70

14.99

15.31

14.84

15.02

15.41

14.94

14.14

15.62

15.22

14.03

15.84

14.59

..*

98.9

99.2

101.3

99.2

100.7

100.1

100.0

14.72

14.93

15.33

14.84

15.14

14.95

14.99

12

13

14

15

16

,17

12

13

14

15

16

17

12

13

14

15

16

17

years-------------------------------

years---------.-----------------------

years---------------------------------

years---------------------------------

Woman scale

14.93

14.16

15.78

14.95

14.01

15● 93

14.57

12-17 years-------------------------

13.73

14.49

16.90

24.10

15.32

14.68

14.,96

101.4

98.0

99.9

101.7

99.9

99.5

99*9

years--------------------------------

years--------------------------------

years-----------------------------...-

years---------------------------------

years--------------------------------

years---------------------------------

Self drawin~

12-17 years------------------------- 15.03

14.02

15.60

15.49

14.22

15.19

15.59

99.2

99.0

100.9

100,1

100.3

100.C

14.09

15.51

15.21

14,74

15.38

14.73

98.9

99.6

100.8

100.0

100.3

99.7

years---------------------------------

years---------------------------------

years---------------------------------

years---------------------------......

● ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎

.0.

. . .

..9

. . .

.*.

.*.

● ✎ ✎

● ☛✌

● ☛☛

years-----------------.--------------- ✎ ✎ ✎

..32
Table 16. Percentilerank equivalents of raw scores for boys aged 12-17 on the person

drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harrisman scale, by age: United States, 1966-70

Percentile

99---.--------.-------------------------------------.

98--------------------------.------------------------

97----"----------------------------------------------

96--------------------------------------------------.

95--------------------------------------------------

90--------------------------------------------------.

85---------------------------------------------------

80---------------------------------------------------

75---------------------------------------------------

70 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---

65---------------------------------------------------

60---------------------------------------------------

55---------------------------------------------------

50-----------------------.---------------.-----------

45---------------------------------------------------

40------------------.--------------------------------

35---------.-----------------------------------------

30---------------------------------------------------

25---------------------------------------------------

20---------.--Q--.-----------------------------------

l5---------------------------------------------------

10---------------------------------------------------

5------------------------.--------------------------

4----------.--------------------.--------------------

3---------.------------------------------------------

2-----------------.----------------------------------

1--------.-------------------------------------------

Age in years

12-17 12 13 14 15 16 17

Raw score

55

54

52

51

50

47

45

44

43

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

30

29

27

24

23

21

20

18

53

51

50

49

47

44

42

40

40

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

31

30

28

27

25

23

22

21

20

17

52

50

49

48

48

45

44

43

41

40

39

37

36

36

35

34

33

31

30

28

27

25

22

21

21

20

L8

—

56

54

53

52

51

47

46

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

32

31

30

27

24

22

21

20

16

—

55

54

54

53

52

48

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

32

31

29

28

24

23

22

21

19

—

5E

5f

55

52

52

50

47

45

44

43

$2

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

32

31

~g

25

23

~3

Z2

lo

.

55

54

52

52

51

49

47

46

45

44

43

41

40

39

38

38

36

35

34

33

31

29

24

22

21

20

18
Table 17. Percentile rank equivalentsof raw scores for girls aged 12-17 on the person

drawing as scored on the Goodenough.Harris man scale, by age: United States, 1966-70

Percentile

99---........................-----------------------

98--------------------------------........-----------

97--------........--------........-------------------

96---------------------------------------------------

95-------------------------------------------------

90--------m-----------------------cc-----------a----

85-......-......................----------~.---------

80-----------------------------------------------------

75---------------------------------------------------

70-------------------------------------------------

65--------..-.....................-------------------

60--------------------------------------------------

55--------.......-........................-----------

50...................................-----------..-s40................-----------.......-----------------

30........-.......-----------------------------------

25-......-.......................................----

20........................................-----------

15------------------------------------------------- ---

5........-...................................--------

4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ----------- . . . . . . . . . -...-..*- -------

3----------------------------------------------------

2---------------------------------------------------

1............................-----------------------

Age in years

12-17 12 13 14 15 16 17

Raw score

55

52

51

50

50

47

45

44

43

42

41

39

38

37

36

35

34

34

33

31

30

28

25

24

23

20

19

56

47

47

47

46

44

42

41

39

37

37

36

35

35

34

34

33

33

31

28

28

27

22

21

20

20

16

50

50

49

47

47

45

43

43

40

39

38

37

37

36

35

34

34

33

33

31

28

27

24

24

19

18

9

—

55

51

50

49

48

46

46

44

43

42

41

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

28

27

27

25

24

21

—

56

56

53

52

51

48

46

46

45

44

42

41

40

38

37

36

35

33

33

32

31

30

28

26

25

25

24

—

52

52

51

50

50

48

46

44

44

42

42

41

39

38

38

37

36

35

34

33

31

29

25

24

22

20

19

.

56

53

53

52

51

50

48

46

44

42

41

41

40

39

38

37

36

34

33

31

30

26

23

23

22

20

20

.&f
Table 18. Percentile’rank equivalents of raw scores for both sexes

12-17 on the person drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harrisman

United States, 1966-70

combined aged

scale, by age:

Percentile

99---------------------------------------z-----------

“98---------------------------------------------------

97--------------------------------------------------

96-----------------------------------------------------

95---------------------------------------------------

90--------------------------------------------------

85----------------..--------------...--...-----------

80--------------------------------------------------

75----------------.----------------------------------

70.......--------------------------------------------

65--------------------------------------------------

60--------------------------------------------------

55-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---

50-.-------------------------------------------------

45---------------------------------------------------

40--------------------------------------------------

35--------------------------------“------.----------

25---------------------------------------------------

20--------------.---------2---.----------------------

15-.------------------------------------------------

10---------------------------------------------------

5........----------...........................-------

4..........------------------------------------------

3................------------------------------------

1-------------------- -------------------- ------------

Age in years

12-17 12 13 14 15 16 17

Raw score

53

53

52

51

50

47

45

44

43

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

29

27

24

23

22

20

18

53

50

50

48

47

44

42

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

32

31

30

28

27

26

23

22

21

20

17

—

52

50

49

48

48

45

44

43

41

40

39

37

36

36

35

34

33

32

30

29

27

26

23

22

20

20

18

—

55

54

52

51

50

47

46

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

33

32

31

30

28

24

24

21

20

18

—

56

55

54

53

51

48

46

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

31

30

28

25

24

23

22

19

—

56

55

52

52

52

49

47

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

32

31

29

25

24

23

21

19

—

55

54

52

52

51

49

47

46

45

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

31

28

23

23

21

20

18

35
Table 19. Percentile rank equivalents of raw scores for boys aged 12-17 on the person

drawing-as scored on the Goo6enough-Harriswoman scalt by age: United States, 1966-70

Percentile

99-------------------------------------------------

98--------------------------------------------------

97 -------- ---------------- -------- -------- -----------

96---------------------------------------------------

95---------------------------------------------------

90---------------------------------------------------

85--------------------------------------------------

80--------------------------------------------------

75-------------.-------------------------------------

70---------------------------------------------------

65--------.-----------------------------------------

60-------------------------------------------------

50---------------------------------------------------

45---------------------------------------------------

40----------------------------------------.......----

35--------------------------------------------------

30--------------------------------------------------

25--------------------------------------------------

20--------------------------------.------------------

l5---------------------------------------------------

10---------------------------------------------------

2---------------------------------------------------

1----------------------------------------------------

Age in years

L2-17 12 13 14 15 16 17

Raw score

50

49

49

47

47

44

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

31

30

29

28

26

25

23

23

20

19

17

49

47

46

46

45

42

40

38

37

37

36

35

34

33

32

32

30

29

29

28

26

24

23

23

21

20

20

—

51

46

45

45

44

41

40

39

39

37

36

35

33

31

31

29

28

27

27

25

25

23

18

18

18

18

17

—

54

50

50

50

49

46

42

41

40

38

38

37

36

34

33

33

32

31

29

28

27

23

17

17

17

15

5

—

60

49

49

48

$8

k7

43

41

41

40

38

37

37

37

36

35

35

33

32

30

28

25

24

24

23

23

23

—

51

50

50

49

47

44

43

43

41

40

40

39

38

37

36

35

33

32

29

28

26

25

24

24

24

23

20

—

50

48

48

47

47

44

44

43

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

31

30

29

28

26

24

24

23

23

23
Table 20. Percentile rank equivalentsof raw scores for girls aged 12-17 on the person

drawing as scored cm the Goodenough-Harriswoman scale, by age: united States, 1966-70

Percentile

99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------------------- . . . . . . . . ..-

98......--------------------------------------------

97................-----------------------------------

96--------................--------------------------

95--------------------------------------.------------

85---------------------------------------------------

75 -.”.-... . . . . . . ------------------ -------- -----------

70 --------------------------- ------------------ ------

65 --------------------------- ------------------ ------

50 -......- -------- -------- -------- -------- -----------

45--------.------------------------------------------

40--------------------------------------------------

35--------------------------------------------------

30-----------------------------------.---------------

25................----------------------------------

20.............................................-..m--

15--------------------------------------------------

10-----------...-..=---------------------------------

5--.*-----.........----------------------------------

4------------------.......---------------------...---

3----------------------------------------------------

1--.........................-.................-------

Age in years

12-17 12 13 14 15 16 17

Raw score

56

54

53

51

51

48

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

31

29

26

25

24

22

20

53

50

49

48

47

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

28

26

25

23

22

22 /

55

54

53

51

50

48

46

45

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

30

29

24

22

22

20

20

—

59

56

54

53

52

48

47

45

44

43

42

41

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

32

30

28

27

25

24

21

—

55

53

52

52

51

47

46

45

44

43

42

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

31

28

27

25

22

20

—

57

55

53

53

51

49

47

46

45

44

42

41

40

39

39

38

37

36

34

33

31

29

26

25

25

22

18

—

59

55

54

52

51

48

46

46

44

43

42

41

41

40

39

38

38

37

35

35

33

31

28

27

26

21

17
Table 21. Percentile rank equivalents of raw scores for both sexes combined aged 12-17

on the person drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harriswoman scale, by age: United

States, 1966-70

Percentile

99 ------------------ ------------------ --------- ---.=

98 -------- -------- -------- --------------------------

97 ------------------------ -------- ------------------

96 --.----- ------------------------ ---------------- --

90 ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -

85 -------- ---------------- -------- -------- ----------

75--------------------------------------------------

65 ---------------- -------- ---------------- -------- --

60 ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -

55 -------- -------- ---------------- ---------------- --

50 ------- -------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -

45-------------------------------------------------

4o--------------------------------------------------

35--------------------------------------------------

30--------------------------------------------------

25-------------------------------------------------

20-------------------------------------------------

10 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --

5---------------------------------------------------

3---------------------------------------------------

2--------------------------------------------------

1--------------------------------------------------

Age in years

L2-17 12 13 14 15 16 17

Raw score

56

54

52

51

50

47

46

44

43

42

41

40

39

39

38

37

36

34

33

32

30

28

25

24

23

22

19

52

50

49

48

47

45

44

43

42

41

39

38

37

37

36

34

34

33

32

31

29

28

25

24

23”

22

20

—

55

53

51

51

50

47

45

44

43

41

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

32

31

29

27

23

22

21

20

18

—

58

55

54

53

51

48

46

45

43

43

42

41

40

39

38

38

36

36

34

33

31

29

27

25

24

21

19

_

55

53

52

52

51

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

37

36

35

33

33

30

27

26

24

22

20

—

57

55

53

52

51

48

47

46

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

32

30

28

25

25

24

22

18

—

56

55

54

51

50

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

31

30

27

26

24

23

19
Table 22. Percentile rank equivalents of raw scores for boys aged 12-17 on the self

drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harrisman scale: by age: United States, 1966-70

Percentile

99---------------------------------------------------

97---------------------------------------------------

96---------------------------------------------------

90 ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --

85---------------------------------------------------

80-.-----------------------------------------------

75---------------------------------------------------

70---------------------------------------------------

65---------------------------------------------------

60--------------------------------------------------

55--------------------------------------.------------

50---------------------------------------------------

45---------------------------------------------------

40---------------------------------------------------

35---------------------------------------------------

25--------------------------------------------------

20--------------------------------------------------

l5---------------------------------------------------

lo---------------------------------------------------

5-.....-.--------------------------------------------

4----------------------------------------------------

3----------------------------------------------------

1 ---------------- -------- -------- ---------------- ----

—

Age in years

12-17 12 13 14 15 16 17

Raw score

54

52

51

50

49

47

45

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

31

30

29

27

23

23

21

20

17

51

49

48

47

46

43

42

40

39

37

36

36

35

34

33

33

31

30

30

29

27

25

23

22

21

20

17

—

53

51

49

48

47

45

43

42

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

27

25

23

22

21

19

16

—

52

51

50

50

49

46

45

44

43

42

41

39

38

38

37

36

35

33

32

31

29

27

23

22

21

19

17

55

53

52

51

50

47

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

33

32

31

30

28

25

24

22

20

18

58

54

53

52

51

48

46

44

43

42

41

41

40

39

37

36

35

34

33

32

30

28

24

23

22

21

19

—

53

52

51

50

50

47

46

45

44

42

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

32

30

28

24

23

21

20

18

39
Table 23. Percentile rank equivalentsof raw scores for girls aged 12-17 on the self

drawing as scored on the Goodenough-Harriswoman scale, by age: United States, 1966-70

Percentile

99--------------------------------------------------

98---.-----------------------------------------------

97--------------------------------------------------

96--------........-------------.---------------------

95---------------------------------------------------

90--.-----------------------------.------------------

85---------------------------------------------------

80----.----------------------------------------------

75---------------------------------------------------

70----------------..............--------------------

65---------------------------------------------------

60---------.----------.-------------------------.----

55--------------------------------------------------

50---------------------------------------------------

45--------------------------------------------------

40-------------------------------..--.---........---

35.......---------------------.......................

30---------------------------------------------------

25---------------------------------.-----------------

20------------------------------------------------...

15---------------------------------------------------

10------------------------------------------------..-

5----------------..Q---------------------.-----------

3---------------------------------------------.--....

2----------------------------------------------------

1---------------------------------------------------

Age in years

12-17 12 13 14 15 16 17

Raw score

56

53

51

50

50

46

45

43

42

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

35

34

32

31

29

26

25

23

22

19

52

48

47

47

46

44

42

41

40

39

38

38

37

36

35

34

34

33

32

31

30

28

25

24

23

21

20

55 I

53

51

50

48

46

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

34

33

31

30

28

23

23

22

21

19

—

53

52

51

51

50

48

46

44

43

42

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

32

31

29

27

26

24

22

19

55

50

50

50

49

47

46

44

43

42

42

41

40

39

38

37

37

35

35

34

32

30

27

26

25

24

19

—

57

55

54

53

52

48

46

45

44

42

41

40

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

30

27

26

24

23

21

—

57

54

53

52

50

47

46

44

43

42

41

40

40

39

38

37

37

36

35

34

32

30

26

25

23

21

14

4Q
APPENDIX I

TECHNICAL NOTES

The Survey Design

The sample design for each of the first three

programs of the Health Examination Survey (Cycles

I-III) has been essentially similar in that it has been

a multistage, stratified probability sample of clusters

of households in land-based segments. The successive

elements for the sample design for Cycle HI are

primary sampling unit (PSU), census enumeration district (ED), segment (a cluster of households), household, eligible youth, and finally, the sample youth.

The 40 sample areas and the segments utilized

in the design of Cycle 111were the same as those in

Cycle II. Previous reports describe in detail the sample

design used for Cycle H and in addition discuss the

problems and considerations given to other types of

sampling frames and whether or not to control the

selection of siblings. 2! 21

Requirements and limitations placed on the design

for Cycle III, similar to those for the design in Cycle

II, were that:

The target population be defined as the civilian,

noninstitutionalized population of the United

States, including Alaska and Hawaii, in the age

range of 12-17 years with the special exclusion

of children residing on reservation lands of the

American Indians. The latter exclusion was

adopted as a result of operational problems encountered on these lands in Cycle I.

The time period of data collection be limited to

about 3 years and the individual examination within

the specially constructed mobile examination

center be between 2 and 3 hours.

Ancillary data be collected on specially designed

household, medical history, and school questionnaires and from birth certificate copies.

Examination objectives be related primarily to

factors of physical and intellectual growth and

development.

The sample be sufficiently large to yield reliable

findings within broad geographic regions and population density groups as well as age, sex, and

limited socioeconomic groups for the total sample.

The sample was drawn jointly with the U.S.

Bureau of the Census begiming with the 1960 decennial

census list of addresses and the nearly 1,900 primary

sampling units into which the entire United States was

divided. Each PSU is either a standard metropolitan

statistical area (SMSA), a county, or a group of two or

three contiguous counties. These PSU’S were grouped

into 40 strata so that each stratum had an average size

of about 4.5 million persons. Grouping was also done

to maximize the degree of homogeneity within strata

with regard to the population size of the PSU’s,

degree of urbanization, geographic proximity, and

degree of industrialization. The 40 strata were then

classified into four broad geographic regions of 10

strata each and then, within each region, crossclassified by four population density classes and classes

of rate of population change from 1950 to 1960. Using

a modified Goodman -Kish controlled-selection technique, one PSU was drawn from each of the 40 strata.

Generally, within each PSU, 20 census enumeration

districts were selected, with the probability of selection

of a particular ED proportional to its population in the

age group 5-9 years in the 1960 census, which by 1966

approximated the target population for Cycle HI. A

similar method was used for selecting one segment

(a smaller cluster of households) in each ED. Because

of the approximately 3-year interval between Cycle II

and Cycle HI, the Cycle 111sampling frame was updated

for new construction and to compensate for segments

where housing was partially or totally demolished to

make room for highway construction or urban redevelopment. Each of the resulting 20 segments within a

PSU was either a bounded area or a cluster of households

(or addresses). All youths in the appropriate age

range who resided at the address visited were eligible

youths, i.e., eligible for inclusion in the sample.

Operational considerations made it necessary to reduce

the number of prospective examinees at any one location

to a maximum of 200. When the number of eligible

youths in a particular location exceeded this number,

the excess eligible youths were deleted from the sample

through a systematic sampling technique. Youths who

were not selected as sample youths in the Cycle 111

sample but who were previously examined in Cycle H

were scheduled for examination when time permitted

and will be included in special longitudinal analyses. In

41
addition, individual twins who were deleted from the

Cycle HI sample were also scheduled for examination,

as they were in Cycle II, to provide data on pairs of

twins for future analysis. These data are not included in

this report as part of the national probability sample of

youths.

The sample was selected in Cycle HI, as it had been

for the children in Cycle II, to contain proportional

representation of youths from families having only one

eligible youth, two eligible youths, and soon, so as to be

representative of the total target population. However,

since households were one of the elements in the sample

frame, the number of related youths in the resulting

sample is greater than that which would come from a

design which sampled youths 12-17 years without

regard to household. The resulting estimated mean

measurements or rates should he unbiased, but their

sampling variability will be somewhat greater than those

from a more costly, time-consuming systematic sample

design in which every kth youth would be selected.

The total probability sample for Cycle HI included

7,514 youths representative of the approximately 22.7

million noninstitutionalized United States youths of

12-17 years. The sample contained approximately

1,000 youths in each single year of age wh~ were

drawn from 25 different States.

The response rate in Cycle 111was 90 percent, with

6,768 youths examined out of the total sample. These

examinees were closely representative of those in the

population from which the sample was drawn with

respect to age, sex, race, geographic region, and

population density and growth in area of residence.

Hence it appears unlikely that nonresponse could bias

the findings appreciably.

Table 1. Mean scores an< ~tandard deviations (SD) cbtained by two independent scores for youths

12-17 years of age and iaterscorer reliability coefficients, by type of drawing, age, and sex:

Health Examination Survey, 1966-70

Type of drawing, age, and sex

12

13

14

;2

17

Person drawing

12-17 years ----------------------- - .-.-----m--

years -----.----- -------------------------------

years ----- . . ----------- .” ------------ m..------”

years:------------------------=-----------------

years ------------------------------------------

years ------------------------------------------

years ------------------------------------------

Man figure:

Boys ---------------------- .-----” ---------------

Girls -------------------------------------------

Woman figure:

Boys ----- -------.-------------------”---”-------

Girls -------------------- ------!--- ---------------

12

13

14

15

16

17

Self drawing

12-17 years -----------m.-- ----m-..----------

vears ------------------------------------------

years --------------------------------- -------qyears ------------------------------------------

years ------------ -----------------q ------------

years -------------------------- ----.-.m--.------

Man figure-boys ----------------------------------

Woman figure-girls -------------------------------

Wnuber

of

zasea

6,360

1,118

1,126

1,134

1,051

1,042

889

2, ;::

370

2,303

6,357

1,124

1,130

1,129

1,052

1,026

896

3,333

3,024

Scorer 1

tiean

37.6

35.4

36.5

38.0

38.4

38.8

38.8

37.1

37.5

34.6

38.7

37.3

35.0

36.2

37.6

38.1

38.7

38.5

36.7

37.9

SD

7.99

7.52

7.95

8.01

7.74

8.18

7.98

8.20

7.72

7.45

7.71

7.74

;.::

7;87

7.58

7.70

7.80

8.06

7.34

Scorer 2

Mean

38.1

35.8

36.9

38.5

38.9

39.2

39.5

37.4

37.8

35.4

39.3

37.7

35.3

36.4

38.1

38.7

39.1

39.0

37.0

38.5

SD

8.23

7.71

8.07

8.35

8.03

8.40

8.15

8.47

7.85

—

8.24

7.83

i

7.95

7.29

7.94

7.97

7.69

8.10

7.95

8.19

7.60

:nterscorez

reliability

:oefficientl

0.885

0.889

0.889

0.883

0.864

0.883

0.885

0.890

0.872

0.897

0.873

0.881

0.878

0.884

0.883

0.868

0.874

0.874

0.884

0.875

correlation between scores given by scorer 1. and scorer 2.

t42
Reliability

While measu&ment processes in the survey swere

curefully standardized andclosefi~ controlled, the correspondence between true population figures andsurvey

results cannot be expected to be exact. Survey data

are imperfect for three major reasons: (1) results

are subject to sampling error, (2) the actual conduct

of a survey never: agrees perfectly with the design, and

(3) the measurement processes themselves are inexact

even though standardized and controlled.

General methods used to control the quality of the

data from this survey have been discussed previously;2

and some remarks relating specifically to the human

figure drawing. test can be found in the text of this

report. As indicated, quality control methods included

two independent scorings of each drawing by two adults

who were carefully trained in the Goodenough-Harris

scoring methods. The high level of agreement realized

may be seen in table I, which shows by age and by type

of drawing the average scores obtained by each scorer

and the correlation between the two sets of scores.

An additional exploration of consistency in scoring

on the Gootienough-lIarris scales was undertaken during

the Cycle III program. Gne hundred and forty man

drawings and 84 woman drawings selected from 11

of the first 19 sampling areas were restored under

the direct supervision of Dale Harris, author of the

Godclenough-Harris Drawing Test scoring standards.

These 224 drawings fell into three groups representing

different teams %f scorers used in the Health Examination Survey study. Two persons restored the tests

independently. Any differences between the scoring were

reconciled in conference before a score was reported.

Table 11. Coatparison of scoring of 224 drawings

on the Goodenough-Harri.s scales by two different scoring teams

Scale and

scoring team

kfan scale

Harris’ scoring

team ----------

HES scoring

Eeam----------

Woman scale

Harris’ scoring

team ----------

~ES scoring

fieam----------

T

Wannr Mean

tests score

L

140 41.13

140 38.14

84 44.04

84 40.89

Standard

~eviation

9.67

8.73

8.13

7.27

Correlation

between

means

1

r=. 90

/

r=.89

These scores were correlated with tbe survey scores,

and results appear intable II. This is additional evidence

of interscorer consistency—one criterion of test reliability. The conservative tendency of scoring in the

survey is supported by the 3-point mean differential

between thetwoteamsand, as isdiscussed in the text,

may be a contributing factor to the norms derived

from these data being generally Iowerthan those from

the original standardization data.

Data recorded for each sample youth areinflatedin

the estimation process to characterize the larger

universe of which the sample youth is representative.

The weights used in this inflation process are a

product of the reciprocal of the probability of selecting

the youth, an adjustment for nonresponse cases, and

a poststratified ratio adjustment that increases precision by bringing survey results into closer alignment

with known U.S. population figures by color and sex

within single years of age 12-17.

In the third cycle of the Health Examination

Survey (as for the children in Cycle 11)the eample was

the result of three principal stages of selection—the

single PSU from each stratum, the 20 segments from

each sample PSU, and the sample youth from the

eligible persons. The probability of selecting an individual youth is the product of the probability of

selection at each stage.

Becauee the strata are roughly equal in population

size and a nearly equal number of sample youths were

examined in each of the sample PSU’S, the sample

design is essentially self-weighting with respect to the

target population, that is, each youth 12-17 years of

age had about the same probability of being drawn into

the sample.

The adjustment upward for nonresponse is intended

to minimize the impact of nonresponse on final estimates

by imputing to nonrespondents the characteristics of

“similar” respondents,Similar respondents in a

sample PSU are defined here as examined youths of the

same age in years and sex as youths not examined in

that sample PSU. .

The poststratified ratio adjustment used in the third

cycle achieved most of the gains in precision that

would have been attained if the sample had been drawn

from a population stratified by age, color, and eex.

This adjustment made the final sample estimates of

population agree exactly with independent controls

prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for the

noninstitutionalized population of March 9, 1968 (approximated midpoint of the survey for Cycle 111) by

color and sex for each single year of age 12-17. The

weight of every responding sample youth in each of the

24 age, color, and sex classes is adjusted upward or

downward so that the weighted total within the class

equals the independent population control. Final sample

frequencies and estimated population frequencies as of

the approximate midpoint of the survey are presented

in table 111by age and sex.

d
Table III. Number of youths in Cycle III HES sample, 1966-70, and estimatednumber of youths 12-

17 years of age in the noninstitutionalizedpopulationof the United States,March 9, 1968

Number of youths in

sample

Age

r

Both

sexes

12-17 years---------------------------------

b

6,768

years----------m---.--q.--------.----”- .----.-

years--------------------- -------------.--m-s--

years------------------------------.,.---..-p--

years--------------------- -------------------,byears---.------------------m----------.--.-byears------------------------------ --m--.------

1,190

1,208

1,204

1,116

1,092

958

Missing Test Results and Imputation Procedures

ln additionto youthswho were selectedforthe

sample butnotexamined,therewere some whoseexaminationwas incompleteinoneprocedureor another.

The extentofmissinghuman figuredrawingsisshown

in tableIV according to age and sex of the youth and

type of drawing. Of the total 6,768 youths examined,

536hadeither theperson drawing, theselfdrawtig, or

both drawings missing ornotadequately completed for

scoring. Of these 536 cases, 504 were determinedto be

incomplete because of factors not directly attributable

to the sample youth such as inadequate time for completion of drawing, records lost in shipping, and examiner’s errors in administration. Only 32 cases were

determined to be incomplete because of some characteristic of the youth being examined such as atypical

behavior,sensory-motordefects,orlanguageproblems.

Sincethereasonforincompletetestresultsin most

cases was not directlyrelatedto thecharacteristic

beingmeasured,raw scoreswere imputedforalmost

allof theseexaminees.Inthe 32 caseswheresome

problem oftheyouthwas documented,imputationwas

notconsideredappropriate.

imputationwas accomplishedin the following

manner:An intercorrelation matrixofallpsychological

testdata and selectedsocioeconomicvariableswas

derivedto identifythosevariableswhichwere most

highlyassociatedwitheachraw testscore.As a result,

fivevariableswere chosenfortheimputationofGoodenough-Harrisraw scores-otheravailabletestscores;

educationallevelof the head of thehousehold(four

categories),age,and two controlvariables,raceand

sex. Imputationof a missingtestresultforan examineewas accomplishedbyrandomlyselectingamatch

among thegroupofexamineesofthesame ageinyears,

parentalevelofeducation(fourcategories), race,sex,

and availableraw scoretestresultsmost highlycor-

+

643 547

626 582

618 586

613 503

556 536

489 469

I

Estimatednumber of

youths in populationin

thousands

Both

sexes

22.692

4,002

3,952

3,852

3,751

3,625

3,510

Boys

11,489

2,032

;,());.

1:900

1,836

1,764

Girls

11,203

1,970

1,946

1,901

1,851

1,789

1,746

Table IV. Number of examineesaEed 12-17 with

no drawing or unusable human f tbre drawings,

- by type of drawing, age, and sex: Health ExaminationSurvey, 1966-70

Age and type of drawing

Person drawing

12-17 years--------

years-----------------

years-----------------

years-----------------

years-----------------

years-----------------

years-----------------

Self drawing

12-17 years --------

years -----------------

years -----------------

years-----------------

years-----------------

years-----------------

years-----------------

Both drawings

1,2-17 years --------

years----------------

years-----------------

years-----------------

years-----------------

years-----------------

years-----------------

II I

Number

125

21

;;

27

10

21

128

~

15

15

32

26

26

14

283

51

::

::

48

66

13

::

13

5

7

57

6

1;

12

8

155

38

33

26

::

22

59

8

1;

14

1:

71

9

7

;:

8

6

128

13

30

17

16

%

44
Table V. Number of examinees aged 12-17, by type of drawing, age, and sex: Health Examination

Survey, 1966-701

Age

Person drawin~

12-17 years -----------------

12

13

14

15

16

17

12

13

L4

:2

17

years --------------------------

years ----------- -----m----- .-myears --------------------------

years -------------------- .---”-

years ------------------------- .-

years ----m------ .-mm--m-- ------

Self drawin~

years ------------------ -.------

years-------..=---q...q --------

years --------- .--m---m-m- -m----

years -------------- .---------myears--------------=q ----------

years ---------------------- ----

All Boys Girls

examinees Tota1 Man Woman Nonel Total Man Woman Nonel

Number

1,190 643

1,208 626

1,204 618

1,116 613

1,092 556

958 489

3,139

569

554

546

563

486

421

637

623

614

612

556

485

393

G

:;

U

..0

. . .

. . .

.0.

. . .

. . .

3,223

547

582

586

503

536

469

547

582

586

503

536

469

781

~

1!:

135

129

153

160

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

2,433

459

465

449

373

381

306

547

581

584

501

534

465

llncludes es~irnated data shown Ln table Iv.

related with the scores to be imputed. The raw score data and are themselves subject to sampling error

of this “matched” examinee was then imputed to the

examinee with the missing score. When data for anyof

these variables were notavailable, amatchwasselected

using information on the variables available in the

youth’s record. The final sample, after imputation of

missing data, is displayed in table Vby age, sex, and

type of figure drawn by the youth.

Sampling and Measurement Error

In the presebt report, reference has been madeto

efforts to minimize bias andvariabtlit yofmeasurement

techniques. The probabtiity design of the survey makes

possible the calculation of sampling errors. Thesampling error is used here to determine how imprecise

the survey test results may be because they result

from a sample rather than from the measurementsof

all elements in the universe.

The estimation of sampling errors fora study of

the type of the Health Examination Survey is difficult

for at Ieast three reasons: (l) measurement error and

“pure” sampling error are confoundedin thedata, and

it k difficult to find a procedure that will either

completely include both or treat one or the other

separately, (2) the survey design and estimation procedure are complex and accordingly require computationally involved techniques for the calculation of

variances, and (3) thousands of statistics are derived

from the survey, many for subclasses of the population

for which there are a small number of cases. Estimates of sampling error are obtained from the sample

which may be large when the number of cases ina

cell is small or, occasionally, even when thenumber of

cases is substantial.

Estimates of approximate sampling variability for

selected statistics used in this report are presented

in table VI. These estimates, called standard errors,

have been prepared by a replication technique which

yields overall variability through observation of variability among random subsamples of the total sample.

The method reflects both “pure” sampling variance and

a part of the measurement variance and is descrikd

in previously published reports. 22, 23

Hypothesis Testing

In accordance with usual practice, the interval

estimate for any statistic may be considered the range

within one standard error of the tabulated statistic

with 68-percent confidence or the range within two

standard errors of the tabulated statistic with 95-

percent confidence. The latter is used as the level

of significance in this report.

An approximation of the standard error of a

difference d= x -y of two statistics x and y is given

by the formula sd = (s:+ s~)’ where SX and S, are

the sampling errors, respectively, of x and y. Of

course, where the two groups or measures are positively or negatitiely correlated, this will give an overestimate or underestimate of the actual standard error.
Table VI. Standard errors for means of raw and

standard scores onthe Goodenough-Harrls Drawing Test for youths 12-17 years of age, by

sex, age, and type of drawing: United States,

1966-70

Type of drawing,

scale, and age

yERSON DRAWING

Man scale

12-17 years---

years ------------

years ------------

years ------------

years ------------

years ------------

years ------------

Woman scale

12-17 years---

years ------------

years ------------

years ------------

years ------------

years------------

years------------

SELF DRAWING

12-17 yea&---

years ------------

years------------

years------------

years------------

years------------

vears ------------

Raw score

Boys IGirls

Standard

score

I

Boys I Girls

0.22

~

0.30

0.28

0.48

0.48

0.54

0.35

0.48

0.64

0.99

1.31

0.86

1.12

0.90

0.21

0.35

:.::

0:37

0.39

0.38

Standard error

0.47

0.66

0.42

0.86

0.76

0.78

0.88

0.29

0.39

0.47

0.52

0.41

0.46

0.44

0.24

0.31

0.35

0.50

0.32

0.40

0.47

0.41

0.61

0.55

0.90

0.89

1.02

0.65

0.96

~

1.37

1.94

2.52

1.70

2.35

1.89

0.41

0.68

0.67

0.87

0.70

0.77

0.70

0.90

1.37

0.89

1.76

1.54

1.55

1.72

0.59

;.;:

1:06

0.82

0.92

0.89

0.57

0.68

0.75

1.16

0.63

0.83

1.05

fius, in this report, the procedure used for

testing the significance of difference between means

was to divide the difference between the two means

by the standard error of the difference as computed

above. If the ‘magnitude of twas greater than 2.oo,

the difference was considered significant at approximately the 5-percent confidence level. For example,

the mean raw score for 12-year-old boys on the

woman drawing was 33.3, while the mean for 12-yearold girls was 36.9, a difference of 3.6 points. The

approximate standard error of the difference between

means was .75. Since the difference between means

was almost five times the standard error, the difference was considered significant beyond the 5-

percent confidence level.

Small Categories

In some tables, averages may be shownfor cells

for which the sample size is so small that the relative

standard error may be larger than the statistic itself.

Such statistics are included in this report along with

their corresponding standard errors in the belief

that the information, while not meeting strict standards

of precision, may lend an overall impression of the

survey findings and may be of interest to subject

matter specialists.

Standard Scores

The following formula was usedforcomputing the

standard scores (SS) shown in this report:

Ssi =+(15) (X-xi)+loo,

xi

In tables 7-14 for the drawings indicated, Sxi is the

standard deviation of the raw scores intheith yearof

age,xiisthe arithmetic averageor mean raw score in

that age interval (both Sxi md Z, derived from the inflated sample), and x is the raw score for which the

standard score is being derived. When constructing

these conversion tables, some smoothing of the SS

corresponding to the extremely lowand extremely high

raw scores was necessary so that no person would

receive ahigher SSthan aperson younger than himself

for an equivalent raw score. The small number of such

cases was assumed to be a result of ~ampling error.

—ooo—

44.

.. c

,

‘)
APPENDIX II

CYCLE Ill DRAWING TEST INSTRUCTIONS

GOODENOUGH - HARRIS DRAWING TEST

The following directions ore given:

I WANT YOU TO DRAW A PICTURE OF A PERSON. MAKE THE VERY BEST

PICTURE YOU CAN. BE SURE TO MAKE THE WHOLE PERSON, NOT JUST

THE HEAD AND SHOULDERS. YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO DRAW

A PERSON. WORK VERY CAREFULLY.

At 3 minutes, say:

YOU HAVE ABOUT 2 MINUTES.

At 5 minutes, if the examinee is not finished say:

ARE YOU ALMOST FINISHED?

If the S says yes and appears to be nearly finished, allow a maximumof 2 more

minutes. If the S is far from being finished, (head ar trunk anly completed), stop

at the five-minute limit and start the Self directions.

If the S asks if he shauld draw a man or woman, a big or little person, a real or

imaginary person, or make some other inquiry indicating a need for assurance or

direction, provide a neutral statement such as USE YOUR OWN JUDGEMENT, or

MAKE IT ANY WAY YOU WISH.

Turn the test form over and, say:

NOW, DRAW A PICTURE OF YOURSELF. MAKE THE VERY BEST PICTURE YOU

CAN. BE SURE TO MAKE YOUR WHOLE SELF -NOT JUST YOUR HEAD AND

SHOULDERS. YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO DRAW YOURSELF.

If the first drawing wasn’t completed in 5 minutes, say:

SEE IF YOU CAN FINISH MS DRAWING IN 5 MINUTES!

After the S completes his self drawing, turn to the first drowing and say:

TELL ME ABOUT YOUR DRAWING.

Record respanses in the bottom right hand comer of the drawing space.

If there are unusal details of clothing ar posture, i.e. animation, and the inquiry

“Tell me about your drawing” does not indicate whether the S has drawn a special

category or class af persan ask:

WHO Is THIS? (R=p=at same inquiry for Self drawirig.)

Record the response an the battom right hand earner of the drawing space.
Series 1.

VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS PUBLICATION SERIES

Originally ikblic Health Service Rtbiication No. 1000

Pnwrurns and wllectkm Pnxwduns. —Reports which describe the general programs of the National

Cer& for Health Statistics and its offices and divfaiow, data collection methods used, deflnitkxaa,

and other material necessary for understanding the data.

Series 2. Bta etnxluation and methods veseavch. —Studfea of new statistical methodology includ@ experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital atadatlcs collection methods, new analytical

techniques, objective evaluations of reliaMli~ of collectsd data, contributions to statistical theory.

Sm”es 3. AnaWicat shsfies.-Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies baaedo” vital and health

San-es 4.

San-es 10.

Sm”es 11.

Sm”es 12.

Sara-es 13.

Series 14.

Sm”es 20.

Sm”es 21.

Series 22.

.

atatisttcs, carrying the analysis tither than the expository typea of reports in the other aeriea.

Documents and committee repoYts.- Final reports of major committees concerned with viti and

health statistics, and documents such aa recommended model vital registration laws and revised

Mrth and death certificates.

LMti j%otn he Health Intm”ew Survev. —Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use

of hospital,’ medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, baaed on data

collected in a continuing national household interview survey.

lkzta @am the Health Examination SUYVSY.—Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of the civilian, noninstitutioatal population provide the basis for two types

of reports,: (1) estimates of the medically defined prevalence of specific diseases in the United

States and’ the distributions of the population with respect to physicsl, physiological, and psychological characteristics; and (2) analysis of relationships among the various measurements without

reference to an explicit finite universe of persons.

Data porn the Institutional Population Surveys. —Statistics relating to the health characteristics of

persons in institutions, and their medical, nursing, and personal care received, baaed on national

samples of establishments providing these services and samples of the residents or patients.

Data &om the Hospital Discharge Survey. —Statistics relating to discharged patients in short-stay

hospitalq based cm a sample of patient records in a national sample of hospitals.

Dab on health resources: man#ower and facilities. -Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution, and characteristics of health resources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other health

occupations, hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient facilities.

Data on mortality. -Various statistics on mortality other than as included in regular annual or

mon~y reports-special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables, also

geographic and time series analyses.

DOta on natality, marriage, and divorce. —Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce

other than as included in regular annual or monthly reports-special analyses by demographic

variables, also geographic and time series analyses, studies of fertility.

Data &om the National Natality and Mortality Surveys.— Statistics on characteristics of births

and dearhs not available from the vital records, based on sample surveys stemming from these

records, including such topics as mortality by socioeconomic class, hospital experience in the

last year of life, medical care during pregnancy, health insurance coverage, etc.

“For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: Office of Information

National Center for Health Statistics

Public Health Service, HRA

Rockville, Md. 20852

/

(

-L,-