NATIONAL CENTER

For HEALTH STATISTICS

VITAL and HEALTH STATISTICS

DATA EVALUATION AND METHODS RESEARCH

Comparisonof Timedand

UntimedPresentation

of the Goodenough-llarris

Test of Intellectual

Maturity

A methodological study of the effects of timed versus untimed administration of the human figure drawing technique

used in measuring intellectual maturity of adolescents.

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

Public Health Service

Health Services and Mental Health Administration

Washington, D.C. June 1969
Public Health Service Publication NrJ. lCOO %ries Q-No. 35

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. (lovcrnrnent Printing Office

W’ashingtnn, D. C., !20409 - Price 30 cents
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS

THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, Di?’ecto~

PHILIP S. LAWR ENCE, SC. D., Associate Director

OSWALD K. SAGEN, PH. D.,, Assistant Director /or Health Statistics Development

WALT R. SIMMONS, M. A., Assistant Director for Research and Scierzti/ic Development

ALICE M. WATERHOUSE, M. D., Aledical Consultant

JAMES E. KELLY, D. D. S., Dental Advisor

EDWARD E. MINTY, Executive O//icer

MA RGERY R. CUNNINGHAM, in/ormatiorz O//icer

DIVISION OF HEALTH EXAM1NATION STATISTICS

ARTHUR J. McDOWELL, Director

PAUL T. BRUYERE, M.D., Deputy Director

JAMES T. BAIRD, JR., Cbie/, Analysis and Reports Branch

HENRY W. MILLER, Chief, Operations and Quality Control Branch

PETER V. V. HAMILL, M.D., ~ledicaz Advisor

JAMES E. KELLY, D. D. S., Dental Advisor

HAROLD J. DUPUY, Ph. D., psycbo~ogicaz Advisor

Public Heaith Service publication No. I(loo-series” 2-No, ~~

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 79-600269
FOREWORD

The Health Examination Survey (HES) is one

of the major continuing programs of the National

Center for Health Statistics, an agent y authorized

by Congress to provide statistical information

on the amount, distribution, and effects of illness

and disability in the United States. The collection,

analysis, and publication of data obtainable o?ZZY

through direct examination of people is the particular task of the HES. Examination programs

for national samples of segments of our population began in November 1959 with a survey of

adults between the ages of 18 and 79 (designated

Cycle I). Mobile examination centers with their

teams of specialists began traveling throughout the United States, setting up in diverse locations to examine individuals selected in the national probability sample. The basic pattern of

operation has continued through successive surveys and has included examinations of a sample

of children 6-11 years of age (Cycle II) and the

current program focused on adolescents 12-17

years of age (Cycle III).

While the initial effort in the adult examination program was devoted primarily to obtaining

information on several prevalent chronic diseases, when attention was directed toward younger

age groups, the concern logically shifted to factors related to growth and development. At this

point it became obvious that social and personal

adjustment in the context of school and home is

an integral part of healthy growth. Health problems of the developmental years are primarily

those of retarded and disrupted growth, and the

nature of personality development, as evidenced

in acquisition of communication skills, general

mental abilities, and interpersonal relationships,

must be considered in assessment procedures.

The decision of the survey planners to include

some measurements of social and personality

function followed naturally, and psychologists became new members of the examining team.

Because time and physical limitations must

inevitably be imposed on a comprehensive health

survey, no one health factor—whether dental,

physiological, physical, or psychological—can be

evaluated as thoroughly as it would be in a typical

clinical or research setting. As a case in point,

sound, widely accepted, brief tests of the psychological factors found to be important to the

goals of the survey did not exist. To cover the

necessarily broad area, it was decided that the

battery should be composed of either the briefest

tests available or abbreviated and specialIy administered versions of widely used psychological

instruments. The resulting battery, used in the

children’s survey and continued into the adolescent’s survey, reflects the more frequent decision to use parts of longer tests and special

administration procedures. Incumbent on the user

of abbreviated tests is the need to conduct

methodological studies to determine relationships between the new form and the original

established instrument or other criterion measures or both. In the case of psychological data,

the National Center for Health Statistics has

attempted to fulfill this obligation primarily

through contracts with several scientists. The

study reported here is the result of one such

contract.

There are some limited, but obvious and

direct, benefits to be gained from this study;

first, the Center is better prepared to report

accurate data on the intellectual maturity of

adolescents derived from the Goodenough-Harris

test and, second, the readers of our reports are

better prepared to fully understand these data.

It is also our hope that those who are generally

interested in the study and use of the human

...

III
figure drawing technique will benefit from the

further exploration presented here. Those who

are especially interested in the development and

use of brief, survey-type instruments should be

encouraged by the results of the study.

The Center has been fortunate in having Dr.

Dale Harris as principal investigator on this

study. In addition to the assistance he provided

under this contract, Dr. Harris has served as a

consultant to our program since the beginning :of

the children’s survey. His longtime and intimate

association with children’s human figure drawings

has been an invaluable contribution to the survey.

Our association with Dr. Harris, his colleagues,

and his staff at The Pennsylvania State University

has made not only the final product a worthwhile

contribution, but also the entire undertaking a

pleasurable experience.

Glenn D. Pinder

Assistant Psychological Advisor

Division of Health Examination

Statistics
CONTENTS

Page

Foreword ------------------------------------------------------------

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

Individual Versus Group AtiMistration ---------------------------------

Method ------------------------------------------------------------

Results ------------------------------------------------------------

Timed Versus UntMed Atiinistration ----------------------------------

Method ------------------------------------------------------------

Results ------------------------------------------------------------

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

References -----------------------------------------------------------

Appendix I. Test Instmctions ----------------------------------------

Appendix II. Test Forms ---------------------------------------------

...

ml

1

2

2

2

3

3

8

12

13

14

15

v
vi

IN THIS REPORT the effects of modifications of the stundavd instructions fov the administration of the Goodenough-Havris Dvawing Test to

adolescents ave explored. Specifically, the question was what effect an

imposed limitation on the time Civen to complete a human figuve drawing

would have on the total Goodenough-Havris score. Such a time limit

was found to be necessary in ovdev to use this test as a measuve of intellectual matuvity in a national survey of adolescents.

In a pveliminavy study, it was determined that a subject tested in a

group situation achieved essentially the same stove as when tested individually. This fact pevmitted the following study to pvoceed with collection of data by group administration of the test.

Two dvawings, a pevson and the self, weve obtained fvom a lavge group

of 12-, 14-, and 16-year-old students. Some of the subjects weve tested

undev the usual untimed conditions and some, with ins tvuctions imposing a 5-minute time limit. From this pool, 200 students were selected

in each. of the three age groups, half tested under timed and half undev

untimed conditions. The sample was controlled fov sex, age, and race

and stratified by fathe~ts occupation.

Comparison of the stoves obtuined on each of the two drawings undev

timed vevsus untimed conditions revealed that the 14- and 16-yeav-olds

obtained significantly lower scores on the dvawings of a pe%son undev

the timed conditions. No significant differences weve found fov the drawings of a pezson of the 12-yeav-olds or fo~’ the dvawings of the self of

any age group. After closer obsevvation of these datu and a comparison

with norms published fo~ the Goodenowgh-Ha~vis test, it uxzs concluded

that, although conditions of vestvicted time may attenwate results of the

test, they apparently do not cons tvict sco$”es sufficiently to invalidate

the technique. With restandavdi,zation the use of the test undev conditions of limited time is clearly feasible. Thwe appears a distinct possibility of p~o vialing adequate novms fov the eavly adolescent years Jvom

data collected in the national survey in which the timed administration

was used.

SYMBOLS

Data not available ------------------------ ---

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

Quantity zero ---------------------------- -

Quantity more than O but less than 0.05---- -0.0

Figure does not meet standards of

reliability or precision ------------------

*
COMPARISON OF TIMED AND UNTIMED

PRESENTATION

TEST OF

OF THE GOODENOUGH-HARRIS

INTELLECTUALMATURITY

Dale B. Harris, Ph. D., Department of Psychology, The Pennsylwnia State Univwsity

INTRODUCTION

The National Center for Health Statistics has

for several years been conducting an intensive

Health Examination Survey. Cycle III, as the

current survey of the adolescent years 12-17 is

known, focuses on many areas of health including

aspects of both physical and mental growth and

development. Previous surveys known as Cycle

I and Cycle 111explored, respectively, the health

of American adults and children. In the course of

3 hours and 30 minutes the youths receive the

attention of physicians, dentists, technicians, and

psychologists. Of this time, a total of 70 minutes

is devoted to the psychological examination.

In the brief span of 70 minutes psychologists

administer a carefully selected battery of tests

designed to study intellectual development, educational achievement, and certain other aspects of

social and emotional growth. The battery was

chosen after consultation with a group of child

psychologists from five universities and was

subjected to pilot testing. The battery for Cycle

111is virtually the same as that used In Cycle H

with the addition of a test of literacy and a behavioral questionnaire. The basic test battery

used in Cycles H and HI is given in table 1.

Use of the basic test battery provides comparable information from one survey to the next

and permits analysis of the data by age through

the entire range—6-17 years. Such comparison,

of course, presupposes standardized administration and scoring of the various test protocols.

There are available objective procedures for the

Wechsler subscales, the Thematic Apperception

Test, and the Wide Range Achievement Test;

however, drawing protocols may be administered

and scored in many ways depending on the age of

the subject and the researcher’s inclinations.

For the Health Examination Survey the standardized method of administering and scoring

drawing tests outlined in Harris’ Childyen’s

Drawings as Measuves of Intellectual MatuvityQ

was adopted with certain modifications. In the

Goodenough-Harris procedure, subjects are asked

to make three drawings in sequence—a man, a

Table 1. Test battery usedby the National

Center for Health Statistics in Cycles

II and 111 of the Health Examination

Survey

Title

1. Vocabulary subtest from the VJechsler

Intelligence Scale for Children

2. Block design subtest from the

Wechs ler Intelligence Scale for

Children

3. Human figure drawing

4. Selected cards from the Thematic

Apperception Test

5. Wide Range Achievement Test (1963

revisions of the arithmetic and

reading sections)

1
woman, and the self. In Cycle II, subjects were

asked to draw a person and, in Cycle 111, a person and the self. Scoring followed the Goodenough -

Harris standards exactly, using the appropriate

key for the sex of the person portrayed. When

sex could not be determined from the figure, the

scoring key for the male figure was used.

Although the same objective procedures were

required for continuity in Cycle III, certain difficulties arose in the Cycle III pilot tests. In the

Goodenough-Harris directions no time limit is

given and, as a result, the youths took a surprisingly long time to draw the required “picture of

a person” and “picture of the self. ” This meant

that the standard test procedure was not adaptable

to the brief 70-minute examination period. However, repeated observations were made, and it

was noted that a “valid test” could be obtained

from most adolescents in a specific period. That

period of time proved to be about 5 minutes.

The Goodenough-Harris directions were

changed from “Take your time and work very

carefully” to “You will have five minutes to draw

a picture. . . .“ (See appendix I for complete instructions.) The changed instructions were employed throughout the Cycle III survey so that

the objective scoring method could be applied to

maintain continuity of data collected from one

age group to another. However, the question remained: Can a valid Goodenough-Harris figure

drawing test be administered under a timed condition?

The purpose of this research under contract

#PH43-67 -759 from the National Center for Health

Statistics was to explore that question. The statistical hypothesis is that there is no difference

between the scores of protocols administered

under timed and untimed conditions. a

To deal accurately yet economically with

the central hypothesis of this report, it was first

necessary to see whether the Goodenough-Harris

test could be presented to individuals and to

groups with similar results. If, indeed, the

aA related hypothesis (although not discussed in this project) is that, if a difference does exist between timed and

untimed conditions, a statistical relationship would obtain

between results of the two conditions such that tables of

equivalent scores could be constructed for the two conditions.

test could be

ings it would

administered to classroom groupexpedite answering the main question. The specific hypothesis in this comparison

is that there is no difference between scores of

protocols administered under group and under

individual conditions. The report which follows,

then is divided into two parts, the first addressed

to the question of equivalence of group and individual administrations and the second to the main

question of the equivalence of timed and untimed

administrations.

INDIVIDUAL VERSUS

GROUP ADMINISTRATION

)Aethod

To assess the effect of group presentation of

the Goodenough-Harris test, 102 eighth-grade

schoolchildren from the Bald Eagle Area School

District in Central Pennsylvania were tested using

the standard Goodenough-Harris instructions.b

The children were ages 13-14 with a median age

of 13 years, 8 months.

All children received both group and individual test administrations using a counterbalanced design in which 54 students were tested,

first, in an individual testing session and, second,

in a classroom situation (group I), and 48 students were first tested in classroom groups and

second, individually (group H). The period between test administrations was approximately 4

weeks.

All test protocols were scored independently

by two carefully trained scorers and differences

reconciled through conference. The data were

subjected to appropriate analysis to assess the

effects of group versus individual presentation

and to test the possible interaction of method and

order of administration.

Results

The mean difference (~) between group and

individual scores was calculated for group I

(individual-group) and for group II (group-individual). Each ~ was tested by a t-testat the

bThe field work for this portion of the research wae carried out by Mrs. Mary Whaley.

2
Table 2. Statistical summary of individual-group hypothesis

t for

Mean effect of

Test administration N z S.D. dif- method of

ference administration

Group I (individual-group)

Individual --------------------------

}

Cj& 40.76 7.47

Group------------------------------- 39.44 9.72 )

1.31 1.79

Group II (group-individual)

Group -------------------------------

)

48 35.75 7.99

Individual -------------------------- 36.56 7.68 }

0.81 0.86

NOTE: N= number of subjects; ~= mean raw score;S.D.= standard deviation.

t for

interaction

of method

and order

of

administration

, 0.41

)

.05 level to see if it differed significantly from

zero (table 2). The Dfor group I (~1) was 1.31,

and Dfor group II (~11) was 0.81. The t obtainedfor ~1 was 1.79, and t obtained for ~1[

was 0.86. Since t-o~ for 40 degrees offreedom

is 2.021 and for 60 degrees of freedom is 2.000,

the null hypothesis was retained. It may therefore be concluded that there is no significant

difference between raw scores oftests administered under group conditionsand thosegivenunder

individual conditions.

To lend greater credence tothe above conclusion itis necessaryto show that these results

were not dependent on some interaction between

method of administration and order of presentation. (For a complete discussion of methods of

analysis for this design see reference three.)To

demonstrate, ~11 was subtracted from ~j and

was tested by tratio at the .051evelto seeifit

differed significantly from zero. D, – D,l was

0.50 and yielded a t ratio of 0.41 which is not

significant at the .05 level for 100 degrees of

freedom. Therefore it was possible to retain the

hypothesis that there was no interaction between

type of administration and order of presentation.

Thus, there is additional support fortheconclusion that no essential difference exists between

group and individual administration of the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test.

TIMED VERSUS

UNTIMED ADMINISTRATION

Because there is no statistical basis for assuming a fundamental difference between test

results obtained under group as opposed to individual testing conditions, it was possible to conduct the main research with groups rather than

on an individual basis at a very substantial savings in cost. A project was pIanned to examine

the comparability of results obtained under timed

and untimed conditions using group administrations .C

Mefhod

To assess the effect of timed presentation

of the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test, a total

of 1,775 adolescents were examined (table 3).

This group of students was drawn from 11 communities, 10 of these located throughout Pennsylvania and one in Ohio. The communities and their

respective school systems were selected with a

view toward covering all segments of the population—large and small towns, rural areas, and

cThe field work for this portion of the research was carried out by Mrs. Barbara Buchanan.
Table 3. Distribution of 1,775 test subjects, by school, grade,l and sex

School

Bellefonte Area School District ----------------

Bristol Borough School Di,strict ----------------

Dalton, Ohio, School District ------------------

Harrisburg City School District ----------------

Hollidaysburg Area School District -------------

Huntington Area School District ----------------

Lemoyne Area School District -------------------

Marple-Newtown Area Schools --------------------

Mt. Lebanon School District --------------------

Penns Hills Area School District ---------------

Tyrone Area School District --------------------

7th grade 9th grade llth grade

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

26 26

22 29

23

;; 29

21 36

Number

131 12 38

12

16

17

19

H

21

:2

20

lThere were 677 students in the 7th grade,580 in the 9th grade, and 528 in the llth

grade.

large cities and their suburbs. Table 4 describes

the communities.

In each school system, two classes ofstudents at three grade levels—seven, nine, and

n-were tested. The three grades chosen were

composed predominately of students at ages 12,

14, and 16. One class at each grade level was

given the timed test; the other, the untimed test.

The students tested under thetimed condition

were given the exact instructions used by the

psychologists of the National Center for Health

Statistics in Cycle III. Standard introductory instructions included the statement: “You will have

five minutes to draw a person (or self).” (See

appendix I for complete statement.) After 3

minutes the researcher said, “You have about

two minutes.” At5 minutes the researcher said,

“Are you almost finished?’’ The 5-minute statementwas only given in the Cycle III Survey if the

subject was not quite finished with his drawing.

In the present study the 5-minute statement was

given to all timed groupa because all classes

tested had subjects who were nearly finished. ln

CycleIII,when the 5-minute statement was given,

amaximumof2 extra minuteswas allowed. Thus,

the maximum time allowed to the individuals

tested in Cycle 111 and the groups tested in the

present research was 7 minutes. It is relevant

to note that the majority of students in each

timed class were able to finish their drawings

in the allotted 5-minute period.

In the untimed groups the instructions were

given without the statement of time limitation.

The researcher stated in addition to the standard

Cycle III instructions, ‘Whenyouh avecornpleted

your drawing of a person, please turn the page

and read the directions at the top. If there are

any questions about the second drawing, you may

ask me.” This procedure is recommended by

Harris in his directions for older children (see

reference two, page 241). The researcher also

announced to the class at the appropriate time,

“The period is half over.” The statement about

the class period was made fortworeasons. First,

most groups were tested during a school period

of 40 to 45 minutes. Where class periods were

shorter,, additional time was requested of the

school administration so that all untimed groups

had 40 to 45 minutes for two drawings. Second,

in pilot work it was found that many adolescents

would finish their first drawing and then return

to it with aflurry oferasingandredrawing rather

than going on to the second drawing. By stating

that half the period was over, almost all of the

students would turn over the test form and begin

the drawing of the self. As each student completed the two drawings the researcher moved

about the room collecting papers. Those who

4
finishedearlywere requestedto turnto their

own assignedwork.

Under boththetimedanduntimedconditions

the researchermoved abouttheperipheryofthe

room and throughalternaterows of desks.Her

manner was interestedbutnot evaluative,and

she made an attemptto be neutralas specified

in the Cycle IIIinstructionsand yet to be a

motivatingstimulusas suggestedby Harris in

his directionsforolderchildren(seereference

two,page241).

In oldergroups,abovefifthor sixthgrade,

itmay be necessarytoofferstrongencouragement tosome children,who willsaythey

can’tdo thetask.

. . .

Inthiscase,itiswelltohavetwo examiners

who can walk aboutthe room speakingto

individualswho seem reluctanto attempt

thetask.

Beforegivingtheinstructions theresearcher

asked thesubjectstospecifythefollowinginformation:Name (notused aftercorrectbirthdate

and occupationof fatherwere established), sex,

grade, date of test,dateofbirth,father’sOCCUTable 4. Description of communitieswhere testing was done

Community

Bellefonte, Pa.

Bristol, Pa.

Dalton, Ohio

Harrisburg, Pa.

Hollidaysburg,

Pa.

Huntingdon, Pa.

Lemoyne, Pa.

Camp Hill, Pa.

New Cumberland, Pa.

Marple, Pa.

Newtown, Pa.

Mt. Lebanon, Pa,

Penns Hills, Pa,

Tyrone, Pa.

Classification

Smal1

town

Suburban

Village

City

Suburban

Smal1

town

Suburban

Suburban

Suburban

Suburban

Suburban

Suburban

Suburban

Small

town

Location

Mountainous regior

of Central

Pennsylvania

North of Philadel.

phia

Rich, northern

Ohio farmlands

(Wayne Co.)

East central

Pennsylvania

West of Altoona

Mountainous regioI

of central Pennsylvania

East of Harrisbur[

East of Harrisbur[

East of Harrisburg

Southwest of

Philadelphia

Southwest of

Pittsburgh

East of Pittsburgh

Central

Pennsylvania

Brief description

An old, small community with some heavy

and light industry, as well as farming.

Employment is heavily operative.

Heavy industrial area with high percentage of ethnic groups. Employment

is mostly craftsmen, operatives, sales,

and service.

An old, small village in an agricultural area. Other occupations,primarily crafts, commute to nearby industrial..ci.ties.

The State capital with a broad spectrum of occupations at all levels. The

school; samp~ed represented largely the

operative and labor groups.

A neat, flourishingconmnmity with a

high representationof skilled and operative workers.

An old, somewhat depressed community

represented primarily by working

classes-sales, personal services, operatives, and labor.

Three communities served by Lemoyne

Area School District encompass a cross

section of occupations. Employment is

largely managerial, clerical,and sales.

Two communities served by Marple-Newtown School District. They are primarily,well-to-dosuburbs with great

representationof professional,managerial, and clerical occupations.

An old and wealthy suburb with a high

representationof professional people.

Developing community with a high proportion of sales and skilled crafts

personnel.

Primarily a mill town. With the major

occupations centered around a paper

mill, most workers are operatives.

5
pation, and school. With regard to the father’s

occupation it was necessary for the researcher

to give examples of occupations and to say specifically, “not where he works, but what he does. ”

Then the instructions were given, and routinely

the students asked the following questions: Should

it be front or profile? Should it be a man or

woman? Does it have to be someone real? Do I

have to draw what I ‘m wearing today? In response

to such questions the researcher made a neutral

response as specified in Cycle III directions such

as “Use your own judgment” or “Make it anyway

you wish.” The only restriction was on the use of

photographs for copying the self. In this case the

researcher would suggest, “No one should be

copying himself from a picture. ”

Other interactions between researcher and

students followed those specified by Harris in

the above quote. Some adolescents said they

simply could not draw. In that case the researcher

would simply ask them to do their best to try,

adding that the test was not one of drawing skill

as they would find out in an explanation to be

given after the test. Only two of the 1,775 students tested absolutely refused to take part when

the test was introduced to the class. They were

permitted to work quietly in the rear of the classroom.

Routinely the 16-year-olds were most interested in what the test was for and why it was being

given. There was less interest among the 14-

year-olds and less still among the 12- year -olds.

In response to any inquiries about the purpose of

the test, the researcher assured the students

that all their questions would be answered when

they were finished. As mentioned above, the

promise of a discussion session was used as

motivational material for the more reluctant

students. After administration, a short and humorous presentation about the testing was given

to each class, and an opportunity for questioning

was provided. The students generally showed a

keen interest in the entire testing process.

From the group of subjects tested according

to the foregoing procedures, 200 students were

chosen at each of three age levels, 12, 14, and 16

years, so controlled that the mean for each age

sample fell close to the half-year interval (i.e.,

12 years, 6 months; 14 years, 6 months; 16

years, 6 months). At each grade level 100 students had taken the test under the timed condition;

the other 100 students, under the untimed condition. In each group of 100, half of the subjects

were male and the other half, female; the racial

distribution was 90 percent white and 10 percent

nonwhite, to correspond with proportions reported

in the 1960 U.S. Census report for the Nation.

Each age sample of 100 students was also carefully controlled by father’s occupation, to represent the national distribution of occupations as

reported in the 1960 census.

The rationale for the procedure of proportional selection from the several occupational

strata is that socioeconomic status is a major

variable, influencing ability test results more

than geography. Such a quota sample would be

more comparable to a truly random national

sample than would a sample of convenience.

The argument that a man’s occupation is a

reasonable index for social stratification has been

covered in many sociological works. For example, Slocum4 says:

In contemporary America, the type of work

a man does, together with the reputation he

establishes at work, must be regarded among

the principal determinants of social rank.

Warner5 found correlation of 0.88 between occupation and judged social class. It is, of course,

generally recognized in psychological and sociological research that ability test data are substantially correlated with social status, and this

fact is generally taken into account in development of norms for tests. The norms of the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test were established

according to a stratified occupational level sampling procedure.

In the 1960 U.S. Census report on occupation

by industry,6 all occupations are divided into nine

categories. These categories, developed by Alba

Edwards, represent the entire work force in the

United S~ates. (For a more complete discussion

of Edwards’ work see references four and five.)

The categories provide a basis for grouping

occupations and setting up representative sam -

pling, although they do not necessarily constitute

a rank order of occupations by skill or ability.

In the present study, Negro children were

distributed throughout the samples according to

proportions reported in the 1960 Census. The

samples thus drawn are reported in detail in

tables 5 and 6. In these tables, the “ideal pro6
Table 5. Di_strihItionl of sample taking drawing test under timed conditions, by age, sex, and

occupation of father

12 years 14 years 16 years

Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls

Occupation

of father

Ideal

proportion

100.0(8.0)

Number in sample

Total---- 98(7) 49(4) 49(3) 100(10) $7(5) 53(5)

—

6(1)

3

5

8(1)

10

:{;;

2

Y!== 52(8)

—

;

5

7(1)

10(1)

10(1)

3(1)

6(2)

4(2)

10 5

3

1: 5

14 (1) 7

20 (1) 10

2: [:] 1:(1)

10 (3) 4(1)

Professional ---

Farm -----------

Managerial -----

Clerk, salea---

Craftsmen,

foremen-------

Operatives -----

Service --------

Labor ----------

Unemployed, or

not reported--

10.0(0.5)

4.5(0.5)

10.0 (-)

13.0(0.5)

19.0(1.0)

18.0(2.0)

5.0(1.0)

7.0(2.5)

3.5 (-j

1* (1)

10

14 (1)

20 (1)

20 (2)

6 (1)

10 (3)

5 (1)

10

1:(1)

14(1)

20(1)

20 (2)

6(1)

8(1)

4

5

2

6(1)

7(1)

10

1;(1)

5(1)

2

5

2

5

6

10(1)

1~(2)

4(1)

2(1) 6 (2)/1 2

lFigures in parentheses represent the number of Neszro children contained in totals for both

the id;al proportion and reali>ed samples.

Table 6. Distribution of sample taking drawing test under untimed conditions, by age, sex, and

occupation of father

12 years 14 years

Total Boys Girls Total

I

Boys Girls

16 years

=

Occupation

of father

Ideal

proportion

Number in sample

Total---- 100.0[8.0) 100(10) 51(5)

6(1)

2

5

7

!?(2)

4(1)

4(1)

2

49(5)

;

5

7(L)

9

z

6(2)

4(2)

101(10)

1; (1)

10

14 (1)

20 (1)

20 (2)

7 (2)

10 (3)

4

49(2)

_

:

5

8(1)

9

9

3

5(1)

2

52(8)

—

;(1)

5

6

11(1)

11(2)

4(2)

5(2)

2

98(7)

10

1:

14(1)

20(1)

20(2)

6(1)

9(2)

4

50(4)

—

:

5

7(1)

11(1)

10(1)

3(1)

4

2

48(3)

—

5

:

7

1;(1)

5(2)

2

Professional---

Farm -----------

Managerial -----

Clerk, sales---

Craftsmen,

foremen-------

Operatives -----

Service--------

Labor ----------

Unemployed, or

not reported--

[

1;.: :.;]

10:0 i-)

13.0(0.5)

19.0(1.0)

18.0(2.0)

5.0(1.0)

7.0(2.5)

3.5 (-)

1: (1)

10

14 (1)

R (2)

6 (1)

10 (3)

6 (2)

lFir+mresin Darentheaes remesent the number of Negro children contained in totals for both

the id;al propor~ion and reali~ed samples.
portion” is that reported in the Census. The

proportion actually achieved for this study

matches the expected or target figure quite

closely; proportions requiring fractions of a person, arbitrarily distributed between boys and

girls and between Negro and white students under

the limitations of the available subjects may

readily be noted in these tables.

Tables 7, 8, and 9 show how the communities

from which the subjects were drawn contribute

to the occupational strata of the sample. Note

that the actual sample selection is generally in

keeping with the community description from

table 4. An exception is notable in the community

of Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, where a relatively

small, working class community houses Juniata

College, a fact which causes a number of professional occupations to appear in this predominantly blue-collar community.

The drawing protocols of all students in the

sample were scored independently by two welltrained scorers and differences reconciled

through conference, and the data were subjected

to appropriate analysis to assess the effects of

timed versus untimed administration.

Results

The mean raw scores were calculated for

tests done under both conditions, timed and untimed, for the three age groups. Tables 10 and

11 report relevant statistics. Note that for the

drawing of a person, the mean of untimed scores

is higher than the mean of timed scores for each

age group. However, by comparison, in the drawing of the self the mean of the untimed score is

higher only for 14- and 16- year-old students.

Twelve-year-old students yield essentially the

same scores on the drawing of the self regardless of condition.

A t for independent samples was calculated

for each age group for the mean scores on drawings of a person and the self to test the difference between the timed and untimed conditions.

Note in table 10 that for the drawing of the person the untimed score was significantly higher

in two cases, i.e., for 14- and 16-year-olds

(t = 3.38 and 3.42, respectively). Because t.05

for 200 degrees of freedom is 1.96, the null

hypothesis was rejected for ages 14 and 16, but

retained for age 12 (t = 1.51). In testing treatment

differences with the self drawing (table 11) it

was found that although the mean of untimed

scores was higher for 14- and 16-year-olds, it

was not significantly higher than the mean of

timed scores (t= 0.90 and 1.72, respectively). No

significant difference at the .05 level was found

for 12-year-olds (t= 0.08).

Up to this point, only the data obtained in

this study have been considered. It is possible,

and desirable, to compare these results with the

published norms of the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. These comparisons, however, require

certain explanations and justification.

The Goodenough-Harris method of evaluating

drawings of a man, a woman, and the self was

developed to provide a reliable and valid estimate of intellectual level up to and including the

early years of adolescence. The test serves this

function reasonably well, and it is this function

only which is considered in the present report.

However, the Health Examination Survey’s instructions requested the drawing of a person,

and while most subjects elected to draw a person,

of his or her own sex, a small group in each sex

drew human figures of opposite sex.d These two

small subgroups, i.e., boys drawing a woman

and girls drawing a man, necessitate two additional comparisons for each age group with the

appropriate Goodenough-Harris norms. Both of

these subgroups will have less stable mean scores

and standard deviations than the much larger

groups of students drawing figures of the same

sex.

‘Clinical psychologists utilize this fact (that some subjects draw opposite-sex figures), in individual cases, to draw

certain psychodynamic inferences concerning the personality

of the youthful artist. There is, according to Harris,2 however, no evidence that any systematic relationship exists be.

tween personality characteristics of subjects and their intellectual ability as estimated from the came drawings.
Table 7. Distribution of sample for age 12, by occupation of father and community

Occupation of father

Crafts- UnemMana- Clerk, Oper- Servmen, Labor ployed,

gerial sales foremen atives ice or not

reported

Community Pro -

fes- Farm

sional

Number

1

9

3

1

5

5

4

1:

Bellefonte, PaBristol, Pa----

Dalton, Ohio---

Harrisburg, PaHollidaysburg,

Pa------------

Huntingdon, PaLemoyne, Pa----

Marple-Newtown,

Pa------------

Mt. Lebanon,PaPenns Hills,PaTyrone, Pa-----

2

1

:

4

1

1

1

2

i

1

1

4

10

4

Table 8. Distribution of sample for age 14, by occupation of father and community

Occupation of father

Craftsmen,

foremen

Number

Community

Bellefonte, PaBristol, Pa----

Dalton, Ohio---

Harrisburg, PaHollidaysburg,

Pa------------

Huntingdon, PaLemoyne, Pa----

Marple-Newtown,

Pa------------

Mt. Lebanon,PaPenns Hills, PaTyrone, Pa-----

1

i

7

3

7

1

5

1

1

;

4

4

6

2

1

El

2
Table 9. Distribution of sample for age 16, by occupation of father and community

Occupation of father

Community ProFarm =i;l :;~:~ c:::s- :::;s %:-

Unemfes- Labor ployed,

sional foremen or not

:reported

Bellefonte, PaBristol, Pa----

Dalton, Ohio---

Harrisburg, PaHollidaysburg,

Pa------------

Huntingdon, PaLemoyne, Pa----

Marple-Newtown,

Pa------------

Mt. Lebanon,PaPenns Hills,PaTyrone, Pa-----

2

3

9

1

Table 10. Comparison of timed and untimed

results of the drawing of a “person”

Age

and test

condition

12 years

Timed ------

Untimed----

14 years

Timed ------

Untimed----

16 years

Timed ------

Untimed----

lp < .05

N .7

98 41.4

100 43.2

100 41.8

101 45.5

101 43.1

98 47.6

Standard

error of

mean

0.87

0.80

0.81

0.74

0.98

0.89

2

2

:

:

2

3

3

7

2

t

\

1.51

,

}

13,38

}

‘3,42

NOTE : N= number of subjects; ~= mean

Number

4

6

i

:

7

2

1:

:

4

3

2

3

7

L

:

4

To compare the results of person and self

drawings obtained under timed anduntimed conditions with the Goodenough-Harris norms for

adolescents, the mean raw score and standard

deviation were calculated for each type ofdrawing (person, either man or woman, and self) for

each sex and age. Tables 12 and 13 present these

comparisons.

Norms for the Goodenough-Harris test are

available only through age 15. Therefore, for the

sake of comparison the available norms for 15-

year-olds have been compared with the results

for 16-year-olds which were obtained in the

present study. This practice seems justifiedas

the test shows increasingly smaller mean age

increments in the early adolescent years, and by

age 15, increases from year to year are quite

small.

Because the group tested under theuntimed

conditionreceivedinstructionsanalogoustothose

of the Goodenough-Harris test (with the primary

raw score. exception that the sex of the drawing was not

10
Table 11. Comparison of timed and untimed

results of the drawing of the “self”

specified),it was expectedthatscores would

equal or nearly equal the norms. Indeed,the

resultsof thisstudy compare very favorably

withnationalnorms reported(tables12 and 13).

In only threeof 18 possiblecomparisonsdoes

the discrepancyof mean scores exceedthree

score points,which is the standarderror of

measurement forthetestattheagesconcerned

in thisstudy.That themeans ofsubjectstested

in one geographicregioncompare so favorably

withnationalnorms may be takenas justification

forthe attentiongivento constructingthequota

sample, inordertoassurethisresult.

The data from thegroup testedunder the

timed conditionsinthisstudyprovide,as should

be expected,mean scoreslessin keepingwith

publishednorms. In nineof 18 comparisonsin

tables12 and 13 the discrepancyexceedsthree

points,the standarderror of measurement for

thetest,and in each instancethemean valueof

Age

and test

condition

Standard

error of

❑ ean

0.87

0.90

0.80

0.82

0.93

1.21

N t

12 years

Timed------

Untimed----

14 years

Timed------

Untimed----

16 years

Timed------

Untimed----

}

0>08

}

0.90

t

1.72

40.7

40.6

100

101

42.1

43.2

101

98

41.9

44.5

NOTE: N= number of subjects; ~= mean

raw score.

Table 12. Comparison of timed and untimed results with the Goodenough-Harris -------- ALU. IUD

for boys

Age and drawing

Norms’ Untimed Timed

s.D. S. D.

7.87

7.41

10.21

7.42

9.54

8.58

8.98

9.32

14.01

—

N

—

42

4;

44

4;

43

6

49

—

S.D.

7.69

6.19

7.92

8.86

8.26

8.51

8.35

13.57

9.06

t

1.31

1.65

1.14

22.54

1.01

1.39

1.11

1.20

0.43

x

41.0

46.2

39.4

45.4

44.0

42.6

47.0

43.5

42.9

z

38.8

39.0

37.4

41.0

36.7

40.2

44.8

36.0

41.9

12 years

Man-----------------------------

Woman---------------------------

Self----------------------------

40.3

39.8

40.3

44.7

44.1

44.7

45.1

44.4

45.1

11.01

9.61

11.01

10.51

9.41

10.51

10.60

9.31

10.60

14 years

Man-----------------------------

Woman---------------------------

Self----------------------------

16 vears

Man-----------------------------

Woman---------------------------

Self----------------------------

lNorms are from Harris (1963), tables 11 and 13.

2P< .05

NOTE: .%=mean raw score;S.D.= standard deviation; N= number of subjects.

11
Table 13. Comparison of timed and untimed results with the Goodenough-Harris norms

Age and drawing

12 years

Man------------------------------

Woman----------------------------

Self -----------------------------

14 years

Man------------------------------

Woman ----------------------------

Self -----------------------------

16 years

Man------------------------------

Woman ----------------------------

Self -----------------------------

for girls

Normal

43.0

45.8

45.8

45.1

48.2

48.2

45.2

48.2

48.2

S. D.

10.32

9.58

9.58

9.57

8.97

8.97

9.01

8.48

8.48

Untimed

N

4;

49

13

39

52

15

::

40.9

46.0

41.7

43.9

46.3

43.7

48.3

49.4

46.1

S.D.

7.08

7.72

7.52

9.23

6.94

8.00

7.83

8.72

9.39

Timed

.%

40.1

44.7

44,0

42.5

42.8

43,9

40.3

43.2

41.8

S.D.

5.08

9.41

8.37

7.72

7.55

7,67

11.35

9.89

9.67

t

0.23

0.68

-1.40

0.38

22.21

0,10

22.13

22.81

22.25

lNorms are from Harris (1963), tables 11 and 13.

2p<.05

NOTE: ~= mean raw score; S.D, = standard deviation; N= number of subjects.

the sample is below the norm with which it is

appropriately compared. Thus the conclusionthat

the test, when given under conditions of sharply

limited time, requires restandardization for

proper interpretation, is emphasized.

One final observation maybe made. The investigator, as the primary agent in the 1963

restandardization of the Goodenough Draw-a-Man

Test, can only regard with satisfactionthe generally favorable comparison of the results of this

study with those ofhis original work. While conditions of restricted time (a condition often experienced in clinical work and research) may

attenuate the results of this test, they apparently

do not constrict them sufficiently to invalidate

the technique. The mean scores are still high; in

only two of 18 comparisons are thediscrepancies

larger than six points, twice the standard error

of measurement. Hence, the use of the test under

conditions of reduced time is clearly feasible,

and the establishment of new norms, a distinct

possibility. This restandardization for the adolescent years could, of course, be based on data

12

collected in Cycle III of the Health Examination

Survey. Such new norms could alsobe confirmed

statistically, through regression equations, bya

study applying the test under the two conditions

to the same group, appropriately stratified and

tested in counterbalanced order.

SUMMARY

A group of102 students were tested with the

Goodenough-Harris test in a counterbalanced design to assess the effects of group andindividual

presentation of the test. The,effect of the treatment was not significant at the .05 level, t for

group I (individual-group) was 1.79 and t for

group II (group-individual) was0.86.1n addition,

there was no interaction effect betweentreatment

and order of presentation (t-o~ = 0.41).

Since there was no difference in methodof

presentation, samples of high-school studentsat

ages 12, 14, and 16 were tested in classroom

groups. Two hundred students were selected in

each age group, half testedundertimedconditions
and half under untimed conditions. A significant difference was obtained for the person drawn by

difference at the .05 level was found for the draw- 12-year-olds or for the drawing of the self at

ing of a person by 14- and 16- year -olds (t = 3.38 any age. A comparison of these data with published

and 3.42, respectively), with the untimed tests norms is reported. Observations and results are

yielding higher mean scores. No significant discussed.

REFERENCES

lNati~na] Center fOr Health Statistics: Plan, Operationl

and response results ofa program of children’s examinations.

Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series l-No.

5. Public Health Service. \\’ashington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Oct. 1967.

2Hamis, D. B.: C’hild?en ’s Drau,ings as hfea,eutes Of Inte 1-

Zectud Maturity. New York. Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc.,

1963.

3Scott, W. A., and Wertheimer, M.: introduction to PsychoIogicaZ Research. New York. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.

pp. 258-262.

4Slocum, W. L.: Occupational Careers. Chicago. Aldine

Publishing Co., 1966. pp. 76-87.

5\\’arner, W. L.: SociaZ Class in America. Chicago. Science

Research Associates, 1949. pp. 131-159.

6U.S. Bureau of the Censu-f.

. . u.S. Census of PopuZafionl

1960, Occupation by industry, United States Summary. Subject Report PC(2)-7C. Washington. U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1961.

—ooo —

13
APPENDIX I

TEST INSTRUCTIONS

1. Oviginal Goodenough-Hawis Test Instructions

(Based on doing three pictures–the man, the

woman, and the self)

I want you to make a picture of (a man, a woman,

yourself). Make the very best picture that you can;

take your time and work very carefully. Be sure to

make the whole (man, woman, self), not just the

head and shoulders.

II. Cycle III Goodenough-Havvis Test Instmctions

(Based on doing two pictures–the person and the

self)

I want you to draw a picture of (a person, yourself).

Make the very best picture you can. Be sure to

make the whole (person, self), not just the head and

shoulders. You will have five minutes to draw (a

person, yourself). Work very carefully.

14
APPENDIX Il. TEST FORMS

Em cyclem

Draw a picfure of ❑ person. Make the very best piciure YOU can.

Be sure to make the whole person, not iust the head and shoulders.

1— 41_

2_ 42_

3— 43_

4_ 44_

5_ 45_

MF

Name MF Scorer

6.— 46—

7_ 47_

8.— 48_

9.— 49_

1o_ So._

ll_ 51_

12_ 52_

13_ 53_

14— 54_

15_ 55_

16_ 56_

17— 57—

1S_ 58_

T9— 59—

20_ 60.—

21_ 61_

22— 62_

23_ 63_

24_ 64_

25_ 65_

26_ 66_

27— 67_

28_ 68_

29_ 69—

30_ 70—

31_ 71 —

32_ 72_

33— 73_

34_

35_

R.S.

36_ Scoring Problems

37— ❑ Yes ❑ No

38_ If Yes, list:

39_ _——

40_ ———

Jample No. —

Examiner Test Quality ❑ Valid ❑ Invalid Cl Not Administered

Copuright @ 196.7 bu Ha%%twt, Bvuoe & Wmld, Inc., New York. AU rigizt~ remrued. Printed in U.S.A.

1
Draw a picture of yourself. Make the very best picture you can.

Be sure to make your whole self, not iust your head and shoulders.

MF

Name MF Scorer

1.— 41_

2.— 42.—

3.— 43._

4.— 44.—

5.— 45.—

6.— 46_

7.& 47_

8.— 48_

9— 49.—

1CJ.— 50._

ll.— 51._

12.— 52._

13_ 53._

14_ 54_

15.— 55._

16.— 56,_

17.— 57._

18._ 58._

19._ 59._

20._ 60._

21_ 61_

22._ 62._

23._ 63._

24.— 64._

25._ 65._

26._ 66_

27._ 67._

28._ 6B_

29_ 69_

30_ 70_

31._ 71___

32._

33._

34._

35_

R.S.

36._ Scoring Problems

37_ ❑ Yes ❑ No

38._ If Yes, I.isk

39_ _— _

40_ ———

–Sample No. _

Examiner lest Quality ❑ Valid ❑ Invalid ❑ Not Administered

2

00’3

16
OUTLINE OF REPORT SERIES FOR VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000

Series 1.

Series 2.

Series 3,

Sevies 4.

Series 10,

Series 11.

SeTies 12.

Sevies 13.

Series 14.

SeVies 20.

Series 21.

Series 22.

Progvams and collection proceduYes.— Reports which describe the general programs of the National

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions,

and other material necessary for understanding the data.

Data evaluation and methods ~esearch. —Studies of new statistical methodology including: experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical

techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, contributions to statistical theory.

Analytical studies. — Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and health

statistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series.

Documents and committee ~epo~ts. — Final reports of major committees concerned with vital and

health statistics, and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws and revised birth

and death certificates.

Data from the Health InteYuiew Survey. —Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use of

hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, based on data collected

in a continuing national household interview survey.

Data from the Health Examination Suvvey. —Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of the 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 resjpect to physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics; and (2)

analysis of relationships among the various measurements without reference to an explicit finite

universe of persons.

Data from the Institutional Population .%yveys. —Statistics relating to the health characteristics of

persons in institutions, and on medical, nursing, and personal care received, based on national

samples of establishments providing these services and samples of the residents or patients.

Data f~om the Hospital Discharge Survey. —Statistics relating to discharged patients in short-stay

hospitals, based on a sample of patient records in a national sample of hospitals.

Data on health resources: manpower and facilities. — Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution, and characteristics of health resources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other health

manpower occupations, hospitals, nursirm homes, and outpatient and other inpatient facilities.

Data on mortality. —Various statistics on mortality other than as included in annual or monthly

reports —special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables, also geographic

and time series analyses.

Data on natality, mavriage, and divo~ce. —Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other

than as included in annual or monthly reports— special analyses by demographic variables, also

geographic and time series analyses, studies of fertility.

Data fvom the National Natality and Mortality .%vve>,s. —Statistics on characteristics of births and

deaths not available from the vital records, based on sample surveys stemming from these records,

including such topics as mortality by socioeconomic class, medical experience in the last year of

life, characteristics of pregnancy, etc.

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: Office of Information

National Center for Health Statistics

U.S. Public Health Service

Washington, D.C. 20201