A Comparison of Three Methods for Scoring Figure Drawings

Abstract

Figure drawings obtained from 758 white male medical students were scored using three different methods. Method I involved 16 different physical size measurements; Method II involved six separate sophistication of body concept ratings; and Method III involved 42 separate aspects of the drawings weighted in direct proportion to their relative frequency of occurrence in the sample studied (conventionality scoring). Separate factor analyses of the scores derived from each method revealed that Methods I and II each reflect only a single underlying factor, and that these factors are uncorrelated in the population studied. Method III yielded eight meaningful factors, each of which may be construed as an independent area of conventionality/deviancy. An overall conventionality/deviancy score was also derived. It is believed that these three methods of scoring capture most of the variance inherent in existing figure drawing scoring systems, but that use of all three is necessary for a comprehensive analysis.