Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme

FATMA MELİKE SAYIL (Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Psikoloji Bölümü, Ankara, Türkiye)
Türk Psikoloji Yazıları
38 15
Yıl: 2004 Cilt: 7 Sayı: 14 Sayfa Aralığı: 1 - 13 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme

Öz:
Çocuk çizimleri, kişiliğin ve duygusal bozuklukların değerlendirilmesinde uzun yıllardan bu yana ve yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Çizimlerin, değerlendirme sürecindeki yararına ilişkin öznel izlenimler uygulayıcılar tarafından paylaşılmakla birlikte bu klinik yöntemin, ölçmenin geçerliği ve güvenirliği açısından eksiklikleri bulunmaktadır. Bu eksikliklerin kaynağı büyük ölçüde bir grafik araç olarak çizimin kendisinden ve bunun gelişimsel bir süreç olmasından kaynaklanmaktadır. Diğer projektif tekniklerde olduğu gibi çocuk resimlerinin değerlendirilmesinde de psikodinamik kuramdan yararlanılmakta; ancak genellikle çizime ve çizim gelişimine ait özelliklerin etkisi bu değerlendirme sürecinde göz ardı edilmektedir. Bu nedenle yazıda klinik değerlendirme sürecinde çocuk çizimlerinin daha sağlıklı olarak kullanılabilmesine katkıda bulunmak amacıyla, gelişimsel ve klinik bulgular ile mevcut görüşler çerçevesinde bir değerlendirmeye gidilmiştir. Yazının amacı çocuk çizimlerinin klinik amaçla değerlendirilmesindeki bazı tehlikelere dikkat çekmektir. Değinilen tehlikeler, çizimlerin yorumunda kullanılan kuramsal çerçeve, çizimdeki klinik özelliklerin ayrıştırılması, değerlendiriciler arası güvenirlik, çizimin gelişimsel yönü ve çizim yeteneğindeki bireysel farklılıklardır. Sonuç olarak, çizimlerden sağlanan bilgi, klinik amaçlı değerlendirilmelerde kullanılırken mutlaka geçerli ve güvenilir diğer araçlardan elde edilen bilgiyle birlikte ele alınmalıdır.
Anahtar Kelime: klinik psikoloji psikolojik sorunlar çocuk gelişimi metodoloji diagnostik yöntemler psikolojik değerlendirme çocuk resimleri

Konular: Psikoloji

Clinical Use of Children's Drawings: An Evaluation

Öz:
Children's drawings have been used widely as a diagnostic tool in the assessment of personality, current emotional states and emotional disturbances. Many clinicians believe in the usefulness of the drawings in the clinical assessment process. However this technique has some problems of reliability and validity. These problems mainly come from the drawing itself as a graphic medium and the developmental characteristic of it. Psychodynamic theories have been used in the interpretation of drawings like any other projective technique. However the characteristics of the drawing process and its development have been generally ignored by the clinicians. Therefore the developmental and clinical findings from the controlled studies and current discussions were taken together in this paper. The purpose is to draw attention to the pitfalls in the projective assessment of children's drawings. Main pitfalls were summarized as theoretical framework used for interpretation of the drawings, identification of clinical indicators, interrater reliability, developmental aspect of drawing, and drawing ability differences among the children. From the views reviewed here it was concluded that information from the child's drawing should be used with other reliable and convergent data.
Anahtar Kelime: child development methodology diagnostic methods psychological evaluation children's drawings clinical psychology psychological problems

Konular: Psikoloji
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Derleme Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Anastasi, A. (1976). Psychological testing (4th edition). New York: Collier-Macmillan.
  • Bayraktar, R., & Sayıl, M. (1988). Çocukların resimlerine ilişkin kuramsal görüşler ve derinlik çizimi. Psikoloji Dergisi,6(22), 79-85.
  • Buck, J. N. (1966). The House-Tree-Person technique: Revised manual. Beverly Hills, CA:Western Psychological Services
  • Burns, R. C, & Kaufman, S. H. (1970). Kinetic family drawings , (K-F-D). New York: Brunner-Mazel.
  • Butler, S., Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (1995). The effect of drawing on memory performance in young children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 597-608.
  • Cansever, G. (1965). Psychological effects of circumcision. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 38, 321-331.
  • Carothers, T., & Gardner, H. (1979). When children's drawings become art: The emergence of aesthetic production and perception. Developmental Psychology, 15(5); 570-580.
  • Catte, M, & Cox, M. V. (1999). Emotional indicators in children's human figure drawings. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 8(2), 86-91.
  • Chantler, L., Pelco, L., & Mertin, P. (1993). The psychological evaluation of child sexual abuse using the Louisville Behavior Checklist and Human Figure Drawing. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 271-279.
  • Cox, M. V. (1997). Drawings of people by the under-5s. London:Falmer Press.
  • Cox, M. V. (1992). Children's drawings. London Penguin Books.
  • Cox, M. V., & Catte, M. (2000). Severely disturbed children's human figure drawings: Are they unusual or just poor drawings? European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 9,301-306.
  • Dunn, J., O'Connor, T. G., & Levy, I. (2002). Out of the picture: A study of family drawings by children from step-,single-parent, and non-step families. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31(4), 505-512
  • Feldman, M, & Hunt, R. G. (1958). A relation of difficulty in drawing and ratings of adjustment based on human figure drawings. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 22, 217-220.
  • Fox, T. J., & Thomas, G. V. (1990). Children's drawings of an anxiety-eliciting topic: effects on the size of the drawing. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29, 71-81.
  • Freeman, N. H. (1980). Strategies of representation in young children: An analysis of spatial skills and drawing processes. London: Academic Press.
  • Freeman, N. H. (1987). Current problems in the development of representational picture-production. Archives de Psychologie, 55, 127-152.
  • Garb, H. N., Wood, J. M, Lilienfeld, S. O., & Nezworski, M. T. (2002). Effective use of projective techniques in clinical practice let the data help with selection and interpretation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(5), 454-463.
  • Golomb, C. (1992). The child's creation of a pictorial world. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
  • Goodenough, F. L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. New York:Harcourt, Brace, & World.
  • Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of Symbols. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Com. Inc.
  • Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (1998). Drawing facilitates children's verbal reports of emotionally laden events. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 4(2), 163-179.
  • Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (1999). Drawing facilitates children's verbal reports after long delays. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 5(3), 265-283.
  • Handler, L., & Reyher, J. (1965). Figure drawing anxiety indices. Journal of Projective Techniques, 29, 305-313.
  • Hammer, E. F. (1958). The clinical application of projective drawings. Springfield, IL: C C Thomas.
  • Harris, D. B. (1963). Children's drawings as measures of intellectual maturity. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
  • Henderson, J. A., & Thomas, G. V. (1990). Looking ahead: Planing for the inclusion of detail affects relative sizes of head and trunk in children's human figure drawings. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 383-391.
  • Joiner, T. E., Schmidt, K. L., & Barnett, J. (1996). Size, detail, and line heaviness in children's drawings as correlates of emotional distress: (More) negative evidence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 127-141.
  • Jolley, R. P., & Vulic-Prtoric, A. (2001). Brief Report: Croatian children's experience of war is not reflected in the size and placement of emotive topics in their darwings. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 107-110.
  • Klonsky, E. D. (2002). Valid inferences from invalid tests? American Psychologist, 57(11), 990.
  • Koppitz, E. (1968). Psychological evaluation of children's Human Figure Drawings. London: Grune & Stratton.
  • Koppitz, E. (1984). Psychological evaluation of Human Figure Drawings by middle school pupils. London: Grune & Stratton.
  • Lee, C. M, & Hunsley, J. (2003). Evidence-based assessment of childhood Mood Disorders: Comment on McClure, Kubiszyn and Kaslow (2002). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(1), 112-113.
  • Lewis, V. (1990). Young children's painting of the sky and the ground. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 13(1), 49-65.
  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science and Public Interest, 1(2), 27-66
  • Lubin, B., Larsen, R. M., & Matarazzo, J. D. (1984). Patterns of psychological test usage patterns in the United States: 1935-1982. American Psychologist, 39, 451-454.
  • Lubin, B., Larsen, R. M., Matarazzo, J. D., & Seever, M. (1985). Psychological test usage patterns in five professional settings. American Psychologist, 40, 857-861.
  • Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawings of the human figure. Springfield IL: C C Thomas.
  • Matto, H. C. (2002). Investigating the validity of the Draw-A-Person screening procedure for emotional disturbance. Psychological Assessment, 14(2), 221-225.
  • Motta, R. W., Little, S. G., & Tobin, M. 1. (1993). The use and abuse of human figure drawings. School Psychology Quarterly, 8, 162-169.
  • Naglieri.J. A., McNeish, T. J. & Bardos, A. N. (1991). Draw A Person:Screening procedure for emotional disturbance. Austin, TX:PRO-ED.
  • Naglieri, J. A., & Pfeiffer, S. I. (1992). Performance of disruptive behavior disordered and normal samples on the Draw A Person: Screening procedure for emotional disturbance. Psychological Assessment, 4(2), 156-159.
  • Neale, E. L., Rosal, M., & Rosal, M. L. (1993). What can art therapists learn from the research on projective drawing techniques for children? A review of the literature The Arts in Psychotherapy, 20, 37-49.
  • Norford, C. B., & Barakat, L. P. (1990). The relationship of human figure drawings to aggressive behavior in preschool children. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 318-325.
  • Offman, H. J., & Bradley, S. J. (1992). Body image of children and adolescents and its measurement: An overview. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 37(6), 417-422.
  • Öztürk, M. (1962). Çocuk psikiyatrisinde analitik muayene metodu olarak resim yaptırma. Çocuk Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Dergisi, 5, 142-153.
  • Pinto, G., Bombi, A. S., & Cordioli, A. (1997). Similarity of friends in three countries: A study of children's drawings. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20(3), 453-469.
  • Rae, G., & Hyland, P. (2001). Generalisibility and classical test theory analyses of Koppitz's scoring system for human figure drawings. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 369-382.
  • Reithmiller, R. J., & Handler, L. (1997a). Problematic methods and unwarranted conclusions in DAP research: Suggestions for improved research procedures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69(39), 459-475.
  • Reithmiller, R. J., & Handler, L. (1997b). The great figure drawing controversy: The integration of research and clinical practice. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69(3), 488-496.
  • Roback, H. B. (1968). Human figure drawings: Their utility in the clinical psychologist's armamentarium for personality assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 1-19.
  • Swensen, C. H. (1968). Emprical evaluations of human figure drawings: 1957-1966. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 20-44.
  • Taylor, M., & Bacharach, V. R. (1982). Constraints on the visual accuracy of drawings produced by young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 34, 311-329.
  • Teichman, Y. (2001). The development of Israeli children's images of Jews and Arabs and their expression in human figure drawings. Developmental Psychology, 37(6), 749-761.
  • Thomas, G. V., Chaigne, E., & Fox, T. J. (1989). Children's drawings of topics differing in emotional significance: Effects on size of drawing. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 321-331.
  • Thomas, G. V., & Gray, R. (1992). Children's drawings of topics differing in emotional significance: Effects on placement relative to a self drawing. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 1097-1104.
  • Thomas, G. V., & Jolley, R. P. (1998). Drawing conclusions: A re-examination of empirical and conceptual bases for psychological evaluation of children from their drawings. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 127-139.
  • Thomas, G. V., & Silk, M. J. (1990). An introduction to the psychology of children's drawings. New York: New York Univ. Press.
  • Thomas, G. V., & Tsalimi, A. (1988). Effects of order of drawing head and trunk and their relative size in children's figure drawings. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, 191-203.
  • Veltman, M. W., & Browne, K. D. (2002). The assessment of drawings from children who have been maltreated: A systematic review. Child Abuse Review, 11, 19-37.
  • Veltman, M. W., & Browne, K. D. (2003). Trained raters' evaluation of kinetic family drawings of physically abused children. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 30, 3-12.
  • Waehler, C. A. (1997). Drawing bridges between science and practice. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69(3), 482-487.
  • Watkins, C. E. Campbell, V. L., Nieberding, R., & Hallmark, R. (1995). Contemporary practice of psychological assessment by clinical psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 54-60.
  • Weinstein, L. (1968). The mother child schema, anxiety, and academic achievement in elementary school boys. Child Development, 39, 257-264.
  • West, M. M. (1998). Meta-analysis of studies assessing the efficacy of projective techniques in discriminating child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(11), 1151-1166.
  • Willats, J. (1977). How children learn to draw realistic pictures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 367-382.
  • Winston, A. S., Kenyon, B., Stewardson, J., & Lepine, T. (1995). Children's sensitivity to expression of emotion in drawings. Visual Arts Research, 21, 1-15.
APA SAYIL F (2004). Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. , 1 - 13.
Chicago SAYIL FATMA MELİKE Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. (2004): 1 - 13.
MLA SAYIL FATMA MELİKE Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. , 2004, ss.1 - 13.
AMA SAYIL F Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. . 2004; 1 - 13.
Vancouver SAYIL F Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. . 2004; 1 - 13.
IEEE SAYIL F "Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme." , ss.1 - 13, 2004.
ISNAD SAYIL, FATMA MELİKE. "Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme". (2004), 1-13.
APA SAYIL F (2004). Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 7(14), 1 - 13.
Chicago SAYIL FATMA MELİKE Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları 7, no.14 (2004): 1 - 13.
MLA SAYIL FATMA MELİKE Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, vol.7, no.14, 2004, ss.1 - 13.
AMA SAYIL F Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları. 2004; 7(14): 1 - 13.
Vancouver SAYIL F Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları. 2004; 7(14): 1 - 13.
IEEE SAYIL F "Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme." Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 7, ss.1 - 13, 2004.
ISNAD SAYIL, FATMA MELİKE. "Çocuk Çizimlerinin Klinik Amaçlı Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme". Türk Psikoloji Yazıları 7/14 (2004), 1-13.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
22-04-2024 11:3

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları