The role of inhibitory control in the development of human figure drawing in young children.

We investigated the role of inhibitory control in young children's human figure drawing. We used the Bear-Dragon task as a measure of inhibitory control and used the classification system devised by Cox and Parkin to measure the development of human figure drawing. We tested 50 children aged between 40 and 64 months. Regression analysis showed that inhibitory control predicted development in human figure drawing even after the effect of age was excluded. These data suggest that inhibitory control plays a role in the development of children's drawing and imply a relation between the executive functions and representational change.

Expressive drawing ability in children with autism.

The autistic impairments in emotional and social competence, imagination and generating ideas predict qualitative differences in expressive drawings by children with autism beyond that accounted by any general learning difficulties. In a sample of 60 5-19-year-olds, happy and sad drawings were requested from 15 participants with non-savant autism and compared with those drawn by three control groups matched on either degree of learning difficulty (MLD), mental age (MA) or chronological age (CA). All drawings were rated by two artists on a 7-point quality of expression scale. Contrary to our predictions, the drawings from the autistic group were rated similar to those of the MA and MLD groups. Analysis of the people and social content of the drawings revealed that although children with autism did not draw fewer people, they did draw more immature forms than mental age controls. Furthermore, there was tentative evidence that fewer social scenes were produced by the autism sample. We conclude that the overall merit of expressive drawing in autism is commensurate with their general learning difficulties, but the social/emotional impairment in autism affects their drawings of people and social scenes.

The use of drawing for psychological assessment in Britain: survey findings.

The current study reports previously unpublished data on drawing as an assessment tool obtained from a survey of broader assessment practices of British clinical psychologists (Bekhit, Thomas, Lalonde, & Jolley, 2002). A questionnaire was completed by 158 clinical psychologists practising in Britain concerning their use of, and views about psychological assessment and the use of drawings in such assessment. The results were compared with those of a similar survey conducted in the United States by Lubin, Larsen, Matarazzo, and Seever (1985) and Watkins, Campbell, Nieberding, and Hallmark (1995). Drawing tests are used extensively by North American clinical psychologists despite controversy over their reliability and validity. In contrast, the current survey's results indicate that British clinical psychologists hardly ever use formal drawing tests, but approximately half of them reported using drawings as an informal assessment aid. The frequent but informal use of drawing as an aid to assessment by British psychologists is consistent with their overwhelming preference for clinical interviewing as opposed to formal testing in the psychological evaluation of their clients. The more widespread use of drawing tests by American clinicians is consistent with their greater willingness than their British counterparts to include projective testing in their assessments.

Rigidity in children's drawings and its relation with representational change.

Four studies tested the application of to the drawing domain. In particular, we tested her claim that young children are inhibited in their attempts at changing their graphic representations (representational change) due to being constrained by the order in which the elements of the representation are drawn (procedural rigidity). The first study required 60 children (4- to 6-year-olds and an older comparison group of 8-year-olds) to make three drawings of a familiar and novel topic. From these drawings each child was measured for procedural rigidity. In a further drawing the child was asked to modify their usual representation of each topic. Regression analyses revealed procedural rigidity levels were not predictive of manipulation performance. A second study, testing 75 4- to 6-year-olds and a third study, testing 30 3- to 4-year-olds, revealed that when young children were specifically asked to manipulate rigid sub-procedures on a familiar topic they were indeed able to do so. Finally, a fourth study (testing 40 5-year-olds and 40 8-year-olds) removed the notational trace in drawing (a possible aid for procedural interruption) but this still produced no evidence of a relation between procedural rigidity and representational change. We suggest how the concept of procedural rigidity might be re-interpreted for the drawing domain so that the RR model can remain as a domain-general theory of cognitive development. We also suggest the development of information processing may be crucial for flexibility in drawing.