The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 3–12

Trained raters’ evaluation of Kinetic Family

Drawings of physically abused children
Marijcke W.M. Veltman, Ph.D. a,∗ , Kevin D. Browne, Ph.D. b
a Developmental Psychiatry Section, University of Cambridge, Douglas House,
18b Trumpington Road, Cambridge CB2 2AH, UK
b University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Introduction disguises and restraints of interpersonal communica-

Despite a number of reviews questioning the reli-
ability and validity of projective drawing techniques
(e.g., Hagood, 1992; Thomas & Gray, 1992; Thomas
& Jolley, 1998; Veltman & Browne, 2002), drawings
are still among the most used tests by psychologists
in the Unites States (Lubin, Larsen, & Matarazzo,
1984; Lubin, Larsen, Matarazzo, & Seever, 1985;
Piotrowski, 1984; Piotrowski & Zalewski, 1993;
Watkins, Campbell, Nieberding, & Hallmark, 1995).
Indeed, the Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD) is used
as one of the top 10 most popular tests by about
41% of psychologists assessing adolescents (Archer,
Maruish, Imhof, & Piotrowski, 1991) and as a per-
sonality measure by 81% of child clinical psychol-
ogists (Tuma & Pratt, 1982). This probably makes
the KFD the most widely used projective method of
evaluating the child’s perceptions of his/her family
context (Carlson, 1990).
Drawings represent an effective means for “break-
ing the ice” during the first meeting between child
and interviewer. The drawing task is usually expe-
rienced by the child as ‘fun’ and it may divert the
child’s attention from the fear of failure usually
present in other forms of psychological assessment
(Harris, 1963). It can also be argued that, in general,
projective drawing techniques are less susceptible to
faking than self-reporting. Moreover, the child usu-
ally quickly becomes absorbed in the drawing and
is, therefore, less likely to resort to the customary
∗Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mwmv2@cam.ac.uk
(M.W.M. Veltman).
tion. Its use is all the more valid when one considers
that children are able to convey in their drawings
thoughts and feelings they cannot express in speech
or writing. This may particularly be true of abused
children whose language is likely to have been de-
velopmentally delayed or who may have difficulties
in expressing themselves concerning abuse issues
(Blager & Martin, 1976; Briggs & Lehmann, 1989;
Burgess, McCausland, & Wolvert, 1982; Elmer &
Gregg, 1967; Goodwin, 1982; Johnson & Morse,
1968; Kelley, 1985; Lynch, 1988; Riordan & Verdel,
1991; Sadowski & Loesch, 1993).
Getting children to draw themselves as part of the
family may be a channel for repressed feelings to be
expressed (Hulse, 1951, 1952). While drawing, the
child does not have to verbalize any feelings about
the family, and they may reveal a great deal about
relationships within the family which are so impor-
tant in shaping the child’s personality, such as family
conflict (Burgess, Hartman, & McCormack, 1987).
Most of the research on human figure draw-
ings and family drawings has grown out of clinical
practice and case studies, rather than controlled em-
pirical and replicated research. Researchers such as
DiLeo (1970, 1973, 1983), Koppitz (1968, 1984)
and Hammer (1969, 1980) have developed family
drawing variables for the purpose of investigating
family pathology. It was noted that a child who spon-
taneously drew a family picture is likely to have a
positive relationship with one or both parents as the
child had no need to hide or disguise their feelings.
In a previous study, Veltman and Browne (2000a)
attempted to train a group of teachers and a group
of mental health professionals to identify abused

0197-4556/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 9 7 - 4 5 5 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 3 0 - 7
4 M.W.M. Veltman, K.D. Browne / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 3–12
children’s Favorite Kind of Day Drawings (FKDs)
(Manning, 1987) and KFD (Burns & Kaufman,
1970, 1972). It was found that neither the teach-
ers nor the mental health professionals were able
to significantly identify 5 abused children drawings
in a class of 28 children. However, the KFD was
shown to be more reliable when there was a choice
between three children’s drawings and it was known
that abuse had definitely taken place for one of the
three young artists. In the ‘open’ situation, described
above, where no a priori knowledge was available,
this was not the case. Indeed, even when psycholo-
gist raters were specifically trained, they were also
found to be unable to select the ‘abused child’s KFD
in an ‘open’ choice situation (Veltman & Browne,
2001). Therefore, as the KFD had been found to be
more reliable in a situation where it is known that
abuse has taken place, the question remained; is there
anything in the KFD, when scored by trained, psy-
chologist raters using the KFD Inventory (Peterson
& Hardin, 1995, 1997), that sets apart the abused
child’s drawing from a non-abused child’s drawing?
Interpretation of drawings
Researchers have hypothesized that family re-
lationships are expressed through relative size and
placement of the figures on the drawing and by
omissions, substitutions or exaggerations of the peo-
ple drawn or part of these people and the distance
between the figures.
Size
The size of the drawing of the human figure is
important as it is said to directly reflect the drawer’s
own self-esteem (Arnheim, 1956; Buck, 1981; DiLeo,
1983; Hammer, 1980; Jolles, 1971; Koppitz, 1968,
1984; Machover, 1949; Ogdon, 1981; Thomas & Silk,
1990; Wohl & Kaufman, 1985).
However, some authors (Allik & Laak, 1985;
Freeman, 1980) claim it is not just the size of the
overall figure drawn that is important. The size of
the limbs drawn is also revealing. The impressive
parent may be drawn with large hands, which would
indicate the parent to be hostile and threatening. The
ineffectual parents may be depicted with small or
even absent hands (DiLeo, 1973).
Placement
Placement of the figure may also be important
as it has been related to how secure the child feels
(Hammer, 1997; Jolles, 1964, 1971; Ogdon, 1981;
Wohl & Kaufman, 1985). Other evidence suggests
that the distance between the drawn family members
may be a graphic expression of the emotional dis-
tance between individuals (DeSoto & Kuethe, 1959;
Hammer, 1997; Koppitz, 1968; Kuethe, 1960, 1962a,
1962b, 1964; Kuethe & Weingartner, 1964; O’Brien
& Patton, 1974; Reznikoff & Reznikoff, 1956; Shearn
& Russell, 1969; Thomas & Gray, 1992; Weinstein,
1965, 1967, 1968; Wohl & Kaufman, 1985), espe-
cially when supported by other clinical evidence.
It may also be important where subjects placed
human figures on a paper as figures may be placed
together, unseparated by non-human objects (Kuethe,
1962a, 1962b, 1964; Kuethe & Stricker, 1963). In-
deed, Weinstein (1965) found that the emotionally
disturbed child placed non-human objects (barriers)
between human figures significantly more often than
the normal child did.
Actions
Burns and Kaufman (1972) list some typical inter-
pretations for actions different figures may be drawn
to be doing. For example, a mother drawn as cook-
ing may be seen as reflecting a mother figure who
meets the child’s nurturant needs. When the mother
is drawn as cleaning this may indicate a compulsive
mother who is more pre-occupied with the house than
the people in the house. They equate cleaning as ac-
ceptable or good behavior. A mother drawn who is
drawn as doing the ironing may be indicative of an
overly involved mother trying too hard to give her
child “warmth.”
Omissions
Omissions have been interpreted by many re-
searchers as being important (Burns, 1982; Burns
& Kaufman, 1970, 1972; DiLeo, 1970, 1973, 1983;
Hammer, 1997; Hulse, 1951, 1952; Koppitz, 1968;
Reznikoff & Reznikoff, 1956). An omission of the
self-figure is unusual and can be seen in drawings
by children with feelings of inadequacy or of not
belonging. According to DiLeo (1973), it is also
unusual for young children to omit significant others
from their drawings and missing family members
may reflect difficulty in interpersonal relationships.
Omission of details in the figures drawn is another
aspect that can be examined. This feature mirrors
an individual’s awareness and interest in the outside
world (Hammer, 1997; Jolles, 1971; Ogdon, 1981). It
must be noted that the type and amount of details in
a drawing are related to the age stage of development
of the child (Harris, 1963; Koppitz, 1968; Thomas &
Silk, 1990).
Color variables
Developers and users of the House–Tree–Person
test (Buck, 1981; Hammer, 1969, 1980, 1997; Jolles,
1971) have done much of the work on the use of
color in drawings. Hammer (1997) maintains that
 M.W.M. Veltman, K.D. Browne / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 3–12
color drawings reveal even more about the personal-
ity than pencil drawings. When looking at the color
in drawings, particular attention should be paid to
excessive use of any one color (Klepsch & Logie,
1982). Well-adjusted children use a variety of colors
in their drawings, while constricted and emotionally
unstable children often only use a few colors. The sig-
nificance of color is different for males and females
and caution is suggested in inferring too much from
color (Marzolf & Kirchner, 1973) although these dif-
ferences in color use by males and females are not as
yet clear nor well documented. Children in different
countries may well use color differently as well, as
white in this country would not normally be seen at
a funeral but in India it would.
An inhibited use of color is exhibited by subjects
unable to make warm, sharing personal relationships
freely. The most “emotion-shy” subjects tended to use
crayon as if it were a pencil, employing no coloring-in
at all. A more expansive use of color than the norma-
tive middle range, particularly if combined with an
unconventional use of colors, occurs most frequently
in those showing an inability to exercise adequate con-
trol over their emotional impulses (Hammer, 1997).
A clash of inharmonious colors may express turbulent
emotions. However, the use of color by children may
not develop fully until later childhood. For example,
Gardner (1980) states that a young child displays a
strong attraction to bright and primary colors, in mid-
dle childhood the child begins to bestow every object
with its “true-life” hue, and that the adolescent will
use color to achieve expressive and emotional effects.
So, caution must be taken in inferring anything from
color used in children’s drawings.
The Kinetic Family Drawing
The KFD was developed by Burns and Kaufman
(1970, 1972) in an attempt to provide important in-
formation about the familial factors that are related to
a child’s behavior. In the KFD, children report how
they feel about themselves and their families and less
about what they know (DiLeo, 1973). So the KFD
is an important instrument in identifying individuals
who are important, in a negative and a positive sense,
to the child.
Direct questioning of a child can be an ineffective
way of uncovering a child’s view of family interac-
tion. Koppitz (1968, p. 128) stated that “even a de-
prived and abused child will rarely if ever denounce
or accuse her mother, the child will often say ‘she
is nice’ or she will say nothing at all.” Therefore,
the abused child may actually protect his/her parents.
Even if the child was willing to “tell all” concerning
family dynamics, a young child usually doesn’t have
the vocabulary to express these matters.
5
More recently Peterson and Hardin (1997) have
attempted to standardize the scoring of both the
qualitative and quantitative elements of the KFD.
Their screening inventory uses the designation of
red, yellow, and green flags to assist the clinician
in discriminating those drawings that deviate from
the norm. Red flags indicate the child is attempting
to communicate emotional problems non-verbally;
yellow flags indicate that further care and attention
should be exercised in communicating with the child;
and green flags refer to a ‘normal’ child.
KFD styles are what Burns and Kaufman (1972)
called drawing characteristics suggestive of defen-
siveness. They presented examples for the classifi-
cation of eight styles: compartmentalization, lining
on the bottom, underlining individual figures, lining
at the top, edging, folding compartmentalization,
encapsulation, and bird’s eye view. Peterson and
Hardin (1995, 1997) have further developed this
into their screening inventory of both qualitative
and quantitative indicators. The variables that make
up the KFD scoring system have shown inter-rater
reliability, test–retest reliabilities ranged from 46 to
90% (Mostkoff & Lazarus, 1983). The authors of the
KFD Screening Inventory point out that the results
obtained from using the inventory are not diagnostic
for physical, sexual or emotional abuse. The results
are meant to provide clues to prompt further inves-
tigation by child interview, physical examination,
and forensic evaluation (Peterson & Hardin, 1995,
1997).
Aim and hypothesis
The aim of this study was to evaluate the KFD In-
ventory (Peterson & Hardin, 1995, 1997) in terms of
the way abused children draw themselves and their
family using the KFD technique compared to draw-
ings from two groups of matched control.
On the basis of the available literature the follow-
ing hypothesis was postulated:
• Abused children will produce significantly more
indicators of emotional distress in their drawings
than non-abused matched control participants.
Methods
Participants
Six physically abused children (three boys and
three girls) aged between 4 and 8 years old. All the
children were registered on the English Child Pro-
tection Register (CPR) for having been abused by
their mothers. They were recruited by the study by
6 M.W.M. Veltman, K.D. Browne / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 3–12
the local Social Services who had classified them as
having suffered mild to moderate abuse. The recruit-
ing Social Service caseworkers were blind as to the
nature of the study.
At the time of recruitment, each abused child’s
class teacher selected two control children matched
for age, sex, socio-economic background, and educa-
tional history. It was hoped that this close matching
would control for most variables other than the abuse
suffered. The total sample, therefore, consisted of
6 abused and 12 matched control children. All the
children were classified by the Social Services as
having suffered mild to moderate physical abuse by
their mothers. It was also confirmed that none of the
control children had ever been on the CPR.
The 18 children were all aged between 4 and 8
years old. Ideally the ratio between physically abused
and control children sample sizes would have re-
flected the prevalence rate of physical child abuse in
England and Wales, however, this was not possible.
It was therefore decided to use unequal physically
abused and control sample sizes as a token gesture
to reflect the unequal numbers of physically abused
and non-abused children in the population. This was
deemed appropriate in the assessment of a potential
screening tool.
The two independent raters of the drawings were
both female psychologists trained in the use of the
KFD Inventory (Peterson & Hardin, 1995, 1997) and
were blind as to the status of the children whose draw-
ings were under consideration.
On comparing 72 KFD drawings from children
aged 4–8 years old, the raters achieved an ‘overall’
inter-rater reliability using Cohen’s kappas for qual-
itative variables of the KFD Inventory ranging from
κ = .25 to .47. In terms of practical and clinical use,
Altman (1991) deems these reliabilities to be fair to
moderate (κ = .21–.60).
KFD materials
Each child was given an A4 piece of white paper,
16 Crayola crayons, and 3 B2 pencils with points of
varying degrees of sharpness, a rubber, and a pencil
sharpener.
KFD procedures
Each child was asked to draw their ‘whole family,
including yourself, all doing something.’ There was
no time limit and the child was left to carry out this
task in a quiet room. After the initial investigation the
children were followed up at 6, 12 and 18 months and
asked to make a drawing using the same procedures
as the first investigation.
KFD measures
Two trained raters used the ‘Screening Inventory
for Kinetic Family Drawing’ by Peterson and Hardin
(1995, 1997), each was blind as to the status of the
child, to assess all the children’s drawings. This in-
ventory takes into consideration qualitative variables
such as the quality of the drawing, child perception
of family members, as well as child self-perception
within the family system. According to Peterson and
Hardin (1997), the qualitative section of the KFD
shows the global picture presented by the drawing
before proceeding to the fine discrimination of the
quantitative section. Quantitative measures include
codes for the ‘styles’ used, the treatment within the
drawing of the figures drawn, as well as the actions
drawn, which emphasize negative aspects. The raters
had to decide whether each of these variables were
present or not present. No severity rating was in-
cluded. The total score was obtained by adding up
the scores allocated for this part of the inventory.
The use of the qualitative section of Peterson and
Hardin’s (1995, 1997) inventory, in the present study,
was analyzed using the green flag, yellow flag, and
red flag severity rating system. For the purposes of
analysis in this study a green flag was awarded 1 point,
yellow flag 2 points and red flag 3 points. Hence each
drawing could score a minimum of 9 points and a
maximum of 27 points in the qualitative section.
A list of all qualitative and quantitative variables
can be found in the Screening Inventory for Kinetic
Family Drawing (Peterson & Hardin, 1995, 1997).
This inventory may be reproduced without obtain-
ing permission from the publisher or authors (see
Peterson & Hardin, 1997, p. 61).
Treatment of results: inter-rater reliability was
calculated using Cohen’s kappa
One way ANOVAs were used to three groups of
six children (abused, controls 1, and 2). Two con-
trol children were matched to each abused child and
these were treated as separate groups (controls 1 and
2) to maintain the matching criteria and equal sample
size across the three groups. This meets with the un-
derlying assumptions of the ANOVA statistical test.
Tukey’s HSD and Bonferonni corrections for multi-
ple tests were used for post hoc testing.
Results
Quantitative
Inter-rater reliability for the quantitative section of
the KFD inventory (Peterson & Hardin, 1995, 1997)
 M.W.M. Veltman, K.D. Browne / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 3–12 7

Table 1
Mean scores for quantitative variables of the KFD Inventory from the abused children compared to match controls (N = 6
per group)
Quantitative variables Mean scores

Abused Control 1 Control 2 F p-value

Styles
Encapsulation 0.67 0.80 0 1.250 .315
Compartmentalization 0 0 0 – –
Writing words on picture 0 0 0 – –
Edging 0 0 0 – –
Underlining individual figures 0.008 0 0 1 .391
Lining at top of paper 0 0 0.008 1 .391
Lining at bottom of paper 0 0 0.17 2.5 .116
Treatment of figures
Transparency 0 0 0 – –
Missing person or self 0.33 0 0.33 .5 .616
One or more figures drawn on back of paper 0 0 0 – –
Erasures 0 0.2 0.33 1.154 .342
Floating 0.33 0.4 0.5 .2 .821
Hanging 0 0 0 – –
Falling 0 0 0 – –
Slanting figures 0.17 0.1 0 1.154 .342
Incomplete figures 0.42 0.1 0.008 5.33 .018
Extensions/long legs, arms etc. 0.25 0 0.008 2.5 .116
Actions with negative aspects
Sexualized 0 0 0 – –
Aggression/weapons 0 0 0 – –
Fear/anxiety 0 0 0 – –
Withdrawal/isolation 0 0 0 – –
Blame/ridicule 0 0 0 – –
Submission/competition 0 0 0 – –
Barriers 0.33 0.1 0.17 1.667 .222

varied between 0 and 100% for each of the 24 quan-
titative variables, as the raters either agreed upon a
quantitative indicator being present or not present in
each drawing. It was therefore decided that all the
variables would be scored and only where both raters
had shown absolute agreement on a quantitative indi-
cator being present.
Table 1 shows that the ‘styles,’ ‘treatment of
figures,’ and ‘actions’ sections of the quantitative
section of the KFD Inventory (Peterson & Hardin,
1995, 1997) did not produce any significant differ-
ences between the abused and the control groups,
although the abused children scores were higher than
both control groups. It was, however, of interest that
the abused children did score significantly higher in
the drawing of incomplete figures compared to the
control groups (t = .333, p = .032).
Qualitative
The qualitative indicators that were of particular
interest were those dealing with the manner in which
the abused child portrayed the family members as well
as themselves. Family members’ size, as in the actual
size of the figures drawn in relation to each other,
was found to be more disproportionate in the abused
group compared to both control group 1 (t = 1.083,
p = .001) and control group 2 (t = 1.250, p =
.0001). The inter-rater reliability of this observation
was ‘moderate’ at κ = .43.
At the same time it was found that there was a be-
tween groups difference in the amount of distortion
used by the children when drawing family members
(F = 4.206, p = .039). This difference did not quite
reach significance when the abused group was com-
pared directly with both control group 1 (t = .817,
p = .069) and control group 2 (t = .900, p = .054).
The inconsistency may be related to the inter-rater re-
liability of this observation only being ‘fair,’ κ = .22.
Within this family picture the abused children
also drew themselves more disproportionately in re-
lation to their family (F = 6.726, p = .01) drawing
themselves either disproportionately large or small
in relation to the other family members drawn. This
8 M.W.M. Veltman, K.D. Browne / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 3–12

Table 2
Mean red flag score for qualitative variables of the KFD Inventory from the abused children compared to match controls
(N = 6 per group)
Qualitative variables Mean scores

Abused Control 1 Control 2 F p-value

Quality of overall drawing

Peculiarity/strangeness 2.3 1.8 1.5 1.788 .201
Feeling/mood 1.8 1.6 1.3 .441 .651
Order 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.071 .367
Child perception of family members
Size 2.6 1.5 1.3 16.311 .00
Shape 2.2 1.9 1.7 .972 .401
Distortion 2.3 1.6 1.6 2.286 .136
Child self-perception in family system
Size 2.6 1.5 1.7 6.726 .010
Shape 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.033 .383
Distortion 2.4 1.5 1.5 4.206 .039

difference was significant between the abused group
and both control group 1 (t = 1.183, p = .011)
and control group 2 (t = 1, p = .037). This
observation’s inter-rater reliability was considered to
be ‘substantial’ at κ = .64 (Table 2).
Follow-up
On follow-up at 6, 12 and 18 months, no signifi-
cant differences were found for scores on quantitative
variables. The one significant difference found in the
initial investigation for ‘incomplete figures’ between
the abused and control groups had disappeared by 6
months. However, Fig. 1 demonstrates that the abused
children scored higher than both control groups on
the initial investigation and at 6 and 12 months
follow-up.
Fig. 2 clearly shows a similar pattern for quali-
tative variables in terms of the number of red flags
scored which shows that the abused children were
generally, though not significantly, awarded more red
flags per drawing than the two control groups at the
initial investigation and at every follow-up. However,
all significant differences observed in the initial in-
vestigation had disappeared by 12 months follow-up;
‘size’ and ‘distortion of self’ by 6 months and ‘distor-
tion of family members’ by 12 months. That is to say,
that distorting family members still showed a signif-
icant difference at 6 months with the abused group
scoring higher than control group 1 (t = .867, p =
.014) and control group 2 (t = .700, p = .046).
In addition at follow-up, a significant interaction
effect between time and group status was found (F =
2.865, p = .022). The main effect was found within
the abused children whose scores declined over time
to be closer to that of the control groups by 18 months
follow-up. This may indicate the ameliorating effects
of the school environment.

Fig. 1. Quantitative section total scores.

 M.W.M. Veltman, K.D. Browne / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 3–12
Fig. 2. Number of red flags.
Discussion
One major limitation of this study, is the small
sample size that limits the interpretations of the
results, which remain tentative. Nevertheless, the
qualitative section of the KFD Inventory showed
that the abused children were generally attributed a
higher number of red flags for qualitative variables in
comparison to the control children, generating more
concern (see Fig. 2). This trend was mirrored in the
quantitative section where the overall scores for the
abused children were, again, generally higher than
the overall scores attributed to the control children.
However, it must be remembered that these trends
were not statistically significant.
Quantitatively, the abused children scored consis-
tently higher in the ‘treatment of figures’ and showed
significant more omission of detail in the ‘incomplete
figures’ variable in comparison to control children.
This extends the findings from the qualitative section
where the abused children had been found to draw
their family, and themselves, out of proportion and
with significantly more noticeable distortion. The
abused children also significantly drew the size of
their figures differently with more arm and leg ex-
tensions than the control children did. Large limbs
drawn on a figure have been shown to indicate a more
hostile or threatening individual to the child (DiLeo,
1973), consistent with what might be expected from
abused children.
On follow-up, an interesting effect was observed
over time. The significant differences observed in
the initial investigation, between abused and control
children, had almost disappeared at 6 months and
completely disappeared by 12 months. This may sug-
gest that the school environment has an ameliorating
effect on the consequences of living in an abusive
home. Indeed, recent research observing negative
9
behaviors and psychometric test performance, in the
same sample of children over the same 18-month
period, also showed a similar decline over time in
significant differences between abused and control
children (Veltman & Browne, in submission). This
further supports that the school environment may
have a positive effect on abused children together with
any therapeutic intervention they may have received.
Previous literature has already indicated that great
caution should be exercised when using projective
drawing techniques in support of the identification
of child abuse and neglect (e.g., Veltman & Browne,
2000a, 2000b). It should be noted that interpretations
should not be made on the strength of a single drawing
or feature. All available clinical evidence should also
be used.
This viewpoint is further supported by the fact
that despite extensive training, the two psychologists’
inter-rater reliabilities were deemed to be ‘fair’ to
‘moderate’ for the majority of variables (Altman,
1991; Cicchetti & Sparrow, 1981; Fleiss, 1981).
This level of reliability, although suitable for clinical
and practical use, is not adequate for the purpose
of the early stages of predictive or construct valida-
tion research (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1997). With-
out ‘substantial’ (κ = .61–.80) to ‘almost perfect’
(κ = .81–1.0) reliability the results of this pilot study
must remain preliminary with regard to the use of
KFD projective drawing technique to help recognize
abused children.
Conclusion
The small sample size used in this study together
with ‘fair’ to ‘moderate’ reliability may account for
the tendency of abused children scoring higher on
most variables, but not significantly higher. A more
10 M.W.M. Veltman, K.D. Browne / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 3–12
comprehensive study involving a larger number of
participants is required in order to evaluate the sig-
nificance of the KFD projective drawing technique
with abused children. At best, this study should be
regarded as a pilot investigation with results that war-
rant further research and development.
It must be pointed out that the authors of the KFD
inventory (Peterson & Hardin, 1995, 1997) state that
the inventory should not be used for the diagnosis
of physical, sexual or emotional abuse. Neverthe-
less, it is thought be a useful groundwork technique
where initial suspicions exist that abuse of a child
may have taken place. However, due to less than
perfect reliability of the KFD technique it should
only be considered as part of a more formal, in-depth
investigation. The inter-rater reliabilities found by
this study and Mostkoff and Lazarus (1983) suggest
that the use of the KFD as a screening inventory for
identifying abused children is limited. This is not to
negate the effectiveness of the KFD technique for
communicating with children in clinical work on a
one to one basis, especially when those children have
been traumatized by abuse and neglect. However,
this conclusion is based on a small sample of 18
children and 2 raters.
References
Allik J., & Laak, T. (1985). The head is smaller than the
body: But how does it join on? In N. H. Freeman &
M. V. Cox (Eds.), Visual order. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical
research. London: Chapman & Hall.
Archer, R. P., Maruish, M., Imhof, E. A., & Piotrowski,
C. (1991). Psychological test usage with adolescent
clients: 1990 survey findings. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 22, 247–252.
Arnheim, R. (1956). Art and visual perception: A
psychology of the creative eye. London: Faber and Faber.
Blager, F., & Martin, H. P. (1976). Speech and language
of abused children. In H. P. Martin (Ed.), The abused
child. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Briggs, F., & Lehmann, K. (1989). Significance of
children’s drawings in cases of sexual abuse. Early Child
Development and Care, 47, 131–147.
Buck, J. N. (1981). The house–tree–person technique. Los
Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Burgess, A. W., McCausland, M. P., & Wolvert, W. A.
(1982). Children’s drawings as indicators of sexual
trauma. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 19, 50–58.
Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R., & McCormack, A. (1987).
Abused to abuser: Antecedents of socially deviant
behaviors. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(11),
1431–1436.
Burns, R. C. (1982). Self-growth in families: kinetic family
drawings (K-F-D) research and application. New York,
NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Burns, R. C., & Kaufman, S. H. (1970). Kinetic family
drawings (K-F-D): An introduction to understanding
children through kinetic drawings. New York, NY:
Brunner/Mazel.
Burns, R. C., & Kaufman, S. H. (1972). Actions, styles
and symbols in kinetic family drawings (KFD): An
interpretive manual. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Carlson, C. I. (1990). Assessing the family context. In C.
R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of
psychological & educational assessment of children:
Personality, behavior, & context (pp. 546–575). New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. S. (1981). Developing
criteria for establishing the inter-rater reliability of
specific items in a given inventory. American Journal
of Mental Deficiency, 86, 127–137.
DeSoto, C. B., & Kuethe, J. L. (1959). The set to
claim undesirable symptoms in personality inventories.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 23, 496–500.
DiLeo, J. (1970). Young children and their drawings. New
York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
DiLeo, J. (1973). Children’s drawings as diagnostic aids.
New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
DiLeo, J. (1983). Interpreting children’s drawings. New
York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Elmer, E., & Gregg, G. (1967). Developmental charac-
teristics of abused children. Pediatrics, 40, 596–602.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and
proportions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Freeman, N. H. (1980). Strategies of representation in young
children. London: Academic Press.
Gardner, H. (1980). Artful scribbles: The significance of
children’s drawings. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Goodwin, J. (1982). Use of drawings in evaluating children
who may be incest victims. Children and Youth Services
Review, 4, 269–278.
Hagood, M. M. (1992). Diagnosis or dilemma drawings of
sexually abused children. British Journal of Projective
Psychology, 37, 22–23.
Hammer, E. (1980). The clinical application of projective
drawings. Springfield, IL: Charles, C. Thomas.
Hammer, E. (1997). Advances in projective drawing
interpretation. Springfield, IL: Charles, C. Thomas.
Hammer, E. F. (1969). Hierarchical organization of
personality and the H–T–P achromatic and chromatic.
In J. N. Buck & E. F. Hammer (Eds.), Advances
in the house–tree–person technique: Variations and
applications. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Harris, D. (1963). Children’s drawings as measures of
intellectual maturity. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace
and World, Inc.
Hulse, W. C. (1951). The emotionally disturbed child draws
his family. Quarterly Journal of Child Behavior, 3, 152–
174.
Hulse, W. C. (1952). Childhood conflict expressed through
family drawings. Journal of Projective Techniques, 16,
66–79.
Johnson, B., & Morse, H. (1968). The battered child: A
study of children with inflicted injuries. Denver, CO:
Denver Department of Welfare.
 M.W.M. Veltman, K.D. Browne / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 3–12
Jolles, I. (1964). A catalogue for the qualitative inter-
pretation of the house–tree–person (H–T–P). CA:
Western Psychological Services.
Jolles, I. (1971). A catalog for the quantitative interpretation
of the house–tree–person. Los Angeles, CA: Western
Psychological Services.
Kelley, S. (1985). Drawings: Critical communications for
sexually abused children. Pediatric Nursing, 11, 421–
426.
Klepsch, M., & Logie, L. (1982). Children draw and tell: An
introduction to the projective uses of children’s human
figure drawings. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Koppitz, E. (1968). Psychological evaluation of children’s
human figure drawings. New York, NY: Grune &
Stratton.
Koppitz, E. (1984). Psychological evaluation of human
figure drawings by middle school pupils. London: Grune
& Stratton.
Kuethe, J. L. (1960). Acquiescent response set and
the psychasthenia scale: An analysis via the
aussage experiment. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 61, 319–322.
Kuethe, J. L. (1962a). Social schemas and the reconstruction
of social object displays from memory. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 71–74.
Kuethe, J. L. (1962b). Social schemas. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 64, 31–38.
Kuethe, J. L. (1964). The pervasive influence of social
schemas. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
68, 248–254.
Kuethe, J. L., & Stricker, G. (1963). Man and woman: Social
schemata of males and females. Psychological Reports,
13, 655–661.
Kuethe, J. L., & Weingartner, H. (1964). Male–
female schemata of homosexual and non-homosexual
penitentiary inmates. Journal of Personality, 32, 23–31.
Lubin, B., Larsen, R. M., & Matarazzo, J. D. (1984).
Patterns of psychological test usage 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.
Lynch, M. (1988). The Consequences of child abuse. In
K. Browne, C. Davies, & P. Stratton (Eds.), Early
prediction and prevention of child abuse. Chichester:
Wiley.
Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawings
of the human figure. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.
Manning, T. M. (1987). Aggression depicted in abused
children’s drawings. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 14, 15–
24.
Marzolf, S. S., & Kirchner, J. H. (1973). Personality
traits and color choices for house–tree–person drawings.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29, 240–248.
Mostkoff, D., & Lazarus, P. (1983). The kinetic family
drawing: The reliability of an objective scoring system.
Psychology in the Schools, 20, 16–20.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1997). Psychometric
theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
O’Brien, R. P., & Patton, W. F. (1974). Development of an
objective scoring method for the kinetic family drawing.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 156–164.
11
Ogdon, D. P. (1981). Psychodiagnostics and personality
assessment: A handbook. Los Angeles, CA: Western
Psychological Services.
Peterson, L. W., & Hardin, M. (1995). Screening inventory
for kinetic family drawing. In L. W. Peterson &
M. Hardin (Eds.). Children in distress: A guide for
screening children’s art. New York, NY: W.W. Norton
& Company.
Peterson, L. W., & Hardin, M. (1997). Children in distress:
A guide for screening children’s art. New York, NY:
W.W. Norton & Company.
Piotrowski, C. (1984). The status of projective techniques:
Or wishing won’t make it go away. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 40, 1495–1502.
Piotrowski, C., & Zalewski, C. (1993). Training in
psychodiagnostic testing in APA-approved PsyD and
PhD clinical training programs. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 61, 394–405.
Reznikoff, M. A., & Reznikoff, H. R. (1956). The
family drawing test: A comparative study of children’s
drawings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12, 167–
169.
Riordan, R. J., & Verdel, A. C. (1991). Evidence of sexual
abuse in children’s art products. The School Counselor,
39, 116–121.
Sadowski, P. M., & Loesch, L. C. (1993). Using
children’s drawings to detect potential child sexual
abuse. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling,
28, 115–123.
Shearn, C. R., & Russell, K. R. (1969). Use of the
family drawing as a technique for studying parent–child
interaction. Journal of Projective Techniques & Person
Assessment, 33, 1.
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. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 127–
139.
Thomas, G. V., & Silk, A. M. J. (1990). An introduction
to the psychology of children’s drawings. Hemel
Hempstead, Herts: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
Tuma, J. M., & Pratt, J. M. (1982). Clinical child psychology
training and practice: A survey. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 11, 27–34.
Veltman, M. W. M., & Browne, K. D. (2000a). Pictures in
the classroom: Can teachers identify abused children’s
drawings? Child Abuse Review, 9, 328–336.
Veltman, M. W. M., & Browne, K. D. (2000b). An
evaluation of the favorite kind of day drawings from
abused and non-abused children. Child Abuse & Neglect,
24, 1249–1255.
Veltman, M. W. M., & Browne, K. D. (2001). Identifying
childhood abuse through favorite kind of day and kinetic
family drawings. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 28, 251–
259.
Veltman, M. W. M., & Browne, K. D. (2002). The
assessment of drawings from children who have been
12 M.W.M. Veltman, K.D. Browne / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 3–12
maltreated: A systematic review. Child Abuse Review,
11, 19–37.
Veltman, M. W. M., & Browne, K. D. (in submission).
Identifying maltreated children in the classroom using
standardized assessments and direct observations of
negative behavior.
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. (1965). Social schemata of emotionally
disturbed boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 70,
457–461.
Weinstein, L. (1967). Social experience and social schemata.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 429–
434.
Weinstein, L. (1968). The mother–child schema, anxiety,
and academic achievement in elementary school boys.
Child Development, 39, 257–264.
Wohl, A., & Kaufman, B. (1985). Silent screams and hidden
cries. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.