Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Myers, D.V. (1978) - Toward An Objective Evaluation Procedure of The Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD)

    Caricato da

    Ricardo Narváez
    7 visualizzazioni8 pagine
    Myers, D.V. (1978). Toward an Objective Evaluation Procedure of the Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD)

    Titolo originale

    Myers, D.V. (1978). Toward an Objective Evaluation Procedure of the Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    Myers, D.V. (1978). Toward an Objective Evaluation Procedure of the Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD)

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    7 visualizzazioni8 pagine

    Myers, D.V. (1978) - Toward An Objective Evaluation Procedure of The Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD)

    Caricato da

    Ricardo Narváez
    Myers, D.V. (1978). Toward an Objective Evaluation Procedure of the Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD)

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 8
    358 Journal of Personality Assessment, 1978. 42.4 Toward an Objective Evaluation Procedure of the Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD) DAVID V. MYERS Summary: The feasibility of employing a quan Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD) was examined, A quan ypotheses Burnsand Kaufman 1970, 1972}toscore2 measurable veloped fromthectinica! F16 KEDs obtained from four groups of boys te determine the late among two levels of emotional adjustment and t to diffe tween, ponent scores significantly differed between the vounger and the elder g ‘among any of the four groups. The KFD total score was y only between the young emotionally well-adjusted groups. Itwasconciude of component scores did not diff found to differ s the KFD is feasible Recently a promising new projective drawing technique was introduced by Burns and Kaufman (1970, 1972). View ing emotional problems in children as stemming from the disturbancesininter- personal, generally family, relationships. these authors have developed a procedure known as the Kinetic Family Drawings (KED) which provides a basis for exam- ing the interpersonai dynamics of the child. After 12 years of carefully studying and analyzing these family drawings, Burns and Kaufman (1972) reported the clinical significance of certain character- tics. actions, styles, and symbois found in them, KED characteristics, according to Burns and Kaufman (1972), are static qualities commonly found in the drawings. Pencil erasiires (reflecting ambivalence} and hyper-extended arms (reflecting the need to control the environment) are typical xamples of KFD characteristics. Ac- tions in KFDs are movements of energy between people and objects. According to Burns and Kaufman, certain objects and depicted actions are said to have energy invested in them. These “fields of force” reflect such things as inhibition, anger, comipetition, and need for affec- A longer version of this paper was presented to wi A University of Alabama ve scoring procedure for evaluating the ative scoring procedure was de- "bed and the young ingprocedure for tion, and are found in actions associated with certain objects suck as balls, burning fires, lights, etc. Styles, a third dimension of interpretation, refers to certain ap- proaches to the drawing of KFDs that are considered indicative of defensiveness and emotional disturbance. Compart- mentalization (intentionally separating family members by the use of lining) and Edged Placement (rectangularly placing all of the family figures om the perimeter of the page) are examples of what Burns and Kaufman refer to as styles. Symbols, the inal aspect of interpretative significance in Burns and Kaufman's KFDs, foliow from a traditional psychoanalytic per- spective, However, the authors are jess ‘emphatic in assigning hard and fast mean- ings to KFD symbois than they are in the characteristics, actions, and styles. Unlike mast previous projective draw. ings, the KFD provides information that can permit the unique and valuable in- vestigation of the personal and interper- sonai perspectives of thechild. However, the KFD, while promising, has two gen eral shortcomings. First, Burns and Kaufman (1970, 1972) offer mo empirical validity for their hy potheses, but rather rely on the presenta tion of clinical cases which have been sub- jectively interpreted. Only two empirical studies have been reported with the KFD. O'Brian and Patton (1974) attempted to DAVID V. MYERS. Table i Distribution of Grow; ps of Subjects by Em fe justment and Age Emotional Adjustment a lori PT Ase F Well Adjusted =| Disturbed (BA) “ } fED) Older (22-1 develop an objective scoring system via « step-wise regression analysis. However. ir study was conducted prior to the re- Jease of Burns and Kaufman's (1972) Ac- tions, Styles, and Symbols in Kinetic~ Family-Drawings (KFD): An Interpre- tive Manual, and thus did not examine all of the variables considered significant by Burns and Kaufman. Aiso, O'Brian and Patton did not include emotionally disturbed children in their sampie, fur- ther reducing the utility of their study. McPhee and Wegner (1976) examined differences in KFD styles between “nor- mai” and emotionally disturbed children but failed to specifically control for the effects of age. intelligence, and other quantifiable aspects of the KFD suchas characteristies and actions. A second shortcoming of the KFD technique of Burns and Kaufman (1972) is that no normative data are given with respect to any developmental differences in chil- dren, in spite of the overwhelming evi- dence that graphic abilities are directly related to age and intelligence (Good- enough, 1926; Koppitz, 1968). The purpose of the present study was to test the feasibility of employinga quan- thative scoring procedure for evaluating KFD protocols. By developing such a procedure, the issues of both n: information and empirical valid be explored. For these purposes, an em- pirically-based KFD Scoring Guide was developed by the present author using 21 measurable KFD characteris as. and styies derived from the hypotheses of Burns and Kaufman (1972) and the graph- ie scoring procedures of MePhee (1974). YED 28 OED 28 Because of Burns and Kaufman‘ conten- tion that the interpretation of KFD sym~ bols is highly variable, no attempt was made to include symbols in the quantif cation The scoring procedure was emplo; to evaluate KFDs obtained from t clinically different groups of children determine the ability of the procedure te differentiate between the two groups ‘The clinical groups participating in the study were boys judged to be either emo- tionaliy well adjusted or emotionally dis turbec. Further. the KFDs of each group were obtained from two separate age ranges within each group to examine the sensitivity of the procedure to age di: ferences. Thatis, each group was divided into younger and cider subsamples, yield- ing four groups of subjects (1e., young emotionally well adjusted YEA}. young emotionally disturbed (YED}, older emo- tionally well adjusted [OE A]. older emo sionally disturbed [OED}}, These gro are presented in Table 1. Method rials Subjects and Mi The subjects participating in the pres- ent study were 116 boys, ages 6 through 8,and {2 through [4 who were diagnosed as either emotionally well adjusted or emotionally disturbed. For eac! ® Sex NAPS da 1 Merafene Deb Staion New Yo NAPS number pro- rice Make chech«poyaniete Microfiche Pub aeons Photo ie cr 360 spective subject, scores were obtained on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT} (Dunn, 1965} and the Missouri Children’s Behavior Check List (MCBC) (Sines, Pauker, Sines, & Owen, 1969), Based on their ages and normal 1Q scores onthe PPV'T, as well as their performance on the MCBC, the boys were selected for membership in one of the four groups. Normal IQs were defined as falling within the range of 80 10 120, ‘The 60 well-adjusted boys were selected ‘om a public school system in Northeast Georgia. For inclusion in the EA groups each boy was referred by his teacher as being emotionatly well adjusted, scored within the normal IQ range on the PVT, obtained normal to well-adjusted sc on the subscales of Ageression, Inhibi- tion, Activity Level and Sociability on the MCBC, and had never received, nor been referred for special services for emotional or learning probiems. The 56 emotionally disturbed boys were obtained from four units of the Georgia Psychoeducationa! System, a statewide program for emotionally dis- turbed children which accepts for treai- referrals diagnosed as emo- ly disturbed by a Board-certified psychiatrist, For inclusion in this ED group, eack boy, inaddition to the psychi- atric diagnosis of emotional disturbance, scored within the normal IQ range on the PPVT and received scores within one andard deviation of the mean for psy chiatric populations on at least two of the above four subscales of the MCBC. Procedure Each subject was requested to pro- duce a KFD according to the specifica- tions of Burns and Kaufman (1972p. 5). The testing situation was terminated when the subject indicated that he was finished and when the investigator had recorded the child's description of the drawing and had labelled the characters inthedrawingaccording to thechild'sdi- rection. Each drawing so obtained was then scored according to the KFD Scoring Guide. Interscorer reliabilities of the 21 scoring variables in the guide were com: puted ona random 27%; of the totai sar An Objective Evaluation of the KFD ple of KFDs, The average agreement be- tween two trained scorers was 94%, with a range of 81%5-100%, The original scores obtained using the KFD Scoring Guide with the 116 KFD protocols was transformed into 2 20X20 “within groups” product-moment cor~ relation matrix of variables common to the four groups. One variable, Folding Compartmentalization, was deleted from the study since no subject included that style in his KFD protocel. To obtain a stnaller and experimentally more man- ageable number of variabies,a principal- components analysis of the intercorre tion matrix was performed. Three criteria were considered jointly in determining the number of components to be extracted: (a) the scree test, (b) the number of com ponents yielding Eigenvalues greater than unity, and (c) the component solu- tion providing the most easily interpre- table structure for use in subsequent an- alyses. ‘The results of jointly considering the above criteria yielded a component so- ution that was employed to generate component scores for each component The component scores were then ana- lyzed for each extracted component viaa 2X2 parametric factoriat ANOVA. KFD total scores were also analyzed via a2 2 parametric factorial ANOVA. In each case, the independent variables in each ANOVA consisted of two levels of age and two levels of emotions} adjustment In the ANOVA procedures, the .0! level of probability was used as a criterion of significance. Results The data obtained from the “within- groups” intercorrelation matrix of the scoring variables on the KFD were re- duced by a principal-components pro- cedure. Seven components, accounting for 53% of the total variance, were ex- tracted and rotated via the varimax meth- od. The component ioadings of the 20 KFD scoring variables on the seven com ponents are presented in Table 2. Scores on the seven components were obtained for each subject using the formu- la given by Farr (1971, p. 97). For each component, a2 X 2 ANOVA procedure DAVID V. MYERS Table 2 Rotated Component Loudings for the Kinetic Fanti Drawings (KFD) { Componen: ee i I ir nit Ww v VEO VI ' Proximity : 01 oe “02 01 io 2 | 8 oo of 09 tt 3. Relative Height | oe 3 4. Force Fields i 36 $. Erasures i 06 6. Arm Extensions oe 7, Description x 8, Sofety of Figure -08 8 39 10. as u i 2 32. Compartment. O08 id j 13, ing Figures} 07 14. n Lining 66: 08 5, Top Lining -13 . Encapsal 67 H08 7. Edged Placement Oye ee lJeeeeeeg(OL 18, Evasion on; 41 i an 19. No.0 of | 01 ot 06 | 19 20. Back Pla 05 74 oF OL O48 Eigenvalues 190) 188 | 177 127 | 1.20 was performed employing the appropri- ate set of component scores ae the de- pendent varabie, For cach significant difference obtained in each of the anaivses of the component scores. the variables contributing most highly to the differ- ences, (ie.. had the highest component loadings for the component from which the scores were derived) were delineated ‘Analysis of Variance of the Component I scores indicated a significant main effect foradjustment. F1,112)= 7.97, p< 61. but no significant effects were obtained for the interaction of age and a The variables ioading most high on Component I were Shading. Bottom Lining. and Top Lining. For Component H scores. no significant main or inter- action effects were obtained. The abies loading most high!v on Component H were Force Fields. Description of Ac- tion, Body Parts, Underiining of Individ- ual Figures. Evasions. and Back Place- ment. On Component IH] scores. a signifi- cant effect was also obtained for adiust- ment, F (1.112) = 46.62. p< .01. but no. gnificant effects were obtained for age of the interaction. The variables loading most highly on Component I! were Bar- riers, Description of Action, Safety of 362 Figures, Encapsulation, and Evasions. Similarly, a significant main effect for the Component IV scores were obtained for adjustment, F(),112}=216.16.p<.01, but no significant effects were obtained for age or interaction. The variables ioad- ing most highly on Component IV were Physical Proximir tion, and Number of Household Mem- bers. On the Component V scores, a sige nificant main effect was obtained for age, Fe di2} = 7.81, p <.01, but no signifi- cant effects were obtained for adiust- ment or the interaction. The variables loading most highly on Component V were Force Fields, Arm Extensions, Safety of Figures, Shading, ané Com- partmentalization. A significant main effect was found from the analysis of var- iance of the Component Vi scores for adjustment, F (1,112) = 17.01. p< Ol, but no significant effects were obtained for age cr the interaction of age oradjust- ment. The variables loading most highly on Component VI were Body Paris, Ro- tation, and Edged Placement. For the Component Vil scores no significant main or interaction effects were obtained. ‘The variables loading most highly on Component VII were Relative Height, Erasures. Description of Action, and Number of Household Members Likewise, the total scores of the KFD protocols were analyzed via a 2X 2 ANOVA, In that analysis, ¢ significant effect was obtained for the interaction of age and adjustment, F (1,112) = 7.40, p< 0}, along with a significant main effect for adjustment, C1112) = 17.68, p<), No significant main effect w obtained for age. Fxamination ofthecell means indicated that the KFD total scores Varied as a function of emotional adiust- ment ip the young groups bat not for the older groups. The young emotionally well-adjusted subjects obtained sig cantly lower total scores than the older well-adjusted or either of the ED groups. A summary of the results is displayed in Table 3. Of the components with com- ponent scores that significantly differ- entiated among the four groups. Com- ponents, THE. TV and VI were associated With significant differences between the well-adjusted and the emotionally dis- An Objective Evaluation of the KFD turbed groups, while Component V was associated with significant differences between the young and older groups. The KFD total scores significantly dif- ferentiated the young e1 adjusted from the young emotion disturbed. Discussion The results generally support the feas- ibility of employing a quantitative scor- ing procedure with the KFD te differen- tiate emotionally wel! adjusted from emotionally disturbed boys. The resules ‘of the analyses of variance of the scores derived from Components 1, HI, IV, and Vi indicate that the variables associated with those component scores hold pr ise as discriminators of emotional ad- justment. Specifically, the results in cated that. in linear combination with other variabies. HT variabies. (i.e., Physi- cai Proximity. Barriers, Description of Action, Body Parts. Rotations, Bottom Lining, Top Lining, Encapsulation, Faged Placement, Evasions, and Nu ber of Household Mem! fe ated the emotionally well adjusted from the emotionally disturbed boys. indirec- tions that are consistent with the hypoth- eses developed by Burns and Kaufman 1972} The results also indicated that the quantitative scoring procedure, was, in part, sensitive to age differences between the youngand older groups. The ana: of Variance of the scores derived from Component V resulted in significant ef fects for age. with the older groups scor- ing higher then the younger groups. Of the five variables that Joaded highly on Component V, three of the variables (ic.. Force Fields, Arm Extensions, and Com: partmentalization) only loaded signifi- cantly on one component and therefore differentiated between only the age groups. The two other variabies, Satety of Figures and Shading) al loaded highly on Components I and III respectively. and these components dif- ferentiated between adjustment. Thus, rn the present study, Force Fields, Arm Extensions, and Compartmentatization were not found to differentiate between the emotionally weil adjusted and the emotionally disturbed groups, and there- DAVID V. MYERS. Table 3 Summary of Com; Ansiys! 1. Physical Proxin Barriers 3. Reiative Height ; oi 4. Force Fields | qv §. Erasures VEE 6 Extensions v t I i | i Component Sores tiated by renee EASED EA

    Potrebbero piacerti anche