There are many benefits to justify the use of art therapy assessment techniques and rating instruments. However, methodological, theoretical and philosophical problems abound. These problems are explored, in relation to art therapy assessments and their corresponding rating tools. Information about the various types of rating scales is provided, including a comparison of the Diagnostic Drawing Series (DDS) rating system and that of the Person Picking an Apple From a Tree (PPAT) assessment, i.e., the Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale (FEATS). The most effective approach to assessment in the field of art therapy appears to incorporate objective measures such as standardized evaluation procedures (formal assessments; behavioral checklists; portfolio evaluation), and subjective approaches such as the client's interpretation of his or her artwork.
A wide variety of tests are available for the purpose of evaluating individuals with cognitive, developmental, psychological, and/or behavioral disorders. Broadly defined, an assessment test is:
“… a set of tasks designed to elicit or a scale to describe examinee behavior in a specified domain, or a system for collecting samples of an individual's work in a particular area. Coupled with the device is a scoring procedure that enables the examiner to quantify, evaluate, and interpret … behavior or work samples.” (American Educational Research Association [AERA], 1999, p. 25)
Art-based assessment instruments are used by many art therapists to determine a client's level of functioning; formulate treatment objectives; assess a client's strengths; gain a deeper understanding of a client's presenting problems; and evaluate client progress.
Art therapists are often expected to use assessment tools for client evaluation. Art therapists most often use instruments that are known in the field as art-based assessments or art therapy assessments. These two terms are used interchangeably throughout this manuscript, as are the words assessment, instrument, test, and tool.
According to the American Art Therapy Association (2004a), assessment is “the use of any combination of verbal, written, and art tasks chosen by the professional art therapist to assess the individual's level of functioning, problem areas, strengths, and treatment objectives.” Art therapy assessments can be directed and/or non-directed, and can include drawings, paintings, and/or sculptures (Arrington, 1992).
Referred to by some as projective techniques (Brooke, 1996), art therapy instruments are “… alluring with their ability to illustrate concrete markers of the inner psyche” (Oster & Gould Crone, 2004, p. 1). The most practical art therapy assessments are easy to administer, take a reasonably brief amount of time to complete, are non-threatening for the client, and are easily interpreted (Anderson, 2001). Dozens of art-based tools exist, and they are used with a variety of client populations in different ways.
An assessment is most useful when the art therapist has solid training in its administration (Hagood, 2002), and when, over time and with systematic study, he or she achieves mastery of the technique (Kinget, 1958). An art-based instrument is only as good as the system used to rate it. A rating manual that accompanies an assessment should be illustrated and should link the scores to the examples and the instructions to the rater (Gantt, 2004).
As was revealed via a review of the literature and elucidation of the debated issues, art therapists are still in a nascent stage of understanding thorough design and application of assessments and rating instruments.
Decisions about treatment and diagnosis are often based upon the results of various assessment and evaluation techniques. When any form of artwork is used to gain insight about clients, art therapists need to be aware of the benefits and limitations of their approaches and the tools they use. It is the responsibility of every art therapist to be well versed in the areas of evaluation, measurement, and research methodology. Art therapists should identify their own personal philosophy, whether in support of or resistant to the use of assessments. Perhaps it would be wisest to embrace both sides of this issue and to move forward with the work that needs to be done.
