↓ Skip to main content

Drawing a Close to the Use of Human Figure Drawings as a Projective Measure of Intelligence

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Drawing a Close to the Use of Human Figure Drawings as a Projective Measure of Intelligence
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0058991
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The practice of using children's human figure drawings (HFDs) to assess their intellectual ability is pervasive among psychologists and therapists in many countries. Since the first systematic scoring system for HFDs was published in 1926, their continued popularity has led to the development of several revised versions of the test. Most recently, the Draw-A-Person Intellectual Ability Test for children, adolescents, and adults (DAP:IQ) was published. It is the most up-to-date form of HFD test designed to assess intellectual functioning across a wide age range. In the present study, we assessed the validity of the DAP:IQ as a screening measure of intelligence in both children and adults. In Experiment 1, 100 4- to 5-year-old children completed the DAP:IQ and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Third Edition. In Experiment 2, 100 adults completed the DAP:IQ and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. In both experiments, we found only weak to modest correlations between scores on the DAP:IQ and the Wechsler tests. Furthermore, when we compared individual's scores on the two tests, the DAP:IQ yielded high false positive and false negative rates when screening for borderline and superior intellectual functioning. Based on these findings, and based on the lack of validity of previous HFD tests, we conclude that practitioners should not rely on HFD tests as a projective measure of intelligence.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 25%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Researcher 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 37 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 12%
Social Sciences 12 9%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 39 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2026.
All research outputs
#4,936,261
of 34,622,316 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#50,387
of 225,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,150
of 244,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,199
of 5,788 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,622,316 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,597 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,788 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.