{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030226700251889168, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010075566750629723, 'mean_word_length': 5.549450549450549, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Review of Recent Literature on Figure Drawing Tests as Related to Research Problems in Art Education

Empirical research in the field of art education has employed drawings of the human figure to assess variables of drawing ability, perceptual awareness and growth, mental maturity, acculturation, etc. These studies have generally followed the same research methodologies as psychological research using figure drawings. In this paper I review experimental research in psychology in an attempt to identify research problems, and their strengths and weaknesses, which have implications for the use of figure drawings as assessment instruments in art education. Figure drawing tests have been employed historically both in the fields of art education and psychology (Harris, 1963; Koppitz, 1968; Dennis, 1966) to function as (a) nonverbal measures of intelligence, (b) nonverbal measures for the assessment of emotional and personality disorders, (c) means for the assessment of perceptual style, (d) means for the assessment of perceptual growth in art, (e) cross-cultural measures of perceptual style and intelligence, and (f) indicators of a child's level of growth and development in art.