{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03697749196141479, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00482315112540193, 'mean_word_length': 5.225, '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}}
Problems of “Draw-a-Person: A Quantitative Scoring System” (DAP:QSS) as a Measure of Intelligence

There has been some ongoing debate on whether the DAP:QSS can be used to measure intelligence. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the concurrent validity of the DAP:QSS with Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPM) and the DAP:QSS's accuracy as a predictor of RCPM scores and academic achievement. 184 children from two elementary schools in a region of Southern Italy was evaluated by the DAP:QSS, the RCPM, the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test (GH), and school marks. Drawings' scores, school marks, and RCPM scores were subjected to a Pearson's correlation. Stepwise regression analyses were carried out to identify significant predictors of RCPM scores and school marks. After controlling for socioeconomic status, the DAP:QSS showed a significant correlation with the RCPM and GH tests and academic achievement. However, the modest correlations with the RCPM, the small amount of variance in RCPM scores accounted for by the DAP:QSS (R2 = .24), and the errors of the DAP:QSS in correctly classifying participants with borderline/deficient intellectual functioning advise against the use of the DAP:QSS as a measure of intelligence.