Variables considered on art therapy assessments and rating instruments: a systematic review

Objectives: Art-based assessments are used by art therapists and sometimes researchers principally to: determine treatments, levels of cognition and functioning, evaluate progress of a client or to understand the client’s environment and problems that can be represented in a graphic level. These art-based assessments use determined evaluation instruments to measure parameters to understand their clients. The rating instruments have different variables and some studies even present their own adapted scales. For this systematic review, the tools examined in the analysis are: The Bird’s Nest Drawing (BND); the Bridge Drawing; the Diagnostic Drawing Series (DDS); the Person Picking an Apple from a Tree (PPAT); and Free Drawing Assessment. Rating instruments are also considered, including the Descriptive Assessment of Psychiatric Art (DAPA), the DDS Rating Guide and Drawing Analysis Form (DAF), the Formal Elements Art Therapy Scale (FEATS) and studies that include their own scale. There are different elements considered when assessing drawings and artwork approaches to make assessment test using art-based and art therapy tools. The principal objective of the present systematic review was to observe the different elements analysed. The specific objectives were; to describe characteristics of this assessments and to observe the elements considered to analyse drawings in order to observe their application and their validity. Methods: Studies available in English were accessed. The following databases were used: AMED, A&HCI, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Medline, Psych INFO and Google Scholar. Searches covered the periods from database inception to July 2021 on art therapy and art-based assessment diagnose tools. Results: There were different variables used in art therapy and art based assessment diagnose tools. There were some variables that related or were named differently un some studies. However, there were other variables that were considered in some studies, while in other ones where not. To analyse the assessment the majority were using qualitative and observational technics, a few studies did not share their analysis, in this kind of studies only a thematic analysis or other type of analysis where developed studied. Descriptive results and synthesis outcomes reveal that art therapists are still in a nascent stage of understanding assessments and rating instruments, that flaws in the art therapy assessment and rating instrument literature research are numerous, and that much work has yet to be done. Conclusions: Descriptive results and synthesis revel that some studies have some limitations in some studies regarding to the content that is and how is analysed. Art therapy and art-based studies stills in a nascent stage of understanding the variables considered when using rating instruments. This systematic review also contributes as there are flaws in the art therapy and art-based rating instruments are numerous. There is a limited evidence on studies related with assessment diagnose tools and the reliability of some scales.