Talk:Draw-A-Person test

Modifying for older candidates
This is just food for brainstorming; I'm not expecting a prompt or well-cited answer.

How could the test be modified to make it useful for older subjects candidates, without worsening the inherent biases? One might start by reducing the time limit without rescinding the "work carefully" instruction, making the subject candidate aware of the limit so s/he can plan accordingly, but this wouldn't be enough in itself.

And speaking about biases, how much better might the test serve its original goals if the word "average" or "normal" (as in "average person") were explicitly incorporated into the instructions, without any elaboration on what the word means? This would still catch mental disorders that affect the subject's candidate's idea of "average." I know there isn't much non-original research on this. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC) (+ 18:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC))
 * This article doesn't cover the projective half, but some of its citations do, especially Hasan's thesis that discusses "emotional indicators" (EI). If the instructions were modified to mention "average", disorders of the subject's candidate's "average" concept would likely show up on the projective scale. I'll probably be lurking on Cognitive Science Stack Exchange for a while to try to form a question or two about DAP. --Tepples (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking about speed drawing, another idea I had is to score the drawing at two different times, like an Apgar score: Give the candidate a short time to finish a rough drawing, score the drawing at that time, then give the candidate some additional time to make improvements to the existing drawing (without any instructions on what to improve). I don't have a clear answer on what variable such a version of the test would predict, though. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC) (+ 05:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC))
 * The DHEW study kind of did that when setting the five minute soft and seven minute hard limit. After that much time, the candidate's changes did not significantly improve the drawing. --Tepples (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that the soft time limit would need to be shorter (1-3 minutes?) for the older candidates which I am discussing. (Not actually having read the reference, I was not sure whether the same drawing was formally scored at both the soft and hard limits for each candidate.) --Eighty5cacao (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC) (+ 03:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

Drawing by a subject depicts a subject
I find the word "subject" too ambiguous for this article because it can refer to the test subject vs. the subject of a portrait. (Perhaps it's telling that neither ends up being the grammatical subject of "This drawing depicts Bidge.") So I've tried to use "candidate" for the person being tested and "character" for the person being drawn. --Tepples (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin
I understand that the "Krugerrand" part of this edit summary involves a play on words, but did you intend any commentary on the societal merit of cryptocurrencies in general (i.e., that use of cryptocurrencies implies incompetence of some sort)? Sorry, I know this is a bit off-topic for the article. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that users of the DKR term perceive lack of merit. I currently lack a position on it. --Tepples (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)