Issues in computerized art therapy assessment

Thepurpose of this investigationwas to explore someof themain issues springing from the computerized assessment of art-based instruments (CAABI). The results indicated that therewere opposing viewpoints, limitations, and solutions regarding the limitations. Many art therapists believe that this technology will supplant their own expertise in assessment (Hartwich & Brandecker, 1997; Kim, Ryu, Hwang, & Kim, 2006). However, due to the prototypical and delineating nature of these programs, CAABI are incapable of replacing human assessment, particularly clinical intakes (Lichtenberger, 2006). Despite opposition and limitation, the author concluded that there is a need for increased research in CAABI based on the advantages it offers, such as ease-of-use, early detection, less scoring time, reduction of subjective human error, improved statistical measures, and resiliency in the face of healthcare reform (Kim, Ryu, et al., 2006; Kim, Kim, Lee, Lee, & Yoo, 2006; Kim, Kim, & Kim, 2008; Kim, Betts, Kim, & Kang, 2009). Overall, a hybridization of both subjective and objective methodologies will likely further art therapy assessment, but collaboration between clinicians and program developers is necessary for this to occur (Kapitan, 2007; Kim, Kang, & Kim, 2008; Mattson, 2009). © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Issues in computerized art therapy assessment The future of psychological assessment hinges on computerized technology adapted to the ever-changing healthcare system (Groth-Marnat, 2000). This technology features complex decision rules, reduces scoring time, presents novel stimuli for testing, and aids in generating clinical hypotheses (Lichtenberger, 2006). It plays an increasingly important role in the assessment field (Butcher, Perry, & Atlis, 2000; Garb, 2000; Lichtenberger, 2006; Reynolds, 2000; Snyder, 2000). However, because it is also an emergent application, it requires further investigation (Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz, & Nelson, 2000; Snyder, 2000). In response, several researchers, over the past decade, began using computers to score patient artwork (Kim, Ryu, Hwang, & Kim, 2006; Kim, Kim, Lee, Lee, & Yoo, 2006; Mattson, 2009). A zeitgeist (Rychlak, 1981, p. 76) formed in both Korea and the United States. Several researchers outlined new techniques and outcomes of this technologic application, though none of these researchers discussed the emergent issues that surround it. I examined these issues surrounding this technology, known as computerized assessment of art-based instruments (CAABI), and developed a case for increasing research in its area. It is important to note that there are few studies on CAABI, but many studies exist on subjectivemethods of art assessment (Betts, 2005; Kim, 2008b). ∗ Tel.: +1 941 321 2400. E-mail address: [email protected]. Research in objective CAABI requires strengthening because of the advantages it offers,which this investigation indicatesfirst (Kapitan, 2007; Kim, 2008a;Mattson, 2009). Because CAABI is new and problematic, opposing viewpoints and limitations follow as do possible remedies for these limitations. This technology shows promise because it holds key advantages over conventional scoring. They include: ease-of-use, early detection, less scoring time, reduction of subjective human error, improved statistical measures, and resiliency in the face of healthcare reform. The next section outlines these advantages.