ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Better than Goodenough? Evaluating new computational techniques for finding diagnostic structure in children's drawings.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In her 1926 book Measurement of Intelligence by Drawings, Florence Goodenough pioneered the quantitative analysis of children's human-figure drawings as a tool for evaluating their cognitive development. This influential work launched a broad enterprise in cognitive evaluation that continues to the present day, with most clinicians and researchers deploying variants of the checklist-based scoring methods that Goodenough invented. Yet recent work leveraging computational innovations in cognitive science suggests that human-figure drawings possess much richer structure than checklist-based approaches can capture. The current study uses these contemporary tools to characterize structure in the images from Goodenough's original work, then assesses whether this structure carries information about demographic and cognitive characteristics of the participants in that early study. The results show that contemporary methods can reliably extract information about participant age, gender, and mental faculties from images produced over 100 years ago, with no expert training and with minimal human effort. Moreover, the new analyses suggest a different relationship between drawing and mental ability than that captured by Goodenough's highly influential approach, with important implications for the use of drawings in cognitive evaluation in the present day.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38668991What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.