The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between self-efficacy in adolescents and PPAT (Person Picking an Apple from a tree) assessment by analyzing the characteristics of responses to PPAT assessment of self-efficacy in adolescents. ...
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between self-efficacy in adolescents and PPAT (Person Picking an Apple from a tree) assessment by analyzing the characteristics of responses to PPAT assessment of self-efficacy in adolescents.
300 students who are studying in B middle school in G-do participated in the self-efficacy and PPAT assessment. The researchers evaluated 289 students’ results; the other 11 results were not evaluated. We divided the 289 results into the top 27% (80 students) and bottom 27% (79 students) and analyzed them using the FEATS and Contents Scale of PPAT assessment. All three evaluators, including myself, are art therapists. To improve reliability in the scoring, we evaluated one another’s scoring of the students’ results. To get the result I used an independent sample t test for FEATS and cross-scale analysis (x²) for the Contents Scale.
Looking at the results obtained in the research problem, Nine of the fourteen grading criteria in FEATS ‘Prominence', 'Space', 'Integration', 'Logic', 'Problem Solving', ‘Development Level', 'Detail of Objects & environment', 'Line Quality' and 'Person' showed significant differences. The high self-efficacy group showed more coloring, more use of space, more integration between objects, and more logicality than the low self-efficacy group. They also had a higher problem-solving ability and development stage of painting. Moreover, they portrayed more details of the object, modulated the quality of lines well, and expressed details of people.
Five criteria on the contests scale showed significant differences: 'Gender', 'Orientation of Person's Face', 'Approximate Age of Person', 'Apple Tree' and ‘Environmental Details'. For 'Gender' a majority of the low self-efficacy group (31.4%) were scored under 'ambiguous man', and a majority of the high self-efficacy group (49.2%) were scored under 'clear woman'. Regarding 'Orientation of Person's Face' a majority of the low self-efficacy group (45.8%) drew a face without eyes, a nose, a mouth, or ears, and high self-efficacy group had 31.1% in ‘verse back’ part. For 'Approximate Age of Person' a majority of the low self-efficacy group (47.7%) were scored as 'can’t know' or 'kids, toddler', while a majority of the high self-efficacy group (75.4%) were scored as 'adolescents, adults'. For the 'Apple Tree' criterion, a majority of the low self-efficacy group (52.7%) drew one apple, while a majority of the high self-efficacy group (84.8%) drew more than ten apples. For 'Environmental' a majority of the low self-efficacy group (90.5%) gave no depiction of the background, while a majority of the high self-efficacy group (63.6%) depicted the background.
Through my analysis of these results, I determined that the PPAT is useful as an objective method to support verbal psychological testing; moreover, I expect it to be useful as a supplemental diagnostic method to assess the self-efficacy levels in adolescents.