THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: A FACTOR ANALYTIC

STUDY OF EACH DESIGN AS IT RELATES TO VARIOUS

INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY TRAITS

APPROVED!

,^T
Majc^ Proressor

nor Professor

Dean of the School OT Education

Dean of the Graduate School

THE BENDER-GESTALT TEST: A FACTOR ANALYTIC
STUDY OF EACH DESIGN AS IT RELATES TO VARIOUS
INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY TRAITS

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

By

Dollye Yeargan, 3. A.
Denton, Texas
May, 1968
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OP TABLES iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Rationale
Related Research
Statement of Problem and Purpose
Chapter Bibliography
II. METHODOLOGY l4
Subjects
Measurements Used
Procedure
Statistical Treatment of Data
Chapter Bibliography
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 24
Presentation of Data
Interpretation
Evaluation and Recommendations
Chapter Bibliography
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 44
APPENDIX 47
BIBLIOGRAPHY 56

iii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table

I. Intercorrelations and. Rotated Factor Matrix

for B-G Designs and G-Z Factors G, A,
E, 0, F, and T 25
II. Intercorrelations and Rotated Factor Matrix
for B-G Deviation Categories and G-Z
Factors G, A, E, 0, F, and T 28
III. Intercorrelations and Rotated Factor Matrix
for G-Z Factors and Non-Personality
Variables . . . . . . . . . 32
IV. Sample Means and Standard Deviations
Compared with Normative Samples . . . . . 35

iv
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page
1. Representation of G-Z Profile Chart 16
2. Meaning of Trait Symbols on G-Z 17

v
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In the three decades since the publication of Bender's

monograph on the Visual Motor Gestalt Test (l), hereinafter
referred to as B-G, much evidence has been accumulated both
in experimental research and in practical application in
hospitals and clinics which indicates the complexity of
this deceptively simple device for the measurement of visuo-
motor ability as an index to perceptual function. Most of
the research on the B-G has been undertaken in an effort to
prove its validity as a diagnostic tool for use by clinicians
(6, 10, 12, 25, 31. 32, 33. ^1. ^5)• Although it was origin-
ally designed for use in determining brain damage, its sim-
plicity of administration, relative freedom from cultural and
intellectual bias (35. 3&, 37) > and its non-threatening
character have led to its use as part of screening batteries
in many Veterans Administration hospitals and other medical
institutions where time and professional attention on an
individual basis are at a premium (5» 24). As a consequence,
most studies involving the B-G have been designed in such
a way as to substantiate its efficacy for differentiating
the many different diagnostic categories from each other
and from non-clinical groups (3, 8, 9» 11» 27, 42, 43,

46, 48).

Several different methods have been devised for scoring

the B-G. These have been dependent upon whether the B-Ci-

pro tocol was interpreted quantitatively (3« 11» 3*0 or

qualitatively as a projective device (7» ZJ>, JO, 40, 44,

47). Koppitz (27. 28, 29) interprets children's records

both quantitatively and qualitatively using a developmental

scoring method based on research findings and her own

clinical experience.

Rationale

The rationale underlying the B-G is based on the

Gestalt psychology of perception. Bender (2) defines

Gestalt function as " . . . that function of the integrated

organism whereby it responds to a given constellation or

pattern or gestalt." She further states that integration

occurs by differentiation. The whole setting of the stimulus

and the whole integrative state of the organism is thought

to determine the pattern of response made by the organism.

Thus, any deviation in the whole organism will be reflected

in the sensory motor pattern in response to the given

stimulus pattern.

It is the assumption of those administering the B-G

that an adequate measurement of an individual's perceptual

behavior will provide the basis for an evaluation of his

personality organization. This assumption goes further
in saying that certain perceptual behavior is "normal"
for an "average" person, and that the examinee's emotional
patterns and intellectual level of functioning will dis-
tort his perceptual behavior from this hypothetical average
in a systematic manner (3)«

Related Research
Billingslea (^) gives a complete survey of the lit-
erature reporting research findings on the B-G from 1950
to 1961. Briefly, he summarizes research on the test
designs themselves, the various scoring systems, and the
diagnostic interpretations. He concludes that when scored
objectively the B»G's validity in determining MAs for
children, and as an additional tool in a test battery
aimed at differential diagnoses, is acceptable. He feels
that symbolic interpretation of the B-G is highly subjective
and due to lack of standardization he does not recommend
the B-G as a norm against which to judge other variables.

Another comprehensive review of the literature on

the B-G has been done by Tolor and Schulberg (^3)• They
qualify Billingslea's statement concerning the determination
of MAs for children and state that the B-G is valid for
this purpose solely when the child's ego functioning is
at least moderately impaired. With regard to the use of
the B-G as 'a projective instrument Tolor and Schulberg
draw no general conclusions. They suggest that the B-G
is perhaps more reliable in predicting overt behavioral
tendencies than covert traits. The following statements
paraphrase the conclusions of Tolor and Schulberg in the
different areas of B-G investigation:
Research findings are inconsistent and present a
mixed picture concerning the psycho-neurotic disturbances,
as to whether groups of neurotics can be differentiated
from groups of normals, from groups of psychotics in general
or from groups of schizophrenics in particular. Much of
the research in this area is seriously inadequate.
The meager evidence available with respect to the
character and behavior disorders suggests that group differ-
entiation of such disorders is at least as difficult as for
neurotics. It is concluded that the B-G is possibly not a
valid instrument for either neurotic or character and be-
havior diagnosis. No convincing evidence for an "alcoholic
pattern" on the B-G has been reported, alcoholism being
manifested in impaired overall Bender performance by groups
of alcoholics.
Groups of psychotics can be differentiated from groups
of normals and organics on the basis of B-G scores. The
greatest concentration of Bender research activity has
occurred in the area of assessing concurrent validity of
the B-G for making organic discriminations. Tolor and
Schulberg lament the lack of effort which has been expended
toward researching construct validity of the B-G.
A good start has been made in this direction for
hospitalized populations by Guertin (15, 16, 17> 18, 19)
with the factor analysis of the B-G for the different
types of schizophrenia and brain pathology. His work has
been prodigious and it is not apparent why his findings
have not been more fully utilized. Haynes (22) has used
a similar research design on a non-clinlcal population
to determine how personality variables are related to
B-G performance. While Guertin failed to find a common
factor in his highly specialized groups, he did find a
high communality in all his studies. No common factor
was revealed in the Haynes study, indicating that for
a non-clinical population the designs measure different
factors or complexes of factors.

Those aspects of Bender performance which explicate

specific psychological processes and special adaptive
mechanisms must be defined and demonstrated in individual
Bender records in a reliable manner. Almost all previous
research has been directed toward validating the B-G as
a device for diagnostic purposes in differentiating groups.
Tolor (W-) found that the individual designs differed
decidedly in their stimulus value for different subjects.
Goodstein, Spielberger, Williams, and Dahlstrom (13) found

that the recall of a given design was a function of both its

difficulty level and its serial position. Such non-person-

ality variables may also effect performance on the B-G per

se. Koppitz (29) states that there is no evidence that B-G

deviations measure the same thing nor any reason why a Bender

protocol can be interpreted in only one way. Many clinicians

ignore scoring systems because their intuitive evaluations

are just as reliable. This practice has been researched and

found valid (6, 32, 33).

Statement of Problem and Purpose

Two unresolved questions seem to arise from a review of

the literature related to the use and interpretation of the

B-G. Is it possible that the B-G protocol of an individual

is a complex of many different, discrete, perceptual tests?

Is it possible to find the relationships among the scoring

factors for the B-G and by factor analysis find some

systematic order among the individual designs useful in

predicting specific behavioral propensities?

If a consistent relationship can be shown to exist

between scorable deviations on the B-G designs and certain

personality variables among individuals, then perhaps a

start can be made toward predictive validity of the B-G.

It is the purpose of this investigation to seek such

consistent relationships.
 CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bender, Lauretta, A Visual Motor Gestalt Test and Its

Clinical Use, New York, American Orthopsychiatry
Association, Inc., 1938.
2. , Instructions for the Use of the Visual
Motor Gestalt Test, New York, American Orthopsychiatry
Association, Inc., 19^6.
3. Billingslea, Fred Y., "The Bender-Gestalt: An Objective
Scoring Method and Validating Data," Journal of Clinical
Psychology, IV (January, 19^8), 1-2?.
i+, , "The Bender-Gestalt: A Review and a
Perspective," Psycholog1cal Bulletin , LX (March, 19&3' »

233-251.
5. Boring, Randolph 0. and Topper, Robert C., A Psychodlag-
nostlc Technique, Veterans Administration, Tuscaloosa,

Alabama, 19^9.
6. Bowland, J. A. and Deabler, H. L., "A Bender-Gestalt
Diagnostic Validity Study," Journal of Clinical Psychology,

XX (June, 1956), 127-136.

7. Brown, Fred, Psychodynamic Aspects of the Bender-Gestalt
V1sua1 Motor Test: A Compendium, edited by Stuart L.
Weissman and Abraham Roth, White Plains, New York, 19^5 •
 8

8. Byrd, Eugene, "The Clinical Validity of the Bender-

Gestalt Test with Children: A. Developmental Com-
parison of Children in Need of Psychotherapy and
Children Judged Well-Adjusted," Journal of Projective
Techniques, XX. (June, 1956), 127-136.
9. Clawson, Aileen, "The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test
As an Index of Emotional Disturbance in Children,"
Journal of Projective Techniques, XXIII (February,
1959), 198-206.
10. Freed, Earl X., "Comparison on Admission and Discharge
of Bender Gestalt Test Performance by Hospitalized
Psychiatric Patients," Perceptual and Motor Skills,
XXIII (September, 1966), 919-922.
11. Gobetz, Wallace, "A Quantification, Standardization, and
Validation of the Bender-Gestalt Test on Normal and
Neurotic Adults," Psychological Monographs, LXVII
(June, 1953), Whole No. 356.
12. Goldberg, Lewis R., "The Effectiveness of Clinicians'
Judgments: The Diagnosis of Organic Brain Damage from
the Bender-Gestalt Test," Journal of Consulting Psy-
chology. XXIII (January, 1959), 25-33.
13. Goodstein, Leonard,D., Speilberger, Charles D., Williams,
John E. and Dahlstrom, W. Grant, "The Effects of Serial
Position and Design Difficulty on Recall of the Bender-
Gestalt Test Designs," Journal of Consulting Psychology,
XIX (March, 1955), 230-234.
 9

1^. Griffith, R. M. and Taylor, Vivian H., "Incidence

of Bender-Gestalt Figure Rotations," Journal of
Consulting Psychology, XXIV (February, i 9 6 0 ) , 189-190.
15. Guertin, Wilson H., "A Factor Analysis of the Bender-
Gestalt Tests of Mental Patients," Journal of Clinical
Psychology, VIII (1952), 3 6 2 - 3 6 7 .
16 . , "A Factor Analysis of Curvilinear
Distortions of the Bender-Gestalt," Journal of Clinical
Psychology, X (195*0, 12-17.
17. , "A Transposed Factor Analysis of
Schizophrenic Performance on the Bender-Gestalt,"

Journal of Clinical Psychology, X (195*0 » 225-228.

18. ; , "A Transposed Analysis of the
Bender Gestalts of Brain Disease Cases," Journal
of Clinical Psychology, X (195*0 > 3 6 6 - 3 6 9 .

19 . , "A Transposed Analysis of the Bender-

Gestalts of Paranoid Schizophrenics," Journal of

Clinical Psychology, XI (1955). 73-76.
20. Halpern, Florence, "The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt
Test," Chapter 11, An Introduction to Projective
Techniques, edited by H. L. Anderson and Gladys L.
Anderson, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York, 1951-
21. Hammer, Emanuel F., "An Experimental Study of Symbolism
on the Bender-Gestalt," Journal of Projective Techniques,
XVIII (195*+), 335-3^5.
 10

22. Haynes, Jack R., "A Factor Analytic Study of Performance

on the Bender-Gestalt," unpublished paper read at the
Southwestern Psychological Association Convention, 1967.
23- Hutt, Max L. and Briskin, Gerald J., The Clinical Use of
the Revised Bender-Gestalt Test, New York, Grune and
Stratton, Inc., i960.
24. Hutt, Max L., "The Use of Projective Methods of Person-
ality Measurement in Army Medical Installations,"
Journal of Clinical Psychology. I (1945), 134-140.
25. Keehn, J. D., "Repeated Testing of Four Chronic Schizo-
phrenics on the Bender-Gestalt and Wechsler Block Design
Tests," Journal of Clinical Psychology. XIII (February,
1957), 179-182.
26. Keogh, B. K. and Smith, C. E., "Visuo-motor Ability for
School Prediction," Perceptual and Motor Skills. XXV
(May, 1967), 101-110.
27. Koppitz, Elizabeth M., "The Bender Gestalt Test for
Children," Journal of Clinical Psychology. XVI (October,
I960), 432-435.
28 . , "The Bender Gestalt Test and Learn-
ing Disturbances in Young Children," Journal of Clinical
Psychology. XIV (July, 1958), 292-295.
29• ,The Bender Gestalt Test for Young
Children, New York, Grune and Stratton, Inc., 1964.
30. Lachmann, F. M., Bailey, M. A., and Berrick, M. E.,
"The Relationship Between Manifest Anxiety and
Clinicians' Evaluations of Projective Test Responses,"
 11

Journal of Clinical Psychology. XVII (January, 1961),

11-13.
31. Lonstein, Murray, "A Validation of a Bender-Gestalt
Scoring System," Journal of Consulting; Psychology,

XVIII (May, 195*0. 377-379.

32. Mehlman, Benjamin and Vatovec, Edward, "A Validation
Study of the Bender-Gestalt," Journal of Consulting
Psychology. XX (January, 1956), 71-73•
33• Nadler, Eugene B., Fink, Stephen L., Shontz, Franklin C.,
and Brink, Robert W. , "Objective Scoring Vs. Clinical
Evaluation of the Bender-Gestalt," Journal of Clinical
Psychology, XV (January, 1959). 39-^1.

3^. Pascal, Gerald R. and Suttell, Barbara., The Bender-

Gestalt Test, New York, Grune and Stratton, Inc., 1951'
35* Peek, Roland M„ and Olson, Gordon W., "The Bender-

Gestalt Recall As an Index of Intellectual Functioning,"

Journal of Clinical Psychology, XI (April, 1955)»
185-188.

36. Peek, Roland M, and Storms, Lowell H., "Judging In-

tellectual Status from the Bender-Gestalt Test,"
J ournal of Clinical Psychology, XIV (July, 1958),
296-299.
37* Peoples, Crocker and Moll, Richard P., "Bender-Gestalt
Performance As a Function of Drawing Ability, School
Performance, and Intelligence," Journal of Clinical
Psychology. XVIII (January, 1962), 106-107.
 12

38. Popplestone, John A., "Variability of the Bender-

Gestalt Designs," Perceptual and Motor Skills, VI
(August, 1956), 269-271.

39. Prado, William M., Peyman, Douglas A. R., and Lacey,

Oliver L., "A Validation Study of Measures of Flat-
tened Affect on the Bender-Gestalt Test," Journal
of Clinical Psychology. XVI (October, i 9 6 0 ) , 435-438.
40. Projective Techniques with Children, edited by Albert

J. Rabin and Mary R. Haworth, New York, Grune and

Stratton, i 9 6 0 , 3 2 0 .
41. Stennett, R. G„ and Uffelmann, Ruth, "The Bender-
Gestalt s Manner of Approach," Canadian Journal
of Psychology, XII (March, 1958), 184-186.
42. Tamkin, Arthur S., "The Effectiveness of the Bender-
Gestalt in Differential Diagnosis," Journal of
Consulting Psychology, XXI (August, 1957), 355-357*
43. Tolor, Alexander and Schulberg, Herbert C., An Evalua-
tion of the Bender-GestaIt Test, Springfield, 111.,
Charles C. Thomas, 1963.
44. Tolor, Alexander, "The 'Meaning' of the Bender-Gestalt
Test Designs," Journal of Projective Techniques,

XXIV ( i 9 6 0 ) , 433-438.
45. Tucker, John E. and Speilberg, Mimi J., "Bender-Gestalt
Test Correlates of Emotional Depression," Journal of
Consulting Psychology. XXII (January, 1958), 56.
 13

^6. Wohl, Julian, "A Note on the Generality of Constriction,"

Journal of Projective Techniques. XXI (1957) > ^10-klJ,
4-7. Woltmann, A. G,, "The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test,"
Projective Psychology, edited by E. D. Abt and
L, Bellak, New York, Grove Press, Inc., 1959.
*4-8. Zolik, Edwin S. , "A Comparison of the Bender Gestalt
Reproductions of Delinquents and Non-Delinquents,"
Journal of Clinical Psychology. XIV (January, 1958),
2^-26.
 CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Subjects

The subjects (Ss) employed in this investigation were

110 residents of a state-supported correctional institution
for girls. The residents of this school are from widely
diverse socio-economic, cultural and racial backgrounds.
For a girl to be sent here she must be declared delinquent
by a judge in a court of law. While this legal action
is necessary, it should be kept in mind that a girl can
be declared delinquent for as small an offense as habitual
truancy, which is defined as three or more consecutive
days of unexplained absence from school. Other offenses
range all the way from shoplifting or running away from
home to vagrancy or prostitution. Between these two ex-
tremes lie the vast majority of girls, each one a varied
complexity of interrelated behavioral, social and personal
characteristics combined to make up an individual whose
needs are as varied as her character make-up.
The most apparent common denominator among these
girls is an episode of distressing experience which has
necessitated her removal from society in general to this

lh.
 15

correctional institution. The amount of self-devaluation

incurred by this process is different in each case and
sometimes, as in the case of cultural deprivation, the
change of environment is a definite improvement over the
girl's former situation. The school has afforded for some
the only evidence they have ever had of their own worth
as human beings. Here, they are valued as individuals
capable of learning how to fulfill their own potential
in a socially-acceptable manner. Here, they .learn self-
respect and consequently, respect for others. This shel-
tered environment with the security of definite limitations
teaches them self-control and how to put off immediate
self-gratification in favor of more lasting and beneficial
long-term goals.
The Examiner (E) found these Ss and the staff of the
school unusually cooperative, helpful and friendly. Any
preconceived notion of what a juvenile delinquent would
be like was readily dissipated by knowledge of the real
thing. The general demeanor of the girls manifested during
the several testing interviews was much like that to be
found in any high school population.

Measurements Used
The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (G-Z) was
utilized to define the personality variables for this
study. This instrument has been widely used for a number
 16

of years for personality assessment and has been empirically

validated. A more detailed analysis of the factors yielded
by the G-Z, its validity and its reliability are reported in
a monograph by the test authors (4). The G-Z yields scores
on a continuum from one to thirty for ten different traits.
A low score means a lack of the trait depicted in a certain
scale and conversely, a high score indicates an abundance of
that trait. The following two figures illustrate the ten
personality traits as shown on the G-Z Profile Chart and give
the meaning of the symbols used in their designation. The
middle column in Figure 1 contains those scores which fall
at the median in the G-Z normative population.
SHOOS~

r\
\J R A S E 0 F T P M
M F M F M F
o
10 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 o

19 17 17 15 21 19 19 15 17 19 19 21 10
5 18 16 16 14 20 18 18 14 16 18 18 20 11
17 15 15 13 19 17 17 13 15 17 17

0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 25
M F M F M F
r*
vjr R A s E 0 F T P M

Fig. 1--Representation of G-Z Profile Chart

 17

High Low

G General Activity Inactivity

Energy Slowness
R Restraint Impulsiveness
Seriousness Rhathymia
A Ascendance Submi ssivene s s
Social Boldness
S Social Interest Shyness
Sociability Seclusiveness
E Emotional Emotional Insta-
Stability bility; Depression
0 Objectivity Subjectivity
Hypersensitiveness
F Friendliness Hostili ty
Agreeableness Belligerence
T Thoughtfulne s s Unreflectiveness
leflectiveness
P Personal Relations Criticalness
Cooperativeness Intolerance
M Masculinity Femininity

Fig. 2--Meaning of Trait Symbols on G-Z

The B-G has already been described as to purpose

and rationale. It consists of nine line drawings which
Bender adapted from Wertheimer's thirty original patterns
which he used for research in visual gestalt psychology
(2).
 18

Each figure is on a separate white card. These are

presented to the S one at a time to be examined and copied.
Figure A is used as an introductory figure and is not
scored. Figures one through eight are then presented
in order. Sheets of plain, white, unlined paper and a
pencil with an eraser are provided.
The B-G protocols for this study were scored by
the Pascal and Suttell (P&S) scoring system (6). With
this method deviations are scored quantitatively by
scoring criteria which are specified and illustrated
in detail by P&S in their manual. After scoring, the
points for each of the eight designs are summed yielding
a raw score which may be converted into a standard score
with one of two tables presented by P&S in their manual.
The number of points for each particular deviation
increases with its severity. This scoring method has
been widely used both in experimental and clinical settings
because it makes possible a detailed, objective analysis
of B-G protocols which is quantifiable for further
statistical treatment.

Collection of Test Data

The 110 Ss were tested during the early evening
hours on several different weekdays during the month
of March, 1968. So that a random sample could be obtained,
 19

the Ss were tested at their various dormitories where there

is no distinction as to grade level of intellectual status.
Each dormitory houses a maximum of forty girls when it is
filled to capacity. The usual number tested in one evening
was between twenty-five and thirty-five.
The G-Z was administered as a group test according to
standard testing procedure (5)« Time was allowed for ques-
tions. The assistant superintendent and the house mothers
were present during most of the testing periods and helped
the Ss with those test questions they did not understand.

At the conclusion of the first testing session four

G-Z test records had to be discarded because of question-
able validity. The G-Z answer sheet provides answer cate-
gories for "yes," "no," and "?." In each case lack of
validity was due to excessive use of the "?" answer. It
is stated in the G-Z manual that more than three "?" answers
in any one trait scale serves to invalidate that scale. For
subsequent sessions the G-Z test directions were modified.
Ss were instructed to use only the "yes" and "no" categories
in answering the test questions.

Of the nine other S_s whose test records had to be dis-

carded because cf lack of validity, two were mentally de-
ficient, two became ill and did not finish, and two filled
in the answer sheet arbitrarily without reading the test
questions. The remaining four girls were of Spanish extrac-
tion and could not read English well enough to give valid
 20

answers. The remaining 110 of the 123 Ss tested represent

slightly more than one-third of the total population of the

school.

After each S completed the G-Z, she was administered

the B-G and non-personality variables were observed and

recorded. Instructions were, "Here are nine designs for

you to copy--without sketching--the way they are on the

cards. There is no time limit. Just copy the designs as

well as you can." A record was made of the time required

to complete each test design. Blocking, tremor not mani-

fested in the drawings, erasures, and handedness were re-

corded for each S. It soon became evident that these

variables (except for time) happened so rarely in this

particular sample that their occurrence would not have

proven statistically significant and they were subsequently

dropped from the study. When the testing program was com-

pleted, tests were scored and data compiled. These findings

were submitted to the North Texas State University Computer

Center for statistical treatment.

Statistical Treatment of Test Data

Three separate factor analyses were computed from the

test data. The first analysis included separate scores for

each Bender design for each S and the personality factors

G, A, E, 0, F, and T from the G-Z. The second analysis was

comprised of scores from eight selected deviation categories

 21

summed across designs from the B-G and the same personality-
variables used in the first analysis. The designs included
in the different deviation categories were as follows:

Dots, dashes and circles Figures 1, 3» 5

Workover Figures 1, 3» 5
Wavy line Figure 2
Blunting Figure 3
Deviant slant Figure 2
Asymmetry Figures 3> 5> 6
Rotation Figures 3» 5» 7» 8
Distortion Figures 7, 8
Angles missing and Figures 7, 8
Angles extra

The third analysis utilized all ten of the personality

variables from the G-Z, Total Time for all nine B-G figures
in seconds, Chronological Age expressed in months, Compres-
sion and Expansion. Compression was defined as use of one-
half or less of the paper for all nine B-G designs and
Expansion was defined as use of more than one page for the
nine B-G designs.
All three factor analyses were computed using the
principal-axes method. Use of this method of solution was
warranted because each factor extracts the maximum amount
of variance; j. ..e. , the sum of squares of factor loadings
is maximized on each factor and gives the smallest possible
residuals. The correlation matrix is condensed into the
 22

smallest number of orthogonal factors by this method and

It also has the advantage of giving a mathematically unique
(least squares) solution for a given table of correlations.
Since it was desired to obtain factors which would best re-
produce the actual original scores, unity was inserted in
the diagonals. Extracted factors thus accounted for the
error variance as well as the common and specific variances
(3). A Varimax rotation of the axes was carried out in order
to obtain factors that were as invariant as possible from
analysis to analysis (l).
 23

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Baggaley, Andrew R., Intermediate Correlational Methods,

New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.
2. Bender, Lauretta, Instructions for the Use of the
Visual Motor Gestalt Test. New York, American
Orthopsychaitric Association, Inc., 19^6.
3. Fruchter, B., Introduction to Factor Analysis, New
York, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 195^•
4. Guilford, J. P. and Zimmerman, W. S., "Fourteen Dimensions
of Temperament," Psychological Monographs, LXX (1956),
Whole No. ^17.
5« Guilford, J. P. and Zimmerman, W. S., The Gullford-
Zimmerman Temperament Survey: Manual of Instruct!ons
and Interpretations, Beverly Hills, California, Sheridan
Supply Company, 19^9.
6. Pascal, Gerald R. and Suttell, Barbara J., The Bender-
Gestalt Test, New York, Grune and Stratton, Inc., 1951*
 CHAPTER III

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Presentation of Data

Rotated factor loadings, intercorrelations, and commu-

nalities for each of the three factor analyses are shown
in Tables I, II, and III. Means and standard deviations
along with the P&S and G&Z normative data are shown in
Table IV. The raw data used in the computations are in-
cluded in the Appendix.

Analysis of Bender Designs

Unlike the Guertin studies on hospitalized popula-
tions (4, 5, 6, 7, 8) and the Haynes study on a non-clini-
cal population (ll), the analysis of the eight B-G designs
shown in Table I yielded a general factor common to all
eight Bender designs Indicating that the B-G is measuring
a unitary segment of behavior common to the Ss in this
population. Variables E( 0, and F loaded on Factor II
indicating a fairly stable personality characteristic
common to this population. These traits also load with
designs 7 and 8 which are positively related and which
are also positively correlated with all the other designs.
It should be noted that their communalities are more than half

24
 25

CXI
.c r-i owo ^cACA^A{N-o\vO-^-ct co-3r
^ -3- -3- ca ^a^a^ad-md o~\c co
(AMD CDCOOOrHCAsHVOMDCA EN-00 O
CQ THOOC^Ov-iOJOO^trHOOCN
fH II II I II
o
-P
o ca-3~ o co cm-^-vomd ca in- cm -3* cno
as vHO^OVHOOTH O-VD O-ct O
I I I I I
CO CA CN-XO CM CM CN- CA CN-00 O-MD CD 0\
O OHOOOHHCMOWVDOO^OO
jj II 111 I
C
w O
p
w o v e *A-^ vr\ 00 OC\3^-H(MON
M V
o OMDVO ^A\0 ^AMD N W d O O H
I III
w
EH H C\l CO 4" NQ\H CA CNVO {>-0- t-H
oPd -3" tHOOTHOOTHOOCMTHTHO
P II II I II
PH £5
X C vo H NONONHCO CN \
£ > {N. IN. tH
t1 0^ OtHOOOVHTHTHOTHCM-^-
r-i PH I I I I I I I I I I
01
EH
o CM CAOO r-t\OCMMDONrHCM\OrH
OHOOOHdCMOW^
II I III
a w OV0 4" CM VO H CM ^AO\H
H Eh xHOOOOOTHTHVHCA
O II f i l l
W <3 CO
PH a rHCMCMCMCA^ArH^CM
PQ o OOHCMOOHOW
P o *rH I I
EH W
Eh CO -P Ovjf^NHO^OON
as cN H o O H C\] O CM H
<1
Eh oP3 —
i i III I I I I
O EH 0
P=5 O fH CKCMVD-^^-
C Jh CO CA CA CA CA CA CA *A
P oo
<d Ni O CNCO^O (TWO
CO O ca cm
S25
O P \o O-GO iN-CA Vf\
CM TH t-4 CM CM
H S25
EH <! nd
0)
<5
M On —
t i ENVO -p
W CM CACACM .p
P3 •H
Pd a
o —
\ I x—I \Q o
o
Pd CM CACM CQ
w -P
Eh ca ^A CM £
S3 (A CA •H
M O
Pk
CM
-3"
I
Cj<|WOPhEH •H
O
0
—
t I CM CA-3* ^AMD CNCO OX O rH CM CA-3" n
tH rH *—
! ) ^—I v—I
 26

the total variance of the intercorrelation matrix. It

might be surmised that the personality variables of
emotional instability, hypersensitivity and belligerence
combine in these Ss to manifest themselves overtly in an
inability to cope with angularity, _i._e., juxtapositioning
of angles and leaving out or inserting extra angles.
The above-mentioned hostility and lack of ego-involvement
or poor motivation and impulsivity could have been operative
in causing the careless execution manifested on figures
7 and 8.

Personality variables G, A, and E load positively

and F negatively on factor III indicating that this might
be characterized by the outgoingness and extraversion char-
acteristic of the sociopathic personality. This outward
charm coupled with a lack of real respect for the rights
of others (negative F loading) is also characteristic of
sociopathy and might be expected in this population.

Designs 4 and ? load on factor IV along with A. T

loaded on this factor with an extremely high loading (.90).
This loading coupled with a communality of .84 suggest that
perhaps this factor might be characterized as poor contact
with reality. The fact that A (Ascendance) also loads
positively on this factor suggests that in fantasy perhaps
these Ss are highly concerned with being "stars" or leaders
among their peers, perhaps exercising authority over them.
 2?

The fact that E (Emotional Stability) loads positively on

this factor suggests that these power needs are kept in
the realm of fantasy rather than operative in overt behavior
by the expenditure of conscious control. This lack of con-
tact with reality is also shown in loadings on designs if-
and 7, both of which have previously been shown to be par-
ticularly difficult for emotionally maladjusted Ss to
execute (1, 2, 10, 13).

Analysis of Deviation Categories

The intercorrelations shown in Table II serve to
emphasize the findings in the first analysis that A and
E are related and that low 0 and F seem to form a rela-
tively stable profile of personality characteristics for
this population. Findings for the eight deviation cate-
gories are not as precise as for the B-G designs, but there
are definite indications that patterns of deviations summed
across designs are more clearly related to underlying
personality variables.

Deviation Category 7 (Distortion on figures 7 and 8)

loaded with personality variables A, E, 0, and F with the
highest loadings on 0 and E. Communalities for these
variables show that each accounts for well over half its
common-factor variance. Factor I seems related to Factor
III in the first analysis except that the factor loadings
 28
CM O O M 3 4 - 4 0 D ^ O C K O N C ^ O O N O £N-
c n CA-3- <ANO e n VAMD MD VO ^ -3-

CA
>
M enoovo vnovo 00 ca-3- vtmn-vo
N C V ^ O O H ^ H O N H N O O CD vo
1 1 1 I I C
•H
m H ~
u M \0 00 00 JN-3* 00 O 00 tH CM 00 -3* o\~3* £ CM
O M N O O O N O N 4 W \ O O O H \ O >4 o
-P M I I T I T I I I I > «H Tj
O J5 4 3 a
125 0$ 05
O lit M 0 X 0 0 - 3 - CACAOO CM C^ONCM O OD H o
M H4-OVO *A-3" N W O - C ^ H O ( M O 43
B I O I * 03 MD
<! CA -H
> CN* CM O CO ON -^5" *A CN rH CM CN- rH ON \—I P VA
m EH THOOTHOV-ICMOO-3- IN-00 ^A CM
p I I I I I I I I 0) •
P J> R -
01 12!
<1
^o .«
PQ u £ CA
CM o o O - o o CN- MACACO o o
CRJ Pn OOOOOOtHOOCM^HTHO -p
O I I I I I I I I
03 ^A
O CA N H H C O O ^ACO £>- O- [>~C0 o • 43
X OTHRHOVHVHVHOOOCM-^T CM O
M I I I I I I I I PD
Pd w CA
EH CM VA\Q N N N O O W 4 - M D N <D
OOOOOOCMOOCM^ HI •
Si < I I I I I I GMD
pel -3" H CA ON ON •H —
O O CD CD rH rH CD T—I \—I CD —F CA O «P
M EH I I I £ CM
M O CO W *d 05
<! pej £ O 4" (M H £N^ CM ON (AGO £ FH
W o o Or-IOOOOOO^H o3 co 6 0 *
P EH •H I I I I £ <A *
PQ P O 43 •H CO
C W <1 o3 On -j- -3- CA^A^HCO en ON X : > 03
Eh EH R~F OOCMOOvHTHO 03 CP CO —' -
<CJ CD I T I T 05 p -h vnr-.
EH ES3 U p
O 1 U CO CN-CO VO CM *A_^- o
O O rH o O rH CM O O
O I +5 U O CO
P P O 43 H -
J23 CN- en en vn en
CA <D 60 1
< <! O CM O CA CM en a oo
1 a c
CO CO • ps •
w VO O-d" ONOO o rH CO *cl CM iN-
o M rH O O O CM • 1 <J fl
JH PEL 1 "d I o5 —
EH O
VP (N-CO
<D • XA •
<5 O -P W • 05 o~
M W OOHCM 43 CD vr\ p-1 •
W EH •HI »H 4^ CA *"
PI <* B U ~ K co
pel O -3- CM ON CM o o mm -
O O rH o 60 rH •>
O CO CD fH CO £>-
pel 43 43 -p 0
W CN {N- C
M 03 rH • -
EH O rH •H O 0 BO rH XA
S2S O rH £ 1
P. f j P^ <1 1
CM 00 O
rH rH »H 03
05 -P • * <D
0 05-^" 00 fn
O <3 W O PH EH •rH tH pf
O J> V ^ -
60 V « ^ " «>wy

<D CD -H
rH CM cn^t ^AVO {>-00 ON O rH CM CA^t P P PH
rH rH rH rH rH •
 29

are higher in the second analysis lending credence to

the idea that emotional instability, hypersensitivity,
and hostility are related to angulation difficulty.
Deviation Category 2 (Workover), 4 (Blunting),
5 (Asymmetry), 6(Rotation), and 7 (Distortion) loaded
substantially on Factor II along with slight loadings for
Deviation Category 8 (Angles Missing and Extra) and per-
sonality variables A and F. This factor approaches being
a general factor except for the lack of loading on Devia-
tion Category 3 (Wavy Line). Since this particular
deviation was the most frequently scored of all the
categories being for practical purposes unanimous on
all S' s records, it might be concluded that it would
serve little to differentiate between B-G protocols
diagnostically.
Deviation Category 1 (Dots, Dashes, and Circles),
Deviation Category 5 (Asymmetry) and Deviation Category,
8 (Angles Missing and Extra) all loaded negatively with
personality variables A and T with a slight loading on
G on Factor III. Since all Deviation Category loadings
on this factor are negative except for 7, which was the
highest positive loading on both Factors I and II, it
might be concluded that this factor is the reverse of
Factors I and II and similar to Factor IV extracted in the
first analysis involving poor contact with reality and power
 30

fantasies. This is reflected in the high loadings on

personality variables A and T.
Loadings on Factor IV are complex and yet seem to
reflect the most obvious characteristics discernible by
close examination of the deviation scores and the G-Z
profiles for the individual Ss. The majority of loadings
are positive; i^.e., a direct relationship is indicated
between high deviation scores and high scores on the G-Z
personality variables, except for 0 and F which are both
negative. Highest loadings are on Deviation Category 1
(Dots, dashes, and circles), Deviation Category 3 (Wavy
line), Deviation Category 6 (Asymmetry), and G (General
Energy). This factor may indicate a general proclivity
for reacting to environmental stimuli in a very intense
manner. Such a S would have difficulty maintaining a
perceptual set long enough to reproduce gestalten with
the regularity required to execute symmetrical designs.
The high loading on G concurs with this interpretation
and it is suggested that this hypertonicity is a very
real construct underlying the severe distortions and very
high deviation scores accumulated by most of the Ss in
this study.

Analysis of Personality Variables

The third analysis yielded six factors. The struc-
ture of the first factor is almost that of a general factor
 31

with the only negative loading being F which is an expected

finding in view of the outcome of the two preceding analyses.
A and S have very high loadings on Factor I suggesting that
a construct characterized by social leadership (or perhaps
a desire for social leadership) may underlie this factor
for the G-Z variables.
R (Restraint), F (Friendliness), and P (Personal
Relations) load negatively on Factor II with a slightly
lower loading on 0 (Objectivity), suggesting that a gen-
erally anti-social, acting-out construct may underlie
this factor. It is stated in the G-Z instruction manual
that a high G score coupled with low R, 0, and F scores
(low P score would reinforce this profile) point to acting-
out tendencies and overt behavioral problems (9). The
loadings on this factor seem to bear out this contention.
The T scale (Thoughtfulness) is suggestive of a uni-
factor structure. The highest loading on Factor III is
that of T. This is consistent with the results of the
previous analyses in that E (Emotional Stability) and 0
(Objectivity) load with this factor as does M (Masculinity).
It is suggested that this factor is comprised of the same
characteristics that underlie Factor IV on the first analy-
sis and Factor III on the second analysis suggestive of
poor contact with reality. Total P&S Score and Chronolog-
ical Age loaded on Factor IV along with the personality
 CM
J2
o n o o o \ \ o OD 0 0 ^ * A o%-^ 0 0 <r\ ON
* A \ O CO EN- * A \ O VO c v ^ - ^AMD \ D ^ANO VO 32
M O CM N C M H (N~M0 O ^ A O - ^ O - ^ C A C M
> C M O O O O O O H O n O H O V O C O
l i t I I I

W 3 - O C O H \ 0 -3* O-OO CM O MD CM MO CM
> O H d d O ( M O H O 4 0 0 H O ^ H
I I 1 1 I I I

CQ > VD TH ON CM 0~ rd CA CA CA ^A ">A CM TH 00
U M 4 0 H N 0 0 W 0 0 H H N N 0 0
p O 1 1 1 i 1 1 I I
125 •P
O H >A\0 0 \ C M C A O \ C A C M C M C M O \ 0 0 0 \ 0
OS M OCMHO4-4-CMCOO4"HHCMOO
M 1 I I I I I 1
CO
04 W -3"-3* CACANO-^ 00 ^ O N O O V O CA
0 M r i N O H W ^ N d V O O H O O O O
EH 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1
O
<4 M CN- >A-3* 00 00 ONCAON O ON (N- *A0O CM CM
^ O O O N ^ C ^ O H d C M O O O H O
i 1 1
1 1 1
N
( *
O ^A CACACAfN-MD CA^A ON CA-3~ CACXN-3~ vd
\—1 v H O O O O O O O O O O O O C M
pcj 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
Pd -3" CA IN- CA *A CM ( A CA CM ON CA O r d ^A
•*—I v d O t H r d O O O O O O C M O O
X CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
M m
pel ^ CA 00 tH O ^ACACAO- CM fN- ^ACO 0
EH pq ^—1 r d r H O r H O O O ^ H O O O C A
1 1 1
25 ^
S M
PCJ CM d C A O N O N O O d O O O O O
Pd <1 rd CMOOOOvdCMOOvdrd
O > t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
M EH
H O >H vd VAONO H i N C \ J 0 4 - OVO
M <1 EH T-l OVHOTHOOOOV-HO
Pd M 1 1 I 1 1
w _ ^
*~q p <ti O NO CM CA-^" CS- vd TH NO
pq W S CQ H d O CM O CM CA O d O
<J EH O £ 1
En <| CO O
EH pi *rd ON *ACMO^ACACMCM*A
O 0 43 O CA H H H CXI CA O
(33 A* <s5 1
1 H
P is; 0 00 CA-^J" CM -^3" CM
is 0 U O C V C M d d d O
<| is U 1 1
O
CO O <N- {X- { \ - ^ACO CN- ^—1
Is O C A H H CM4"
0 1 1
M&
1 * 1
( A OWO ON vd
I O<O C M C M 4
3—1
1 1 0
43
w
Pd I xn ON CN- X—\ \—1 •P
r—\ vd CA-^J* '^s- •rd
O 0 n
0 U o
Pd -3* d d O 0
W ( A vd XA O ^ w
-p
EH CO £
IS O — £
M ca CA\C CO «H fi
CM O PH COW -HO 0
ft
0 m
CM ^A
vd
—
0
r-l
05 ft
U £
G3
i—I

1
^ ^ ^
a
. .H
- p — e ft
0 <1 O W
1
*H
H O ^ C C O W O ^ E H P h ^ E VH E H O O W
*s ••Sw*".
O
0
-
rd CM CA-^* VANO O-OO ONr dO x—vd1 CM CA-^" ^A P
1I ^—! vd —1 -t—1
 33

variable G. It appears that G and Chronological Age vary

negatively with Total P&S Score. Pascal and Suttell (l?)

and Bender (l) both found a decrease in scores with an

increase in age as Indicative of normal maturational de-

velopment. Loadings on this factor seem to support the

above findings for this population even though very few

Ss obtained P&S scores within the normal range.

The Time variable presents primarily a unifactor

structure with a single high negative loading on Factor

V. The only other significant loadings are positive M

and Compression. It might be suggested that the construct

underlying these loadings was one of inferiority and de-

pression resulting from guilt feelings due to masculine

behavioral tendencies which were unacceptable to the ego.

These feelings might have resulted in the withdrawal,

anxiety and depression reputed to be manifest in compres-

sion on the Bender (2, 12, lb, 17, 18). Such an individual

might be expected to be slow in other responses, as well

as on B-G drawings, in accord with the high loading on the

Time variable.

Expansion might well be the reverse of Total Time in

that it is also primarily a unifactor structure with the

highest loading on Factor VI. It also loads on Compression

and M. It might be surmised from the foregoing that

 34

Compression and. Expansion are different reactions to the

same underlying construct having its basis in the loading
on M. It is suggested that in the case of Compression
the S has introjected her feelings of self-devaluation
with the consequent feelings of guilt and depression which
are often contingent upon such internalization. In the
case of Expansion the S appears to have either accepted
her masculine tendencies without self-devaluation or
reacts in a masculine manner without awareness and so
without recrimination.

Means and Standard Deviations

Table IV illustrates the differences in this sample

and the normative samples used by Pascal and Suttell and
Guilford and Zimmerman in standardization procedures.
Means and standard deviations for this sample are very
similar to those reported for the G-Z, Differences con-
sistent with findings on the foregoing analyses are:
slightly higher means on G, A, T, and M; means slightly
lower on R and S; and means significantly lower on the
E, 0, F, and P factors. Less variability is shown for
this sample than for the normative sample which is to be
expected.
The statistics for this sample and those given by
Pascal and Suttell are greatly divergent, suggesting that
perhaps different cut-off scores might be helpful if the
 35

TABLE IV
SAMPLE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
COMPARED WITH NORMATIVE SAMPLES

B-G Designs X* s SD's

1 3M 4.35
2 7.io 4.86
3 11.89 6.91
4 5-92 5.72
5 6.87 5-29
6 7.33 5.8l
7 12.20 9.36
8 6.90 6.67
Total 96.95 32.48
Normative Group 17.60 9.40
•*

P&S's normative group consisted, of 148 girls aged 15-19.

This Sample Normative Group

G-Z Factors X* s SD's X's SD's
a* 18.16 3-99 17.0 5.20
R 14.03 4.12 15.8 4.7 3
A 14.79 3.77 13.7 5.52
S 17.92 4.77 19.6 6.33
E 11.11 4.51 15.5 5.76
O 10.45 4.09 16.8 5.37
F 10.91 5.26 15.7 4.79
T 19.05 3.93 18.1 4.70
P 14.03 3.49 17.6 4.88
M 11.37 3.75 10.8 4.12
•K-
G-Z normative data given for women only

Variables X's SD's

Time (Total seconds per design) 144.51 51.93
CA (Total months) 191.95 18.16
Compression .17 .38
Expansion .17 .38
 36

B-G is to "be used in batteries of tests for decision pur-

poses in populations of this kind. Taken at face value
a total P&S score of 96.95 would indicate definite need
for psychotherapy according to the criteria set forth
by P&S (17).' While it is not denied that most of the
Ss tested for this study could benefit from psychotherapy,
it is questionable whether the degree of maladjustment is
as great as this high a score would seem to indicate.

Perhaps the statistics resulting from this study

might be more comparable to a similar population. A mean
of 70.79 for total P&S scores with a standard deviation of
2.82 and a critical ratio of 7.25. significant at the .001
level of confidence, was reported for a population of de-
linquents by Zolik (19). The mean age of the Ss in his
study was 16.12 and for the present study the mean age was
15-99. Pertinent differences in the two groups, however,
are that in the former, Ss had a mean IQ of 101.65 and they
were all free from any type of motor defect. Thus, it is
suggested that while no motor defect was discernible among
Ss in the present study, mental retardation alone could
have accounted for the twenty-point difference in these
two mean scores. The Zolik study concluded that the P&S
scoring method was valid to differentiate delinquents
from non-delinquents, although it was recommended that
the cut-off score be raised from 50 to 60--the median
z score for their delinquent group. In another study
 37

sixty-five was suggested as the cut-off score to avoid

false positives in dichotomizing a group of hospitalized
Ss into psychotic and non-psychotic categories (15). In
this same study Ss were measured on time and compared on
a group basis. Mean time for the psychotic group was
4-45.03 seconds with a sigma of 290.2 5 seconds; the non-
psychotic group averaged 331-05 seconds with a sigma of
112.82 seconds. Comparing the means for the non-psychotic
group with the present study (144.51 seconds), a difference
of 186.54 seconds is noted. This difference is significant
at the .001 level of confidence. Since both of these pop-
ulations deviate from normal with regard to distribution,
no conclusions should be drawn from this comparison.
Koppitz (14) states that time only seems to be of
importance if a S is very slow or very fast.
. . . a child who dashes off the Bender test
in a very short time tends to be impulsive, im-
mature and negativistic. He shows a lack of con-
centration and/or effort to carry through the details
required by this task. In most cases a very short
time needed for the test is associated with poor
test performance and poor school achievement; most
often found on records of children with neurological
impairment (13)*
Gobetz (3) in his scoring system used time summed in
seconds per design as one of his Global Signs. He scored
it as a deviation when total time was less than 140 seconds.
However, it should be noted that for his sample (Neurotics
 38

vs. Normals) this sign occurred more often In controls

than in the neurotic group.

Evaluation and Recommendations

From observations made during the testing interviews,
it was evident that none of the Ss was highly motivated
to do their best on the B-G drawings and although this
fact in itself is of diagnostic value, more ego-involvement
on the part of the Ss might have resulted in less deviant
Bender records. Self-concept seemed to be very low in
most of these Ss and often they rushed through the drawings
in a very cursory manner,making no erasures even though
they seemed aware of the quality of their performance.
If they tried to correct apparent errors at all, it was
usually by re-drawing without erasure. On the whole,
they seemed to have given up trying to please anyone.
The question, "Will this go into my record?" was asked
repeatedly and with some apprehension by many of the Ss.
They were assured that it would not be used in their per-
manent record by the assistant superintendent. This answer
seemed to alleviate their anxiety and helped to establish
rapport, but at the same time, it served to lessen ego-
involvement and may have acted as an artifact in this
situation to make P&S scores spuriously high. This does
not, however, change the significance of the findings of
this study, Rather, it should be an aid in their evalua-
tion. It is suggested that in addition to higher cut-off
 39

scores for populations of this type, some method for in-

creasing ego-involvement would increase the validity of
the P&S scores.
It appears that emotional problems likely to "be en-
countered in delinquent populations develop secondarily
to perceptual problems (1*0, Becoming more apparent to
educators every day is the large part played by the various
aphasic disabilities and related learning difficulties
in the development of emotional maladjustment and the
consequent growth of anti-social attitudes. Children
with problems in visual-motor perception experience
much frustration and, frequent failure in school and at
home. As a result they develop negative attitudes which
if allowed to go unchecked proceed to actual behavioral
problems which could eventually culminate in delinquency.
Of course, the problem is not that simple, but it is not
yet known how large the contribution of perceptual mal-
function is to more serious social maladjustment.

The main question to be answered in seeking some sort

of cause-and-effect relationship is whether the S perceives
the design correctly and reproduces it incorrectly or per-
ceives it incorrectly and reproduces his perception cor-
rectly. One study concluded that distortions were not
caused by lack of motor control per se, but by covert
perceptual responses (16). It would be of interest if
more studies of this kind could be carried out utilizing
^0

different experimental procedures and using different

populations. If the question above could be answered with
certainty and some method for distinguishing between in-
correct perception—correct reproduction and correct per-
ception—incorrect reproduction, perhaps the B-G could
eventually be useful in discovering the marginal aphasias,
certain laterality problems, and related learning disabilities
early enough that perceptual rehabilitation (or habilitation,
as the case may be) would avoid later emotional problems.
 in

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bender, Lauretta, A Visual Motor Gestalt Test and

Its Clinical Use, New York, American Orthopsychiatry

Association, Inc., 1938.

2. Clawson, Aileen, "The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt

Test As an Index of Emotional Disturbance in

Children," Journal of Projective Techniques, XXIII

(February, 1959), 198-206.

3. Gobetz, Wallace, "A Quantification, Standardization,

and Validation of the Bender-Gestalt Test on Normal

and Neurotic Adults," Psychological Monographs,

LXVII (June, 1953), Whole No. 356.

*4-. Guertin, Wilson H., "A Factor Analysis of the Bender-

Gestalt Tests of Mental Patients," Journal of Clinical

Psychology. VIII (1952), 362-367.

5. , "A Factor Analysis of Curvilinear

Distortions of the Bender-Gestalt," Journal of Clinical

Psychology. X (195*0, 12-17.

6. , "A Transposed Factor Analysis of

Schizophrenic Performance on the Bender-Gestalt,"

Journal of Clinical Psychology, X (195*0, 225-228.

7« , "A Transposed Analysis of the

Bender Gestalts of Brain Disease Cases," Journal

of Clinical Psychology, X (195*0 » 366-369.

 k2

8. , "A Transposed Analysis of the

Bender-Gestalts of Paranoid Schizophrenics," Journal
of Clinical Psychology, XI (1955). 73-76.
9. Guilford, J. P. and Zimmerman, W. S., The Guilford-
Zlmmerman Temperament Survey; Manual of Instruc-
tlons and Interpretations, Beverly Hill, Calif.,
Sheridan Supply Company, 19^9•
10. Halpern, Florence, "The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt
Test," An Introduction to Projective Techniques,
edited by H. L. Anderson and Gladys L. Anderson,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York, 1951» Chapter 11.
11. Haynes, Jack R., "A Factor Analytic Study of Per-
formance on the Bender-Gestalt," unpublished paper
presented at the Southwestern Psychological Asso-
ciation convention, 19^7•
12. Hutt, Max L. and Briskin, Gerald J., The Clinical
Use of the Revised Bender-Gestalt Test, New York,
Grune and Stratton, Inc., i960.
13. -Koppitz, Elizabeth M., "The Bender Gestalt Test for
Children," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XVI (Octo-
ber, i960), 1*32-1*35.
14. , The Bender Gestalt Test for
Young Children, New York, Grune and Stratton, Inc.,
1964.
15. Lonstein, Murray, "A Validation of a Bender-Gestalt
Scoring System," Journal of Consulting Psychology,

XVIII (May, 195*0. 377-379-

 ^3

16. McPherson, M. and Pepin, L. , "The Consistency of

Reproduction of Bender-Gestalt Designs," Journal
of Clinical Psychology, XI (1955)» 163-166.
17. Pascal, Gerald R. and Suttell, Barbara, The Bender
Gestalt Test, New York, Grune and Stratton, Inc.,

1951.
18. Wohl, Julian, "A Note on the Generality of Constric-
tion," Journal of Protective Techniques, XXI (1957).

^10-^13.
19. Zolik, Edwin S., "A Comparison of the Bender Gestalt
Reproductions of Delinquents and Non-Delinquents,"
Journal of Clinical Psychology, XIV (January, 1958).
2k-26.
 CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The problem with which this study was concerned

was the determination and establishment of whether or
not there existed some systematic relationship among indi-
vidual Bender-Gestalt design scores, the various devia-
tion categories, and personality characteristics for a
specified population of subjects. The subjects used in
this study were 110 residents of a state-supported cor-
rectional institution for adolescent girls. They were
administered the GuiIford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey
and the Bender-Gestalt Visual Motor Test during inter-
views in their dormitories. Scores obtained in this man-
ner were compiled and divided into three separate and
differing groups of variables for statistical treatment
by factor analysis. Each group of variables was factored
by a principal-axes solution with unity in the diagonals.
Factors thus extracted were rotated by the Varimax method.

Results of the analyses were discussed and the various

factor loadings were summarized in tables. The first
analysis between the Bender design scores and personality
variables G, A, E, 0, F, and T yielded four factors.
Factor I was a general factor indicating that for this
 45

population the Bender-Gestalt apparently measured a common

unit of behavior. Emotional instability, hypersensitivity,
and hostility seemed to manifest themselves in angulation
difficulties, i.e.,these characteristics seemed to con-
stitute the construct underlying Factor II. Factor III
seemed indicative of sociopathic tendencies and Factor IV
of poor contact with reality.
The second factor analysis contained variables de-
rived from B-G scores summed across designs into individual
deviation category scores and the personality variables
G, A, E, 0, F, and T. It also yielded four factors. It
was found that scores summed across deviations rather than
specific design sums were more clearly related to under-
lying personality traits. Factor I was related to angu-
lation difficulties with underlying hostility and hyper-
sensitivity. Factor II approached being a general factor
for deviation categories. Factor III related to poor con-
tact with reality involving fantasied power needs. Factor
IV seemed to be indicative of a construct characterized
by intensity of reaction to environmental stimuli and a
general hypertonicity. Results on this analysis are similar
to those for the first, due probably to the similarity in the
raw data analyzed.
The third analysis' between all ten personality scores
from the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey and the non-
personality variables Time, Total P&S Score, Chronological
 ^6

Age, Compression and Expansion yielded six factors. Factor

I seemed related to an underlying construct of social leader-
ship, Factor II with acting-out tendencies, and Factor III
with poor reality contact. Chronological Age and Total
P&S Score loaded on Factor IV* Time presented primarily
a unifactor structure on Factor V, and Expansion was struc-
tured similarly on Factor VI. Means and standard deviations
derived from this study were compared with normative data
on the Bender-Gestalt and the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament
Survey.
Findings from this investigation seem to indicate that
there is a definite personality configuration common to
adolescent girls with overt behavioral problems and that
the personality traits which make up this configuration
are related to a particular pattern of response on the
Bender-Gestalt. This conclusion seems warranted from
the evidence. Although the naming of factors is largely
subjective, the loadings on the factors themselves bespeak
a definite relationship between the variables explicated
from the test scores. It might be noted that the relation-
ship between Bender-Gestalt response and general personality
type has been observed and recorded by astute clinicians who
have used the test protectively for many years. The fore-
going study and others similar to it serve to corroborate
and substantiate many of their observations.
 APPENDIX

TABLE I

RAW DATA FOR FIRST FACTOR ANALYSIS

G-Z Scores
1 2 3 4 5 ~6 7 8 O" A E 0 F T
1 10 8 18 8 lk 13 l4 24 13 16 12 13 10 15
2 8 19 13 20 13 3 17 8 15 15 12 9 14 17
3 0 5 11 15 10 5 23 6 19 20 20 9 9 15
4 2 6 5 3 5 2 11 3 10 9 7 6 17 17
5 0 2 3 2 2 0 2 2 17 9 11 7 15 16
6 0 9 6 3 4 3 19 3 19 13 7 6 4 24
7 0 0 3 0 2 3 22 3 15 13 10 6 10 20
8 0 2 11 0 2 0 1 0 12 16 9 14 11 17
9 2 3 13 0 6 11 0 8 22 10 14 7 7 13
10 13 13 22 13 11 17 22 26 19 13 15 9 8 17
11 8 5 21 4 5 10 3 14 19 11 14 17 17 13
12 0 7 5 15 5 13 16 3 15 16 10 9 22 22
13 3 11 10 9 14 17 8 0 20 17 11 15 12 18
14 5 2 10 17 2 2 19 9 20 • 18 13 7 4 22
15 5 7 10 4 10 4 3 8 19 17 9 10 13 27
16 4 8 10 3 13 0 24 8 14 17 8 7 1 23
17 14 5 8 3 8 12 12 6 21 11 17 13 19 23
18 0 7 13 4 22 0 20 11 14 6 9 11 10 15
19 3 11 23 1 6 3 14 12 17 15 9 6 6 17
20 2 0 11 3 5 13 16 3 19 19 19 8 6 22
21 5 5 21 19 21 3 14 14 14 20 17 18 14 19
22 0 7 5 5 0 0 0 0 24 23 14 10 15 23
23 0 5 3 12 5 3 8 8 20 14 16 8 11 20
24 11 13 15 3 4 ll 4 0 18 12 10 11 5 17
25 5 2 18 4 16 9 19 3 17 19 10 l 6 19 28
26 5 7 23 15 5 7 l6 1 19 17 13 12 8 17
27 5 4 21 0 7 5 1 8 19 10 3 10 10 14
28 0 5 13 13 8 7 2 2 20 14 12 5 7 18
29 0 15 21 14 8 3 11 1 16 11 14 13 15 20
30 0 2 9 4 2 3 9 1 20 19 10 l l 10 26
31 10 17 24 12 17 19 19 19 20 19 9 7 8 18
32 0 5 21 5 8 3 9 11 14 11 14 8 13 14
33 2 2 13 0 7 3 9 0 18 10 15 12 14 14
34 8 2 13 8 5 9 11 0 25 14 7 13 15 26

i+7
 48

TABLE I--Continued

B-G Design Scores G- -Z Scores

s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 G A E 0 F T
35 3 8 8 3 5 0 0 0 10 7 5 7 14 15
36 5 2 27 11 7 3 3 3 22 20 11 13 18 18
3? 4 9' 8 1 5 0 0 3 23 15 11 6 4 23
38 0 8 11 1 3 5 0 0 26 16 18 20 16 16
39 2 10 3 1 6 13 10 3 20 11 9 6 20 22
40 6 4 11 4 3 3 0 0 14 8 10 10 19 23
41 4 12 2 8 4 3 0 3 24 17 20 13 16 27
42 0 2 7 9 2 3 11 0 28 11 14 10 25 18
43 2 8 13 0 5 0 7 7 11 19 25 13 18 19
44 0 5 16 4 6 11 16 8 19 14 7 12 14 13
45 2 5 16 4 5 3 24 0 23 22 9 10 5 22
46 2 7 13 10 10 3 19 0 19 18 17 9 25 27
47 2 5 8 4 11 14 6 3 14 15 8 11 9 25
48 0 10 5 3 3 13 3 3 17 17 10 20 15 23
49 0 0 3 9 5 15 4 1 10 13 4 9 5 22
50 0 0 8 9 8 8 0 0 l4 18 9 14 10 18
51 0 0 3 1 0 5 11 11 15 11 5 7 8 20
52 5 19 23 12 21 7 8 6 21 11 7 8 5 17
53 0 16 21 19 5 13 24 11 18 17 10 5 2 20
54 5 3 19 1 13 5 16 4 21 12 10 10 9 17
55 0 8 14 1 11 5 17 16 19 7 12 2 6 12
56 2 7 19 1 12 11 32 24 19 19 6 8 9 25
5? 2 8 6 8 19 20 16 3. 16 22 18 15 7 15
58 5 16 16 1 5 5 12 3 21 14 10 7 8 19
59 2 4 18 16 13 5 24 24 15 20 10 8 11 20
60 0 7 22 0 16 3 18 0 23 18 10 10 10 19
61 0 7 5 0 5 0 0 3 18 18 24 20 15 16
62 5 16 8 3 11 10 11 6 20 13 17 14 15 13
63 0 5 11 4 2 7 9 11 19 10 12 10 7 15
64 0 13 8 4 2 3 8 11 21 15 10 6 8 24
65 0 4 5 4 17 18 11 14 15 10 11 15 15 14
66 5 13 10 0 2 5 12 3 22 14 6 11 14 17
6? 3 8 16 11 8 5 22 13 12 17 15 18 22 20
68 6 8 0 1 7 3 6 2 18 14 8 13 12 16
69 2 8 5 4 5 7 3 0 22 17 12 9 10 12
70 28 22 21 16 6 15 32 24 15 16 10 6 4 22
71 10 15 14 27 14 5 19 19 15 16 4 8 7 23
72 16 13 29 4 24 13 32 19 15 12 8 7 7 22
73 10 13 16 12 10 8 16 24 16 15 6 9 6 23
74 2 8 23 1 4 0 8 0 13 17 8 17 10 17
75 2 0 2 4 4 0 0 0 20 16 10 13 8 15
76 4 10 2 0 0 0 0 1 20 7 1 4 13 24
77 8 9 16 12 15 18 32 11 15 17 6 10 6 24
 49

TABLE I--Continued

G-Z Scores
s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 G A E 0 F T

78 2 13 11 4 10 15 14 3 14 12 14 n 10 18
79 3 8 7 0 6 3 1 5 18 22 9 13 5 22
80 2 2 19 0 0 3 6 3 17 14 9 3 4 23
8l 2 2 13 4 3 15 21 17 19 14 8 9 9 21
82 10 14 15 14 4 19 40 16 16 16 6 9 6 20
83 2 6 14 4 5 15 12 15 19 16 10 9 14 18
84 0 6 18 0 2 3 6 5 19 18 16 9 15 14
85 2 2 13 9 8 11 14 8 15 21 16 16 14 22
86 8 13 21 4 0 14 27 11 21 16 14 14 19 21
87 0 13 21 19 3 5 6 6 17 15 15 11 9 22
88 8 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 25 18 16 20 19 22
89 0 2 11 0 0 3 6 11 22 12 6 8 17 24
90 11 8 8 4 13 7 11 9 20 12 6 3 7 23
91 2 5 15 12 10 21 32 7 18 14 12 13 13 16
92 2 2 16 8 2 11 6 0 28 20 21 19 6 18
93 0 2 3 4 8 0 4 1 20 15 6 7 6 22
94 0 13 15 4 5 5 14 11 21 15 13 4 11 17
95 6 10 6 0 8 5 5 1 21 17 21 5 11 18
96 3 5 0 1 4 0 11 8 12 8 9 12 17 16
97 3 5 0 1 4 0 11 8 12 8 9 12 17 16
97 0 5 16 8 6 18 5 3 24 14 14 9 2 19
98 10 14 13 8 15 11 23 13 16 13 5 9 9 11
99 ll 2 21 1 4 7 14 0 11 18 14 14 14 16
100 0 0 0 4 0 3 3 6 20 15 5 7 5 23
101 6 3 2 0 0 15 4 0 12 14 11 14 9 19
102 2 5 8 4 5 19 12 14 20 13 17 20 15 15
103 2 10 6 12 2 ll 7 11 15 7 4 9 19 18
1 OAt- 0 8 0 4 5 ll 7 0 24 21 8 13 2 13
105 0 0 0 13 2 4 32 ll 15 14 10 7 3 20
106 2 5 15 3 5 19 22 2 13 9 11 16 12 17
107 0 2 3 0 2 7 0 8 25 14 13 14 8 14
108 2 10 18 0 4 3 32 11 15 12 ll 13 14 18
109 2 7 10 9 7 11 22 14 23 20 6 7 8 19
110 0 8 10 4 5 3 23 7 26 18 13 6 2 22
 50

TABLE II

RAW DATA FOR SECOND FACTOR ANALYSIS

*
s V V V v V V G A E 0 F T
l 2 V3 4 V
5 6 7 8
1 3 2 2 0 6 24 16 6 13 16 12 13 10 19
2 0 0 2 0 12 8 16 0 15 15 12 9 14 17
3 3 4 0 8 12 0 16 12 19 20 20 9 9 15
4 3 2 0 0 9 8 0 6 10 9 7 6 17 17
5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 9 11 7 15 16
6 3 2 2 0 9 8 8 6 19 13 7 6 4 24
7 0 0 0 0 6 8 8 6 15 13 10 6 10 20
8 0 0 0 8 3 0 0 0 12 16 9 14 n 17
9 0 4 0 8 6 0 8 0 22 10 14 7 7 13
10 6 2 2 8 9 32 16 6 19 13 15 9 8 17
11 0 2" 0 8 12 8 8 9 16 li l4 17 17 13
12 0 2 2 0 12 8 0 9 15 16 10 9 22 22
13 3 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 20 17 11 15 12 18
14 3 6 2 0 3 24 8 6 20 18 13 7 4 22
15 6 6 0 0 9 0 8 3 19 17 9 10 13 27
16 6 2 2 0 6 8 24 0 14 17 8 7 1 23
17 6 2 2 0 9 0 8 6 21 11 17 13 19 23
18 3 2 2 0 12 24 16 6 14 6 9 11 10 15
19 6 2 0 8 12 8 16 9 17 15 9 6 6 17
20 6 2 0 0 3 24 0 3 19 19 19 8 6 22
21 3 6 0 8 12 8 16 9 14 20 17 18 14 19
22 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 24 23 14 10 15 23
23 0 0 2 0 12 0 16 0 20 14 16 8 ll 20
24 3 4 0 0 9 0 0 3 18 12 10 11 5 17
25 3 2 2 0 6 24 8 6 17 19 10 16 19 28
26 6 6 2 8 9 24 8 0 19 17 13 12 8 17
27 9 6 2 0 3 8 0 3 19 10 3 10 10 14
28 0 4 2 0 15 8 0 0 20 14 12 5 7 18
29 0 2 2 8 9 16 0 0 16 11 14 13 15 20
30 0 2 2 0 6 0 0 0 20 19 10 ll 10 26
31 3 2 0 8 15 32 16 6 20 19 9 7 8 18
32 0 0 2 8 9 8 8 6 14 11 14 8 13 14
33 0 4 2 0 9 8 0 0 18 10 15 12 14 14
34 6 2 2 8 6 0 8 3 25 19 7 13 15 26
35 9 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 10 7 5 7 14 15
36 3 -2 2 8 12 8 0 6 22 20 ll 13 18 18
 51

TABLE II--Continued

*
s V v V V V v V V G A E 0 F T
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

37 6 0 2 0 6 0 0 3 23 15 11 6 4 23
38 3 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 26 16 18 20 16 16
39 6 0 2 0 6 0 8 3 20 11 9 6 20 22
4-0 3 0 0 0 6 8 0 0 14 8 10 10 19 23
4-1 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 3 24 17 20 13 16 27
4-2 0 0 2 0 6 0 8 3 28 11 14 10 26 18
^3 3 0 2 8 6 0 0 6 11 19 25 13 18 19
4-4- 6 0 2 0 15 16 8 0 19 14 7 12 14 13
45 3 4- 2 8 15 8 16 0 23 22 9 10 5 22
4-6 0 0 2 0 12 0 8 0 19 18 17 9 25 27
4-7 6 4 2 0 15 0 0 9 14- 15 8 11 9 25
4-8 3 0 2 0 9 0 0 6 17 17 10 20 15 23
49 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 3 10 13 4 9 5 22
50 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 14 18 9 14 10 18
51 0 0 0 0 6 8 8 6 15 11 5 7 8 20
52 3 4 2 0 12 16 8 3 21 11 7 8 5 17
53 6 0 0 0 6 16 16 3 18 17 10 5 2 20
54, 3 2' 0 0 9 16 8 3 21 12 10 10 9 17
55 6 2 0 8 9 0 8 3 19 7 12 2 6 12
56 0 2 0 8 6 16 32 0 19 19 6 8 9 25
57 6 0 2 0 12 16 8 3 16 22 18 15 7 15
58 6 k 2 8 12 8 0 6 21 14 10 7 8 19
59 3 6 2 8 12 16 32 0 15 20 10 8 11 20
60 6 0 2 8 12 24- 8 0 23 18 10 10 10 19
61 3 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 18 18 24 20 15 16
62 9 6 2 0 6 16 0 6 20 13 17 14 15 13
63 0 0 2 8 12 8 0 9 19 10 12 10 7 15
64- 3 2 2 0 9 0 0 3 21 15 10 6 8 24
65 3 0 0 0 9 24 0 9 15 10 11 15 15 14
66 6 6 2 0 9 0 8 6 22 l4 6 11 14- 17
67 6 4 0 8 12 0 8 9 12 17 15 18 22 20
68 3 2 0 0 3 0 0 6 18 14 8 13 12 16
69 0 0 2 0 15 0 0 3 22 17 12 9 10 12
70 3 2 0 8 9 24 24 0 15 16 10 6 4 22
71 6 0 0 0 12 24 16 6 15 16 4 8 7 23
72 0 0 2 8 12 24 24 3 15 12 8 7 7 22
73 3 6 0 0 9 32 16 0 16 15 6 9 6 23
74. 0 6 2 8 3 0 8 0 13 17 8 17 10 17
75 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 20 16 10 13 8 15
76 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 20 7 1 4 13 24-
77 6 0 0 8 9 16 16 3 15 17 6 10 6 24
78 0 0 2 0 6 16 0 6 14 12 14 11 10 18
79 6 -0 2 0 12 0 0 0 18 22 9 13 5 22
 52

TABLE II--Continued

1
s V V V V
4 V v V V
8 G A E 0 F T
1 2 3 5 6 7
80 0 2 2 8 6 0 0 9 17 14 9 8 4 23
81 3 2 2 8 9 0 16 6 19 14 8 9 9 21
82 0 2 0 0 9 32 24 0 16 16 6 9 6 20
85 6 0 0 0 12 0 8 6 19 16 10 9 14 18
84 3 4 0 0 3 0 0 9 19 27 15 9 15 14
85 0 6 2 0 9 16 8 6 15 21 16 16 14 22
86 0 0 2 8 12 16 2k 6 21 16 14 14 19 21
87 3 0 0 8 9 0 0 6 17 15 15 11 9 22
88 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 25 18 16 20 19 22
89 3 0 2 0 3 16 0 6 22 12 6 8 17 24
90 3 0 0 0 9 16 8 9 20 12 6 3 7 23
91 0 6 2 8 12 16 2k 0 18 14 12 13 13 16
92 3 4 2 8 9 0 0 6 28 20 21 19 6 18
93 0 0 2 0 9 0 0 3 20 15 6 7 6 22
94 3 2 2 0 9 0 16 9 21 15 13 4 11 17
95 3 2 2 0 6 0 0 0 21 17 21 5 11 18
96 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 12 8 9 12 17 16
97 6 0 2 8 9 0 0 6 24 14 9 2 19 6
98 0 0 0 0 15 32 0 9 16 13 5 9 9 11
99 3 4 2 8 6 8 8 6 11 18 14 14 14 16
100 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 20 15 5 7 5 23
101 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 12 14 11 14 9 19
102 6 0 2 0 9 32 0 6 20 13 17 20 15 15
103 3 0 0 0 9 0 0 6 15 7 4 9 19 18
104 0 0 2 0 9 0 0 3 24 21 8 13 2 13
105 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 3 15 14 10 7 3 20
106 3 2 2 0 12 8 16 6 13 9 11 16 12 17
107 0 2 2 0 6 0 0 0 25 14 13 14 8 14
108 3 4 2 8 6 0 2k 3 15 12 11 13 14 18
109 6 6 2 0 6 0 2k 12 23 20 6 7 8 19
110 3 4 2 0 15 0 8 3 26 18 13 6 2 22
«•

V..--Dots, dashes, and circles. Designs 1, 3« and 5«

V g . — W o r k o v e r . Designs 1, 3» etnd 5-
V ~ . — W a v y line. Design 2.
Vj?.--Blunting. Design J.
V,,.--Deviant slant. Design 2.
Asymmetry. Designs 3» 4, 5» and 6.
Vg.--Rotation. Designs 3» 5» 7. and 8.
V„.--Distortion. Designs 7 and 8.
Vg.--Angles missing and Angles extra. Designs 7 and 8
 53

TABLE III

RAW DATA FOR THIRD FACTOR ANALYSIS

C3 4
s G R A S E 0 F T P M TIME P&S1 AGE 2
E
1 13 11 16 11 12 13 10 19 15 11 135" 154 168 1 0
2 15 14 15 15 12 9 14 17 16 15 131 149 204 0 1
3 19 18 20 21 20 9 9 15 16 13 134 113 204 0 0
4 10 10 9 14 7 6 17 17 13 6 100 72 183 1 0
5 17 17 9 13 11 7 15 16 15 5 113 47 210 1 0
6 19 9 13 7 7 6 4 24 14 17 90 81 211 1 0
7 15 20 13 21 10 6 10 20 14 4 138 66 205 0 0
8 12 17 16 20 9 14 n 17 19 14 136 50 201 1 0
9 22 15 10 17 14 7 7 13 12 6 281 79 228 0 0
10 19 15 13 16 15 9 8 17 18 15 135 177 172 0 0
11 16 18 11 l6 14 17 17 13 12 14 214 106 200 0 0
12 15 20 16 14 10 9 22 22 15 7 142 99 180 0 0
13 20 14 17 13 11 15 12 18 18 13 93 110 202 1 0
14 20 18 18 23 13 7 4 22 15 10 346 103 183 0 0
15 19 21 17 25 9 10 13 27 15 13 98 85 185 0 0
16 14 15 17 15 8 7 1 23 14 12 134 118 170 0 1
17 21 17 11 24 17 13 19 23 16 9 136 103 223 0 0
18 14 16 6 8 9 11 10 15 18 8 186 113 202 0 0
19 17 14 15 12 9 6 6 17 9 10 127 110 182 1 0
20 19 17 19 24 19 8 6 22 16 15 124 87 204 0 1
21 14 13 20 19 17 18 14 19 16 14 239 139 161 0 0
22 24 15 23 23 14 10 15 23 20 16 148 49 206 0 0
23 20 15 14 21 16 8 ll 20 14 10 215 78 212 0 0
24 18 14 12 21 10 11 5 17 14 12 81 96 218 1 0
25 17 20 19 24 10 16 19 28 7 11 181 114 182 0 0
26 19 15 17 17 13 12 8 17 14 9 278 117 172 1 0
2? 19 13 10 12 3 10 10 14 18 17 285 96 163 0 0
28 20 6 14 21 12 5 7 18 9 13 266 84 182 0 0
29 16 17 11 20 14 13 15 20 15 14 185 110 188 0 0
30 20 14 19 26 10 11 10 26 17 7 200 65 215 0 1
31 20 11 19 17 9 7 8 18 15 12 108 178 216 0 0
32 14 17 11 14 14 8 13 14 16 13 118 97 174 0 0
33 18 16 10 16 15 12 14 14 18 17 125 71 189 0 0
34 25 17 14 19 7 13 15 26 21 10 168 90 217 0 0
35 10 11 7 16 5 7 14 15 14 4 144 60 197 0 0
36 22 10 20 25 ll 13 18 18 21 13 164 96 174 0 0
37 23 13 15 18 11 6 4 23 16 12 102 67 165 0 0
38 26 10 l6 28 18 20 16 16 17 11 6l 61 192 0 0
39 20 15 11 22 9 6 20 22 17 9 85 82 211 0 1
4o l4 12 8 10 10 10 19 23 18 5 145 64 221 0 0
 54

TABLE III—Continued

s G R A S E 0 F T P M TIME P&S . AGE C E

41 24 25 17 23 20 13 16 27 19 16 104 73 210 1 0
42 28 15 11 22 14 10 25 18 16 15 133 67 192 0 0
^3 11 19 19' 26 25 13 18 19 13 19 154 75 209 0 1
44 19 10 l4 13 7 12 14 13 14 14 104 103 158 0 1
45 23 7 22 23 9 10 5 22 11 15 80 93 188 0 0
46 19 18 18 18 17 9 25 27 15 18 148 101 188 0 0
4? 14 13 15 13 8 11 9 25 13 8 99 90 193 1 0
48 17 17 17 25 10 20 15 23 22 15 87 73 205 0 0
49 10 12 13 9 4 9 5 22 11 15 122 72 192 0 1
50 14 10 18 17 9 14 10 18 14 12 133 68 206 0 0
51 15 9 11 18 5 7 8 20 10 7 206 64 220 0 0
52 21 11 11 14 7 8 5 17 13 15 133 138 181 0 0
53 18 11 17 16 10 5 2 20 15 10 143 149 220 0 0
54 21 9 12 15 10 10 9 17 17 11 131 98 215 0 0
55 19 10 7 13 12 2 6 12 12 8 97 109 158 0 1
56 19 10 19 25 6 8 9 25 13 9 86 145 210 1 0
57 16 10 22 17 18 15 7 15 7 14 59 120 170 0 0
58 21 11 14 •14 10 7 8 19 14 17 147 98 186 0 0
59 15 20 20 19 10 8 11 20 17 13 209 137 180 0 1
60 23 11 18 22 10 10 10 19 14 11 73 52 180 0 0
62 20 14 13 20 17 14 15 13 15 12 163 105 153 1 0
63 19 14 10 14 12 10 7 15 11 12 212 83 155 0 0 ,
64 21 18 15 18 10 6 8 24 11 11 142 85 216 0 0
67 12 29 17 17 15 18 22 20 23 10 183 122 192 0 0
68 18 7 14 16 8 13 12 16 13 12 72 66 191 0 0
69 22 16 17 21 12 9 10 12 13 13 102 69 206 0 0
70 15 9 16 19 10 6 4 22 15 11 154 190 154 0 0
71 15 15 16 16 4 8 7 23 10 6 161 107 184 0 0
72 15 10 12 16 8 7 7 22 11 5 145 190 186 0 0
73 16 12 15 21 6 9 6 23 11 4 164 149 199 0 0
74 13 13 17 18 8 17 10 17 9 13 116 84 198 0 0
75 20 15 16 19 10 13 8 15 13 15 147 44 206 0 1
76 20 19 7 8 1 4 13 24 10 8 126 60 193 0 1
77 13 12 17 16 6 10 6 24 10 4 89 159 148 0 0
78 14 9 12 18 14 11 10 18 14 10 156 113 159 1 0
79 18 20 22 20 9 13 5 22 13 9 89 72 202 0 0
80 17 16 14 20 9 3 4 23 12 10 156 70 214 0 0
81 19 18 14 16 8 9 9 21 11 11 225 119 204 0 1
82 16 17 16 15 6 9 6 20 15 10 136 177 192 0 0
83 19 14 16 19 10 9 14 18 14 16 134 110 172 0 0
84 19 15 18 27 16 9 15 14 13 15 176 73 180 0 0
85 15 17 21 22 16 16 14 22 17 11 228 102 202 0 0
 55

TABLE Ill—Continued

s G R A S E 0 F T P M TIME P&S AGE C E

86 21 15 16 17 14 14 19 21 11 9 162 100 200 0 0

87 1.7 16 15 21 15 11 9 22 8 15 90 108 180 1 0
88 25 11 18. 22 16 20 19 22 17 8 137 48 194 0 1
89 22 17 12 27 6 8 17 24 16 4 162 68 189 0 1
90 20 16 12 17 6 3 7 23 8 4 146 106 174 0 0
91 18 20 14 21 12 13 13 16 13 12 251 145 179 0 0
92 28 5 20 23 21 19 6 18 11 19 157 83 208 0 1
93 20 17 15 9 6 7 6 22 14 19 134 54 190 0 0
94 21 12 15 13 13 4 11 17 12 6 120 104 176 0 0
95 21 15 17 13 21 5 11 18 12 5 118 74 217 0 0
96 12 11 8 18 9 12 17 16 12 12 125 65 192 0 0
9? 24 9 14 11 14 9 2 19 9 9 112 96 187 0 1
98 16 13 13 22 5 9 9 11 14 12 112 144 215 0 0
99 11 18 18 21 14 14 14 16 19 9 255 95 ' 178 0 0
100 20 19 15 8 5 7 5 23 12 18 112 48 197 0 0
101 12 7 14 17 11 14 9 19 19 14 191 56 189 0 0
102 20 16 13 20 17 20 15 15 19 13 107 108 215 0 1
103 15 9 7 9 4 9 19 18 9 10 6l 96 198 1 0
104 24 6 21 18 8 13 2 13 9 11 111 68 203 0 0
105 15 12 14 16 10 7 3 20 16 8 121 97 170 1 0
106 13 11 9 12 11 16 12 17 14 15 89 113 180 0 0
107 25 8 14 23 13 14 8 14 3 15 l4l 54 221 1 0
108 15 16 12 16 11 13 14 18 11 13 174 116 210 0 0
109 23 14 20 22 6 7 8 19 20 • 7 151 118 192 0 0
110 26 6 18 26 13 6 2 22 9 9 152 99 178 0 1

P&S,--Total Pascal & Suttell z_ Score.

2
Chronological Age in months.
3
^Compression.
Expansion.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Baggaley, Andrew R., Intermediate Correlational Methods,

New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

"""Bender, Lauretta, A Visual Motor Gestalt Test and Its

Clinical Use. New York, American Orthopsychlatric

Assn., Inc., 1938-

j _, Instructions for the Use of the VI sua I

Motor Gestalt Test. New York, American Orthopsychla-

tric Assn., Inc., 1946.

Fruchter, B., Introduction to Factor Analysis, New York,

D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1954.

Guilford, J. P. and Zimmerman, W. S., The Gullford-Zimmer-

man Temperament Survey; Manual of Instructions and

Interpretations, Beverly Hills, Calif., Sheridan

Supply Co., 1949.

v/Hutt, Max L. and Briskin, Gerald J., The Clinical Use of

the Revised Bender-Gestalt Test, New York, Grune and

Stratton, Inc., i960.

Koppitz, Elizabeth M. , The Bender Gestalt Test for Young;

Children, New York, Grune and Stratton, Inc., 1964.

•/Pascal, Gerald R. and Suttell, Barbara., The Bender-Gestalt

Test,"New York, Grune and Stratton, Inc., 1951*

56
 57

Projective Techniques with Children, edited by Albert J,

Rabin and Mary R. Haworth, New York, Grune and Stratton,
Inc., I960.
^Tolor, Alexander and Schulberg, Herbert C., An Evaluation
of the Bender-Gestalt Test, Springfield, 111., Charles
C. Thomas, 1963.

Articles

Billingslea, Fred Y., "The Bender-Gestalt: An Objective

Scoring Method and Validating Data," Journal of Clini-
cal Psychology, IV (January, 19^8), 1-27.
, "The Bender-Gestalt: A Review and a
Perspective," Psychological Bulletin, LX (March, 1963),
233-251.
Bowland., J. A. and Deabler, H. L. , "A Bender-Gestalt Diag-
nostic Validity Study," Journal of Clinical Psychology,
XX (June, 1956), 127-136.
*

Byrd, Eugene, "The Clinical Validity of the Bender-Gestalt

Test with Children: A Developmental Comparison of
Children in Need of Psychotherapy and Children Judged
Well-Adjusted," Journal of Projective Techniques, XX
(June, 1956), 127-136..
Clawson, Aileen, "The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test As
an Index of Emotional Disturbance in Children," Journal
of Projective Techniques, XXIII (February, 1959). 198-
206. /
 58

Freed, Earl X., "Comparison on Admission and Discharge

of Bender Gestalt Test Performance by Hospitalized
Psychiatric Patients," Perceptual and Motor Skills,

XXIII (September, 1966), 919-922.-

Gobetz, Wallace, "A Quantification, Standardization, and
Validation of the Bender-Gestalt Test on Normal and
Neurotic Adults," Psychological Monographs. LXVII
(June, 1953), Whole No. 356. •
Goldberg, Lewis R., "The Effectiveness of Clinicians'
Judgments: The Diagnosis of Organic Brain Damage
from the Bender-Gestalt Test," Journal of Consult-
ing Psychology. XXIII (January, 1959), 25-33- 17
Goodstein, Leonard D., Speilberger, Charles D., Williams,

John E, and Dahlstrom, W. Grant, "The Effects of

Serial Position and Design Difficulty on Recall of
the Bender Gestalt Test Designs," Journal of Con-
sulting Psychology, XIX (March, 1955), 230-23^.
Guilford, J. P. and Zimmerman, W. S., "Fourteen Dimensions
of Temperament," Psychological Monographs. LXX (1956),
Whole No„ ^17.

Griffith, R. M. and Taylor, Vivian H., "Incidence of Bender-

Gestalt Figure Rotations," Journal of Consulting Psy-
chology , XXIV (February, i 9 6 0 ) , 189-190.--
Guertin, Wilson H., "A Factor Analysis of the Bender-Gestalt
Tests of Mental Patients," Journal of Clinical Psychology,
VIII ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 3 6 2 - 3 6 7 . „
 59

_, "A Factor Analysis of Curvilinear Dis-

tortions of the Bender-Gestalt," Journal of Clinical
Psychology. X (195*0. 12-17.
, "A Transposed Factor Analysis of Schizo-
phrenic Performance on the Bender-Gestalt," Journal
of Clinical Psychology. X (195*0. 225-228.
, "A Transposed Analysis of the Bender
Gestalts of Brain Disease Cases," Journal of Clinical
Psychology, X (195*0. 366-369.
, "A Transposed Analysis of the Bender
Gestalts of Paranoid Schizophrenics," Journal of
Clinical Psychology, XI (1955).73-76.
Halpern, Florence, "The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test,"
An Introduction to Projective Techniques, edited by
H. L. Anderson and Gladys L. Anderson, New York, Pren-
tice-Hall, Inc., 1951. Chapter 11.
Hammer, Emanuel F., "An Experimental Study of Symbolism on
the Bender-Gestalt," Journal of Projective Techniques,
XVIII (195*+). 335-3^-5.
Hutt, Max L., "The Use of Projective Methods of Personality
Measurement in Army Medical Installations," Journal
of Clinical Psychology, T (l9'+5). 13^-1^0,
Keehn, J. D., "Repeated Testing of Four Chronic Schizo-
phrenics on the Bender-Gestalt and Wechsler Block
Design Tests," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XIII
 6o

(February, 1957). 179-182.

Keogh, B. K. and. Smith, E. E. , "Vlsuo-motor Ability for
School Prediction," Perceptual and Motor Skills,
XXV (May, 1967), 101-110.
Koppitz, Elizabeth M., "The Bender Gestalt Test for
Children," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XVI
(October, i960), 432-4-35.
, "The Bender Gestalt Test and Learn-
ing Disturbances in Young Children," Journal of Clini-
cal Psychology, XIV (July, 1958), 292-295.
Lachmann, F. M., Bailey, M. A., and Berrick, M. E., "The
Relationship Between Manifest Anxiety and Clinicians'
Evaluations of Projective Test Responses," Journal
of Clinical Psychology, XVII (January, 1961), 11-13.
Lonstein, Murray, "A Validation of a Bender-Gestalt Scor-
ing System," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XVIII

(May, 195*0. 377-379.

Mehlman, Benjamin and Vatovec, Edward, "A Validation Study
of the Bender-Gestalt," Journal of Consulting Psychology,
XX (January, 1956), 71-73-
Nadler, Eugene B., Fink, Stephen L., Shontz, Franklin C.,
And Brink, Robert W. , "Objective Scoring Vs. Clinical
Evaluation of the Bender-Gestalt," J ournal of Clinical
Psychology, XV (January, 1959). 39-^1•
Peek, Roland M. and Olson, Gordon W., "The Bender-Gestalt
 61

Gestalt Recall As an Index of Intellectual Function-

ing," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XI (April, 1955).

185-188.
Peek, Roland M. and Storms, Lowell H., "Judging Intellectual
Status.from the Bender-Gestalt Test," Journal of Clin-
ical Psychology. XIV (July, 1958), 296-299.
Peoples, Crocker and Moll, Richard P., "Bender-Gestalt
Performance as a Function of Drawing Ability, School
Performance, and Intelligence," Journal of Clinical
Psychology. XVIII (January, 1962), 106-107.
Popplestone, John A., "Variability of the Bender-Gestalt
Designs," Perceptual and Motor Skills, VI (August,
1956), 269-271.
Prado, W. M. , Peyman, D. A. R., and Lacey, Oliver L., "A
Validation Study of Measures of Flattened Affect on
the Bender-Gestalt Test," Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology. XVI (October, I960), ^35-^38.
Stennett, R. G. and Uffelmann, Ruth, "The Bender-Gestalt:
Manner of Approach," Canadian Journal of Psychology,
XII (March, 1958), 18^-186.
Tamkin, Arthur S., "The Effectiveness of the Bender-Gestalt
in Differential Diagnosis," Journal of Consulting
Psychology, XXI (August, 1957), 355-357.
Tolor, Alexander, "The 'Meaning' of the Bender-Gestalt Test
Designs," Journal of Projective Techniques, XXIV (i960),

^33-^38.
 62

Tucker, John E. and Speilberg, Mimi J., "Bender-Gestalt

Test Correlates of Emotional Depression," Journal
of Consulting; Psychology, XXII (January, 1958), 56.
Wohl, Julian, "A Note on the Generality of Constriction,"
Journal of Projective Techniques, XXI (1957)> ^10-^13.
Woltmann, A. G.( "The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test,"
Projective Psychology, edited by E. D. Abt and L.
Bellak, New York, Grove Press, Inc., 1959, 322-357.
Zolik, Edwin S.( "A Comparison of the Bender Gestalt Re-
productions of Delinquents and Non-Delinquents,"
Journal of Clinical Psychology, XIV (January, 1958)»
24-26.

Unpublished Materials

Boring, Randolph 0. and Topper, Robert C., A Psychodiag-

nostic Technique, Veterans Administration, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama, 19^9.
Brown, Fred, Psychodynamic Aspects of the Bender-Gestalt
Visua 1 Motor Test A Compendium, compiled and edited
by Stuart L. Weissman and Abraham Roth, from a series
of lectures given at White Plains, New York, 19&5*
Haynes, Jack R., "A Factor Analytic Study of Performance
on the Bender-Gestalt," unpublished paper read at
the Southwestern Psychological Association Convention,
1967.