The assessment of drawings from children who have been maltreated: a systematic review Veltman M W, Browne K D Authors' objectives To ascertain whether the drawings from maltreated children would be able to provide unique identifiers of the maltreatment suffered. Searching MEDLINE (from 1966 to 1999) and PsycLIT (from 1887 to 1999) were searched using the terms documented in the report. A personal bibliography was also handsearched for further studies. Only English language publications were considered. Study selection Study designs of evaluations included in the review All study designs were included, although studies reliant on self-report of maltreatment or abuse were excluded. Specific interventions included in the review All types of drawing techniques appear to have been eligible for inclusion. The review included 15 different drawing techniques: Human Figure Drawings, Draw-a-Person, Kinetic Family Drawings, free drawings, House-Tree-Person drawings, Draw-a-Man, Family Drawing, picture of the perpetrator, picture of the inside of your own body, picture of a dream, picture of a self portrait, picture of 'what had happened', Favourite Kind of Day Drawing and Draw-a-Tree. Reference standard test against which the new test was compared No specific reference standard was used. Most of the studies used groups of known or alleged victims of abuse and compared their drawings with those from non-abused children, disturbed children, children from violent homes, and children with behavioural or learning difficulties, or with known norms of child development. Participants included in the review The participants were maltreated children of school age. The studies included physically and sexually abused and neglected children aged up to 20 years. Outcomes assessed in the review All outcomes appear to have been eligible for the review. Most of the studies assessed the ability of the particular drawing test to discriminate between maltreated and non-maltreated children. How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made? The authors did not state how the papers were selected for the review, or how many reviewers performed the selection. Assessment of study quality The authors did not state that they assessed validity. Data extraction The data were extracted by one author and checked by a second. Methods of synthesis How were the studies combined? A narrative synthesis of the studies was undertaken. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) Produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Copyright © 2014 University of York Page: 1 / 3