Öz
Objective: The aim of study is examining effective usability of nose and foot drawings which’s symbolizing sexuality in Draw a Person Test and vehicle drawing in D10 test in determining sexual development of children aged 60-72 months.
Materials and Methods: Study was designed in general survey model, 92 children aged between 60-72 months who’re attending pre-school education in the province of Konya were participated, determined with the criterion-based sampling method. In study, Family Form of Sexual Identity and Gender-Related Behavior Sub-Scale of Selçuk Sexual Development Scale and Draw a Person and D10 tests from projective tests were used to collect data.
Results: In Draw a Person Test, there was a significant relationship between nose drawing and sexual identity dimension, but there wasn’t significant relationship between gender-related behavior dimension. There wasn’t significant relationship between foot drawing and sexual identity dimension and gender-related behavior; in D10 test, there was a significant relationship between vehicle drawing and behavior related to gender, but no significant relationship was found in sexual identity dimension.
Conclusion: It was concluded that drawing of nose and gender drawn first in Draw a Person Test can provide information about gender identity dimension of children but drawing of feet doesn’t provide any information about sexual development and drawing of vehicle in the D10 test can also provide information about dimension of children's gender-related behavior.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Aina, O. E., & Cameron, P. A. (2011). Why does gender matter? Counteracting stereotypes with young children. Dimensions of early childhood, 39(3), 11–19.
- Alptekin, A., & Tepeli, K. (2019). Selçuk Cinsel Gelişim Ölçeği’nin (36-72 Ay) Geliştirilmesi. Eğitim ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 10(3), 249–265.
- Arteche, A., Bandeira, D., & Hutz, C. S. (2010). Draw-a-Person test: The sex of the first-drawn figure revisited. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 37(1), 65–69.
- Bahçıvan Saydam, R. (2004). Çocuk çizimlerinin klinik değerlendirmedeki yeri. Yansıtma Psikopatoloji ve Projektif Testler Dergisi, 1, 1–2.
- Brolles, L. (2011). “Bir Projektif Çizim Testi: D10” (Çev. B. Kolbay). Yansıtma: Psikopatoloji ve Projektif Testler Dergisi, 15, 129–140.
- Çalışandemir, F., Bencik, S., & Artan, İ. (2008). Çocukların Cinsel Eğitimi: Geçmişten Günümüze Bir Bakış. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 33(150), 14–27.
- Cherney, I. D., Seiwert, C. S., Dickey, T. M., & Flichtbeil, J. D. (2006). Children’s drawings: A mirror to their minds. Educational psychology, 26(1), 127–142.
- Cox, M. V. (2013). Children’s drawings of the human figure. Psychology Press.
- DeLoache, J. S., Pierroutsakos, S. L., & Troseth, G. L. (1996). The three R’s of pictorial competence. Annals of child development, 12, 1–48.
- Di Leo, J. H. (1983). Interpreting children’s drawings. Brunner-Mazel Press.
- Eng, H. (1954). The psychology of children’s drawings. Routledge.
- Freeman, N. H., & Janikoun, R. (1972). Intellectual Realism in Children’s Drawings of a Familiar Object with Distinctive Features Source. Child Development, 43(3), 1116–1121.
- Goodnow, J. J., & Levine, R. A. (1973). “The grammar of action”: Sequence and syntax in children’s copying. Cognitive psychology, 4(1), 82–98.
- Granick, S., & Smith, L. (1953). Sex sequence in the Draw A-Person test and its relation to the MMPI Maseulinity-Femininity Scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 71–73.
- Harris, R. H. (2006). It’s not the stork! Candlewick Press.
- Jolles, I. (1952). A study of the validity of some hypotheses for the qualitative interpretation of the H‐T‐P for children of elementary school age: I. Sexual identification. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 8(2), 113–118.
- Juni, S., Rahamim, E. L., & Brannon, R. (2001). Sex Role Development as a Function of Parent Models and Oedipal Fixation. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146(1), 89–99.
- Knoff, H. M., & Prout, H. T. (1985). Kinetic Drawing System for family and school: A handbook. Western Psychological Services.
- Knopf, I. J., & Richards, T. W. (1952). The child’s differentiation of sex as reflected in drawings of the human figure. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 81(1), 99–112.
- Lark Horovitz, B., Lewis, H., & Luca, M. (1973). Understanding children’s art for better teaching (2. baskı). Charles E. Merrill.
- Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure: A method of personality investigation. Charles C Thomas Publisher.
- Naglieri, J. A. (1988). Draw-a-Person: A quantitative scoring system. Psychological Corporation.
- Paludi, M. A. (1978). Machover revisited: Impact of sex-role orientation on sex sequence on the Draw-A-Person Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47(3), 713–714.
- Paludi, M. A., & Bauer, W. D. (1979). Impact of sex of experimenter on the Draw-A-Person test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49(2), 546–548.
- Papadakis-Michaelides, E. (1989). Development of children’s drawings in relation to gender and culture. University of Birmingham.
- Sayın, T. (2007). Zihinsel Engelli Çocuğa Sahip Ebeveynler ile Normal Gelişim Gösteren Çocuğa Sahip Ebeveynlerin 7-15 Yaş Arası Çocuklarının Toplumsal Cinsiyet Rollerine Yaklaşım ve Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi. Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
- Stern, C. (1965). Labeling and variety in concept identification with young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(5), 235.
- Szasz, C. . W., Baadel . E., & Paskewıccz, C. . W. (1980). Drawings in predicting school readiness. Journal of School Psychology, 18, 67–73.
- Tolor, A., & Tolor, B. (1955). udgment of children’s popularity from their human figure drawings. Journal of Projective Techniques, 19(2), 170–176.
- Tolor, A., & Tolor, B. (1974). Children’s figure drawings and changing attitudes toward sex roles. Psychological Reports, 34(2), 343–349.
- Weider, A., & Noller, P. A. (1950). Objective studies of children’s drawings of human figures I. Sex awareness and socio‐economic level. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6(4), 319–325.
- Weider, A., & Noller, P. A. (1953). Objective studies of children’s drawings of human figures. II. Sex, age, intelligence. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 9, 20–23.
Öz
Amaç: Bir İnsan Çiz Testinde cinselliği sembolize eden burun ve ayak çizimleri ile D10 testinde yer alan taşıt çiziminin 60-72 ay aralığındaki çocukların cinsel gelişimini belirlemekte etkin kullanılabilirliğini incelemektir.
Yöntem ve Gereçler: Genel tarama modelinde tasarlanan araştırmada, çalışma grubu olarak ölçüte dayalı örnekleme yöntemi ile Konya İlinde okul öncesi eğitime devam eden 60-72 ay aralığındaki 92 çocuk belirlenmiştir. Veri toplamak için Selçuk Cinsel Gelişim Ölçeğinin Cinsel Kimlik ve Cinsiyete İlişkin Davranış Alt Ölçeği Aile Formu, projektif testlerden de Bir İnsan Çiz ve D10 testleri kullanılmıştır.
Bulgular: Bir İnsan Çiz testinde burun çizimi ile cinsel kimlik boyutu arasında anlamlı ilişki olduğu ancak cinsiyete ilişkin davranış boyutunda anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığı; ayak çizimi ile cinsel kimlik ve cinsiyete ilişkin davranış boyutları arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığı; D 10 testinde taşıt çizimi ile cinsiyete ilişkin davranış boyutunda anlamlı bir ilişki olduğu ancak cinsel kimlik boyutunda anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığı görülmüştür.
Sonuç: Bir İnsan Çiz Testinde burun çiziminin ve önce çizilen cinsiyetin çocukların cinsel kimlik boyutuyla ilgili bilgi verebileceği ancak ayak çiziminin cinsel gelişimle ilgili herhangi bir bilgi vermediği, D10 testinde yer alan taşıt çiziminin de çocukların cinsiyete ilişkin davranış boyutuyla ilgili bilgi verebileceği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Aina, O. E., & Cameron, P. A. (2011). Why does gender matter? Counteracting stereotypes with young children. Dimensions of early childhood, 39(3), 11–19.
- Alptekin, A., & Tepeli, K. (2019). Selçuk Cinsel Gelişim Ölçeği’nin (36-72 Ay) Geliştirilmesi. Eğitim ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 10(3), 249–265.
- Arteche, A., Bandeira, D., & Hutz, C. S. (2010). Draw-a-Person test: The sex of the first-drawn figure revisited. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 37(1), 65–69.
- Bahçıvan Saydam, R. (2004). Çocuk çizimlerinin klinik değerlendirmedeki yeri. Yansıtma Psikopatoloji ve Projektif Testler Dergisi, 1, 1–2.
- Brolles, L. (2011). “Bir Projektif Çizim Testi: D10” (Çev. B. Kolbay). Yansıtma: Psikopatoloji ve Projektif Testler Dergisi, 15, 129–140.
- Çalışandemir, F., Bencik, S., & Artan, İ. (2008). Çocukların Cinsel Eğitimi: Geçmişten Günümüze Bir Bakış. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 33(150), 14–27.
- Cherney, I. D., Seiwert, C. S., Dickey, T. M., & Flichtbeil, J. D. (2006). Children’s drawings: A mirror to their minds. Educational psychology, 26(1), 127–142.
- Cox, M. V. (2013). Children’s drawings of the human figure. Psychology Press.
- DeLoache, J. S., Pierroutsakos, S. L., & Troseth, G. L. (1996). The three R’s of pictorial competence. Annals of child development, 12, 1–48.
- Di Leo, J. H. (1983). Interpreting children’s drawings. Brunner-Mazel Press.
- Eng, H. (1954). The psychology of children’s drawings. Routledge.
- Freeman, N. H., & Janikoun, R. (1972). Intellectual Realism in Children’s Drawings of a Familiar Object with Distinctive Features Source. Child Development, 43(3), 1116–1121.
- Goodnow, J. J., & Levine, R. A. (1973). “The grammar of action”: Sequence and syntax in children’s copying. Cognitive psychology, 4(1), 82–98.
- Granick, S., & Smith, L. (1953). Sex sequence in the Draw A-Person test and its relation to the MMPI Maseulinity-Femininity Scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 71–73.
- Harris, R. H. (2006). It’s not the stork! Candlewick Press.
- Jolles, I. (1952). A study of the validity of some hypotheses for the qualitative interpretation of the H‐T‐P for children of elementary school age: I. Sexual identification. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 8(2), 113–118.
- Juni, S., Rahamim, E. L., & Brannon, R. (2001). Sex Role Development as a Function of Parent Models and Oedipal Fixation. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146(1), 89–99.
- Knoff, H. M., & Prout, H. T. (1985). Kinetic Drawing System for family and school: A handbook. Western Psychological Services.
- Knopf, I. J., & Richards, T. W. (1952). The child’s differentiation of sex as reflected in drawings of the human figure. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 81(1), 99–112.
- Lark Horovitz, B., Lewis, H., & Luca, M. (1973). Understanding children’s art for better teaching (2. baskı). Charles E. Merrill.
- Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure: A method of personality investigation. Charles C Thomas Publisher.
- Naglieri, J. A. (1988). Draw-a-Person: A quantitative scoring system. Psychological Corporation.
- Paludi, M. A. (1978). Machover revisited: Impact of sex-role orientation on sex sequence on the Draw-A-Person Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47(3), 713–714.
- Paludi, M. A., & Bauer, W. D. (1979). Impact of sex of experimenter on the Draw-A-Person test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49(2), 546–548.
- Papadakis-Michaelides, E. (1989). Development of children’s drawings in relation to gender and culture. University of Birmingham.
- Sayın, T. (2007). Zihinsel Engelli Çocuğa Sahip Ebeveynler ile Normal Gelişim Gösteren Çocuğa Sahip Ebeveynlerin 7-15 Yaş Arası Çocuklarının Toplumsal Cinsiyet Rollerine Yaklaşım ve Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi. Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
- Stern, C. (1965). Labeling and variety in concept identification with young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(5), 235.
- Szasz, C. . W., Baadel . E., & Paskewıccz, C. . W. (1980). Drawings in predicting school readiness. Journal of School Psychology, 18, 67–73.
- Tolor, A., & Tolor, B. (1955). udgment of children’s popularity from their human figure drawings. Journal of Projective Techniques, 19(2), 170–176.
- Tolor, A., & Tolor, B. (1974). Children’s figure drawings and changing attitudes toward sex roles. Psychological Reports, 34(2), 343–349.
- Weider, A., & Noller, P. A. (1950). Objective studies of children’s drawings of human figures I. Sex awareness and socio‐economic level. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6(4), 319–325.
- Weider, A., & Noller, P. A. (1953). Objective studies of children’s drawings of human figures. II. Sex, age, intelligence. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 9, 20–23.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | Türkçe |
|---|---|
| Konular | Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi |
| Bölüm | Makaleler |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 29 Eylül 2022 |
| Gönderilme Tarihi | 30 Mayıs 2022 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2022 Cilt: 12 Sayı: 3 |
SMJ'de yayınlanan makaleler, Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı kapsamında lisanslanır