Skip to main content
. 2014 Jul 23;5:761. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00761

Table 5.

CAT assessment of the drawings from patient YCFZ (2010–2013).

Global Score Aesthetics Closure Abstraction Obsessions/repetitions Evocative impact Novelty Representation Technique
Artist 1 4.8 4.4 5.7 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.6 4.7 3.3
Artist 2 3.2 0.3 9.2 1.5 8.5 0.3 0.9 3.0 0.0
Artist 3 3.2 0.3 9.2 1.5 8.5 0.3 0.9 3.0 0.0
Artist 4 9.4 9.1 9.4 9.1 9.1 9.8 9.3 9.8 9.6
Artist 5 6.6 4.6 4.4 1.5 3.4 4.0 2.1 3.9 3.6
Artist 6 9.6 9.5 10.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 10.0 9.8 10.0
Artist 7 9.3 8.9 9.2 1.3 5.3 8.2 8.4 8.7 8.8
Artist 8 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.3 4.6 3.6 3.2 3.0 2.9
Artist 9 7.0 5.6 7.7 3.9 4.5 6.2 6.5 7.5 6.5
Artist 10 7.9 7.2 8.5 7.5 3.7 7.6 7.8 7.3 6.5
Artist 11 6.8 5.7 8.4 1.7 5.4 6.1 3.8 7.4 5.6
Artist 12 8.5 8.2 9.3 5.1 4.9 6.8 7.8 9.5 8.7
Mean 6.6 5.6 7.8 3.3 5.2 5.4 5.3 6.4 5.4
SD 2.5 3.2 2.2 2.7 2.5 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.5
Min 3.2 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 3.0 0.0
Max 9.6 9.5 10.0 9.1 9.1 9.8 10.0 9.8 10.0

The professional artists scored (from 0 to 10) each of the drawings for global creativity and according to the following criteria (adapted from Drago et al., 2006a): Aesthetics: How beautiful is the painting? Closure: How complete is the painting? Abstraction: How abstractive is the painting? Obsessions/Repetition: How obsessive/repetitive is the painting? Evocative Impact: How strongly does the painting induce feelings or thoughts? Novelty: How original or new is the painting? Representation: How well is the subject of the painting rendered? Technique: How much skill does the painting demonstrate? Mean scores attributed by each judge to the 20 assessed drawings are provided together with standard deviation, minimum and maximum values (in bold).