Psychological Reporb, 1990,66, 922.
@ Psychological Reports 1990
COMPARISON OF THE CAT AND CAT-H WITH THIRD GRADE BOYS AND GIRLS ' DANA R. GARDNER AND COOPER B. HOLMES Ernporia State University Noting that some children may respond better to human stimuli than animal stimuli, the Children's Apperception Test-Human was developed (Bellak & Bellak, 1965). Subsequent research has generally shown the CAT and CAT-H to be equivalent in the responses they evoke (Haworth, 1966; Myler, Rosenkrantz, & Holmes, 1972; Neuringer & Livesay, 1970). Given the earlier maturity of children and the changes in social climate, it seems reasonable to reassess the comparabihty of responses to the CAT and CAT-H. Twelve boys and 18 girls in regular third-grade classes (ages 8-9 yr.) in a small midwestern town were individually administered the CAT and CAT-H by a female psychologist who taperecorded their responses. Standard instructions were utilized. Fifteen of the students were first presented a CAT card, thereafter alternating with a CAT-H card. The other fifteen started with a CAT-H card, again alternating between CATand CAT-H cards. Responses were classified according to the system used by Byrd and Witherspoon (1955). In this system, responses are classified as enumerative (naming aspects of the card), descriptive (describing), or apperceptive (revealing inner dynamics). Each study is classified according to its highest level. Latency between card placement and response was recorded, as was the number of words per story. Chi-squared analysis for correlated measures indicated no significant difference between the tests or between boys and girls for the number of enumerative, descriptive, or apperceptive stories, or refusals (with descriptive being by far the most common). The mean number of words per story was not significantly different between the CAT and CAT-H or between boys and girls (averaging 26 words per story). Latency between card placement and response was statistically significantly slower for boys (4.24 sec. compared to 2.37 for girls). While statistically significant, this difference of 1.87 sec. does not appear to be of any clinical significance. The results of the present study are consistent with past studies that show no remarkable differences in the responses elicited by the CATand CAT-H. REFERENCES BELLAK, L., & BELLAK,S. S. (1965) The C.A.T.-H-a human modification. Larchmont, NY: C.P.S.. Inc. BYRD,E., &'WITHERSPOON, R. (1955) Responses of preschool children to the Children's Apperception Test. Child Development, 25, 35-44. HAWORTH, M. R. (1966) The CATfacfs about fantasy. New York: Grune & Stratton. MYLER,B., ROSENKRANTZ, A,, & HOLMES,G . (1972) A comparison of the T.A.T., C.A.T., and C.A.T.-H among second grade girls. Journal of Personality Assessment, 36, 440-444. NEURMGER, C., & LIVESAY,R. C. (1970) Projective fantasy on the C.A.T. and C.A.T.-H. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 34, 487-491. Accepted June 4, 1990.
'Requests for reprints should be sent to Cooper B. Holmes, Department of Psychology, Emporia State University, Ernporia, Kansas 66801.
@ Psychological Reports 1990
COMPARISON OF THE CAT AND CAT-H WITH THIRD GRADE BOYS AND GIRLS ' DANA R. GARDNER AND COOPER B. HOLMES Ernporia State University Noting that some children may respond better to human stimuli than animal stimuli, the Children's Apperception Test-Human was developed (Bellak & Bellak, 1965). Subsequent research has generally shown the CAT and CAT-H to be equivalent in the responses they evoke (Haworth, 1966; Myler, Rosenkrantz, & Holmes, 1972; Neuringer & Livesay, 1970). Given the earlier maturity of children and the changes in social climate, it seems reasonable to reassess the comparabihty of responses to the CAT and CAT-H. Twelve boys and 18 girls in regular third-grade classes (ages 8-9 yr.) in a small midwestern town were individually administered the CAT and CAT-H by a female psychologist who taperecorded their responses. Standard instructions were utilized. Fifteen of the students were first presented a CAT card, thereafter alternating with a CAT-H card. The other fifteen started with a CAT-H card, again alternating between CATand CAT-H cards. Responses were classified according to the system used by Byrd and Witherspoon (1955). In this system, responses are classified as enumerative (naming aspects of the card), descriptive (describing), or apperceptive (revealing inner dynamics). Each study is classified according to its highest level. Latency between card placement and response was recorded, as was the number of words per story. Chi-squared analysis for correlated measures indicated no significant difference between the tests or between boys and girls for the number of enumerative, descriptive, or apperceptive stories, or refusals (with descriptive being by far the most common). The mean number of words per story was not significantly different between the CAT and CAT-H or between boys and girls (averaging 26 words per story). Latency between card placement and response was statistically significantly slower for boys (4.24 sec. compared to 2.37 for girls). While statistically significant, this difference of 1.87 sec. does not appear to be of any clinical significance. The results of the present study are consistent with past studies that show no remarkable differences in the responses elicited by the CATand CAT-H. REFERENCES BELLAK, L., & BELLAK,S. S. (1965) The C.A.T.-H-a human modification. Larchmont, NY: C.P.S.. Inc. BYRD,E., &'WITHERSPOON, R. (1955) Responses of preschool children to the Children's Apperception Test. Child Development, 25, 35-44. HAWORTH, M. R. (1966) The CATfacfs about fantasy. New York: Grune & Stratton. MYLER,B., ROSENKRANTZ, A,, & HOLMES,G . (1972) A comparison of the T.A.T., C.A.T., and C.A.T.-H among second grade girls. Journal of Personality Assessment, 36, 440-444. NEURMGER, C., & LIVESAY,R. C. (1970) Projective fantasy on the C.A.T. and C.A.T.-H. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 34, 487-491. Accepted June 4, 1990.
'Requests for reprints should be sent to Cooper B. Holmes, Department of Psychology, Emporia State University, Ernporia, Kansas 66801.
