Outcome Studies on the Efficacy of Art Therapy - A Review of Findings

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by McGucket

In response to prior review work, this article systematically identifies outcome studies published between 1999 and 2007 that measured the effectiveness of art therapy. It focuses on research isolating art therapy as the specific intervention rather than studies combining multiple modalities. The review covers clinical and nonclinical populations across all ages, and synthesizes findings suggesting a limited but quantifiable evidence base supporting effectiveness for diverse symptoms, age groups, and disorders.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Review purpose and background

Prior findings and limitations in the literature

Systematic search and inclusion criteria

articles Outcome Studies on the Efficacy of Art Therapy: A Review of Findings Sarah C. Slayton, Jeanne D’Archer, and Frances Kaplan, Marylhurst, OR Abstract In response to a review by Reynolds, Nabors, and Quinlan (2000) of the art therapy literature prior to 1999, this review article identifies studies from 1999–2007 that measured outcomes of art therapy effectiveness with all ages of clinical and nonclinical populations. Although numerous studies blend art therapy with other modalities, this review is limited to studies that isolate art therapy as the specific intervention. The results of this review suggest that there is a small body of quantifiable data to support the claim that art therapy is effective in treating a variety of symptoms, age groups, and disorders. Introduction As we near the end of the first decade of the 21st century, our intuitive skills as people, art therapist clinicians, and artists continue to affirm that art making helps clientsand patients—and us. Yet there is a need for evidence that this is so. Because it serves to treat major mental illnesses and transient but serious symptoms of trauma, as well as providing a response to the consequences of social problems, art therapy is needed as much as it ever has been, if not more. One can imagine, for example, that the effects of war, the implications of complex trauma, neurological impairments from traumatic brain injuries, and the emergence of new addictive substances have created greater mental health challenges than in previous generations. Clinicians practicing in the United States for several decades often comment that their clients’ problems have increased in severity in the past 5 to 10 years (E. Bagley, personal communication, June, 2008; C. Turner, personal communication, September, 2008) . Given these dilemmas, it is ever more important that art therapists produce evidence to support our intuitive knowledge that art heals. Editor’s Note: Sarah C. Slayton, MA, ATR-BC, Jeanne D’Archer, MA, ATR-BC, and Frances Kaplan, DA, ATR-BC, are associate faculty members in the Art Therapy Counseling Department of Marylhurst University, Marylhurst, OR. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to the first author at [sslayton@marylhurst.edu](sslayton@marylhurst.edu) With this goal in mind, the authors of this paper sought to continue where Reynolds, Nabors, and Quinlan (2000) left off in their review of art therapy effectiveness studies in the literature prior to 1999, from which they identified 17 studies that met their inclusion criteria. These criteria were that the studies assessed the impact of art therapy on a measurable outcome and also assessed the impact of treatment on a sample or treatment group. Reynolds et al. also attempted to identify any outcome trends that could be associated with various research study designs and to discuss their implications. The earliest studies included in the report were White and Allen’s 1971 school-based study on the role of art in counseling on the development of self-concept, and Silver and Lavin’s 1977 study on the use of art in the evaluation and development of cognitive skills. Both of these studies were published in educational journals. Reynolds et al.(2000) also identified the first research study published inan art therapy journal (Chin et al., 1980), which documented a significant change in self-esteem in underserved adolescents. However, this and many of the other studies discussed by Reynolds et al. combined art therapy with other interventions, making it impossible to determine the actual effect of the art therapy intervention itself as the agent for positive change. Additionally, many of the studies reviewed did not provide detailed descriptions ofthe art therapy intervention. In their report, Reynolds et al. noted an overall lack of standardization and reporting in the literature on outcome studies. These predicaments—and the fact that there are only a couple of decades

FAQs

What time period and study scope does the review cover?

The review identifies outcome studies from 1999–2007 that measured art therapy effectiveness across all ages in both clinical and nonclinical populations.

How does the review decide which studies to include?

Included studies had to assess a measurable outcome, evaluate treatment effects on a sample or treatment group, and use art therapy distinctly and separately from other intervention factors.

What do the review results suggest about art therapy effectiveness?

The findings indicate a small body of quantifiable data supporting claims that art therapy can be effective for treating a range of symptoms, age groups, and disorders.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by McGucket