Are drawing tests accurate? What research says about the HTP, Draw-a-Person and Rorschach tests

Draw a person with large eyes and you are suspicious; leave many erasure marks and you are anxious. These readings come from Machover’s 1949 approach to drawings of a person (Machover, 1949, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000). The House-Tree-Person (HTP) test, in which you draw a house, a tree and a person, drawings of a person or of your family, and the Rorschach test, which asks what inkblots look like, are well-known projective tests. They start from the “projective hypothesis”: that people reveal aspects of their personality as they make sense of an ambiguous task (Lilienfeld et al., 2000). So can drawings really show your personality and state of mind? This guide answers that question with research.

The short answer is that interpretations that give a meaning to one part of a drawing have found almost no support in research. A broad 2000 review of projective tests concluded that, despite hundreds of studies, there are no well-replicated links between specific drawing signs and personality or mental disorders, and that scoring the drawing as a whole showed modest validity in some studies (Lilienfeld et al., 2000). Recent meta-analyses reported that some features appear at different rates in the drawings of groups with mental disorders and of comparison groups, but not how accurately one drawing judges one person (Guo et al., 2023; Guo et al., 2026). The Rorschach varies from score to score: scores that look at thinking and perceptual processes are well supported, but quite a few have weak support or have not been studied (Mihura et al., 2013; Wood et al., 2015). We found no study that tested online drawing personality quizzes.

This guide covers what drawing tests and the Rorschach are, studies that tested drawing signs such as “big eyes mean suspicion”, scoring the whole drawing and recent meta-analyses, research on the Rorschach, and where drawings help and where to be careful. Why a reading that fits anyone can feel personal is in the guide to the Barnum effect, and research on reading personality from handwriting is in the guide to graphology. mind.io does not offer a test that judges personality or state of mind from a drawing.

Most of the well-known drawing tests ask you to draw people. Some are “kinetic”, asking for people doing something, and some are not (Lilienfeld et al., 2000). The HTP, in which you draw a house, a tree and a person, was introduced in a journal by Buck in 1948 (Buck, 1948), and reading personality from a single drawn person, the Draw-a-Person (DAP), was set out by Machover in 1949 (Machover, 1949, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000). The Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD), a picture of your family doing something, appeared in 1970, and the Kinetic HTP, with the house, tree and person in one scene and the person doing something, in 1987 (Burns & Kaufman, 1970; Burns, 1987, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000). Drawing tests are quick: one commonly used Draw-a-Person test takes about 5 minutes on average to draw and about 5 more for an experienced clinician to score (Lilienfeld et al., 2000).

The Rorschach was created in the 1920s by the Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach (Rorschach, 1921, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000). The person taking it is handed 10 inkblot cards one at a time, five in black and white and five with colour, and asked what each one looks like; this takes about 45 minutes, and scoring and interpretation take another 1.5 to 2 hours. Answers are scored on more than 100 characteristics: not only what was seen, but which part of the blot was used and what made it look that way, such as colour or movement (Lilienfeld et al., 2000). Criticised in the 1950s and 1960s, the test came back into wide use after Exner published his Comprehensive System (CS) in 1974, with rules for giving and scoring the test and norms (Exner, 1974, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000). In 2011, members of Exner’s Rorschach Research Council published R-PAS as a system to replace the Comprehensive System (R-PAS, 2026).

Drawing tests have been widely studied in Korea too. A study of 369 Korean journal articles on projective drawing tests published from 1968 to June 2017 found that the number of articles grew from 10 or fewer up to the 1980s to 92 in the late 2000s and 132 in the early 2010s, with many studies of children and of emotions (Lee & Yoo, 2017). A 2026 study of 183 articles published from 2015 to 2025 found an overall decline in drawing test research, drawing tests that include a person as the type used most often in the articles reviewed, and attempts to analyse drawings with AI (Jue, 2026). Both studies were read as abstracts. We found no Korean survey of how often drawing tests are used in hospitals or counselling.

There are two broad ways of reading a drawing. One is the “sign” approach, which gives a meaning to one part of the drawing. Machover linked large eyes to suspiciousness or paranoia, leaving out the eyes, nose and mouth to depression, heavy shading to aggressive impulses and many erasures to anxiety, and held that the drawn person carries the characteristics of the person who drew it (Machover, 1949, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000). The other is the “global” approach, which scores the drawing as a whole; it stems largely from Koppitz’s system, which counts 30 indicators in children’s drawings and adds them up (Koppitz, 1968, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000).

The sign approach has found almost no support. Since 1957, over four decades of reviews reached a nearly unanimous conclusion: the great majority of human figure drawing signs have negligible or zero validity (Lilienfeld et al., 2000). In a review of studies from 1967 to 1982, only 2 of the 30 Machover signs reviewed had support, rounded torsos for feminine personality traits and coloured drawings for anxiety, and there were no consistent links between emphasised ears and paranoia, props such as guns or knives and delinquency, or emphasised hair and sexual concerns (Kahill, 1984, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000). In a study of 80 psychiatric inpatients aged 6 to 16, raters scored the size, detail and line heaviness of drawings almost identically (agreement of 0.91 to 0.95), but none of the three was significantly related to the children’s own reports of depression or anxiety (Joiner et al., 1996; Lilienfeld et al., 2000).

Why, then, do such readings seem convincing? Research on “illusory correlation” showed that clinicians tend to believe in signs with an obvious link to a problem, such as large eyes and suspicion, even without evidence (Chapman & Chapman, 1967, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000). In a study in which 36 clinical and counselling psychologists interpreted drawings of a person, 20 of the 22 who drew conclusions from the drawings based at least some of them on specific signs, with readings such as possible paranoid suspicion from strangely emphasised eyes. The reviewers added that these findings should not be generalised beyond that sample (Smith & Dumont, 1995, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000).

Drawing skill also sways judgements. The harder art teachers rated a body part to draw, the more clinicians judged that part as showing poor adjustment (drawings by 65 students, a correlation of −0.53), and in another study psychologists could not tell the drawings of people with schizophrenia from those of others better than chance, while tending to judge drawings of low artistic quality as schizophrenic (Feldman & Hunt, 1958; Cressen, 1975, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000). Experience did not make judges more accurate either. In a study that used the KFD to tell typical children from children with problems, doctoral-level clinicians were right 72% of the time, interns 61% and hospital secretaries 61%, with no significant differences between the groups (chance was 50%), and an expert who had written two books on the KFD scored 47%. Because the judges could also see what the children said about their drawings, accuracy from the drawings alone may have been lower (Levenberg, 1975, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000).

Scoring the whole drawing fares a little better. A poor overall quality of drawing has long been known as a rough indicator of psychological difficulties, and in a few controlled studies some global scoring methods told children with mood disorders from other children. One study that compared 54 children and adolescents with conduct or oppositional defiant disorder with 54 without found a large difference (d = 0.76). But results were not consistently positive: the reviewers judged that global approaches had shown modest validity in at least some studies, but found no convincing evidence that drawings tell more than other readily available information (Lilienfeld et al., 2000).

More recently, meta-analyses have pooled drawing features. A 2023 meta-analysis by researchers in China pooled 30 HTP studies (6,295 participants) and found that 39 of the 50 drawing features studied at least three times were significantly associated with mental disorders, with features such as undecorated or simplified drawings and very small houses or trees common across disorders (Guo et al., 2023). In 2026, a largely overlapping team pooled 42 studies of tree drawings (8,552 people), reported 24 features associated with mental disorders, and suggested that tree drawings could become a screening method that complements existing tests (Guo et al., 2026).

These meta-analyses looked at individual features such as a very small tree, which may seem to contradict the 2000 review. What they reported, though, are differences in frequency between groups; they did not show what a feature means or how accurately it picks out one person. The studies in both meta-analyses compared, at one point in time, the drawings of people with a mental disorder, or classified as such by questionnaire scores, with those of a comparison group; all 30 studies in the 2023 analysis were cross-sectional, and 20 of them were in Chinese. The researchers themselves noted that participants were mainly from Asia (in the 2026 analysis, largely young people in China), so the findings cannot simply be applied to other cultures, and that results for rarely studied features may be unstable (Guo et al., 2023; Guo et al., 2026). Neither analysis reported how well one drawing identifies a diagnosis in one person (sensitivity or specificity). A feature appearing at different rates in two groups is not the same as being able to judge one person from one drawing that has it.

A 2025 review of 25 studies from 2010 to 2024 on projective techniques in which children and adolescents draw or make up stories also pointed to limits. Of the 25, 13 did not evaluate reliability or validity in detail, and methodological quality was medium to low, 4.4 out of 9. The authors saw these techniques not as definitive diagnostic tools but as supplements to assessment and therapy when used with awareness of their limits (Santillo et al., 2025). The author of the 2026 Korean review judged that Korean drawing test research has achieved a certain level of reliability and validity (Jue, 2026).

The idea that drawings show intelligence has also been tested. Drawings of a person became a test when Goodenough published a scoring system for children’s intelligence in 1926 (Imuta et al., 2013). In earlier studies, Draw-a-Person scores correlated moderately with children’s IQ, with a median of 0.57 (Kamphaus & Pleiss, 1991, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000), and the 2000 review judged that correlations that modest make their use as intelligence screens questionable (Lilienfeld et al., 2000). When the then most recent Draw-a-Person intelligence test (DAP:IQ) was given with a Wechsler intelligence test to 100 children aged 4 to 5 and 100 adults, the correlations were 0.30 for the children and 0.10 for the adults (not significant), and none of the 5 children whose drawing scores were 79 or below, in the borderline range, were in that range on the Wechsler test. The researchers concluded that drawings of a person should not be used to measure intelligence (Imuta et al., 2013).

The Rorschach’s Comprehensive System (CS) drew criticism for its norms. When 123 nonpatient adults in California took the test, about one in six scored in the pathological range on its schizophrenia index, and 29% gave at least one response supposed to be a rare sign of narcissism (Shaffer et al., 1999, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000). When researchers including the reviewers pooled data on nonpatient adults from 32 other studies, the results were similar, and they concluded that the CS norms make ordinary people look more disturbed than they are (Lilienfeld et al., 2000). The R-PAS developers say they built new reference values from data from several countries (R-PAS, 2026).

Large meta-analyses later weighed the evidence for each Rorschach score. In 2013, a team reviewed 65 main CS scores: across 53 meta-analyses against externally assessed criteria such as observer ratings or diagnoses, mean validity was a correlation of 0.27, but across 42 meta-analyses against self-report questionnaires it was 0.08. Judged against external criteria, 13 of the 65 scores had excellent support, 17 good, 10 modest, 13 little or none, and 12 had no relevant studies. The best-supported scores were mostly those that assess thinking and perceptual processes, and the least supported tended to be very rare scores or more recently developed ones (Mihura et al., 2013). The team included researchers who developed R-PAS, a newer Rorschach system (R-PAS, 2026).

The critics accepted part of this. In 2015, a team of critics agreed that there is compelling evidence for four categories of cognitive scores related to cognitive ability, impairment and thought disorder, and said they now endorse their use in some applied and research settings. But when they reanalysed some scores including unpublished dissertations, some validity estimates came out much lower, and they concluded that the evidence is insufficient to use the CS to measure non-cognitive characteristics such as emotionality and negative affect (Wood et al., 2015). The critics included all three authors of the 2000 review. The 2013 team replied that the reanalysis contained many methodological and data errors (Mihura et al., 2015). The two sides disagreed on matters such as adding dissertations, but reached the same conclusion that scores looking at thinking and perceptual processes have support. All three papers were read as abstracts.

In short, the Rorschach is neither “all valid” nor “all invalid”. The 2000 review also named supported scores such as a thought disorder index, and advised either not using projective tests such as the Rorschach and human figure drawings or at least limiting interpretation to the small number of supported scores and, where possible, using structured interviews and well-validated self-report tests (Lilienfeld et al., 2000). Online posts that take one thing seen in an inkblot and say “if you see this, you have that personality” are far from the test studied in research, where more than 100 characteristics are scored by set rules.

Drawings do have uses. A meta-analysis that compared giving children the chance to draw during an interview with a traditional question-led interview found a large effect in favour of drawing in helping children communicate (d = 0.95; Driessnack, 2005). Researchers who support drawing tests say that drawings provide something a set of scores cannot (Riethmiller & Handler, 1997, as cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000). That, however, is using drawing to open a conversation, which is different from judging someone’s mind from the shape of a drawing.

There are cautions too. In an experiment, children aged 3 to 6 watched a magic show and were then given repeated reminders of things that had and had not happened; the half who were asked to draw the reminders recalled more of the true events, but also more of the false ones, though both groups were equally likely to say the false events had really happened (Bruck et al., 2000). Even when drawing helps a conversation, what is asked and how the answers are taken can change the result. This experiment and the meta-analysis above were read as abstracts.

Some believe children’s drawings can reveal abuse. In a meta-analysis of 47 studies in the 2000 review, drawings told sexually abused children from non-abused children with small to medium effects, but across the three tests reviewed there were virtually no findings replicated by independent research teams. Publication bias was clear too: pooling all three tests, effect sizes in published studies (d = 0.51) were far larger than in unpublished ones (d = 0.24). The reviewers stressed that wrong judgements can cause great suffering for children, their families and those wrongly accused (Lilienfeld et al., 2000). If you are worried about a child, rather than interpreting a single drawing, pay attention to what the child says and does, without asking the same question again and again or leading the child toward an answer, and talk to a child and adolescent mental health professional. If you suspect a child is being harmed now, contact your local child protection service, or your emergency number if they are in danger; in Korea, reports go to 112 (National Center for the Rights of the Child, n.d.). In the US, the Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline (call or text 1-800-422-4453) offers support but is not a reporting line (Childhelp, n.d.).

If an online drawing quiz gives a meaning to one part of a drawing, as in “draw it like this and you have this personality”, it uses the sign approach that research has barely supported (Lilienfeld et al., 2000). We found no study testing the accuracy of such quizzes, so enjoy them for fun and do not use the results to judge yourself or others. If you want to know your personality, the Big Five personality test measures traits from your answers to questions, and how far to trust it is covered in the guide to Big Five test accuracy. If your mood or worries have been on your mind, the depression check-in (PHQ-9) and the anxiety check-in (GAD-7) can help you take stock, but they too are screening questions, not a diagnosis. If you keep struggling, talk to a mental health professional.

Q. What do the house, the tree and the person mean in the HTP? A. Interpretation books give them meanings, but this guide does not list meanings for parts of a drawing. The sign approach, which gives a meaning to one part of a drawing, has found almost no support, and in two studies described in the 2000 review, agreement between raters scoring the HTP was a median of 0.52 and a mean of 0.54 (Lilienfeld et al., 2000). Recent meta-analyses reported that features such as very small or simplified drawings appear more often in groups with mental disorders, but did not report how accurately one drawing judges one person (Guo et al., 2023; Guo et al., 2026).

Q. Is the Rorschach accurate? A. It depends on the score. In a 2013 meta-analysis, 30 of 65 main scores had good or excellent support, with the strongest support for scores that look at thinking and perceptual processes; 13 had little or no support, and 12 had no relevant studies (Mihura et al., 2013). The critics also accepted scores of cognitive ability and thought disorder, but judged the evidence insufficient for measuring characteristics such as emotionality (Wood et al., 2015).

Q. My child draws very small or strange pictures. Should I worry? A. It is hard to judge a child’s state of mind from one drawing. In a study of 80 psychiatric inpatients aged 6 to 16, the size, detail and line heaviness of drawings were not significantly related to the children’s own reports of depression or anxiety (Joiner et al., 1996). Recent meta-analyses reported that features such as very small houses or trees appear more often in groups with mental disorders, but that is a difference between groups, not a rule for judging one child (Guo et al., 2023; Guo et al., 2026). Drawings of low artistic quality have also tended to be wrongly judged as pathological (Lilienfeld et al., 2000). Whatever the drawings look like, if your child stays unusually withdrawn for a long time or there are lasting changes in sleep, eating or school life, talk to a child and adolescent mental health professional.

Q. Can I trust online drawing personality tests? A. It is best to enjoy them for fun. We found no study testing the accuracy of such quizzes, and interpretations that give a meaning to one part of a drawing have found almost no support (Lilienfeld et al., 2000). If a result feels accurate, it may be because the description fits almost anyone; why this happens is covered in the guide to the Barnum effect.

Q. Why do hospitals and counsellors use drawing tests? A. Drawing tests take only a few minutes (Lilienfeld et al., 2000), and drawing while talking can help children communicate (Driessnack, 2005). A 2025 review saw drawing and other projective techniques not as definitive diagnostic tools but as supplements to other assessments (Santillo et al., 2025). If you are curious about a result, ask whether the conclusion was drawn from the interview and other tests as well, not from a drawing alone.

Q. Does mind.io have a drawing test? A. No. mind.io’s personality tests and wellbeing check-ins work by answering questions. If you want to explore your personality, try the Big Five personality test. It does not show everything about you either, so use the result as a reference for reflecting on yourself.

References: Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000), The scientific status of projective techniques, Psychological Science in the Public Interest 1(2), 27-66, https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.002; Buck, J. N. (1948), The H-T-P test, Journal of Clinical Psychology 4(2), 151-159, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18869052/; Machover, K. (1949), Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Burns, R. C., & Kaufman, S. H. (1970), Kinetic Family Drawings (K-F-D): an introduction to understanding children through kinetic drawings (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Burns, R. C. (1987), Kinetic-House-Tree-Person Drawings (K-H-T-P): an interpretive manual, New York: Brunner/Mazel (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Rorschach, H. (1921), Psychodiagnostics: a diagnostic test based on perception, New York: Grune & Stratton (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Exner, J. E. (1974), The Rorschach: a comprehensive system, vol. 1, New York: Wiley (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); R-PAS (2026), Rorschach Performance Assessment System, home page and About R-PAS, https://r-pas.org/ and https://r-pas.org/Home/About (accessed 31 October 2026); Lee, S.-h., & Yoo, K. M. (2017), Research trend of projective drawing tests in Korea by using domestic journals [in Korean], Korean Journal of Art Therapy 24(6), 1509-1529, https://doi.org/10.35594/kata.2017.24.6.007; Jue, J. (2026), Research trend of projective drawing tests in South Korea [in Korean], Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society 27(6), 386-392, https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2026.27.6.386; Koppitz, E. M. (1968), Psychological evaluation of children’s human figure drawing, New York: Grune & Stratton (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Kahill, S. (1984), Human figure drawing in adults: an update of the empirical evidence, 1967-1982, Canadian Psychology 25, 269-292 (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Joiner, T. E., Schmidt, K. L., & Barnett, J. (1996), Size, detail, and line heaviness in children’s drawings as correlates of emotional distress: (more) negative evidence, Journal of Personality Assessment 67(1), 127-141, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6701_10; Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1967), Genesis of popular but erroneous psychodiagnostic observations, Journal of Abnormal Psychology 72(3), 193-204, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024670 (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Smith, D., & Dumont, F. (1995), A cautionary study: unwarranted interpretations of the Draw-A-Person Test, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 26(3), 298-303, https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.26.3.298 (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Feldman, M., & Hunt, R. G. (1958), A relation of difficulty in drawing and ratings of adjustment based on human figure drawings, Journal of Consulting Psychology 22, 217-220 (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Cressen, R. (1975), Artistic quality of drawings and judges’ evaluations of the DAP, Journal of Personality Assessment 39, 132-137 (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Levenberg, S. B. (1975), Professional training, psychodiagnostic skill, and Kinetic Family Drawings, Journal of Personality Assessment 39, 389-393 (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Guo, H., Feng, B., Ma, Y., Zhang, X., Fan, H., Dong, Z., Chen, T., & Gong, Q. (2023), Analysis of the screening and predicting characteristics of the house-tree-person drawing test for mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Frontiers in Psychiatry 13, 1041770, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1041770; Guo, H., Feng, B., Liu, T., Zhao, R., Fan, H., Dong, Z., Gong, Q., & Chen, T. (2026), Tree imagery in drawing tests for screening mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Depression and Anxiety 2026, 9571222, https://doi.org/10.1155/da/9571222; Santillo, G., Morra, R. C., Esposito, D., & Romani, M. (2025), Projective in time: a systematic review on the use of construction projective techniques in the digital era, beyond inkblots, Children 12(4), 406, https://doi.org/10.3390/children12040406; Imuta, K., Scarf, D., Pharo, H., & Hayne, H. (2013), Drawing a close to the use of human figure drawings as a projective measure of intelligence, PLoS ONE 8(3), e58991, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058991; Kamphaus, R. W., & Pleiss, K. L. (1991), Draw-a-Person techniques: tests in search of a construct, Journal of School Psychology 29, 395-401 (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Shaffer, T. W., Erdberg, P., & Haroian, J. (1999), Current nonpatient data for the Rorschach, WAIS-R, and MMPI-2, Journal of Personality Assessment 73, 305-316 (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Mihura, J. L., Meyer, G. J., Dumitrascu, N., & Bombel, G. (2013), The validity of individual Rorschach variables: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the Comprehensive System, Psychological Bulletin 139(3), 548-605, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029406; Wood, J. M., Garb, H. N., Nezworski, M. T., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Duke, M. C. (2015), A second look at the validity of widely used Rorschach indices: comment on Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel (2013), Psychological Bulletin 141(1), 236-249, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036005; Mihura, J. L., Meyer, G. J., Bombel, G., & Dumitrascu, N. (2015), Standards, accuracy, and questions of bias in Rorschach meta-analyses: reply to Wood, Garb, Nezworski, Lilienfeld, and Duke (2015), Psychological Bulletin 141(1), 250-260, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038445; Driessnack, M. (2005), Children’s drawings as facilitators of communication: a meta-analysis, Journal of Pediatric Nursing 20(6), 415-423, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2005.03.011; Riethmiller, R. J., & Handler, L. (1997), Problematic methods and unwarranted conclusions in DAP research: suggestions for improved research procedures, Journal of Personality Assessment 69, 459-475 (cited in Lilienfeld et al., 2000); Bruck, M., Melnyk, L., & Ceci, S. J. (2000), Draw it again Sam: the effect of drawing on children’s suggestibility and source monitoring ability, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 77(3), 169-196, https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2560; National Center for the Rights of the Child (n.d.), How to report child abuse [in Korean], https://www.ncrc.or.kr/ncrc/cm/cntnts/cntntsView.do?mi=1030&cntntsId=1484; Government of Japan Public Relations Online (n.d.), Consultation services: Children and Families Agency [in Japanese], https://www.gov-online.go.jp/kurashinosodan/list/fu_cfa.html; Shiga Prefecture (n.d.), Consultations on child abuse [in Japanese], https://www.pref.shiga.lg.jp/kodomokatei/13486.html; Allô Enfance en Danger (n.d.), 119 [in French], https://www.allo119.gouv.fr/; Childhelp (n.d.), Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline, https://childhelphotline.org/