Art Therapy as an Intervention for Children: A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications from 1990 to 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This bibliometric study analyzed characteristics of publications related to art therapy for children from 1990 to 2020, based on the datasets taken from Web of Science (WoS) core collections. The results indicate that the USA, Israel, Germany, UK, Australia, and Canada were six leading countries in this field of research interest. The Top 5 most influential journals were identified by the number of publications, TLCS, TGCS and by their impact factor. Five leading journals in the art therapy studies include Arts in Psychotherapy, American Journal of Art Therapy, Child & Family Social Work, Frontiers in Psychology, and Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde. Core themes from the 87 articles focus on surrounding socialization and attachment relationship, art therapy for the well-being of children with learning disabilities, alternative intervention for art therapy, and parent-child art therapy. This bibliometric study portrayed the development of art therapy for children by means of visualization techniques. The potential issues emerging from the data will contribute to future studies in this field. Multiple methods of art therapy are applied for all children’s well-being; as such, children’s art therapy in schools can be seen as the potential trend for researchers and teachers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.174 | 0.249 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".