The field of psychometrics in South Africa faces many challenges. Among these are, that practitioners in the field of psychology do not always have access to standardised assessments for the South African context. Imported assessments pose various biases to South Africa’s multilingual and multicultural situations, hence the need for test adaptation. The Suffolk Reading Scale (2) (SRS2) is an English proficiency assessment that measures reading comprehension. English, being the language of learning and teaching in most South African schools, makes the SRS2 a significant gain to practitioners and the field of psychometrics. Consequently, this research aimed to narrow the gaps in this area of knowledge and contribute to it by evaluating the applicability of the SRS2 as a measure of reading comprehension for South African learners. Primary school learners in Kwa-Zulu Natal were administered the SRS2. The purpose of the study was to ascertain the degree of reliability of the SRS2. Of the 338 participants, 51.9 percent (n=140) of the sample were female, and 48.1 percent (n=130) were male. Sixty-six percent (n=164) of the participants spoke English as an Additional Language (EAL), while thirty-four percent (n=83) spoke English as a first language (EFL). Results indicated a significant difference in performance between EFL and EAL learners, whereby EAL learners performed lower than EFL learners. However there was no difference in performance between female learners and their male counterparts on individual items of the SRS2. The SRS2 proved to have a suitable internal consistency; however questions of bias do arise.

This paper explores the use of quantitative assessments typically used in research to evaluate experiences of cancer patients and survivors receiving group art therapy services. Literature exploring program evaluation as a methodology, how current research selects standardized measurement tools for the evaluation of art therapy interventions with adult cancer patients and survivors, and on the efficacy of art therapy with this population is reviewed. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from four participants, who were clients in two eight-week art therapy groups. Quantitative data were collected in the form of pre- and post-test measurements using six commonly used standardized quality of life assessment tools. Qualitative data were collected via focus groups and art responses. Quantitative data were analyzed to identify general trends in the pre- and post-test measures, demonstrating that no significant positive shifts in symptoms or well-being were documented in the tests. Qualitative data were then analyzed to identify six prominent themes, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the participants’ experience of the tests, the participants’ perceived personal value of the tests, pre- and post-test measures as containment of experience, art responses as accurate representations of the benefits of art therapy, participants’ passion for art therapy, and participants’ feelings that standardized tests did not accurately capture their experience in the group. These findings were then examined in the context of the literature reviewed, and it was concluded that while standardized assessments have a valuable place in research, they do not effectively capture the lived experience of participants in art therapy groups. Furthermore, future research should continue to explore the value of qualitative research, including that which uses art-making, in evaluating art therapy programs and effectiveness.