It would be helpful if you could clarify what the test is actually requiring the child to do at this point.

The sentence : "Aucun dessin à partir un tracé parcellaire n’est identifié" reads as if to mean that no drawing was identified from [à partir de] a partial/incomplete outline.
That is possible if the exercice requires the child to identify what the drawing represents and that the source drawing is incomplete. The purpose of such a test would be to see whether the brain is able to reconstitute the complete image, to make sense of incomplete information in the form of a partial sketch, if you like, and understand what the drawing is meant to represent.

It might also mean that the child had to copy from a sample drawing and produced a drawing that was incomplete. The complete drawing was not indeitified by the child. For example, in some tests, an individual can be asked to copy a drawing. Certain cerebral lesion translate into what is called "neglect syndrome", whereby an individual may not perecive part of his visual field, let's say, for example, anything that is left of the centre of gaze. This might mean in practical terms that the individual will only eat what is on the right hand side of his plate. He is unaware of the other half. The plate will need to be turned round so that what was formerly on the left hand side, and previously ignored, enters into his right hand field of vision in order to be recognized as being there and eaten.

I suspect the former is the case. That is what visual agnosia is all about.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2015-09-06 16:48:44 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The part or parts of the brain which have suffered injury, or the pathways concerned, will determine the specific nature of the agnosia.

Here's a source which might help :

http://pierre.griffon.pagesperso-orange.fr/NeuroV.html
"Les agnosies aperceptives sont caractérisées par un trouble de la synthèse des informations sensorielles. Le sujet reste perplexe devant ce qu'il regarde. Il a conscience de voir, mais ne parvient pas à effectuer les associations, classements et orientations nécessaire pour organiser ce qu'il voit. Il prend un détail pour le tout, fait des erreurs d'échelle ou tout type d'interprétation parcellaire. Aussi est-il tout particulièrement important pour ce type d'agnosie, que l'hypothèse d'une déficience visuelle ait été levée. De lui-même, le patient va avoir tendance bien souvent à évoquer une telle déficience pour justifier les difficultés de reconnaissance présentées.
Si l'on suit le processus du traitement cérébral de l'information tel qu'il a été présenté plus haut il est possible d'acoller à chaque étape du traitement cérébral une forme d'agnosie en cas d'échec de ce traitement. (Schéma IV)"

I'm not syaing this is it. Nowhere near enough info of course. JUst an indiciation of the type of situation that may be concerned.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2015-09-06 16:52:53 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

http://sites.duke.edu/themanwho/distinction-paper/

"Negligence 3

Pathology: Hemispatial Neglect (Left Neglect)

Sacks Equivalent: Eyes Right!

Symptoms: An utter inability to see in the left side of the visual field. This means that when doing tasks patients can only do one side of it

Cause: Our consciousness system (the part of our brain involved in being alert and aware of the world) is a complicated system of several brain regions working together, and one of the many interesting elements of this system is that it is non-dominantly based. That means that the non-dominant side of the brain (usually the right) is the side that holds the most observational power. Because of this the (more often then not) right side of the consciousness system is aware of the entire visual field while the the left side of the visual field only can see the right side of the visual field. So when we have a stroke that affects a major associative region such as the parietal cortex, but it only affects the right side, then we get a loss of vision in the left side while the right visual field is still retained. This is shown in the images drawn by patients where only the right side of the picture is drawn as if the whole picture is only that. A popular example is the clock shown in the image. In some examples of this, only one half of the clock is drawn with only numbers 1-6, but in the example here the patient has drawn all 12 on the right side. Because the clock is an image they can imagine, the patient will draw all 12 numbers, but only on one side because they can only perceive half of a clock (Blumenfeld 898-899)."

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2015-09-06 16:58:05 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

It is possible you will find some reference to aperceptive visual agnosia in your original. Is that the case? Otherwise, the particular test or tests used will be named, (or should be) if your have the full report. The conclusions are often only referred on or required to be translated.