Toward a resolution of the Rorschach controversy.

Comments are made about the articles comprising the first round of the Special Series on the Rorschach. G. Stricker and J. R. Gold (see record 1999-11130-002) and D. J. Viglione (see record 199911130-003) praised the Rorschach, but they consistently failed to cite negative findings. R. M. Dawes (see record 1999-11130-006) obtained results that provide modest support for the Rorschach, but one of his data sets is flawed. J. B. Hiller et al (see record 1999-11130-005) reported the results of a meta-analysis, but, among other problems, their coders were not blind to the results of all the studies. J. Hunsley and J. M. Bailey (see record 1999-11130-004) made a strong case for concluding that there is no scientific basis for using the Rorschach. Recommendations are made for resolving the Rorschach controversy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Advancing the science of psychological assessment: The Rorschach Inkblot Method as exemplar.

This article comments on a series of 5 articles, concerning the utility of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RTM; R. M. Dawes, see record 1999-11130-006; J. Hiller et al, see record 1999-11130-005; J. Hunsley and J. M. Bailey, see record 1999-11130-004; G. Stricker and J. R. Gold, see record 1999-11130-002; and D. J. Vigilone, see record 1999-11130-003). Two of the articles provide extensive empirical evidence that the RIM has been standardized, normed, made reliable, and validated in ways that exemplify sound scientific principles for developing an assessment instrument. A 3rd article reports a meta-analysis, indicating that the RIM and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory have almost identical validity effect sizes, both large enough to warrant confidence in using these measures. The other 2 articles adduce sketchy data and incomplete literature reviews as a basis for questioning the psychometric soundness of Rorschach assessment. Unwarranted skepticism should not be given credence as an adequate platform from which to challenge abundant evidence that the RIM works very well for its intended purposes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The hard science of Rorschach research: What do we know and where do we go?

As the final article in the Special Series on "The Utility of the Rorschach for Clinical Assessment," the authors provide an overview of this instrument's current status. They begin with a thorough review of global and focused meta-analyses, including an expanded analysis of K. C. H. Parker et al's (see record 1989-14153-001) data set, and conclude that Rorschach, MMPI, and IQ scales each produce roughly similar effect size magnitudes, although all tests have greater validity for some purposes than for others. Because this evidentiary foundation justifies addressing other issues, the authors build on contributions to the Special Series to identify 11 salient theoretical and empirical gaps in the Rorschach knowledge base and make recommendations for addressing these challenges to further the evolution of the Rorschach and document its strengths and inherent limitations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The comparative validities of the Rorschach and MMPI: A meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis comparing "undirected" and "conceptual" MMPI studies, and conceptual Rorschach and MMPI studies, indicated the following conclusions, (a) Conceptual work more successfully validates an assessment instrument than does undirected investigation, (b) The validatory success of the "average" conceptual Rorschach study is comparable to that of similar MMPI work. This finding suggests that the former's questionable status may be based on sociocultural factors, rather than scientific ones, (c) The "average" conceptual Rorschach or MMPI study has only modest explanatory power, (d) Investigators' misuse of X2 has resulted in exaggerated effect size in many instances where the statistic was employed. It is suggested that future research be judged on the coherence of its inference processes, the specificity of its predictions, and the amount of variance it explains. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Acquiescence and the MMPI: An item reversal approach.

An item-reversal technique was employed to assess acquiescence on the MMPI. Reverse items were constructed for 12 MMPI scales and the 2 forms, standard and reverse, were administered in counterbalanced order to 54 psychiatric patients and 35 normal Ss. True-keyed and false-keyed subscales were scored separately to highlight acquiescence effects. The correlations between true and false subscales and their reverse forms tended, with few exceptions, to approximate the test-retest reliabilities of these scales particularly for the normal Ss. The results were interpreted to indicate that factor analytic techniques have exaggerated the role of acquiescence on the MMPI. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Performance of Personality Assessment Inventory and Rorschach Indices of Schizophrenia in a Public Psychiatric Hospital.

The present study investigated the performance of indices of schizophrenia from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI-SCZ; L. C. Morey, 1991) and Rorschach (Rorschach SCZI; J. E. Exner, 1993) in a heterogeneous sample of 24 inpatients at a public psychiatric hospital in the southeastern United States. Results indicated modest agreement between the PAI-SCZ and Rorschach SCZI. More important, the PAI-SCZ but not Rorschach SCZI reliably differentiated inpatients with schizophrenic-spectrum diagnoses from inpatients with other psychiatric diagnoses. In settings in which psychotic disorders falling outside the schizophrenic spectrum are common, the PAI-SCZ may be better suited than the Rorschach SCZI to aid in the differential diagnosis of schizophrenia. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Whither the Rorschach? An analysis of the evidence.

In the previous Special Section, the authors presented empirical evidence and logical analysis that were sufficient to demonstrate that the widespread use of the Rorschach in clinical, legal, forensic, and occupational settings is unwarranted on both scientific and ethical grounds (J. Hunsley and J. M. Bailey, see record 1999-11130-004). To expand on their analysis and to respond to issues raised in the previous and current Special Sections, they begin their article by examining a number of conceptual issues that are at the heart of the disagreements about the Rorschach. The focus is then shifted to the central issue of clinical utility, with an emphasis on why current research is insufficient to demonstrate the utility of the Rorschach. Next, the psychometric issues raised by I. B. Weiner (see record 2001-05665-002) are addressed and an alternative perspective on the psychometric viability of the Rorschach is provided. Finally, the authors conclude with some suggestions for future directions that must be taken in research to address the substantive concerns raised by Rorschach critics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"MMPI and Rorschach: Three decades of research": A time series reanalysis.

Reanalyzed the results concerning the yearly analysis of references to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Rorschach test in Psychological Abstracts from 1950 to 1985 obtained by J. Polyson et al (see record 1987-02840-001), using the auto-regressive integrated moving average model. Findings of the reanalysis reveal a problem with the Polyson et al study, because the sample data did not meet the assumptions of the inferential procedures associated with the t-test and Pearson product-moment r. It is maintained that the number of publications in a given year for either measure did not influence the number of publications for the other measure in any subsequent year. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Psychoanalytic Rorschach Profile: An integration of drive, ego, and object relations perspectives.

Over the last 20 years a growing number of psychoanalytic researchers have explored theoretical constructs and psychopathology through empirical investigation of object representations elicited in projective tests, particularly the Rorschach. A newly designed scoring system, the Psychoanalytic Rorschach Profile (PRP), was created to overcome the limitations of previously published scoring systems. The PRP consists of 10 scales that assess the areas of impulse, ego structure, and object relations. A pilot study to determine reliability and validity of the new scoring system was undertaken by comparing the Rorschach protocols of five borderline and five schizophrenic subjects. Analysis of data results revealed high interrater reliability and significant discrimination of the clinical groups. The potential power of an integrated profile analysis of Rorschach imagery by the PRP is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Rorschach and Holtzman as measures of pathognomic verbalization.

This study was planned to obtain information about the reliability of Rorschach and Holtzman pathognomic verbalization scores (V). The Rorschach and Holtzman protocols of 45 psychiatric patients were scored by scorer A and 19 of the Holtzman protocols were scored "blind" by scorer B. Holtzman interscorer reliability was .81 (p     

Introduction to the final Special Section in the Special Series on the utility of the Rorschach for clinical assessment.

A Special Series was organized to clarify the merits of the Rorschach for clinical assessment. Except for a neutral meta-analytic review, articles were solicited from scholars known to have opposing views on the Rorschach. The authors participated in a structured, sequential, evidence-based dialogue that focused on strengths and limitations when using the Rorschach for applied purposes, The debate has taken place over 4 iterations, with later articles building on and reacting to those generated earlier. The first 5 articles in the Special Series were published earlier (G. J. Meyer, 1999), and the final 6 articles are published in this issue of Psychological Assessment. This article provides a brief overview of the full Special Series and an introduction to the 6 articles contained in this Special Section. The Special Series provides clinicians, researchers, educators, and students with a thorough review of the evidence and logic that are critical for understanding the Rorschach's strengths and limitations in clinical assessment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Multiple methods of personality assessment.

"Multiple personality assessment procedures have been analyzed with respect to their primary purpose and the validation strategy used. Problems that arise in the attempt to use personality assessment for selection were discussed with respect to the problem of clinical versus statistical predictions, the problem of conditional factors that affect the criteria, and the value of using multiple tests and more than one assessor." 42 refs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Rorschach: Facts, fictions, and future.

A large body of empirical evidence supports the reliability, validity, and utility of the Rorschach. This same evidence reveals that the recent criticisms of the Rorschach are largely without merit. This article systematically addresses several significant Rorschach components: interrater and temporal consistency reliability, normative data and diversity, methodological issues, specific applications in the evaluation of thought disorder and suicide, meta-analyses, incremental validity, clinician judgment, patterns of use, and clinical utility. Strengths and weaknesses of the test are addressed, and research recommendations are made. This information should give the reader both an appreciation for the substantial, but often overlooked, research basis for the Rorschach and an appreciation of the challenges that lie ahead. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The social psychology of Rorschach validity research.

An analysis of the research extant in the literature on the validity of the Rorschach, revealed that there was a relationship between where the research was done (academic, nonacademic settings) and type of validity study (construct, criterion, i.e., theoretical or practical validity). Ramifications of these findings with regard to formulation and interpretation of studies on the Rorschach were discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of Psychoanalytic Interpretation in Rorschach Testing.

Reviews the book, Psychoanalytic Interpretation in Rorschach Testing by Roy Schafer (1954). This is one of the very few books on psychological testing addressed to the advanced worker. Many have been the books on Rorschach for novitiates, detailing how to administer and score the test; few have been the books on how also to interpret the results; and almost nonexistent have been the books dedicated to content analysis of the Rorschach. This is such a book. Additionally it is, to the best of this reviewer's knowledge, the first book that explicitly attempts to root the entire test firmly in a given personality theory, in this case the neo-analytic ego theory of the Freudian school. This book officially initiates a new trend in Rorschach interpretation, a trend that is heavily indebted to E. Schachtel. Schachtel demonstrated how the test could be utilized to ascertain the individual's attitude toward the test, the examiner, the entire test situation, and even to his own responses toward the inkblots, and how, from this information, the personality structure of the individual could be deduced. Taking his cue from Schachtel, but attempting to go beyond it, Schafer stresses content interpretation to the extent of eliminating most of the usual considerations of scores, percentages, and the like--not that such scores are completely unimportant, Schafer is careful to point out, but because he wishes to demonstrate how much may be achieved without them. Clearly, his book starts, not where other books leave off, but where other books have yet to probe. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A unidimensional depression scale for the MMPI.

To develop a depression scale that differentiates consistently not only between normal and abnormal samples but also within such samples, items from the MMPI D scale were selected on the basis of consistent relationship to the major dimension or factor underlying the 60 items as determined by a contextual analysis of responses in each of 4 normative samples of 40 Ss (normal and abnormal divided also by sex). The final 30-item scale, called the D30 scale, showed greatly improved within-group distinctions, particularly among normals, dimensionality coefficients (rd) of .97, .95, and .98 being obtained in cross validation in contrast to values of .67, .45, and .87 for the original. Split-half reliability showed improvement despite shorter length, and test-retest estimates in 2 normal samples were .88 and .92. Since part-whole correlations indicated that D30 scale scores account for the systematic differences in scores on the 60-item scale, the D30 scale was recommended for general use in lieu of the original. T score norms based on 424 Ss were presented and scale content discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The role of the stimulus in Rorschach responses.

"It is apparent, from the studies reviewed, that the definition of Rorschach stimulus effects is more a task for the future than an accomplishment of the past. In fact, empirical concern with this question appears to have been something of an afterthought with users of the technique. Variation in the stimulus, in order to define an independent variable, has been such a standard procedure in psychological research that it is surprising to find it being applied only during very recent years to an analysis of the Rorschach. Other methods, as indicated, have contributed to the clarification of this problem, but they have not, as yet, gone very deeply." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Test anxiety and Rorschach performance.

"This study was designed to test the validity of certain Rorschach anxiety indices which have been shown to reflect the effects of exposure to a stressful situation, and to examine the generality of certain hypotheses derived from a theoretical framework… . The results provide encouraging evidence as to the validity of certain anxiety indicators and support the theoretical assumptions from which most of them were derived." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effect of test order upon Rorschach human content.

A projective battery was administered to 22 graduate theological students. One group received the Rorschach first followed by the TAT and the DAP. The other group was administered 9 TAT cards and 2 DAP drawings first after which they took the Rorschach. Both groups were matched on the variables of sex, age, IQ, R, and examiner. The group receiving the Rorschach last produced significantly more human content than the group receiving the Rorschach 1st. These findings, if independently confirmed, would indicate that, although previously overlooked, test order may be an important factor in modifying certain projective test scores. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Construct validation of the Rorschach Reality-Fantasy Scale in alexithymia.

The study applies Winnicott's conceptualization of potential space to the alexithymia construct by using a new Rorschach index, the Reality-Fantasy Scale (RFS). The scale uses variables derived from the Rorschach Comprehensive System (Exner, 2000, 2001) to detect different types of psychopathological manifestations conceptualized as forms of collapse of potential space. Following previous research, the present study further evaluates the construct validity of the RFS in a sample of 92 patients with inflammatory bowel disease, categorized on the basis of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) as alexithymic, indeterminate alexithymia, and nonalexithymic groups. As hypothesized, the RFS significantly correlated with the TAS-20, discriminated among the 3 groups, and showed incremental validity in detecting alexithymia over isolated Rorschach markers. The study supports the exploration of psychoanalytic ideas by empirical, statistically based methods. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)