| Abstract: | 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) |
