| Abstract: | 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) |
