A Replication of Rorschach and MMPI-2 Convergent Validity

Abstract

We replicated prior research on Rorschach and MMPI-2 convergent validity by testing 8 hypotheses in a new sample of patients. We also extended prior research by developing criteria to include more patients and by applying the same procedures to 2 self-report tests: the MMPI-2 and the MCMI-II. Results supported our hypotheses and paralleled the prior findings. Furthermore, 3 different tests for methodological artifacts could not account for the results. Thus, the convergence of Rorschach and MMPI-2 constructs seems to be partially a function of how patients interact with the tests. When patients approach each test with a similar style, conceptually aligned constructs tend to correlate. Although this result is less robust, when patients approach each test in an opposing manner, conceptually aligned constructs tend to be negatively correlated. When test interaction styles are ignored, MMPI-2 and Rorschach constructs tend to be uncorrelated, unless a sample just happens to possess a correlation between Rorschach and MMPI-2 stylistic variables. Remaining ambiguities and suggestions for further advances are discussed.

The validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the comprehensive system.

“…'^ We also excluded studies that selectively reported only significant findings if it was not possible to determine whether relevant variables had also been examined. We omitted results that deliberately aligned method variance across introspective-and Rorschach-based scales, as these lead to artificially large coefficients that do not generalize to applied contexts (e.g., Lindgren & Carlsson, 2002;Meyer, Riethmiller, Brooks, Benoit, & Handler, 2000). When errors were discovered (e.g., findings reported in the text contradicted those in a table), the data were included only if the study's author(s) corrected the discrepancies when contacted.…”

“…For studies that hypothesized a linear relationship across three or more gr^oups (e.g., high, medium, and low psychopathy ratings; , we computed an effect size using the focused contrast procedures described by Meyer, McGrath, and Rosenthal (2003) and Rosenthal, Rosnow, and Rubin (2000), when the data permitted. When the article lacked sufficient information to compute an effect size and was based on a dissertation, the dissertation was obtained, when possible, to determine if it contained the relevant data from^which the effect could be computed.…”

Convergence between Rorschach and self‐report: A new look at some old questions

“…An additional explanation for the lack of convergence between the two instruments has been the heterogeneity of the samples used in Rorschach–MMPI correlational studies (Meyer, ; Viglione, ). For instance, some researchers (Meyer, ; Meyer, Riethmiller, Brooks, Benoit, & Handler, ) have postulated that the independent effects of response style on the MMPI and Rorschach may work to conceal empirical overlap between the two assessments, thus leading to the often observed near‐zero correlations. Indeed, empirical testing of this theory revealed that significant positive and negative correlations emerged when analyses were limited only to individuals with similar or discordant response styles, respectively, but not when response style was disregarded (Meyer, ; Meyer et al, ).…”

Assessing Dependency Using Self-Report and Indirect Measures: Examining the Significance of Discrepancies

“…Initial support was suggested based on the orthogonality of implicit dependency with the self-report instruments. Prior literature has argued that implicit and self-report measures of purportedly the same construct should be moderately inter-correlated (Asendorpf et al, 2002; Bornstein, 2002), although it has also been noted that measures predicting similar external criteria may at times be independent of each other (Fazio & Olson, 2003; Meyer, Riethmiller, Brooks, Benoit, & Handler, 2000). …”