Depression and Vulnerability As Assessed by the Rorschach Method

Abstract

We examined clinically depressed (CD; n = 16), previously depressed (PD; n = 19) and never depressed (ND; n = 18) individuals on 13 theoretically selected Rorschach (Exner, 1993; Rorschach, 1942) variables and on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979). The group assignment was made according to the criteria of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). We tested 2 contradictory models for depressive vulnerability, Beck's (Clark & Beck, 1999) and Miranda and Persons's (1988; Persons & Miranda, 1992), in a planned comparison design with focused contrasts. The CDs significantly contrasted the combined group of NDs and the PDs in a pathological direction on 8 of the 13 Rorschach variables and on the BDI. However, the combined group of CDs and PDs also significantly contrasted the NDs in a pathological direction on 3 of these Rorschach variables and on the BDI. In addition, logistic regression analyses indicated that Rorschach indexes significantly improved the prediction of major depression above and beyond that achieved by the BDI. The findings show that the Rorschach method was able to identify (a) cognitive and aggressive disturbances that are present in individuals who are actively depressed but not in individuals who have been depressed in the past or never been depressed and (b) affective and coping disturbances that are present in depressed individuals and to some degree in PD individuals but not in individuals who have not experienced depression. We discuss the scanty evidence of psychological disturbances in PD individuals, as measured with the Rorschach, in relation to the mood-state dependent hypothesis of Miranda and Persons (1988; Persons & Miranda, 1992).

Mechanisms of recurrent depression: a cognitive battle model and some preliminary results

“…The findings from the present study of an increased level of dysphoric symptoms in previously depressed individuals, as compared to never depressed individuals, supports the assumption that formerly depressed individuals have problems with their previous depressive experience. This is further substantiated by a study comparing some of the never depressed, previously depressed and clinically depressed individuals who took part in the present study using the Rorschach method (Hartmann, Wang, Berg, & Soether, 2003). These authors found a tendency in previously depressed individuals, as compared to never depressed individuals, towards increased levels of anxiety, low stress tolerance, low selfesteem, rigid and maladaptive coping strategies and feelings of hopelessness.…”

Field Reliability of Comprehensive System Scoring in an Adolescent Inpatient Sample

“…In contrast, no more than 3.8% of ICCs were < .60 in any of four samples described by Meyer et al (2002), whereas Viglione and Taylor (2003) found 67 of 68 ICCs met the criterion. Comprehensive System validity studies offer a secondary source for reliability estimates that generally corroborate the positive findings of studies designed to evaluate reliability in general (e.g., Hartmann, Wang, & Berg, 2003;Stokes, Pogge, & Powell-Lunder, 2003). It should be noted, however, that validity studies only provide reliability data for the variables being validated, so poor reliability would probably render the study unpublishable, and focusing on a few variables should improve interrater reliability.…”

Assessment of substance abusers on the MCMI‐III and the Rorschach

“…One individually trained male examiner (the first author) administered first the RIM and then the MCMI‐III. Previous studies, using several examiners, have demonstrated no effects of examiner, testing experience, gender of the administrators or gender of the participants (Hartmann, 2001; Hartmann, Sunde, Kristensen & Martinussen, 2003a; Hartmann et al ., 2003b; Hartmann et al ., 2006). The administration of the RIM followed the procedures explicated by the CS, except that the sample was randomly divided into two groups and administered either the standard instruction of CS or the standard instruction for Rorschach administration in Norway.…”

“…The RIM has been criticized both for lacking validity as a diagnostic tool (Wood, Lilienfeld, Garb & Nezworski, 2000; Wood, Lilienfeld, Nezworski & Garb, 2001), and for failing to meet established psychometric properties (Garb, Florio & Grove, 1998; Hunsley & Baily, 1999; Wood, Nezworski & Stejskal, 1996). Recent studies, however, have demonstrated that the combination of MMPI and Rorschach data improved the prediction of DSM‐IV borderline and narcissistic personality diagnosis (Blais, Hilsenroth, Castlebury, Fowler & Baity, 2001), and that Rorschach data improved the prediction of DSM‐IV Major Depression above and beyond that achieved by the Beck Depression Inventory diagnosis (Hartmann, Wang, Berg & Sæther, 2003b). Furthermore, the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment (2005) has recently presented a summary of the status of the Rorschach concluding that “the Rorschach possesses documented reliability and validity similar to that of other generally accepted test instruments used in the assessment of personality and psychopathology and that its responsible use in personality assessment is appropriate and justified” (p. 221).…”