Does tat add information to interviews? statistical analysis of the increment

Winch, Robert F.; More, Douglas M.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(195610)12:4<316::aid-jclp2270120403>3.0.co;2-p

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To our knowledge, only one study has examined the incremental validity of judgments made by statistical decision rules (in the studies described in the previous paragraph, judgments were made by clinicians). Winch and More (1956) examined the extent to which numerical information derived from the TAT contributed to the predictions of participants' (members of 25 married couples) scores on 12 of Murray's (1938) needs (e.g., achievement, dominance, hostility) above and beyond interview information. Virtually none of the increments in variance corresponding to the entry of the TAT in hierarchical multiple regression equations was statistically significant, and all were small in magnitude (range of 0 to 2%).…”

Section: Thematic Apperception Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

603

391

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-AlthoughControversy has been no stranger to the field of personality assessment, and no issue in this field has been more controversial than the scientific status of projective techniques. Indeed, the novice reader attempting to make sense of the sprawling and bewilderingly complex literature on projective techniques is immediately confronted with a striking paradox. On the one hand, during the past four decades a litany of personality assessment researchers (e.g., Anastasi, 1982;Gittelman Klein, 1986;Dawes, 1994) have come forth to decry the reliability and validity of most projective techniques (see Lilienfeld, 1999). Jensen's (1965) famous quotation, although 35 years old, still captures the sentiments of many contemporary scientists toward the Rorschach Inkblot Test and numerous other projective techniques: ". . . the rate of scientific progress in clinical psychology might well be measured by the speed and thoroughness with which it gets over the Rorschach" (p. 238). On the other hand, clinicians in the United States and to a lesser extent those abroad continue to use projective techniques with great regularity, and many contend that these techniques are virtually indispensable to their daily practice (Watkins, Campbell, Neiberding, & Hallmark, 1995). The crux of this paradox was incisively summed up by Anastasi (1982), who observed that "Projective techniques present a curious discrepancy between research and practice. When evaluated as psychometric instruments, the large majority make a poor showing. Yet their popularity in clinical use continues unabated" (p. 564).Indeed, despite the sustained and often withering criticisms directed at projective techniques during the past several decades (Dawes, 1994;Lowenstein, 1987), numerous surveys demonstrate that such techniques continue to enjoy widespread popularity among clinicians. Durand, Blanchard, and Mindell (1988) reported that 49% of the directors of clinical psychology graduate programs and 65% of the directors of clinical psychology internships believed that formal training in projective techniques is important. Watkins et al. (1995) found that 5 projective techniques, including the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), were among the 10 instruments most frequently used by clinical psychologists. For example, 82% of clinical psychologists reported that they administered the Rorschach at least "occasionally" in their test batteries and 43% reported that they "frequently" or "always" administered it. There is some indication, however, that the popularity of certain projective techniques may be waning. In a recent survey of practicing clinicians, Piotrowski, Belter, and Keller (1998) reported that several projective techniques, including the Rorschach and TAT, have been abandoned by a sizeable minority of users. Some authors (e.g., Piotrowski et al., 1998; Piotrowski & Belter, 1989) have attributed the recent decline in the popularity of projective techniques to the advent of managed care, although at least some of this decline may al...

show abstract

Section: Thematic Apperception Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

603

391

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies of the accuracy of these sorts of judgments have yielded rather discouraging conclusions. For example, one surprising finding-that the amount of professional training and experience of the judge does not relate to his judgmental accuracy -has appeared in a number of studies (e.g., Goldberg, 1959;Hiler & Nesvig, 1965;Johnston & McNeal, 1967;Levy & Ulman, 1967;Luft, 1950;Oskamp, 1962Oskamp, , 1967Schaeffer, 1964;Silverman, 1959;Strieker, 1967), Equally disheartening, there is now a host of studies demonstrating that the amount of information available to the judge is not related to the accuracy of his resulting inferences (e.g., Borke & Fiske, 1957;Giedt, 1955;Golden, 1964;Grant, Ives, & Ranzoni, 1952;Grigg, 1958;Hunt & Walker, 1966;Jones, 1959;Kostlan, 1954;Luft, 1951;Marks, 1961;Schwartz, 1967;Sines, 1959;Soskin, 1959;Winch & More, 1956). Let us look at Oskamp's (1965) study as one example of some of these findings.…”

Section: The Focus On Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple models or simple processes? Some research on clinical judgments.

Goldberg¹

1968

American Psychologist

552

261

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I MAGINE the following situation: You are sitting unobserved in a physician's office watching a week of his professional activities. During the course of the week, some 100 patients come to his office, each telling him of his symptoms, which you record; after each patient leaves the office, and any requested laboratory findings have arrived, the physician records his diagnosis for that patient. At the end of the week you have collected a set of 100 symptom configurations, one for each patient, and a set of 100 corresponding diagnoses.Alternatively, you are sitting unobserved in the office of a personnel officer of a large manufacturing concern. He has 100 folders on his desk, each containing information about a different applicant for SO sales positions with his company. He spends his week carefully looking through the application materials for each applicant-examining the applicant's test scores, the ratings made by each of the company's three initial interviewers, and the reference forms from each of the applicant's past employers. When he has completed examining the materials for each applicant in turn, he records his selection decision. At the end of the week each

show abstract

“…A number of studies (Hamlin, 1954;Hathaway, 1956;Kostlan, 1954;Soskin, 1954;Winch & More, 1956) have investigated the effects on clinical judgment of differing amounts of stimulus information. In the present experiment this factor was studied by giving each judge four sets of cumulatively increasing amounts of information as the basis for making his decisions, thus simulating the gradual buildup of information as a psychologist works his way through a typical case.…”

Section: Claremont Graduate Schoolmentioning

confidence: 99%