On the Validity of Hypotheses Derived from the Rorschach: III. The Relationship between Shading and Anxiety

Frank, George

doi:10.2466/pms.1978.46.2.531

Cited by 13 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a series of brief focused literature reviews, Frank concluded that there are no well-demonstrated relations between (a) color responses and emotional expression or control (Frank, 1976, 1993c), (b) achromatic color responses (C') and depression (Frank, 1993a), (c) shading responses and anxiety (Frank, 1978, 1993d), (d) space responses and oppositionality or hostility (Frank, 1993e), (e) movement responses and intelligence or degree of “inner life” (Frank, 1979b, 1993b, 1997), or (f) Rorschach content and aggressive behavior (Frank, 1994b). On the other hand, Frank concluded that good form quality (F+%) (g) is related to psychotherapy outcome (Frank, 1993f) and (h) differentiates psychotic from nonpsychotic patients, schizophrenic from non-schizophrenic patients, and process schizophrenics from reactive schizophrenics (Frank, 1979, 1980, 1994a).…”

Section: Rorschach Inkblot Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

605

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: Rorschach Inkblot Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

605

391

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Rorschach test in clinical diagnosis: A critical review, with a backward look at Garfield (1947)

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article comments on a classic study by Garfield (1947) then reviews research on the Rorschach and psychiatric diagnoses. Despite a few positive findings, the Rorschach has demonstrated little validity as a diagnostic tool. Deviant verbalizations and bad form on the Rorschach, and indices based on these variables, are related to Schizophrenia and perhaps to Bipolar Disorder and Schizotypal Personality Disorder. Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder also seem to give an above-average number of deviant verbalizations.

show abstract