Orthogonal Dimensions of Individual and Group Forms of the Rorschach

Abstract

Most dimensional analyses of traditional Rorschach scoring categories have either failed to control for differences in total R or have done so by introducing a nonstandard mode of administration. Consequently, the results of such studies may be either distorted or of questionable relevance to more typical situations. The present analyses, which compared both group and individual forms of the Rorschach administered to large samples (over 500 each) of male medical students, controlled for differences in total R by using residualized scores from which the linear effects of R had been partialled. The factor-analytic results are expressed in terms of seven easily interpretable factors (including total R), five of which are similar across forms, and simple formulas for deriving norm-referenced factor scores from the data of individual test administrations are provided.

The Impact of an Ego Depletion Manipulation on Performance-Based and Self-Report Assessment Measures

“…First, there is a long tradition of using group administration to facilitate Rorschach data collection (e.g., Bornstein et al, 1997; Harrower-Erickson & Steiner, 1943; Munroe, 1945) and research indicates performance is relatively similar under group and individual administration (Bornstein et al, 1997; Harrower-Erickson & Steiner, 1951; Shaffer, Duszynski, & Thomas, 1981). As described in the Methods, relative to previous group-based data collection procedures, the administration procedures we used reflected a highly structured attempt to translate standard individual administration to the group research setting.…”

Dimensions of the Rorschach Comprehensive System

“…This dimension is the most important in terms of variance accounted for and it has previously been described as a kinesthetic or human content factor (Geertsma, 1962; Schori & Thomas, 1972; Shaffer et al, 1981). There is strong evidence that the sum of human movements M assesses mental abilities such as planning, imagination, and empathy and for DQ+ as an indicator of synthesis abilities.…”

“…Concerning F and D , the partial correlation controlled for R is r( F,D.R ) = 0.39 (vs. r( F,D ) = 0.72). This technique has been employed successfully as a way to control the confounding effect of R on correlation matrix (Anderson & Dixon Jr, 1993; Exner, Viglione, & Gillespie, 1984; Mason et al, 1985; Shaffer et al, 1981). Conceptually, R is not a scoring category and it is therefore justified to treat it differently (i.e.…”

“…Six relatively consistent dimensions of the Rorschach scored according to Beck (Beck, 1937) or Exner (Exner, 2003) systems have been identified by means of multivariate analyses (i.e. factor analysis FA or principal component analysis PCA): Productivity, a factor essentially defined by the total number of responses and which explains most of the variance of Rorschach data (Meyer, 1992b; Murstein, 1960; Schori & Thomas, 1972; Wittenborn, 1950; Wood, Krishnamurthy, & Archer, 2003); Form Dominance, a factor composed of form-dominant color and shading responses (Costello, 1998; Schori & Thomas, 1972; Shaffer et al, 1981; Zillmer & Vuz, 1995); Color Dominance regroups color and some shading responses with vague or no form (Costello, 1998; Geertsma, 1962; Mason, Cohen & Exner, 1985; Shaffer, Duszynski, & Thomas, 1981; Wittenborn, 1950; Zillmer & Vuz, 1995); Perceptual Accuracy , a bidirectional dimension with ordinary form qualities on the positive pole and poor form qualities on the negative one (Geertsma, 1962; Wood, Krishnamurthy, & Archer, 2003; Zillmer & Vuz, 1995); Kinesthesis, a factor composed of Human Movement and related variables (Geertsma, 1962; Schori & Thomas, 1972; Shaffer et al, 1981; Wittenborn, 1950); and Synthesis, a factor mainly composed of whole responses ( W ), perceptually organized responses ( Zf ), and synthesis responses ( DQ+ ) on the positive pole, and pure form responses ( F, F% or Lambda ) on the negative one (Anderson & Dixon, 1993; Geertsma, 1962; Mason et al, 1985; Schori & Thomas, 1972; Shaffer et al, 1981; Wood, Krishnamurthy, & Archer, 2003; Zillmer & Vuz, 1995). However, these six dimensions were not identified in each of these studies, which raises the question: “what are the dimensions of the Rorschach ?”.…”

Response Frequency Problems in the Rorschach: Clinical and Research Implications With Suggestions for the Future

“…For example, R has correlated with: D, pure form (F), and the number of content categories in the .7 to .9 range; Dd in the .6 to .8 range; and human movement (M), animal movement (FM), organizational frequency (Zf), white space (S), # of Pairs, texture (T), vista (V), and diffuse shading (Y) in the .4 to .7 range (see Consalvi & Canter, 1957;Cox, 1951;Lotsof, Comrey, Bogartz, & Arnsfield, 1958;Meyer, 1989;Shaffer, Duszynski, & Thomas, 1981;Williams & Lawrence, 1953, 1954Wittenborn, 1950aWittenborn, , 1950b. In general, correlations between R and other variables tend to be somewhat higher for protocols administered under the Beck system (e.g., Beck, Beck, Levitt & Molish, 1961), though the ranges just listed are also found with the Comprehensive system.'…”