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

Meyer, Gregory J.

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5802_2

Cited by 57 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There has been a call by many authors to scientifically examine the effects of protocol length and complexity on Rorschach validity (Kinder, 1992;Lipgar, 1992;Meyer, 1992;Viglione, 1996). The aim of the present study was to examine the effectiveness of an alternative administration method for constraining response production.…”

Section: Purpose Of Studymentioning

confidence: 97%

A Method to Optimize the Response Range While Maintaining Rorschach Comprehensive System Validity

Dean

Viglione

Perry

et al. 2007

Journal of Personality Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brief and lengthy Rorschach records have been identified as common problems in protocol administration. Clinicians have debated how to prevent overly short and long records, but they have been reluctant to alter standardized administration for fear of introducing bias. The present study examines a nonintrusive method for constraining responses by prompting for an extra response when only one is offered per card and by removing the card after four responses are given. Among patients who typically produce brief records, consisting of a residential sample of civil and forensic patients with a range of disordered thinking, the alternative administration method demonstrated improved Comprehensive System validity in assessing thought disorder and eliminated the need to readminister the test due to fewer than 14 responses. The findings have clinical implications for protocol administration with thought-disordered populations that typically produce brief records.

show abstract

Section: Purpose Of Studymentioning

confidence: 97%

A Method to Optimize the Response Range While Maintaining Rorschach Comprehensive System Validity

Dean

Viglione

Perry

et al. 2007

Journal of Personality Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the Number of Responses in a Rorschach protocol increases, the frequency-based test variables (i.e., variables based on the raw number of scores such as Texture or Vista) increase as well, which can have a confounding effect on the data (Cronbach, 1949;Meyer, 1992;. For example, if psychopaths report fewer Rorschach responses than a control group, it is possible that their lower scores on Texture or Vista are an artifact that results from fewer responses in general.…”

Section: Selecting Validity Coefficients: Matching Predictor-criteriomentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mihura¹,

Meyer²,

Dumitrascu³

et al. 2013

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

318

451

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We systematically evaluated the peer-reviewed Rorschach validity literature for the 65 main variables in the popular Comprehensive System (CS). Across 53 meta-analyses examining variables against externally assessed criteria (e.g., observer ratings, psychiatric diagnosis), the mean validity was r = .27 (k = 770) as compared to r = .08 (k = 386) across 42 meta-analyses examining variables against introspectively assessed criteria (e.g., self-report). Using Hemphill's (2003) data-driven guidelines for interpreting the magnitude of assessment effect sizes with only externally assessed criteria, we found 13 variables had excellent support (r ≥ .33, p < .001; [Symbol: see text] FSN > 50), 17 had good support (r ≥ .21, p < .05, FSN ≥ 10), 10 had modest support (p < .05 and either r ≥ .21, FSN < 10, or r = .15-.20, FSN ≥ 10), 13 had little (p < .05 and either r = < .15 or FSN < 10) or no support (p > .05), and 12 had no construct-relevant validity studies. The variables with the strongest support were largely those that assess cognitive and perceptual processes (e.g., Perceptual-Thinking Index, Synthesized Response); those with the least support tended to be very rare (e.g., Color Projection) or some of the more recently developed scales (e.g., Egocentricity Index, Isolation Index). Our findings are less positive, more nuanced, and more inclusive than those reported in the CS test manual. We discuss study limitations and the implications for research and clinical practice, including the importance of using different methods in order to improve our understanding of people.

show abstract

“…For more than half a century, commentators have repeatedly noted that R, the total number of responses that clients give to the inkblots, can exert a substantial effect on their other Rorschach scores (Anastasi, 1988;Cronbach, 1949;Holtzman et al, 1961;Meyer, 1992aMeyer, , 1993. For example, if one client gives 14 responses and a second client gives 28, the second client has twice as many opportunities to report aggressive content (supposedly indicative of aggressive personality characteristics) or morbid imagery (supposedly indicative of depression).…”

Section: The Influence Of Response Frequency (R) On Cs Scoresmentioning

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

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

Cited by 57 publications

References 26 publications

A Method to Optimize the Response Range While Maintaining Rorschach Comprehensive System Validity

A Method to Optimize the Response Range While Maintaining Rorschach Comprehensive System Validity

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

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About