The incremental validity of information used in personality assessment

Garb, Howard N.

doi:10.1016/0272-7358(84)90010-2

Cited by 75 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, when Hiller and his colleagues separately analyzed studies that used psychiatric diagnoses as a criterion, the mean weighted validity coefficient was only .18 for the Rorschach as compared to .47 for the MMPI (unweighted means were .18 and .37, respectively). This meta-analytic finding conforms with earlier evidence that the MMPI, but not the Rorschach, contributes incremental validity in diagnostic decisions (Garb, 1984(Garb, , 1998. However, because of flaws in the Hiller meta-analysis, its results cannot be considered conclusive (Garb, 1999;Garb, Wood, Nezworski, et al, in press).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

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

et al. 2000

Self Cite

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

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

et al. 2000

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, as Golden pointed out, these judgments probably increased in validity simply because the demographic data did not provide information on whether individuals were psychiatric patients. Adding TAT data to the interpretive mix may have increased validity because these data permitted judges to determine whether individuals exhibited psychopathological symptoms (Garb, 1984). Once having made this determination, they were able to describe participants in terms of personality traits that characterize most or all psychiatric patients (see also Horowitz, 1962).…”

Section: Incremental Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The incremental validity of the TAT above and beyond either demographic or test information has typically been unimpressive (Gallucci, 1990;Garb, 1984Garb, , 1998. Soskin (1954) found that the addition of TAT protocols did not add significantly to the validity of clinicians' personality ratings of normal participants above and beyond basic demographic information.…”

Section: Incremental Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When psychologists made judgments after being given increasing amounts of assessment information, the addition of the Rorschach almost never led to an increase in the validity of their judgments (for reviews, see Garb, 1984Garb, , 1998. For example, psychologists did not become more accurate when: (a) the Rorschach was added to demographic data (e.g., Gadol, 1969), (b) a test battery that included the Rorschach and a Sentence Completion Test was added to demographic data (e.g., Cochrane, 1972), and (c) the Rorschach was added to other test results or biographical information (e.g., Bilett, Jones, & Whitaker, 1982;Golden, 1964;Perez, 1976;Whitehead, 1985).…”

Section: Incremental Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

Self Cite

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

“…However, Viglione did cite five studies that he claimed demonstrated the value of Rorschach data in making clinical judgments (as noted by Garb et al, none of the studies used the CS to score the Rorschach data). As previous evaluations of this literature on Rorschach-informed clinical judgment have been so consistently negative (e.g., Garb 1984Garb , 1998, we believe it is important to examine these five studies more closely to determine whether they do indeed provide evidence for the Rorschach's clinical utility.…”

Section: Do Rorschach Data Meaningfully Informmentioning

confidence: 97%

Whither the Rorschach? An analysis of the evidence.

Hunsley¹,

Bailey²

2001

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the previous Special Section, the authors presented empirical evidence and logical analysis that were sufficient to demonstrate that the widespread use of the Rorschach in clinical, legal, forensic, and occupational settings is unwarranted on both scientific and ethical grounds (J. Hunsley & J. M. Bailey, 1999). To expand on their analysis and to respond to issues raised in the previous and current Special Sections, they begin their article by examining a number of conceptual issues that are at the heart of the disagreements about the Rorschach. The focus is then shifted to the central issue of clinical utility, with an emphasis on why current research is insufficient to demonstrate the utility of the Rorschach. Next, the psychometric issues raised by Weiner ( 2001) are addressed and an alternative perspective on the psychometric viability of the Rorschach is provided. Finally, the authors conclude with some suggestions for future directions that must be taken in research to address the substantive concerns raised by Rorschach critics.

show abstract

The incremental validity of information used in personality assessment

Cited by 75 publications

References 46 publications

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

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

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Whither the Rorschach? An analysis of the evidence.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About