Two Foundations of Rorschach Assessment Revisited

Abstract

Summary: The Rorschach has been approached from two philosophical traditions: the hermeneutic and the scientific. The dialectical tension between these diverse traditions has led to considerable argument about the professional status of the Rorschach. Literature emanating from these traditions is reviewed and conclusions reached about the reliability and validity of the instrument from both approaches. Arguments whether the approaches are mutually exclusive and whether the approaches can be mixed are examined. A research program is recommended that follows Meehl's (1990) discussion of a Lakatosian approach to scientific theory testing.

The misperception of psychopathology: Problems with the norms of the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach.

“…Critics pointed out that the unpublished reliability and validity studies of Exner's Rorschach Workshops were often unavailable for scrutiny by independent scholars, and that many CS scores lacked well-demonstrated validity (Nezworski & Wood, 1995; Wood, Nezworski, & Stejskal, 1996a, 1996b; but see Exner, 1995a, 1996). Additional debates flared between Rorschach advocates and critics regarding such fundamental issues as scoring reliability, test—retest reliability, incremental validity, clinical utility, effects of method variance, cultural sensitivity, and research methodology (Acklin, 1999; Archer, 1999; Aronow, 1999; Aronow, Reznikoff, & Moreland, 1994, 1995; Costello, 1999; Dawes, 1994; Ganellen, 1996a, 1996b; Gann, 1995; Garb, 1998, 1999; Garb, Wood, & Nezworski, 2000; Garb, Wood, Nezworski, Grove, & Stejskal, in press; Garfield, 2000; Hunsley & Bailey, 1999; Jorgensen, Andersen, & Dam, in press; Kubiszyn et al, 2000; Lerner, 2000; Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb, 2000; Sechrest & McKnight, 2000; Sechrest, Stickle, & Stewart, 1998; Strieker & Gold, 1999; Viglione, 1999; Weiner, 1996, 1999, 2000; Wood & Lilienfeld, 1999; Wood, Lilienfeld, Garb, & Nezworski, 2000a, 2000b; Wood, Nezworski, Stejskal, Garven, & West, 1999).…”

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

“…The Rorschach Inkblot Test (Rorschach, 1921) recently has become the subject of considerable scientific controversy (Costello, 1999;Dawes, 1994;Exner, 1996;Ganellen, 1996aGanellen, , 1996bGann, 1995;Garb, 1998Garb, , 1999Garb, Wood, & Nezworski, in press;Garb, Wood, Nezworski, Grove, & Stejskal, in press;Hunsley & Bailey, 1999;Sechrest, Stickle, & Stewart, 1998;Stricker & Gold, 1999;Viglione, 1999;Weiner, 1996;Wood & Lilienfeld, 1999;Wood, Nezworski & Stejskal, 1996a, 1996bWood, Nezworski, Stejskal, Garven, & West, 1999). Recent criticisms of the test have focused on such fundamental issues as scoring reliability, test-retest reliability, validity, incremental validity, clinical utility, effects of method variance, cultural diversity, and accessibility of research results.…”

Whither the Rorschach? An analysis of the evidence.

“…However, there is little or no theoretical justification offered for most of the scales included in the CS or in other scoring systems (Costello, 1998; Kleiger, 1992)—why, for example, pairs and reflections should be related to narcissism, texture responses should be related to affective elements of interpersonal relationships, or color should be related to affective control. Exner's theoretical position, in turn, has been rejected by those who argue that the Rorschach is not a psychometric test at all, and various hermeneutic, experiential, and psychodynamic theories have been offered to account for the alleged clinical richness of the Rorschach (e.g., Aronow, Reznikoff, & Moreland, 1995; Costello, 1999; Te'eni, 1998).…”

“…Critiques of the psychometric properties of the test are viewed as either (a) irrelevant by those proponents who do not consider the Rorschach to be a test that can be judged by empirical evidence or (b) an indication of the need to eschew quantifying Rorschach test data (cf. Aronow et al, 1995; Costello, 1999; Te'eni, 1998). Most disconcertingly, for some proponents, evidence presented by those critical of the Rorschach's validity is simply ignored as the disrespectful and uninformed comments of those who do not value the Rorschach (e.g., Lerner, 2000).…”