Whither the Rorschach? An analysis of the evidence.

Hunsley, John; Bailey, J. Michael

doi:10.1037/1040-3590.13.4.472

Cited by 38 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, many reviews of the Rorschach validity literature have either completely or largely excluded studies using criterion data derived from introspective self-report (Exner, 2003;Viglione, 1999). Yet other researchers (Hunsley & Bailey, 2001;Lilienfeld et al, 2000) have argued that it is premature to conclude that personality characteristics assessed by selfreport should be excluded as reasonable external validity criteria for the Rorschach. Two meta-analyses evaluated the degree to which Rorschach variables align with validity criterion measures based on introspection versus other methods. In Hiller et al's (1999) Rorschach validity meta-analysis, the overall weighted effect size across different validity criterion methods was r = .29.…”

Section: Moderators Related To the Validity Of Rorschach Variablesmentioning

confidence: 97%

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

Mihura¹,

Meyer²,

Dumitrascu³

et al. 2013

Psychological Bulletin

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

Section: Moderators Related To the Validity Of Rorschach Variablesmentioning

confidence: 97%

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

Mihura¹,

Meyer²,

Dumitrascu³

et al. 2013

Psychological Bulletin

318

451

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of course, the controversy surrounding the Rorschach is well documented, with supporters citing evidence for the test's reliability (Meyer, Mihura, & Smith, 2005) and validity (Meyer & Archer, 2001;Viglione, 1999) and detractors criticizing the same criteria (e.g., Garb, 1999;Hunsley & Bailey, 2001;Wood, Lilienfeld, Garb, & Nezworski, 2000). Despite the development of the Comprehensive System, the inferential step built into Rorschach scoring is still viewed by critics as troublesome.…”

Section: Indirect Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 97%

Explicit Rejection of an Implicit Dichotomy: Integrating Two Approaches to Assessing Dependency

Cogswell

2008

Journal of Personality Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of personality theory and assessment is characterized by a long-standing divide between proponents of self-report and indirect approaches to assessment. This article reviews the increasing convergence between the two sides, using recent writings on interpersonal dependency as an example domain. The assumptions of the self-report approach to personality assessment are contrasted with those of the indirect, and research using both types of assessments is reviewed. Also considered is the importance of recognizing dissociations between a particular individual's scores on self-report and indirect measures of a given component of self-concept, and the possible implications of such dissociations. It is argued that the convergence between two traditionally disparate approaches is likely to develop, in light of hypotheses, data and conclusions that bear notable similarity.

show abstract

“…Although there is some controversy regarding the general clinical utility of the Rorschach (e.g., Hunsley & Bailey, 2001), a review of the extant literature indicates a significant empirical relationship between various Rorschach indicators and both trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress (Luxenberg & Levin, 2004). Unfortunately, when interpreted by those without specific trauma training, some complex posttraumatic outcomes may be misrepresented as impaired reality testing or personality disorder on this test (e.g., Van der Kolk & Ducey, 1989).…”

Section: The Rorschachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phenomenology and psychological assessment of complex posttraumatic states

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors offer a framework for the assessment of psychological responses associated with exposure to early onset, multiple, or extended traumatic stressors. Six prominent and overlapping symptoms clusters are described: altered self-capacities, cognitive symptoms, mood disturbance, overdeveloped avoidance responses, somatoform distress, and posttraumatic stress. A strategy for the structured, psychometrically valid assessment of these outcomes is introduced, and specific recommendations for use of various generic and trauma-specific child and adult measures are provided. Implications of trauma assessment for treatment planning are discussed.Reactions to overwhelming psychological stressors can be viewed as residing on a complexity continuum. At one end are responses to adult-onset, single-incident, traumatic events (e.g., a motor vehicle accident, a mugging) that occur in individuals with adequate childhood development, a normoreactive nervous system, and no comorbid psychological disorders. At the opposite end are responses to early onset, multiple, extended, and sometimes highly invasive traumatic events, frequently of an interpersonal nature, often involving a significant amount of stigma or shame, that occur in individuals who, for a variety of reasons, may be more vulnerable to stress effects.Individuals at the high end of this complexity continuum are the subject of this article. These individuals are likely to experience a variety of posttraumatic symptoms and negative mood states, and often present with chronic affect regulation and interpersonal difficulties

show abstract

Whither the Rorschach? An analysis of the evidence.

Cited by 38 publications

References 93 publications

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

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

Explicit Rejection of an Implicit Dichotomy: Integrating Two Approaches to Assessing Dependency

Phenomenology and psychological assessment of complex posttraumatic states

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About