Ch 14

Introduction

Key Concepts:

  • Projective Hypothesis: This hypothesis suggests that individuals project their internal thoughts and feelings onto ambiguous stimuli.

  • Objective: To determine whether an individual reports perceiving an object as it is or if they provide a subjective interpretation of the object presented.

The Rorschach Inkblot Test

Historical Antecedents

  • The Rorschach test, derived from Hermann Rorschach, is rooted in approaches to assessing personality that predated its formal conception.

  • Initial skepticism existed around the inkblot test, but growing interest led to more research and development of administration and scoring techniques.

Methodology of the Rorschach Test

Stimuli, Administration, and Interpretation

  • Administered Material: 10 symmetrical inkblots (some in black and white, some in color) presented with minimal interpretation guidance.

  • Ambiguity: A central aim in the Rorschach test; it encourages diverse interpretations based on examinee perception.

Phases of Administration

  1. Free Association Phase

    • Each inkblot card is shown individually. If responses are limited, the examiner may ask for elaboration. All responses are recorded.

  2. Inquiry Phase

    • The cards are presented again, and responses are scored across five dimensions:

      • Location: Where the examinee focuses on the inkblot, i.e., whole blot (W), common detail (D), unusual detail (Dd), or confabulatory response (DW).

      • Determinant: Elements that contributed to the examinee’s perception, such as form (F), human movement (M), animal movement (FM), inanimate movement (m), color (C), and shading (T).

      • Form Quality: The degree to which responses match the properties of the inkblot; categorized as exceptionally good (F+), matched (F), poorly matched (F-).

      • Content: Types of content recognized such as human (H), animal (A), and nature (N).

      • Frequency of Occurrence: How often a percept is noted in normative samples.

Psychometric Properties

Clinical Validation

  • Early Validity Assessments: Initial validations for the Rorschach were approached non-scientifically.

  • Scientific Challenges: Research from the 1960s onward, including critiques of the Barnum effect, led to the development of the Exner Comprehensive System, which is better standardized but still criticized for low diagnostic accuracy.

Norms

  • Administered millions of times annually but lacks proper normative standards.

  • Issues in Exner’s 2007 renorming cannot remediate the historical misapplication of the tool.

Overpathologizing

  • The Rorschach assessment has resulted in inaccurate diagnoses, potentially impacting significant areas such as education and legal custody situations.

Reliability Issues

  • Reliability studies yield inconsistent results, showing estimates as low as .01 to as high as .90.

  • Meta-analyses indicate better reliability, though methods have faced scrutiny. Models assessing split-half reliability and Kuder-Richardson techniques displayed higher reliability than traditionally attributed.

Validity and Diagnosis

Lack of Relation to Psychological Diagnosis

  • Numerous studies demonstrate a weak relationship between Rorschach results and psychological disorders. A considerable study in 2000 underscored its inadequacy as a diagnostic resource, despite ongoing use in various contexts.

The Problem of “R”

  • The variable “R” refers to the number of responses provided by examinees, which can significantly vary based on client characteristics.

  • Previous practitioners largely overlooked this variability, calling into question earlier findings.

Summary of the Rorschach

  • The psychometric evaluation of Rorschach presents significant challenges, yet its popularity persists despite the problems specifically related to standardized administration techniques and scoring adequacy.