R in Rorschach research: a ghost revisited

As interest in Rorschach research has increased, an old issue-whether differences in R require that other scores be normalized in relation to R when Rorschach data are analyzed-has been resurrected. Most who advocate normalizing or partialing for R cite Cronbach (1949) or Fiske and Baughman (1953) as the basis for their argument. Although Cronbach offered several useful suggestions regarding this problem, the data base to which he referred and that used by Fiske and Baughman allowed for a much greater variation in R than occurs when Rorschach's standard instructions are applied. Intercorrelations between R and most parametric Rorschach variables are not significant among groups of nonpatients, schizophrenics, and depressives. Thus, although the issue of R can be critical when some variables are included in a data matrix, most analyses can proceed without partialing or normalization. When nonparametric variables are included in an analysis, partialing or normalizing is inappropriate because the resulting distributions will be distorted.     

On the science of Rorschach research

Wood et al.'s (1999b) article contained several general points that are quite sound. Conducting research with an extreme groups design does produce effect sizes that are larger than those observed in an unselected population. Appropriate control groups are important for any study that wishes to shed light on the characteristics of a targeted experimental group and experimental validity is enhanced when researchers collect data from both groups simultaneously. Diagnostic efficiency statistics--or any summary measures of test validity--should be trusted more when they are drawn from multiple studies conducted by different investigators across numerous settings rather than from a single investigator's work. There should be no question that these points are correct. However, I have pointed out numerous problems with specific aspects of Wood et al.'s (1999b) article. Wood et al. gave improper citations that claimed researchers found or said things that they did not. Wood et al. indicated my data set did not support the incremental validity of the Rorschach over the MMPI-2 when, in fact, my study never reported such an analysis and my data actually reveal that the opposite conclusion is warranted. Wood et al. asserted there was only one proper way to conduct incremental validity analyses even though experts have described how their recommended procedure can lead to significant complications. Wood et al. cited a section of Cohen and Cohen (1983) to bolster their claim that hierarchical and step-wise regression procedures were incompatible and to criticize Burns and Viglione's (1996) regression analysis. However, that section of Cohen and Cohen's text actually contradicted Wood et al.'s argument. Wood et al. tried to convince readers that Burns and Viglione used improper alpha levels and drew improper conclusions from their regression data although Burns and Viglione had followed the research evidence on this topic and the expert recommendations provided in Hosmer and Lemeshow's (1989) classic text. Wood et al. oversimplified issues associated with extreme group research designs and erroneously suggested that diagnostic studies were immune from interpretive confounds that can be associated with this type of design. Wood et al. ignored or dismissed the valid reasons why Burns and Viglione used an extreme groups design, and they never mentioned how Burns and Viglione used a homogeneous sample that actually was likely to find smaller than normal effect sizes. Wood et al. also overlooked the fact that Burns and Viglione identified their results as applying to female nonpatients; they never suggested their findings would characterize those obtained from a clinical sample. Wood et al. criticized composite measures although some of the most important and classic findings in the history of research on personality recommend composite measures as a way to minimize error and maximize validity. Wood et al. also were mistaken about the elements that constitute an optimal composite measure. Wood et al. apparently ignored the factor-analytic evidence that demonstrated how Burns and Viglione created a reasonable composite scale, and Wood et al. similarly ignored the clear evidence that supported the content and criterion related validity of the EMRF. With respect to the HEV, Wood et al. created a z-score formula that used the wrong means and standard deviations. They continued to use this formula despite being informed that it was incorrect. Subsequently, Wood et al. told readers that their faulty z-score formula was "incompatible" with the proper weighted formula and asserted that the two formulas "do not yield identical results" and "do not yield HEV scores that are identical or even very close." These published claims were made even though Wood et al. had seen the results from eight large samples, all of which demonstrated that their wrong formula had correlations greater than .998 with the correct formula. At worst, it seems that Wood et al. (199     

Rorschach Assessment of Primitive Defenses: A Review

The Lerner & Lerner Scale for assessing primitive defenses is reviewed, According to its conceptual roots, initial studies assessed the scale's efficacy in distinguishing groups of borderline patients from groups of other diagnostic entities. Later studies extended the use of the scale to assess various clinical groups assumed to have a borderline personality structure. Results from several studies indicate a high level of reliability as judged by degree of interrater agreement. In a host of studies, the scale was found to be valid in distinguishing borderline patients from other types of patients, eating disordered patients from normal controls, and gender disturbed children from normal controls. Another Rorschach scale for assessing primitive defenses was also reviewed and compared.     

Construct Validation of Scales Derived From the Rorschach Method: A Review of issues and Introduction to the Rorschach Rating Scale

I suggest the main goal of Rorschach validation should be a refined understanding of what each score means. Toward this end, I review general issues in construct validity, hurdles unique to the Rorschach, and general limitations with validation criteria. I then recommend two approaches for improving criteria so they can begin approximating the gold standards that are necessary for a refined understanding of what scores actually measure. The first is a method for improving expert clinical judgment, and the second is a method for aggregating data across diverse judges. Finally, the Rorschach Rating Scale (RRS) is presented as a criterion tool to be used with either of these approaches to validation. The RRS is a fairly comprehensive summary of the constructs thought to be measured by various Rorschach scoring systems. The utility of the RRS for research and training are discussed, as are other practical, theoretical, and psychometric issues in its application.     

The Susceptibility of the Rorschach to Malingering: A Critical Review

Empirical studies of malingering on the Rorschach are reviewed. Results from these studies are to this point inconsistent and inconclusive. Although several indices are related to malingering in individual studies, no specific malingering pattern has been found that replicates across studies. A methodological problem specific to this literature is discussed and future research designs are recommended.     

A guide to research on the Rorschach prognostic rating scale

Research on the Rorschach Prognostic Rating Scale done in the last 25 years is summarized. The study results are organized into six topics: ability to predict outcome, numerical correlations, populations differentiated, populations not differentiated, specific therapies. The scale significantly predicts outcome and is thereby a valuable prognostic instrument.     

A Review of MMPI and Rorschach interrelationships in adult samples

The MMPI and Rorschach are consistently ranked among the most widely used psychological assessment instruments across adolescent and adult clinical settings. Although there is an extensive research literature available on each instrument individually, relatively little research attention has been focused on the interrelationships between these measures. This article reviews the literature derived from 37 studies that have reported interrelationships between MMPI and Rorschach variables in adult populations. The results of these studies generally indicate limited or minimal relationships between the MMPI and Rorschach. A number of methodological issues, however, prevent drawing firm conclusions from the literature at this time. Directions for future research are discussed, including consideration of issues related to sources of alpha and beta error and the need for studies examining the incremental validity of combinations of Rorschach and MMPI data in prediction to relevant external criteria.     

Problems in Rorschach research and what to do about them

This article identifies many interrelated problems that interfere with progress in Rorschach research. These include vague hypotheses, confounded comparisons, failure to control extraneous variables; misuse of statistics, and distorted interpretation of results. Two crucial solutions to address many of these problems are offered: knowing the data and paling out rival hypotheses. Underlying conceptual confusions are addressed and prototypical examples derived from the literature, are discussed is the hope of improving the scientific foundation of the Rorschach.     

The Rorschach and psychopathy: toward a more accurate understanding of the research findings

In this article we present the reader with an understandable essay on the relation between the Rorschach and psychopathy. Some degree of sophistication and applied knowledge of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991) and the Rorschach (Rorschach, 1921/1942) are necessary to wade through the literature, weigh the relative merits of arguments made by proponents and detractors of Rorschach assessment, and meaningfully interpret the findings of relevant studies. Often studies reviewing the Rorschach's utility in assessing Antisocial Personality Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) and psychopathy exhibit a flawed or superficial understanding of essential theoretical and methodological issues. Argument derived from a suspect or specious premise, such as the notion that the Rorschach was designed or aspires to correspond with formal diagnosis based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1952, 1994), vitiates conclusions based on such a premise. In this article, we discuss theoretical and methodological issues that can aid the reader or reviewer in achieving a more accurate understanding of this body of research.     

Superiority of form% over Lambda for research on the Rorschach Comprehensive System

Lambda is an important variable in the Rorschach Comprehensive System. However, because of the way it is calculated it has properties that can produce problems for parametric statistical analyses. We illustrate these difficulties and encourage the use of Form% (i.e., pure form responses/total responses) instead of Lambda in research. Form% is easy to calculate, and it is conceptually and mathematically comparable to Lambda. Because it is much more normally distributed, Form% is suitable to use in parametric analyses (e.g., t tests, analyses of variance, correlations, factor analyses, multiple regressions).     

The Response of African Americans to the Rorschach: A Review of the Research

Studies exploring the performance of African Americans on the Rorschach were reviewed. The review revealed the limited number of studies done in this area of study, as well as the fact that the research paradigm for all of this research has been limited to comparing the Rorschach performance of African Americans to that of Whites. However, no one has offered a rationale for such a research paradigm. Without a scientific reason to expect personality to be a function of race, another research design was recommended, one that explores the effect of a variety of aspects of living conditions on the development of the personality of African Americans.     

近十年国外罗夏测验攻击变量研究综述

用罗夏测验测量攻击有助于了解个体的攻击性冲动 ,也有助于外显攻击行为的预测和控制。近十年国外文献中有关研究者主要有Holt、Exner、Gacono和Meloy。综述结果表明 ,他们提出的大多数攻击变量都有明确的定义 ,其实证研究也获得了一些支持。但也可以看到 ,目前的研究依然存在不少问题 :(1 )变量的定义有重复、内容有交叉 ;(2 )变量的分类标准不唯一 ;(3 )某些变量的使用和操作欠方便。因而 ,这些变量的定义、分类和使用都还有待于进一步研究支持。     

Exploratory factor analysis in transportation research: Current practices and recommendations

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a widely used statistical method in traffic and transportation research, particularly for the development and validation of measurement instruments. This article critically examines current practices in conducting and reporting EFA in published transportation studies. One hundred and eighty papers published between 2016 and 2018 were examined, of which eighty-two were included in the present study after applying eligibility criteria. The review suggests that the quality of EFA reported in the field is routinely poor: (a) researchers fail to provide sufficient information to be able to adequately assess the appropriateness and quality of both the input data and the reported output; and (b) the decisions underlying the choices of EFA methods are not justified and rely mostly on procedures advised against, particularly the Little-Jiffy approach. In summary, a significant gap between current practice and experts' recommendations exists. We provide some guidelines that may help in conducting, reporting and reviewing EFA in transportation research.     

Issues in the application of the average reference: Review, critiques, and recommendations

In standard event-related potential (ERP) recordings, activity at the reference site affects measurements at all the “active” electrode sites. Analyses of ERP data would be improved if reference site activity could be separated out. Apart from current source density methods, which can miss deep or distributed events, the major alternative to an “indifferent” electrode reference is one that combines all active electrodes, subtracting out the activity common to all of them. The average reference has merits (such as an insensitivity to scalp currents near any single electrode) and limitations (such as a dependence on the number and locations of all the electrodes in the average). This review compares the effects of different references on the scalp topography of the auditory N1 recorded with an array of 128 electrodes. Furthermore, it shows how assumptions associated with each reference affect inferential methods such as analysis of variance and correlation. Finally, it seeks to evaluate the efficacy of the average reference in estimating the true zero potential line.     

John Exner and the Book That Started It All: A Review of The Rorschach Systems

This article is a review and a reassessment of Exner's (1969) The Rorschach Systems. The book reviews the history of the development of the Rorschach, primarily in the United States, including a detailed analysis of the progressive development of systems devised by Klopfer, Beck, Piotrowski, Hertz, Rapaport, and Schafer. The final versions of each system are compared with each other, and with Rorschach's own system. The development of the book is linked to Exner' s personal relationship with Klopfer, Beck, and Hertz. The book is described as the basic forerunner of Exner's Comprehensive System.