Empathic Insights From the Rorschach: Paul Lerner's Legacy

This article is concerned with one aspect of the validity of DSM-III Axis II diagnoses, namely, the discriminability of borderline and schizotypal disorders. Forty-nine patients diagnosed by DSM-III criteria as borderline, schizotypal, or "mixed" personality disorders completed the Borderline Syndrome Index (BSI), an independent self-report 52-item instrument that has been shown to be reliable and to have discriminative validity. A one-way analysis of variance and a discriminant function analysis were conducted. Our major finding was that there were no significant differences among the groups on the BSI self-report test, although there were differences on clinical grounds. We discuss this in terms of "fuzzy set" theory and prototypic systems of classification.     

Concepts of Development and the Rorschach: The Contributions of Paul Lerner and John Exner in Historical Context

The Rorschach Test has been approached from 3 fundamentally different developmental perspectives: those growing out of the empiricist tradition, psychoanalysis, and the developmental psychologies of Piaget and Werner. In this article, I highlight the distinctive characteristics of each perspective, explore how they have shaped approaches to Rorschach theory and practice, and examine the contributions of Paul Lerner and John Exner in this context.     

Borderline defenses and Rorschach responses: a critique of Lerner, Albert, and Walsh

Collapsing DSM-III schizotypal and borderline groups to form a borderline population is unwarranted when the results are then related to borderline personality organization. In a comparison of overlapping scoring systems for inferring defensive operations, Lerner, Albert, and Walsh intertwine fact and theory extravagantly and are not justified by their chosen populations nor their assumptions about the theories involved.     

A Boston Yankee: Paul M. Lerner and the Heart of Assessment

In this article, I review the contributions of Paul M. Lerner to the theory and practice of personality assessment. I contrast Lerner's clinical approach with a narrow empirical approach along several dimensions. I explicate Lerner's experiential-psychoanalytic method. I draw attention to the patient's subjective experience as the nexus for interpretation and to the centrality of the patient–examiner relationship in the conduct of assessment.     

On the Rorschach M response and monotheism

The Rorschach human movement (M) response has recently been debated (Exner, 1991a, Kramer, 1991a, 1991b) with additional wider implications for Rorschach psychology. The objective of this discourse is twofold: (a) to elaborate on the contributions of perceptanalysis (Piotrowski, 1957) to this debate and (b) to develop the thesis that diversity is desirable for the long-term advancement of the field of Rorschach psychology and personality assessment. These motifs are illustrated with an interpretation of a clinical case example and with rationale from the theoretical literature and implications for interpreting short Rorschach protocols. The conclusion is proffered that some degree of diversification is more beneficial than requiring the adoption of a single Rorschach approach (i.e., monotheism).     

On the Rorschach M Response and Monotheism

The Rorschach human movement (M) response has recently been debated (Exner, 1991a, Kramer, 1991a, 1991b) with additional wider implications for Rorschach psychology. The objective of this discourse is twofold: (a) to elaborate on the contributions of perceptanalysis (Piotrowski, 1957) to this debate and (b) to develop the thesis that diversity is desirable for the long-term advancement of the field of Rorschach psychology and personality assessment. These motifs are illustrated with an interpretation of a clinical case example and with rationale from the theoretical literature and implications for interpreting short Rorschach protocols. The conclusion is proffered that some degree of diversification is more beneficial than requiring the adoption of a single Rorschach approach (i.e., monotheism).     

Scoring the Rorschach: a constructive critique of Exner's Comprehensive Rorschach System

John Exner's rationale for scoring the Rorschach and his decision to score "blend" responses by assigning equal weights are critically reviewed. The resultant exclusion of new responses made during the Inquiry of the Free Association responses is viewed as a major deficiency in the Comprehensive Rorschach System. A change to Klopfer's "Main-Additional" scoring method is recommended as a corrective.     

Paul Lerner and the Heart of Assessment: Discussion of Articles by Handler,Finn, Leichtman,Husain, and Smith

An extension of the family drawing technique is described, in which a drawing is obtained from one or both parents, as well as from the child. Comparison of the parental drawing or drawings with the child's drawing usually provides clues to important aspects of the family dynamics. The productiveness of the technique varies from one case to another, but in general it has been found to have a high degree of clinical utility. Three illustrative cases are presented.     

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     

On the integration of personality assessment methods: the Rorschach and MMPI

Despite being the most studied and used personality assessment tools, data from the Rorschach and MMPI generally disagree (Archer & Krishnamurthy, 1993a, 1993b). Independence is proposed to result from at least 3 factors: (a) the methods tap unique levels of personality, (b) personality has a complex organization, and (c) response styles generate considerable method variance that must be considered in nomothetic research. These ideas led to 5 hypotheses, each of which received support. Rorschach and MMPI response styles are uncorrelated, although response styles are quite consistent within a method family. MMPI-2 and Rorschach constructs of dysphoria, psychosis, or wariness are uncorrelated when response styles are ignored. However, robust convergent validity is evident when patients have similar response styles on each method (e.g., for dysphoria, M r = .59) and dysphoria is expressed in opposing ways on each method when response styles are discordant (i.e., M r = -.54). Data from the latter analyses were correlated with genuine clinical phenomena and implications were discussed for clinical practice and research.     

On Judaism and genes: a response to Paul Root Wolpe

The following comments on Paul Root Wolpe's article "If I Am Only My Genes, What Am I? Genetic Essentialism and a Jewish Response" address (1) his presentation of the relationship between science and culture or religion as unimodal; (2) his misconception of the Jewish view of the physical corpus; and (3) his essential question of genetic determinism by examining the traditional Jewish view of the spiritual aspects of the human.     

Bruno Klopfer: a Rorschach pioneer

Bruno Klopfer is perhaps best known for his pioneering work on the Rorschach Inkblot Test. His efforts in developing and popularizing projective techniques were to have a profound impact on the development of psychological personality testing. In fact, prior to the introduction of Exner's comprehensive Rorschach scoring system, the Klopfer scoring system was the most popular among practicing clinicians (Exner & Exner, 1972, p. 13). Professionals in clinical psychology and psychiatry are certainly very indebted to Bruno Klopfer.     

On the Existential Interpretation of the Rorschach Test

This is an analysis of the Rorschachs of two subjects, a boy and a girl, from the longitudinal research programs of the Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley. Rorschachs had been obtained from these subjects prior to their becoming seriously ill, one with a kidney condition, the other with leukemia. On the basis of the thematic content of the Rorschachs, it was postulated that Rorschach responses may, like dreams, be considered endoscopic in that they may reveal the actual functioning or disfunctioning of the organism, particularly at the onset of somatic illness. Data, from anthropological, mythological, and literary sources, as well as research on the body image concept, were utilized to amplify the hypothesis and to suggest directions for further research.