Exploring MMPI-Rorschach Relationships

Limitations exist in the current literature examining Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)—Rorschach interrelationships. In this article I attempt to identify several issues to be addressed by researchers in this area. These include restricting conclusions about MMPI—Rorschach relationships to research using the Comprehensive System; considering the relative reliability and validity of these tests; comparing the predictive power of the Rorschach and MMPI; examining the effects extreme outliers have on statistical analyses; and determining the appropriate level of analysis for research, the level of individual test scores, or psychological constructs. The implications of these issues for research design, statistical analysis, and applied clinical work are discussed.     

Exploring MMPI-Rorschach relationships

Limitations exist in the current literature examining Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-Rorschach interrelationships. In this article I attempt to identify several issues to be addressed by researchers in this area. These include restricting conclusions about MMPI-Rorschach relationships to research using the Comprehensive System; considering the relative reliability and validity of these tests; comparing the predictive power of the Rorschach and MMPI; examining the effects extreme outliers have on statistical analyses; and determining the appropriate level of analysis for research, the level of individual test scores, or psychological constructs. The implications of these issues for research design, statistical analysis, and applied clinical work are discussed.     

MMPI-Rorschach Interrelationships: Proposed Criteria for Evaluating Explanatory Models

An extensive empirical literature, spanning 50 years and 45 published investigations, leads to the conclusion that the Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) bear little or no meaningful relationship to each other. An inherent tension exists between these empirical findings and the widespread clinical practice of integrating MMPI and Rorschach results. At least three perspectives have been advanced concerning the relationship between these two instruments. One view holds that variables from the two measures will demonstrate significant patterns of convergence only in carefully designed research studies that involve specific, well-constructed and theoretically derived predictions. A second view postulates that although variables from the Rorschach and MMPI do not bear a high intercorrelation with each other, these variables may be combined to contribute significantly to the prediction of outcome variance. In this view, the combined use of the two instruments yields clinically useful increases in incremental validity not achievable by the use of either instrument in isolation. A third approach is reflected in the proposition that although the MMPI and Rorschach do not produce significant interrelationships under general conditions, meaningful relationships may be yielded under specific psychometric conditions, for example, under conditions in which the response styles are consistently displayed across those two instruments. This article will review research evidence related to each of these perspectives, with particular emphasis on the importance of clearly specifying the criteria to be applied in evaluating these models. The concepts of parsimony and heuristic value are proposed for these evaluation purposes.     

MMPI-Rorschach interrelationships: proposed criteria for evaluating explanatory models

An extensive empirical literature, spanning 50 years and 45 published investigations, leads to the conclusion that the Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) bear little or no meaningful relationship to each other. An inherent tension exists between these empirical findings and the widespread clinical practice of integrating MMPI and Rorschach results. At least three perspectives have been advanced concerning the relationship between these two instruments. One view holds that variables from the two measures will demonstrate significant patterns of convergence only in carefully designed research studies that involve specific, well-constructed and theoretically derived predictions. A second view postulates that although variables from the Rorschach and MMPI do not bear a high intercorrelation with each other, these variables may be combined to contribute significantly to the prediction of outcome variance. In this view, the combined use of the two instruments yields clinically useful increases in incremental validity not achievable by the use of either instrument in isolation. A third approach is reflected in the proposition that although the MMPI and Rorschach do not produce significant interrelationships under general conditions, meaningful relationships may be yielded under specific psychometric conditions, for example, under conditions in which the response styles are consistently displayed across those two instruments. This article will review research evidence related to each of these perspectives, with particular emphasis on the importance of clearly specifying the criteria to be applied in evaluating these models. The concepts of parsimony and heuristic value are proposed for these evaluation purposes.     

Trends in research on the Rorschach: Review and recommendations

Meta-analyses have shown that the Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) have roughly equivalent psychometric properties. Assessment continues to be stressed in psychological training, and the Rorschach continues to be emphasized in courses on assessment. The most frequently used test battery includes the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised or Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, the MMPI, and projective devices such as the Rorschach or Thematic Apperception Test. A survey of the literature from 1983 to 1991 showed that research on the Rorschach concerns mainly issues of formal diagnosis and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the instrument. Such research does not evaluate the Rorschach as it is usually employed to arrive at decision about individuals. More appropriate research models are recommended, in which Rorschach data are added to or deleted from other assessment information in order to evaluate the influence of the inclusion of the Rorschach on judgments made by competent clinicians about relevant issues in individual cases.     

Clinical Considerations in the Conjoint Use of the Rorschach and the MMPI

Contemporary clinical and research findings concerning the Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) indicate that (a) objectivity and subjectivity are relative and not categorical dimensions of these two instruments; (b) apparent contradictions between Rorschach and MMPI results are generative and not invalidating; (c) within limits, false negative findings are not cause for concern in the clinical application of Rorschach and MMPI variables; and (d) differences between the Rorschach and the MMPI in how they are structured and what they measure demonstrate considerable advantage in using them in complementary fashion to support clinical inferences.     

Clinical considerations in the conjoint use of the Rorschach and the MMPI

Contemporary clinical and research findings concerning the Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) indicate that (a) objectivity and subjectivity are relative and not categorical dimensions of these two instruments; (b) apparent contradictions between Rorschach and MMPI results are generative and not invalidating; (c) within limits, false negative findings are not cause for concern in the clinical application of Rorschach and MMPI variables; and (d) differences between the Rorschach and the MMPI in how they are structured and what they measure demonstrate considerable advantage in using them in complementary fashion to support clinical inferences.     

Geographical Directory of Membership of the Society for Projective Techniques United States and Territories

We examined empirical findings related to the integration of the Rorschach and the MMPI in assessing adolescents. Intercorrelations between 50 Rorschach variables and the 13 MMPI basic scales are reported for a clinical sample of I97 adolescents. Significant correlations only slightly exceeded the number expected by chance. A review of six additional studies of adolescent samples also generally revealed either very modest or nonsignificant relationships between the Rorschach and the MMPI. These findings leave open the possibility that combining data from the two instruments may increase incremental validity, an issue that should be assessed by using multivariate analyses. Guidelines for integrating Rorschach and MMPI data in clinical practices with adolescents are provided.     

The Rorschach and MMPI: toward a more scientifically differentiated understanding of cross-method assessment

Reasons for Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and Rorschach disagreement at the nomothetic level are explored. Building on an understanding of measurement distinctions from other sciences, it is proposed that the Rorschach and MMPI procedures are differentially sensitive to unique manifestations of personality. By necessity, each method is then also recognized as having a limited scope of effectiveness, such that neither can provide a complete picture of personality in its full complexity. Drawing on the more extensive self-report literature, the idiosyncracies and limited scope of the self-report method are documented. Finally, an ideographically rooted, cross-method, configural model is proposed for validation research in personality assessment. Several examples consistent with this approach are drawn from the assessment literature and discussed.     

The Rorschach and MMPI: Toward a More Scientifically Differentiated Understanding of Cross-Method Assessment

Reasons for Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and Rorschach disagreement at the nomothetic level are explored. Building on an understanding of measurement distinctions from other sciences, it is proposed that the Rorschach and MMPI procedures are differentially sensitive to unique manifestations of personality. By necessity, each method is then also recognized as having a limited scope of effectiveness, such that neither can provide a complete picture of personality in its full complexity. Drawing on the more extensive self-report literature, the idiosyncracies and limited scope of the self-report method are documented. Finally, an ideographically rooted, cross-method, configural model is proposed for validation research in personality assessment. Several examples consistent with this approach are drawn from the assessment literature and discussed.     

Can sex offenders who minimize on the MMPI conceal psychopathology on the Rorschach?

Rorschach sensitivity to minimization is important in forensic evaluations of sex offenders because these individuals frequently deny psychological problems. To study Rorschach minimization, we divided alleged sex offenders according to whether they minimized on the MMPI (Hathaway & McKinley, 1943) or MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) and compared their Rorschachs on indexes of distress, faulty judgment, interpersonal dysfunction, and cognitive distortions. We predicted there would be no differences between MMPI minimizers and nonminimizers on these indexes and that sex offenders of both groups would show greater psychopathology than normative adult samples. Results indicate that mini- mizers produce normal MMPI clinical profiles but still show evidence of psychopathology on the Rorschach. As predicted, sex offenders showed more Rorschach psychopathology than normative samples. Sex offenders' protocols that contained sexual content also showed perceptual distortions. These findings indicate that the Rorschach is resilient to attempts at faking good and may therefore provide valuable information in forensic settings where intentional distortion is common.     

Original Adult MMPI Norms in Normal Samples: A Review With Implications for Future Developments

Among the most consistent criticisms of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality inventory (MMPI) has been the adequacy of the standardly employed adult norms. Recent work at the Mayo Foundation has provided revised adult norms, and the Restandardization Project at the University of Minnesota Press will soon provide an additional norm set. This article reviews findings from 21 studies of normal adults, comparing obtained MMPI scale values to the standard norms. These comparisons indicate that the traditional adult norms may have contained detectable degrees of bias since their publication, and that consistent patterns of differences from standard MMPI norms can be found in independent studies published as early as 1949. Two separate considerations impact on the development of new adult norms: the research need for adult norms which accurately reflect the response patterns of the general population and the clinical need to evaluate individual psychiatric patients on norms that produce codetypes related to an empirical literature spanning more than 40 years. This study notes the inherent tension between these two purposes and discusses the implications of new adult MMPI norms for research and clinical practice.     

罗夏墨迹测验中“装好”与诈病反应的研究与进展

传统观念认为罗夏测验具有投射测验的性质,因此受测者无法在其测验中故意“装好”和诈病。但相关研究发现,受测者的“装好”反应对于罗夏测验结果没有产生实质性的影响,不能改变罗夏测验的基本数据特征和结构汇总性量表;而诈病反应的研究结论不尽相同,受测者有可能造成罗夏测验变量得分的改变,伪装成相应精神病理症状。如果联合使用MMPI和罗夏测验,则可以精确地评估受测者的伪装反应。目前已有的研究存在被试取样单一、研究数量偏少、无法确定临界值等问题。罗夏测验“装好”和诈病反应研究还处于初步阶段,需要继续深入研究并建立专门的“装好”和诈病量表。     

A consideration of challenges to psychological assessment instruments used in forensic settings: Rorschach as exemplar

In this brief primer, we provide an outline of key issues that will help psychologists organize and prepare their expert testimony. These issues include the need to obtain essential sources of research, a review of the actual legal standards regarding admissibility of test data in expert testimony, the nature of the expert relative to the assessment instrument in expert testimony, the nature of legal versus scientific debate, and the examination of appropriate qualifications of expertise when offering legal testimony. In addition, we use a summary of information contained in several recent articles to address challenges directed against forensic psychological testing. We use the empirical literature on the Rorschach as an exemplar in discussing these issues, as the admissibility of the Rorschach in particular has been challenged, and the issues frequently focused on with the Rorschach are equally applicable to other psychological measures. In this article, we provide essential sources of Rorschach research regarding several empirical studies that summarize important information and directly address previous criticisms of the measure.     

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.     

The convergent validity of MMPI and Rorschach scales: an extension using profile scores to define response and character styles on both methods and a reexamination of simple Rorschach response frequency

Past research indicated the convergence of Rorschach and MMPI scales may be a function of (a) simple Rorschach response frequency (R) or (b) complex response-character styles on both methods. In this study, new criteria were developed for defining the second assumption using F and K from the MMPI and R and Lambda from the Rorschach. Although substantially different from the factor criteria used previously (KS = .45 and .30), the new criteria still produced the expected pattern of correlations among MMPI and Rorschach scales. Averaged across 17 constructs, the new criteria produced strong validity coefficients for patients with similar styles (M composite r = .50), though they were less effective for patients with discordant styles (M composite r = -.27). It was also demonstrated that R by itself does not moderate convergent validity. Rather, statistical modeling with two sets of 300 random samples (a) demonstrated the prior findings related to R were the result of sampling error and (b) supported the general hypothesis that Rorschach and MMPI scales correlate to the extent response-character styles correlate. Implications are considered.     

Remarks on method for MMPI-Rorschach studies

An impressionistic list of methodological considerations that may be of consequence in Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-Rorschach studies is presented. These include the potential effects of the multidimensionality of the basic clinical MMPI scales in comparison studies, issues of deception and response style in such studies, and the rote of theory in guiding the selection of variables in the search for MMPI-Rorschach correspondences. The recently established necessity of controls for the total number of Rorschach responses provides the basis for suggestions for further controls in MMPI-Rorschach studies, including those for level of distress and for the minimization/exaggeration of psychopathology. An effort is made to contrast these two instruments in terms borrowed from information theory as a way of illuminating their complementary aspects, and suggesting means by which each may contribute to an enhanced understanding of the other.     

Rorschach and pain characteristics of patients with low back pain and "conversion V" MMPI profiles

Two studies examined the relationship between Rorschach determinants, MMPI scale scores, and pain reports in order to clarify the meaning of the MPI "conversion V" pattern among patients with low back pain. Study I showed that patients without demonstrable organic disease of the back produce Rorschach response summaries marked by lower F+%, lower Sum C, and higher F% than patients with demonstrable organic disease. Study 2 showed that only the increase in F% was associated with significant elevations of the MMPI Hs and Hy scales. The results suggest that elevated MMPI "conversion V" profiles are indicative of psychological disturbance among patients with low back pain. It is unlikely, however, that the disturbance is hysterical. Instead, the psychopathology is probably marked by tension and constraint rather than the over-reactivity of hysteria. The implications of these findings for diagnosis are discussed.     

Book Review of Sattler and Ryan,Assessment With the WAIS–IV

The Rorschach and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) are among the most widely used personality assessment tools. However, there is little guidance in the literature about their combined use. In this article, I discuss conceptual and methodological issues of combining these widely used psychological tests, including the use of the test battery and the necessity of rationales for test utilization. Methodological approaches to integrating the test findings are discussed, including score, construct, test by test, and theory-based integrative approaches. The value of a person-centered interpretive and integrative focus is affirmed.     

MMPI and Rorschach indices of schizophrenic and depressive diagnoses among adolescent inpatients

Although adolescent norms have been developed for the MMPI (e.g., Marks, Seeman, & Haller, 1974) and Rorschach (e.g., Exner, 1986a), little is known regarding the discriminate diagnostic validity of these measures with adolescents. This study investigated the usefulness of these measures in the detection of depression and schizophrenia among adolescent inpatients. Subjects (mean age = 15.3) consisted of 134 adolescents who received Rorschach and MMPI administrations at hospital admission. Clinical diagnoses resulted in the following groupings for this sample: schizophrenia = 15, dysthymic disorder = 41, major depression = 26, conduct disorder = 28, personality disorder = 18. MMPI scale Sc elevation was found to be the most effective single predictor of schizophrenic diagnoses, with a hit rate of .76, sensitivity of .62, and specificity of .78. Neither MMPI scale D scores nor Rorschach DEPI scores were found to be significantly related to patients' diagnoses. Results were interpreted in terms of prior findings in adult psychiatric populations and in relation to implications for the clinical assessment of adolescents.