Interaction Testing as a Measure of Therapeutic Change in Groups

Two therapy groups were followed by means of repeated interaction testing over the course of their therapeutic lifetime. The consensus Rorschach, analyzed as if it were the product of a single individual, indicated marked differences in the progress of the two groups with evidence of growth, expansion in the case of one group and a therapeutic stalemate in the case of the second group. Independent clinical evaluation of therapeutic progress by the therapists of both groups were in complete agreement with the consensus Rorschach psychograms. The possibility that non-conformist members may contribute to poor therapeutic progress is considered.     

Toward a construct validation of the Rorschach

The debate over the validity of the Rorschach has been lengthy but unresolved. Major reasons for the lack of consensus and conclusion are the absence of agreement about, how validation research should be conducted and the failure to identify appropriate criteria for subsequent evaluation. A construct validation model for the Rorschach is presented, with guidelines for proper implementation. The difficulties in establishing the optimal relationship between theory, research design, and clinical practice arc discussed. Recommendations for a resolution of these difficulties are presented.     

Effects of laboratory-induced controllable and uncontrollable stress on Rorschach variables m and Y.

The research literature regarding stress and the Rorschach has frequently produced contradictory results. A possible explanation for the lack of consensus may be that past research has failed to consider the nature of the stressor. A potentially important dimension is whether the stressor is perceived as controllable or uncontrollable, particularly because these two types of stressors invoke distinctive sets of biobehavioral reactions. We examined the effects of experimentally induced uncontrollable and controllable stress on m and Y Rorschach responses. Uncontrollable laboratory stress was associated with an increase in both m and Y variants, whereas controllable laboratory stress was associated with an increase only in m. Potential implications and directions for future research are discussed.     

Methodological issues in cross-cultural and multicultural rorschach research

Hermann Rorschach researched the utility of his inkblot experiment to understand psychopathology and cultural differences. Contemporary research with the Rorschach has evaluated its utility as a test, although it may more properly represent a clinical method with somewhat different evaluation criteria. Recent controversy regarding the adequacy of the Rorschach as a test and the adequacy of its normative data has at times distorted and oversimplified important methodological issues inherent in the study of cultural difference. Cultural processes remain a central and inadequately examined variable in Rorschach research; an important emergent area of inquiry is the Rorschach's clinical utility as a cross-cultural assessment instrument. We review multicultural and cross-cultural methodological issues intrinsic to contemporary Rorschach research here. Consideration of cultural issues enlarges and enriches the Rorschach clinical utility debate and suggests underexplored research strategies that can contribute to its resolution.     

Rorschach teaching in APA-approved clinical graduate programs: ten years later

A questionnaire on teaching of the Rorschach technique was sent to all APA-approved graduate clinical psychology programs in the United States and Canada. The survey represents a 10-year update of a study conducted in 1974 and reported in 1976. The questionnaire asked for the degree of emphasis placed on the Rorschach in the curriculum; the Rorschach teaching experience of the Rorschach instructor; the instructor's evaluation of the technique as a clinical tool, a teaching aid, and a research instrument, and a list of the instructional material used to teach the Rorschach. Based on a 93% return of questionnaires, the major results show that 88% of the programs place major emphasis on the Rorschach in at least one assessment course (compared to 86% in 1974); in contrast to the results of the 1974 survey, there were no differences between the ratings of highly experienced and moderately experienced instructors; as in 1974, instructors as a group highly rated the Rorschach as a clinical tool and teaching aid, but gave it generally low ratings as a research instrument; and the results clearly indicate that the Exner Comprehensive System is widely used as an instructional method.     

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.     

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.     

Some old and new directions in Rorschach testing

The perennial dispute between clinicians and researchers as to the validity of the Rorschach is discussed. It is suggested both groups are correct in that the Rorschach provides both poor psychometric data as seen by the researcher and rich idiographic data as seen by the clinician. The freedom of the Rorschach response process is viewed as largely responsible for both these situations. Some possible new directions for Rorschach usage and research are discussed which may improve on the quality of the idiographic information provided by the Rorschach test.     

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.     

The analyst's Rorschach: gateway to opening the dialectical field

The author offers an account of his evolving relationship with the Rorschach test which for over 20 years as a private practice psychologist, he used in his clinical practice with the intent of mining patients’ psyches for useful information about personality organization and functioning . Coinciding with having found himself on the homestretch of analytic training and during a time when he desired clarity on how Rorschach assessment and Jungian analysis could fruitfully merge, there was an unexpected shift in emphasis wherein the Rorschach suddenly became a method for looking at himself as well. This challenge to identify and integrate aspects of self hitherto neglected was found to enrich his clinical practice. An historical perspective on this experience is offered which highlights the enigmatic relationship that existed between Carl Jung and Hermann Rorschach. The proverbial question of ‘What might this be?’ has been asked when administering the Rorschach for nearly a century. From an analytic perspective, the question is more fully and meaningfully asked when the person doing the asking has also been willing to step in, look around, and take notice of what happens.     

A simple method for evaluation of Rorschach Imagery Reactivity.

A general scoring system, previously developed for the analysis of pictorial associations within the paradigm of Visual Imagery Sequences, was applied in the evaluation of visual associations to memory images of Rorschach inkblots (Imagery condition) in a comparison with standard Rorschach responses (Conventional condition). The participants, 80 consecutively selected psychiatric outpatients, were divided into Clinical Reactor and Nonreactor groups, according to how productive they were of psychodynamically revealing material during insight-oriented therapy using imagery. For this simple scoring method (which does not include the customary Rorschach scores), conclusions concerning Imagery Reactivity in the Rorschach agreed with those of previous studies using a scoring system more unique to the Rorschach. The inferences drawn from statistical analysis by groups and conditions also contribute additional refinements to the understanding of the subtle interplay between defensiveness and sensitivity to imagery in determining the patterns of scorable components within the response complex. This general scoring method correctly identified 95.6% of Imagery Reactors and 100% of Imagery Nonreactors, an improvement over the 87% efficiency of the previously described, Rorschach-based method for assessing Imagery Reactivity in the Rorschach.     

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。     

Rorschachbound: A 50-Year Memoir

Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Journal of Personality Assessment evokes memories of years past when I participated in its birth. Therefore, in recording what I consider significant events in Rorschach's stormy history, I am placing them within an autobiographical framework. Originally introduced into America by David Levy in the early 1920s, the Rorschach attracted students from many disciplines who revolted against the "trait" psychology that pervaded the psychological scene at the time. For 30 years, we accepted Rorschach enthusiastically as a global method that could study the human personality as a whole and in depth. In the late 1960s, we were challenged because of repeated failures in validating research. Interest declined in its development and application. Since 1970, however, it has emerged with more strength and vigor on firmer theoretical foundations and sounder methodology. Although the method is one of the most frequently required, requested, needed, recommended, and used in many clinical settings, it is still challenged today, chiefly because of overemphasis on the nomothetic approaches in research and failure to consider interactions between personality dynamics, behavior, and situational and sociocultural variables. Those of us whose lives have long been entwined with the history of the Rorschach should step back from the contemporary canvas and contemplate the future of our method, t suggest that we develop alternative conceptual models and greater diversity of research methods and modes of thought. The Journal of Personality Assessment can enhance the future of the Rorschach by giving greater prominence to clinically oriented research, notably to the idiographic and interactional aspects of the method. In so doing, the journal can help the Rorschach reach its real goal of complete scientific validity.     

The Rorschach in the context of performance-based personality assessment

In this article, I draw on literature concerning the current status of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (Exner, 2002), performance-based personality measurement, direct versus indirect personality assessment, and dual-process models to suggest a reconceptualization of the Rorschach. The goal is to offer an updated conceptual framework for thinking about the Rorschach that can potentially be used both to enhance the image of the method and to provide direction for future research on the validity of specific Rorschach scores.     

Constructivism and the projective assessment of meaning in Rorschach administration

Constructivist perspectives on the Rorschach are outlined. I discuss ways in which constructivism complements and adds to existing Rorschach methodologies. It is suggested hat the constructivist emphasis on personally and socially constructed meanings is very consistent with many of the ways the Rorschach has been used and resonates with recent emphases on the Rorschach as a representational task. Furthermore, constructivist perspectives on Rorschach also provide an opportunity to supplement Exner's (1993, 1995) efforts to standardize and norm the Rorschach in a way that maintains the instrument's historic and admirable attention to relational elements of assessment and psychotherapy. I present a variety of meaning-based techniques for conducting Rorschach assessment, incorporating both the constructivist and social constructionist perspective.     

Rorschachbound: a 50-year memoir

Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Journal of Personality Assessment evokes memories of years past when I participated in its birth. Therefore, in recording what I consider significant events in Rorschach's stormy history, I am placing them within an autobiographical framework. Originally introduced into America by David Levy in the early 1920s, the Rorschach attracted students from many disciplines who revolted against the "trait" psychology that pervaded the psychological scene at the time. For 30 years, we accepted Rorschach enthusiastically as a global method that could study the human personality as a whole and in depth. In the late 1960s, we were challenged because of repeated failures in validating research. Interest declined in its development and application. Since 1970, however, it has emerged with more strength and vigor on firmer theoretical foundations and sounder methodology. Although the method is one of the most frequently required, requested, needed, recommended, and used in many clinical settings, it is still challenged today, chiefly because of overemphasis on the nomothetic approaches in research and failure to consider interactions between personality dynamics, behavior, and situational and sociocultural variables. Those of us whose lives have long been entwined with the history of the Rorschach should step back from the contemporary canvas and contemplate the future of our method, t suggest that we develop alternative conceptual models and greater diversity of research methods and modes of thought. The Journal of Personality Assessment can enhance the future of the Rorschach by giving greater prominence to clinically oriented research, notably to the idiographic and interactional aspects of the method. In so doing, the journal can help the Rorschach reach its real goal of complete scientific validity.     

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.     

Contributions of cognitive science to the Rorschach Technique: cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the response process

This article presents an understanding of the Rorschach Technique in terms of emergent models from cognitive science. We propose a linkage between cognitive psychology and neuropsychology in understanding the operations that underlie the Rorschach response process. Contemporary information processing models are described. The Rorschach Technique is conceived of as a complex process involving all areas of the cerebral hemispheres, encompassing various aspects of visual attention and perception, object recognition, associative memory, language production, and executive functioning. Exner's model of the response process is delineated, including both Association and Inquiry phases, in terms of requisite underlying neuropsychological abilities and anatomical substrates. The question of the Rorschach Technique's status, utility, and potential as a neuropsychological assessment, tool is discussed. Understanding the Rorschach in terms of contemporary cognitive psychological and neuropsychological models heightens appreciation of the technique's complexity and provides a heuristic and conceptual foundation for empirical research.     

Putting your eggs in the content analysis basket: a response to Aronow, Reznikoff, and Moreland

A response is made to the essay by Aronow, Reznikoff, and Moreland (this issue) on the superiority of the content analysis approach to the Rorschach. Their argument is seen as giving insufficient emphasis to the importance of information obtained from empirically based, quantified methods of Rorschach interpretation. Content analysis without score-based interpretation is not sufficiently reliable for clinical use. Also, the argument of Aronow and colleagues that the Rorschach is predominantly a projective technique is refuted. Rorschach interpretation that deemphasizes empirically based scores is as insufficient as interpretation that excludes content analysis.     

Alice in Rorschachland

Misconceptions and misuse of the Rorschach technique are parodied in this Alice in Wonderland story. Alice falls down a rabbit Whole and journeys through the Rorschach Plates until she is tried at an Inquiry on Card X. The story can be interpreted as critical of Rorschach practitioners who: search only for pathology, not health; ignore the free associative instructions to the client of test procedures; and restructure reality along Rorschach dimensions of personality and terminology.