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.     

Suicide and the Rorschach: A Rueful Postscript

A review of the Rorschach suicide literature written 10 years ago called for cross validation studies and the use of refined methodology in order to enhance the usefulness of the test as a device for the identification, prediction, and understanding of suicidal ideation and behavior. The present followup review was undertaken and it was concluded that careful and refined research methodology can somewhat enhance sensitivity of the Rorschach to suicidal activity. It was also concluded the replicative research has not supported previously promising Rorschach suicide indicators, suggesting that the Rorschach may be an inappropriate technique for assessing suicidal activity.     

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.     

A Commentary on DeCato's "On the Rorschach M Response and Monotheism" (1993)

In a recent article, DeCato (1993) posits a fundamental dichotomy between the Comprehensive System (Exner, 1986) Rorschach interpretation, which is based on group norms, and the Perceptanalytic System (Piotrowski, 1957), which advocates validating Rorschach microfacts against the behavior of the individual. Perspective can be gained on this issue by recognizing that these approaches are actually extremes on a continuum where interpretation gradually narrows from the general to the specific. Acknowledging the funnel-shaped character of Rorschach interpretive approaches tins implications for understanding, scoring, and teaching projective techniques.     

The problem of R in the Rorschach: the value of varying responses

A subject's freedom to give different numbers of responses to each inkblot has always been part of the Rorschach tradition. However, frequency of response (R) as a variable rather than a constant requires special attention when using the Rorschach psychometrically and when making clinical evaluations based in part or entirely on normative scores. In this article, I discuss the Rorschach tradition; the distinctiveness of the procedure; and the complexity of the technical, methodological, and theoretical problems. issues related to the integration of the empirical and conceptual approaches are discussed.     

Data and issues to Consider in Reconciling Self-Report and the Rorschach

Archer and Krishnamurthy (1993a, 1993b) systematically reviewed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-Rorschach research and found that there is minimal if any association between the two tests. In response to this review, data are reported demonstrating a positive association between various Rorschach variables and objective criteria. Data gleaned from published and yet unpublished sources suggest that the Rorschach is related to various self-report, other-report, and behavioral criteria, with children and adults, for psychosis and other constructs. Data are also presented suggesting that part of the disagreement between the two tests may be due to different types of response bias and positive self-presentations on the two tests. Research findings pertinent to differential validity as a function of the number of Rorschach responses protocol are also explored. I conclude with research recommendations regarding test-specific understandings of response bias and Rorschach protocol complexity as a moderator variable.     

Rorschach score validation as a model for 21st-century personality assessment

Recent conceptual and methodological innovations have led to new strategies for documenting the construct validity of test scores, including performance-based test scores. These strategies have the potential to generate more definitive evidence regarding the validity of scores derived from the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) and help resolve some long-standing controversies regarding the clinical utility of the Rorschach. After discussing the unique challenges in studying the Rorschach and why research in this area is important given current trends in scientific and applied psychology, I offer 3 overarching principles to maximize the construct validity of RIM scores, arguing that (a) the method that provides RIM validation measures plays a key role in generating outcome predictions; (b) RIM variables should be linked with findings from neighboring subfields; and (c) rigorous RIM score validation includes both process-focused and outcome-focused assessments. I describe a 4-step strategy for optimal RIM score derivation (formulating hypotheses, delineating process links, generating outcome predictions, and establishing limiting conditions); and a 4-component template for RIM score validation (establishing basic psychometrics, documenting outcome-focused validity, assessing process-focused validity, and integrating outcome- and process-focused validity data). The proposed framework not only has the potential to enhance the validity and utility of the RIM, but might ultimately enable the RIM to become a model of test score validation for 21st-century personality assessment.     

Data and issues to consider in reconciling self-report and the Rorschach

Archer and Krishnamurthy (1993a, 1993b) systematically reviewed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-Rorschach research and found that there is minimal if any association between the two tests. In response to this review, data are reported demonstrating a positive association between various Rorschach variables and objective criteria. Data gleaned from published and yet unpublished sources suggest that the Rorschach is related to various self-report, other-report, and behavioral criteria, with children and adults, for psychosis and other constructs. Data are also presented suggesting that part of the disagreement between the two tests may be due to different types of response bias and positive self-presentations on the two tests. Research findings pertinent to differential validity as a function of the number of Rorschach responses protocol are also explored. I conclude with research recommendations regarding test-specific understandings of response bias and Rorschach protocol complexity as a moderator variable.     

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.     

Comments on "the Rorschach M response: a return to its roots"

These comments address three interrelated issues posed in Kramer's article concerning Rorschach's definition of the M response and the criteria for M that is applied in the Comprehensive System, the possibility that M may be overscored by the criteria for the Comprehensive System, and the issue of whether the Rorschach is amenable to quantification and empirical scrutiny. Kramer has oversimplified and misconstrued statements by Rorschach, Beck, and Bohm; in reality, the criterion for the scoring of M responses in the Comprehensive System differs very little, if at all, from that suggested by Rorschach. The accumulated history of the test seems to confirm that it is amenable to quantification and empirical scrutiny.     

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.     

Clinical utility of the Rorschach Inkblot Method: reframing the debate

Recent published exchanges have focused on the clinical utility and diagnostic efficiency of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM), but key issues remain unresolved. In this article, 5 principles for evaluating RIM research are offered to help reframe the ongoing debate in this area. These are (a) recognize what the test can and cannot do; (b) choose appropriate outcome criteria to assess RIM effectiveness; (c) use multimethod, multicriterion matrices to place results in an appropriate context; (d) consider limitations in the outcome criteria themselves; and (e) use experimental--not just correlational--data to contrast the results obtained with projective and self-report tests. Coupled with Weiner's (2000a) guidelines for RIM interpretation, the principles outlined here can improve RIM research and practice, and help resolve some longstanding controversies in this area.     

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.     

Current Perspectives on Psychoanalytic Rorschach Assessment

In this article, I present as clear and as updated an account as possible of several of the essential features that comprise a psychoanalytic approach to the Rorschach. Specific attention is accorded the assessment frame, the language of assessment, sources of assessment information, and differing approaches to the interpretation of Rorschach data. The article comes out of a Rorschach tradition begun by Rapaport, extended by Schafer and Mayman, and presently being updated by Leichtman and Smith.     

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 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.     

Current perspectives on psychoanalytic Rorschach assessment

In this article, I present as clear and as updated an account as possible of several of the essential features that comprise a psychoanalytic approach to the Rorschach. Specific attention is accorded the assessment frame, the language of assessment, sources of assessment information, and differing approaches to the interpretation of Rorschach data. The article comes out of a Rorschach tradition begun by Rapaport, extended by Schafer and Mayman, and presently being updated by Leichtman and Smith.     

The future of Rorschach in personality assessment

This article considers the Rorschach and its prospects for the next century in the context of two broad issues in psychology, as well as some test specific challenges confronting those interested in the Rorschach and its applications. The broad issues are the matters of personality as a topic of study in psychology, and the relation of findings about personality to treatment planning. The specific issues concern the definition of the Rorschach, research about the test stimuli, and the expansion of information concerning the interpretive usefulness of some structural variables that are poorly conceptualized or for which interpretation may be overly generalized. Some recommendations concerning collaborative research efforts are also offered.     

A study of nonpatient preadolescent Rorschach protocols

There is a paucity of peer-reviewed, nonpatient Rorschach studies in psychological journals, particularly for children. This study examined 100 preteenage children, using the Comprehensive System to code their Rorschach protocols. The participants were also evaluated with the Conners Parent Rating Scale-93 (Conners, 1989) and 5 exclusionary behavior criteria. The 100 participants demonstrated better than average behaviors. The results presented include all the ratios and indexes found in the nonpatient statistics for the Comprehensive System. We discuss interrater reliability issues and offer recommendations for further cross-validating research.